HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-10; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 337; Army & Navy Academy DormitoryQ /
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL I’@
AB# x m:
ARMY i NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY MTG. 7/10/01 RP 99-14/GDP 99-49
DEPT. H/RED
DEPT. HD. &it-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No..%%,
APPROVING a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-14) and a Coastal Development
Permit (CDP 99-49), for construction of an 80-bed dormitory on that portion of the Army &
Navy Academy property generally located on the west side of Carlsbad Blvd. south of
Pacific Avenue, as recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On May 21, 2001, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider
a major redevelopment permit and coastal development permit for a new dormitory on the
Army & Navy Academy property. The three components of the project include: 1)
construction of a new dormitory; 2) construction of a new parking lot along with
improvements to existing on-site parking; and 3) an amendment to the existing design
guidelines for the campus.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 14,210 square foot, 2-story dormitory
with 40 rooms (80 beds total) and associated landscape improvements on the south side of
Pacific Avenue between Mountain View Drive and Garfield Street. The dormitory is intended
to replace Dorman Hall a single-story, 28-bed dormitory destroyed by fire in March of 1999.
The proposed project also includes the construction of a new parking lot at the northwest
corner of Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Blvd. consisting of 40 parking spaces (two of
which are ADA accessible), a retention basin to accommodate site drainage, light fixtures,
and landscape improvements. Other parking lot improvements associated with the project
include the restriping of an existing parking lot east of Mountain View Drive between Pacific
Avenue and Carlsbad Blvd. resulting in a net increase of 12 parking spaces. Overall, the
proposed project results in the addition of 52 new parking spaces on the subject property.
When added to the 28 existing on-site parking spaces it yields a total of 80 spaces.
The third component of the project is an amendment to the Design Guidelines for the Army
& Navy Academy campus created as part of the Master Site Plan approved by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission in 1995. Through the amended design guidelines, the
Academy seeks to incorporate an alternative architectural design that utilizes many of the
architectural elements of existing campus structures and compliments the architectural style
set forth in the existing design guidelines. During the Design Review Board hearing, the
Academy’s representatives expressed the reason for this desired change is to reduce
maintenance costs and increase security.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the project. However, the Board raised a few concerns relative to
1) construction impacts to surrounding residents; and 2) the lack of building articulation
along the north-facing wall of the proposed dormitory as viewed from Pacific Avenue.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 3 3 7
The Board’s first concern was that due to the limited amount of vacant land in the area
there is the potential for negative impacts to residents from construction activity associated
with development of the project. These impacts would be exacerbated if grading and
construction of the dormitory building and the parking lot at the northwest corner of Pacific
Avenue and Mountain View Drive were done simultaneously. In response to this
discussion, the Board voted 5-O to add the following condition to DRB Resolution No. 276:
“To mitigate impacts to the surrounding area from construction activity,
construction of the parking lot at the northwest corner of Mountain View Drive and
Carlsbad Blvd. shall be completed first, except for final surfacing, then used as a
staging area for construction of the dormitory building.”
The second concern expressed by the Board was the minimal amount of architectural
articulation on the portion of the dormitory building facing Pacific Avenue. The applicant’s
representatives stated the limited articulation was done intentionally to increase security
and improve surveillance activities. After discussing possible offsets of the three tower
elements, the Board recommended an additional 18 inches be added to the depth of each
tower element in order to create increased architectural articulation on the north-facing wall.
The applicant’s representatives agreed with this design modification.
On a 4-O-l vote (Board member Marois abstaining) the Board also approved the addition of
the following condition to DRB Resolution No. 276:
“The proposed project shall be redesigned to increase architectural articulation on
the north side of the building such that the face of the tower elements shall be
increased a minimum of 18” in depth towards Pacific Avenue. The depth of the
tower elements on the north side of the building shall be equal to the depth of the
tower elements on the south side of the building.”
Both of the aforementioned conditions have been incorporated into DRB Resolution No.
276, which is attached for review by the Commission. The’ Design Review Board staff
report, the draft minutes of the May 21, 2001 meeting, and a copy of public comment letters
distributed to the Board at the May 21” meeting are also attached for the Commission’s
review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the above referenced
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result
of staff’s review, the project has been found to be exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same lot. No
comments were received on the environmental determination. The necessary finding for
this environmental determination is included in DBR Resolution No. 276.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 337
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project is not expected to have any financial impact on the City or the
Redevelopment Agency. The Army & Navy Academy is a non-profit organization and is
exempt from the payment of property taxes. Therefore, improvements to the property do
not result in additional tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency.
EXHIBITS:
A. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 3%, APPROVING RP 99-14
and CDP 99-49
B. Design Review Board Resolutions No. 276 and 277, dated May 21, 2001
C. Design Review Board Staff Report dated May 21, 2001, w/attachments
D. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated May 21, 2001
E. Public Comment Letters distributed to the DRB
EXHIBIT A
HRC Resolution Approving
RP 99914lCDP 99-49
City of Carlsbad
Records Management Department
August 2,200l
Army Navy Academy
PO Box 3000
Carlsbad CA 92018
The Carlsbad City Council has adopted Housing and Redevelopment Commission
Resolution No 346 approving Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-14) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 99-49) and for construction on an 80-bed dormitory on that
portion of the Army & Navy Academy property generally located on the west side of
Carlsbad Blvd. South of Pacific Avenue in land use district 9 of the village redevelopment
area and in local facilities zone 1.
Please find enclosed a copy of Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No 346
for your records. It has been a pleasure to serve you.
Debra Doerfler
v Senior Office Specialis
Office of the City Clerk
Postmark
bstrkted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
Total POstaOe & Fees 1 I Reclplent’e Name (Please print clearly) (TO be completed by mailer) ARMY NAVY ACADEMY .------------------_____________________-.-------------------------------------------------------.. Street, A#. NO. . or PO Box No. PO BOX 3000
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 - (760) 434-2808
JULY 25,200l
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: City Attorney
ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY RP 999141CDP 99-49
Attached to this Resolution, please find the original Housing and Redevelopment
Commission Resolution No. 346, which has been revised to include a condition
that the proposed dormitory will be redesigned to avoid a massive, monotonous
and straight line appearance to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
Please have it executed by the Chairman and serve it on the Applicant. Please
make a copy of your affidavit of mailing a permanent part of the record.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
GJ RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney
afs
attachment
c: Housing and Redevelopment Director
ms 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
ms 3,4a, and 4b. following services (for an
ur name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this
1.0 Addressee’s Address
ARMY NAVY ACADEMY
PO BOX 3000 CARLSBAD CA 92018
PS Form 3811, December 1994 lo2595-98-B-ozg Domestic Return Receipt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT- COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 346
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 99-14) AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP 99-49) FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80-BED DORMITORY ON THAT PORTION
OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BLVD. SOUTH OF
PACIFIC AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY
CASE NO: RP 99-14/GDP 99-49
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2001, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-14) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 99-49) for construction of an 80-bed dormitory on that portion of the
Army & Navy Academy property located on the south side of Pacific Avenue between Garfield
Street and Mountain View Drive, and adopted Design Review Board Resolutions No. 276 and 277
recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit
(RP 99-14) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 99-49) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the
date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard
all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-14) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 99-49); and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant
to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to be
categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to
Section 15302 of the State CEQA Guidelines as replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing
structure on the same site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
HRC RESO NO. 3 46
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-14) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP
99-49) are APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board set forth in
Resolution Nos. 276 and 277, on file in the Office of the City Clerk are incorporated herein by
reference, and are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, with
the added condition as follows:
“The proposed dormitory will be redesigned to provide articulation, landscaping,
relocation for a combination of those things so that the walls facing Pacific Avenue
will not give the appearance of continuous, straight walls and will avoid the massive
and monotonous appearance which redesign shall be to the satisfaction of the
Housing and Redevelopment Director. The Commission retains jurisdiction to
resolve disputes over the redesign if necessary. ”
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed,
analyzed, and considered the environmental. determination for this project and any comments
thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby approves the environmental
determination. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental
determination reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of
the City of Carlsbad.
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
“Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“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 Car&bad 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
HRC RESO NO. 346
PAGE 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13 -c
1.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 24th day of July ,
2001 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, and Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN:
11 ATTEST:
HRC RESO NO. cql#h
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT B
DRB Resolutions No. 276 & 277
Dated May 21,200l
Y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 276
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP99-14 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80-BED DORMITORY ON THAT
PORTION OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BLVD. SOUTH OF PAClFIC AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
APN: 203-041-02 & 203-010-16
CASE NO: RP 99-14
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
approved Resolution No. 273 on the 12th day of December, 1995 approving a Negative
Declaration, Redevelopment Permit (RP 94-02) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 94-02)
establishing a Master Site Plan for the Army & Navy Academy on property generally located
along the east and west sides of Carlsbad Boulevard north of Beech Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 273 remains effective and establishes the permitted land use
for the property within the Master Site Plan boundaries; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution No. 273 a Major Redevelopment Permit is
required for all development within the boundaries of the Master Site Plan in the V-R Zone to
insure the proposed project is in compliance with the adopted Master Site Plan, the Design
Guidelines, and the conceptual landscape plan for the Army & Navy Academy property; and
WHEREAS, Army & Navy Academy, a non-profit organization, “Developer”, has
filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
property it owns, and known as Assessor Parcel Number 203-041-02 and 203-010-16, and
more thoroughly described in Attachment A, “the property”; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-J” dated May 21, 2001, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Army & Navy Academy Dormitory RP 99-14”, as provided by Chapter
21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 21” day of May 2001, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
“Army & Navy Academy Dormitory RP 99-14”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
RP 99-14, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or reconstruction of a
pre-existing structure on the same site) of the state CEQA Guidelines. In making this
determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2
of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Car&bad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan, Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and Army & Navy Academy Master Site Plan
and Design Guidelines as amended herewith based on the facts set forth in the staff report
dated May 21,200l including, but not limited to the following:
a. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as
outlined in the Carlsbad General Plan, in that it serves to preserve and
DRB RESO NO. 276 -2-
\I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
enhance the existing Army & Navy Academy campus by providing for a
new/replacement residential facility.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual in that, as set forth in the Village Master Plan, the land use
and site lay-out for the Army & Navy Academy campus were approved
through a Master Site Plan (RP 94-02, CDP 94-02, CUP 94-02) by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission/City Council (Resolution No. 273)
on December 12,1995. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with
the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan for land use
district 9.
C. The project is consistent with the Army & Navy Academy Master Site Plan
in that the approved site plan identifies the replacement of Dorman Hall with
a two-story dormitory. In addition, development of the proposed project will
not result in an increase in the maximum student enrollment established
under the Master Site Plan.
d. The project as designed is consistent with the design guidelines established
for the Army & Navy Academy site approved as part of the Master Site Plan
with the incorporation of the amended architectural guidelines approved as
part of this project and identified as Exhibit “J”.
e. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be 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.
f. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area
and the City’s Landscape Manual.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
3. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
DRB RESO NO. 276 -3- \z
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
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
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 and the applicant is conditioned to execute a
Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA) with the City for future
public improvements.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
4. 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 CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
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 of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/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
City’s/Agency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
DRB RBSO NO. 276 -4- 13
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
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.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
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.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 99-49 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 277 for that other
approval.
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.
DRB RESO NO. 276 -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
Landscape Conditions:
12. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
13. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Noticing Conditions:
14. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit and Coastal Development Permit by Resolution(s) No. 276 and 277 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.
On-site Conditions:
15.
16.
17.
18.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When
so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter
comply with the approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
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 Housing and Redevelopment.
The demolition of portions of two existing dormitories and the conversion of some
existing facilities, currently being used as dormitories, back to their original uses as
faculty housing, classroom space, and administrative offices is necessary to maintain
the maximum 334-bed count. No Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed new 80-
bed dormitory building shall be issued unless all necessary conversions and
DRB RESO NO. 276 -6- 15
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
demolitions to the existing buildings (as outlined on Exhibit W’, dated May 21,
2001) have been completed to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
19. All proposed parking as shown on Exhibit “C”, dated May 21, 2001, shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed go-bed dormitory.
20. Prior to or concurrent with the processing of any future discretionary land use
permit for the subject property, the applicant shall file with the Carlsbad Planning
Department an application for amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94-
02 requesting the design guidelines for those portions of the Army & Navy Academy
property located outside the redevelopment area boundaries be revised to be
identical to the amended design guidelines approved as part of this project and
identified as Exhibit “J”.
21. To mitigate impacts to the surrounding area from construction activity,
construction of the parking lot at the northwest corner of Mountain View Drive and
Carlsbad Blvd. shall be conducted first except for final surfacing then used as a
staging area for construction of the dormitory building.
22. The proposed project shall be redesigned to increase architectural articulation on
the north side of the building such that the face of the tower elements shall be
increased a minimum of 18” in depth towards Pacific Avenue. The depth of the
tower elements on the north side of the building shall be equal to the depth of the
tower elements on the south side of the building.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
NOTE:Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed Redevelopment Permit, must be met prior to approval of a
grading permit.
General:
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for, and obtain approval from the City
Engineer, a construction staging plan and proposed haul route.
2. Developer shall install sight distance corridors, as shown on the Redevelopment Permit
Architectural, Civil, and, preliminary Landscape site plans, in accordance with
Engineering Standards.
Fees/Agreements:
3. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
DRB RESO NO. 276 -7-
NJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Prior to issuance of building permit, Developer shall cause property owner to enter into
a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City for the future public
improvement to Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive along the project frontage for
a half street width of 42 feet (based on a half street of 30 feet, plus 12 feet). Public
improvements shall include but are not limited to: Paving, Base, Sidewalks, Curbs and
Gutters, Pavement Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing, Under-grounding or Relocation
of Utilities, Sewer, Water, Fire Hydrant(s), Street Light Standard(s), and Driveway
Approach, etc., to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall process a Plat
and Legal Description (NIA Exhibit ‘A’), and submit an improvement cost estimate (used
to prepare NIA Calculation Sheet & NIA Exhibit ‘C’), through the City’s Engineering
Department as a “PR Number.” The NIA Calculation Sheet shall include, but not be
limited to, all of the above-referenced improvements, Design, 20% Contingency, and
Standard Assessment District, Plan Check and Inspection costs.
Grading:
5. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
6. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur
outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a
recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the
owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must
either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading
will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a plan consistency
determination from both the City Engineer and Planning Director.
7. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Coastal Conditions:
8. Since a Grading Permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can
be completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”,
April 1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November
15th upon written approval of the City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all
erosion control measures are in place by October 1st.
Dedications/Improvements:
9. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
DRB RESO NO. 276 -8- \I
10.
11.
12.
9.
Mountain View Drive shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage based on a
centerline to right-of-way width of 30 feet, including the curb return radius (35’
radius) at the northwest corner of the Mountain View DriveKarlsbad Boulevard
intersection, and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Additionally, the
Owner shall also dedicate a 35-foot curb return radius at the southeast corner of the
Pacific Avenue/Ocean Street intersection, in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year frequency storms of 6
hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
conditions. Both 6 hour and 24-hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to 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 submitted to
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be
limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic
and hazardous waste products;
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other
such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or
into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal
of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other
such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
requirements as prescribed in their respective containers;
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
The applicant shall submit for City approval, a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions
established by the San Diego Region Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall
address measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff
at both construction and post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan
shall:
A. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants;
DRB RESO NO. 276 -9- 18
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.
C.
D.
E.
Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter
said pollutants;
Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and
resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and
disposal of pollutants;
Ensure long-term maintenance of all post constructed BMPs in
perpetuity;
Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site
will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a lo-
year, 6-hour storm event.
Special Engineering Conditions:
14. The 48’ right of way dimension shown on the Mountain View drive typical street
section, on sheet C-4 (Civil Site Plan), shall be revised to 50’. This revision shall be
shown on the site plan conforming mylar.
15. Condition of Approval No. 10, of DRB Resolution No. 233, is still applicable to the
ANA Master Plan and is still valid and in full force and effect; however, the
condition will be held in abeyance until such time as the ANA submits for an actual
Master Plan Amendment (MPA). Once a MPA is submitted, the phasing condition
shall once again become operative, and improvements shall be completed, in
accordance with the phasing plan, the NIA, and, alternative street design criteria.
SEWER AND WATER CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Prior to approval of improvement or grading plans, Developer shall meet with the Fire
Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities; including, the San Diego County Water Authority
capacity charge(s).
The Developer shall install potable water and fire service water services, and meters, at a
location approved by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of said services
shall be reflected on public improvement plan DWG 133-6, in accordance with a
construction change to the plan.
The Developer shall install sewer lateral(s) and clean-out(s) at a location approved by the
Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of the sewer lateral(s) shall be reflected on
DRB RESO NO. 276 -lO-
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
public improvement plan DWG 133-6, in accordance with a construction change to
the plan.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
Fees:
1.
2.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #l special tax (if applicable), 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.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 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.
Enrrineerinp:
6. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
Fire:
7. All fire alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
. . .
DRB RESO NO. 276 -ll- W
NOTICE
11
12
13
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.
14
II PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review
15 Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21St day of May, 2001 by the following
16 vote to wit:
17
18
19
20
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Heineman, Lawson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mariois
(I DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
24
25 (I ATTEST:
26
27
28 >f DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
II DRB RESO NO. 276 -12-
ATTACHMENT “A”
Lenal Description
Armv & Navy Academy Property
Lot 46 and a portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park according to Map thereof No.
1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76, 94-96, 98-130, 131, 153-l 70, 177-
198 inclusive of Granville Park No. 2, according to Map thereof No. 2037, June
18, 1927; a portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No.
755, February 15, 1894; that portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition to
Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; that portion of Lot 1,
Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, according to Map
thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 277
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 99-49 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80-BED DORMITORY ON THAT
PORTION OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BLVD. SOUTH OF PACIFIC AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
APN: 203-041-02 & 203-010-16
CASE NO.: CDP 99-49
WHEREAS, Army & Navy Academy, a nonprofit organization, “Developer”,
has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
property it owns and known as Assessor Parcel Number 203-041-02 and 203-010-16, and more
thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits ‘A-J” dated May 21, 2001, on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department, “Army & Navy Academy Dormitory CDP 99-49” as
provided by Chapter 21.8 1.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 21st day of May 2001, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
23
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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Army & Navy Academy Dormitory CDP
99-49 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, which serve
as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Carlsbad Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development involves
the replacement of a pre-existing structure on the same property, the development
does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone,
and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the
site.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to
the shore.
3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes exist
within the proposed construction area, all grading will conform to the City’s erosion
control standards, and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to
accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
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 of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/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
City’dAgency’s approval of this Coastal Development Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
DRB RBSO NO. 277 -2-
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
:O
:l
(2
.3
#4
(5
6
,7
88
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
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 Coastal Development 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.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Coastal Development Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
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.
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.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 99-14 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 276 for that other
approval.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 21.81.160 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shal
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
1 apply for and obtain a
DRB RESO NO. 277 -3- 25
1 13. Since a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can
be completed by October 1st. Grading activities. shall be limited to the “dry season”,
April 1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November
15th upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures
are in place by October 1st.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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 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 special meeting of the Design
17 Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of May 2001, by the
18 following vote, to wit:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Heineman, Lawson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mariois
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
>vDEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 277 -4- , 310
ATTACHMENT “A”
Leclal Description
Armv & Navy Academy Property
Lot 46 and a portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park according to Map thereof No.
1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76, 94-96, 98-130, 131, 153-170, 177-
198 inclusive of Granville Park No. 2, according to Map thereof No. 2037, June
18, 1927; a portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No.
755, February 15, 1894; that portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition to
Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; that portion of Lot 1,
Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, according to Map
thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
EXHIBIT C
DRB Staff Report
Dated May 21,200l
Chy of CAfhbAd Housing, ANY R~dEVELoprwv DEPARTMENT
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AppbCATiON COMPLETE DATE: STAFF: LoRi ROSWTE~N
July 26, 2000
h’iRONMENTA~ Rwiw
CATEqORiCAI EXEMpTiON
MikE CRiM
MikE Skimy
DATE: May 21,200l
ITEM NO. 1
SUBJECT: RP 99-14/GDP 99-49 - “ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY”: Request for
a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the
construction of a 2-story, 80-bed dormitory on the Army & Navy Academy
property located at 2585 Carlsbad Blvd. in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 276 and 277
recommending APPROVAL of RP 99-14 and CDP 99-49 to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Army & Navy Academy, has requested a major redevelopment permit and
coastal development permit to allow the construction of an 80-bed dormitory on the south side
of Pacific Avenue west of Mountain View Drive. The proposed dormitory is intended to replace
Dorman Hall a single-story, 28-bed dormitory destroyed by fire in 1999.
The Army & Navy Academy is a private school for junior and senior high school age males.
The subject property totals 15.89 acres and includes the following facilities: various dormitories
to accommodate 334 resident students, faculty housing, academic buildings, a library, chapel,
dining hall, gymnasium, infirmary, athletic fields, pool, tennis courts, administrative offices, and
storage buildings for maintenance activities. During the 2000-2001 academic year, 306
resident students lived on-site, 22 day students attended class but lived off-site, and 42
employees worked on campus.
A majority of the campus is located within the Village Redevelopment Area with portions of the
campus north of Pacific Avenue, west of Ocean Street and south of Cypress Avenue located
outside the redevelopment area boundaries. A master site plan and design guidelines for the
Army & Navy Academy (RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02) was approved on December 12,
1995. The project included a major redevelopment permit and coastal development permit for
those portions of the campus located within the Village Redevelopment Area and a conditional
use permit for those portions of the site located outside the redevelopment area boundaries, but
within the R-3 and Beach Overlay Zones. The master site plan for the campus did not grant
specific discretionary entitlement to construct any of the facilities outlined in the plan, but rather
it was intended to coordinate the provision and timing of public and private improvements to the
campus and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall land use and architectural
design of the school. As a condition of the master site plan approval, the Academy is required
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY - RP 99-14KDP 99-33
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 2
to obtain discretionary approval prior to the construction of any new buildings. The purpose of
this condition is to ensure that all new buildings are in compliance with the approved master site
plan and design guidelines and all City codes and policies in effect at the time of proposed
construction.
In March of 1999, Dorman Hall a 14-room, 28-bed, 2,752 square foot, single story dormitory
located on the south side of Pacific Avenue was destroyed by fire. Rather than pursue repair of
the fire damage, the Academy elected to proceed with the construction of a new two-story
dormitory as outlined in their master plan.
The new dormitory is located within the Village Redevelopment Area boundaries and therefore,
in accordance with the conditions of approval contained in the master site plan, a major
redevelopment permit and coastal development permit are required to ensure the building is in
conformance with existing land use regulations and City policies regarding new construction.
The following discussion provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the existing land
use policies and regulations regarding new construction on the subject property.
III. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
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 proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it serves to preserve and enhance the existing Army & Navy
Academy campus by providing for a new/replacement residential facility. The General Plan
objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
IV. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The discretionary review process typically involves a determination by the Design Review Board
and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the proposed land use and project design
are consistent with the land use standards, development standards and design guidelines set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Since the subject property is located within
the Coastal Zone and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual also serves as the Local
Coastal Program for the Village Redevelopment Area, consistency with the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual also constitutes consistency with the Local Coastal Program. Additionally, in this case, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must
determine the project’s compliance with the existing Master Site Plan and Design Guidelines for
the Army & Navy Academy campus.
As set forth in the Village Master Plan, private secondary schools are a provisional use in Land
Use District 9. The uses that make up the campus have all been approved as part of the
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY - RP 99-14/GDP 99-33
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 3
Master Site Plan. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Design Review Board and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission to make any provisional findings to permit the overall use in this
location.
Since the Master Site Plan guides development on the subject property, the Design Review
Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must make the necessary findings to
determine the project’s compliance with the governing plan. The approved Master Site Plan
shows a two-story structure in the location of the previously existing Dorman Hall. The
proposed dormitory is identified in the approved Master Site Plan as the northern-most portion
of “North Hall”. North Hall is shown on the site plan as being two separate buildings totaling
25,334 square feet with 64 rooms and 128 beds. As stated previously, the Master Site Plan
was intended to be a conceptual framework for the future redevelopment of the campus and not
a detailed blueprint for final build out. Staff has determined that the proposed dormitory,
totaling 14,210 square feet with 40 rooms and 80 beds, is consistent with the existing Master
Site Plan. In addition, any future phases of “North Hall” will be subject to the same
discretionary review to insure consistency with the previously approved Master Site Plan.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Specific design guidelines were approved as part of the Master Site Plan for the Army & Navy
Academy campus; however, specific development standards were not included in the governing
document. To ensure neighborhood compatibility, staff believes the development standards set
forth in the Village Master Plan for Land Use District 9 should be applied to the site. The
development standards set forth specifically for new development projects within Land Use
District 9 are as follows:
Building Setbacks: The Village Master Plan establishes the front, rear, and side yard
setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 9, the front setback is 5-20 feet, the side
setback is 5-10 feet, and the rear setback is 5-15 feet. The project has been designed with a
front yard setback of 15 feet from Pacific Avenue. Since the structure is located in the center of
the block, the building’s setback to side and rear property lines is not applicable.
Building Heinht: The height limit for Land Use District 9 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. A majority of the proposed project has a maximum roof height of 29 feet with three
architectural tower elements extending to the maximum height of 35 feet. The entire roof line
incorporates the required 5:12 roof pitch.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The approved Master Site Plan indicates 83.8% of the site will be devoted to open space at
total build-out. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Master Site Plan and is
therefore consistent with the open space standard approved as part of the plan.
Building Coveraqe: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for mixed-use
projects in Land Use District 9 is 60% to 80%. The approved Master Site Plan indicates a
building coverage of 14.2% at total build-out. The proposed project is consistent with the
approved Master Site Plan and is therefore consistent with the building coverage standard
approved as part of the plan.
Parkinn: The approved Master Site Plan establishes the total parking requirement for
the site. The parking requirement is based on the standard for high schools, which is one
space per employee plus one space for every ten students. The parking requirement for the
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY - RP 99-14/GDP 99-33
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 4
site totals 135 parking spaces and is based on a maximum school enrollment of 350 students
and 100 employees.
The Master Site Plan shows 136 parking spaces provided at final build-out following completion
of 110 additional on-site parking spaces. The approving resolutions of the Master Site Plan
allowed for the phasing of the additional parking. A majority of the additional parking was to be
provided by constructing a 107~space parking lot at the northwesterly corner of Mountain View
Drive and Carlsbad Blvd. The phasing plan allows for the construction of half of the parking lot
concurrent with the first phase of development undertaken under the Master Site Plan. The
proposed dormitory is essentially the first phase of development since the adoption of the plan.
In accordance with the approving resolutions, construction of half of the proposed parking lot at
the corner of Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Blvd. is being included as part of the proposed
project.
The parking lot improvements at Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Blvd. include; 40 new
parking spaces (two of which are ADA accessible), a retention basin to accommodate site
drainage, light fixtures, and landscape improvements. Through additional site improvements
and the restriping of an existing parking lot, 12 additional parking spaces (two of which are ADA
accessible) are proposed west of Mountain View Drive between Pacific Avenue and Carlsbad
Blvd. Overall, initial site improvements result in 52 additional parking spaces. When added to
the 28 existing parking spaces it yields a total of 80 on-site parking spaces. In accordance with
the approved Master Site Plan the proposed project will meet the parking requirements for the
first phase of development. The second half of the parking lot at Mountain View Drive and
Carlsbad Blvd. will be completed in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in the Master
Site Plan.
Residential Densitv: Residential density does not apply to a project of this nature.
Rather, it is bed count that determines the number of resident students living on-site. The
number of bedrooms contained in the proposed dormitory is consistent with the approved
Master Site Plan which limits the number of beds/bedrooms allowed based on a maximum
student enrollment of 350 students. The Academy currently has 334 beds to accommodate
resident students. To be consistent with the Master Site Plan the Academy must maintain the
same number of beds upon completion of the new dormitory. The applicant is proposing to do
this by demolishing portions of two existing dormitories to make room for the new building and
converting some existing facilities currently being used as dormitories back to their original uses
as faculty housing, classroom space, and administrative offices.
lnclusionarv Housing Requirements: The project is not subject to the inclusionary
housing requirements set forth for the City of Carlsbad because the project qualifies as
replacement units as previously discussed.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES OF MASTER SITE PLAN
All new projects proposed on the Army & Navy Academy site must be consistent with the
Design Guidelines for the site adopted as part of the Master Site Plan. The Design Guidelines
approved by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission in 1995 focus on the architectural
influence of Irving Gill. The guidelines are very specific in terms of roof forms, entry elements,
vertical elements, materials, eaves, cornices, and other architectural features. The guidelines
clearly emulate the desire of the Master Site Plan architect and the 1995 administration of the
Academy.
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY - RP 99-14KDP 99-33
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 5
The current administration supports maintaining the approved design guidelines, but would like
more flexibility in incorporating other architectural styles and elements found in existing
buildings on-site that may not fall within the strict design standards of the approved guidelines.
Therefore, the Academy is proposing an amendment to the architectural design guidelines
approved as part of the Master Site Plan. The amended guidelines are based on the simplicity
of the California Mission theme and are compatible with and compliment the existing design
guidelines. Some examples of this architectural style currently found on the campus include
Anderson Hall, Fegan Hall, and the Gymnasium building. The amended architectural design
guidelines are intended to be used as optional guidelines for future buildings and additions to or
remodeling of existing buildings. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments to the
architectural design guidelines for the Army & Navy Academy site and finds that they
compliment the existing design guidelines for the site, are consistent with the design guidelines
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and are compatible with the
architecture in the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined in the amended
architectural guidelines. The building incorporates simple, repetitive, strong horizontal
articulation with special attention to the travel of the pedestrian. Open pedestrian walkways,
framed by columns, arches, and wood railings emphasize social interaction on the interior of the
site. The two-story facade facing Pacific Avenue is broken up by the use of recessed wood-
framed windows, three tower elements, and plaster detailing separating the first and second
stories. The building incorporates a sloping red-clay tile roof across the length of the building
with hip roof elements on each of the architectural towers and both ends of the building.
Facade materials include smooth, white, hand troweled, exterior plaster, ceramic tile wainscot
at the base of the building, and steel columns with ceramic tile bases.
Since the architectural design guidelines are being amended through the redevelopment permit
process they will only apply to that portion of the subject property that lies within the
redevelopment area boundaries. Application of the amended design guidelines to that portion
of the subject property outside the redevelopment area requires an amendment to Conditional
Use Permit No. 94-02 and is subject to Planning Commission approval. The current Academy
administration has expressed that the existing Master Site Plan does not meet the present
envisioned needs of the campus. As such, the Academy is currently undertaking a
comprehensive needs assessment and intends to move forward with an all-inclusive
amendment to the Master Site Plan based on the results of the assessment. It is anticipated
that the processing of the conditional use permit amendment to apply the revised design
guidelines to those portions of the subject property outside the redevelopment area boundaries
will be conducted as part of the comprehensive master site plan amendment expected to be
undertaken by the applicant later this year. As a reminder that the conditional use permit
amendment is required to insure design consistency throughout the site the following condition
has been included in the attached Design Review Board resolution:
“Prior to or concurrent with the processing of any future discretionary land use
permit for the subject property, the applicant shall file with the Carlsbad Planning
Department an application for amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No.
94-02 requesting the design guidelines for those portions of the Army & Navy
Academy property located outside the redevelopment area boundaries be
revised to be identical to the amended design guidelines approved as part of this
project and identified as Exhibit J”.
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY - RP 99-14KDP 99-33
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 6
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
The building signage is for identification purposes only and will not be seen from the public
right-of-way. Therefore, sign standards do not apply.
VIII. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
In accordance with the conditions of approval contained within the approving resolutions for the
Master Site Plan, approval of a redevelopment permit is required for all development on the
Academy site located within the V-R Zone. In this case, approval of a major redevelopment
permit is required because the project involves new construction of a building that has a
building permit valuation that is greater than $150,000. A major redevelopment permit requires
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 staff’s recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then
take action to recommend approval or denial of the project.
IX. 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 and Circulation: The total projected average daily traffic for the entire site is 1,400 ADT
based on the most recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations, which include 450 ADT for
the proposed dormitory. Staff has determined that there are no major traffic or circulation
issues associated with the proposed project. A traffic impact analysis was not required for the
project since the proposed dormitory will not affect the total trip generation for the site.
Sewer: The project civil and sewer design engineer have both determined that the existing 6’
VCP sewer lateral for the dormitory must be replaced due to its age and its potential for failure
at the connection points with the existing sewer mainline within Pacific Avenue. Therefore, this
existing 6” VCP lateral will be replaced with the new 6” PVC lateral. The total number of sewer
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) required for the dormitory project is 3.00. The total EDU’s for
the site is 17.00.
Water: There are no major water issues associated with the proposed project.
Gradinu: Total grading for the site includes 1,400 cubic yards of cut, 1,900 cubic yards of fill,
with 500 cubic yards being imported. Off-site slope stability mitigation is required for the
proposed parking lot slopes, within the North County Transit District (NCTD) right of way.
NCTD has submitted documentation that they are aware of and concur with the proposed
grading and mitigation. In accordance with the documentation that NCTD submitted, the
grading contractor will be required to obtain a “Right of Entry” permit from NCTD prior to any
grading within their right of way.
Drainaae and Erosion Control: A 3-foot deep private retention basin shall be installed adjacent
to the proposed parking lot. This basin will reduce the post-developed lo-year, 6-hour storm to
pre-developed conditions, in accordance with California Coastal Commission Mello II criteria.
This basin will also function as a structural pollutant mitigation device in accordance with
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY - RP 99.14KDP 99.33
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 7
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) criteria.
Land Tit/e: A number of older easements and street dedications (“paper streets”), that are no
longer in use, traverse the site. Construction of the dormitory and parking lot will not affect any
existing easements.
Immovements: As par-t of the Master Site Plan approval, a phasing plan was developed to link
public improvements to corresponding development in order to alleviate the Academy of the
financial burden of providing all public improvements up front. In addition, the approving
resolutions allowed for the phases to occur in any order. The idea was that each phase could
develop independently of the others. Previously, in accordance with Design Review Board
(DRB) Resolution No. 233, approved on October 4, 1995, construction-phasing conditions of
approval were placed on Redevelopment Permit RP 94-02. These conditions require the
construction of associated street improvements upon the approval of any future discretionary
actions on the subject property.
Generally, with discretionary review of a project exactions are made on the developer/applicant
to complete street/infrastructure frontage improvements concurrent with development. This
explains the reason for the previously imposed street improvement phasing conditions
associated with the approval of the Master Site Plan.
Since approval of DRB Resolution No. 233, the City enacted an Alternative Street Design
ordinance, NS-555/556, on June 27, 2000, which designates certain streets as alternative
design streets. Alternative design streets are either to be constructed concurrent with adjacent
development or deferred in accordance with a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA).
The two streets adjacent to this proposed project are: Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive.
Both of these streets are designated as alternative design streets. Since the proposed project
constitutes reconstruction of a damaged building and not additional development of the
property, rather than improving these two streets at this time a NIA will be executed by Army 81
Navy Academy so as to secure improvements to these streets in the future, once an alternative
design is prepared.
The condition outlining the phasing of street improvements (DRB Resolution No. 233 condition
no. 10) is still applicable to the Army & Navy Academy Master Site Plan and is still valid and in
full force and effect. However, the condition will be held in abeyance until such time as the
applicant submits for a comprehensive amendment to the Master Site Plan. Once the
amendment is submitted, the phasing condition shall once again become operative and
improvements shall be completed in accordance with the phasing plan, the NIA, and alternative street design criteria.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the proposed project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15302 of the Sate CEQA Guidelines as replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same site.
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY - RP 99.14KDP 99.33
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 8
XI. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is not expected to have any financial impact on the City or the
Redevelopment Agency. The Army & Navy Academy is a not for profit organization and is
exempt from the payment of property taxes. Therefore, improvements to the property do not
result in additional tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency.
XII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to the findings and conditions contained
in the attached resolutions. Construction of the project will assist Army & Navy Academy in
fulfilling their long-range development goals for the site and correct a present dormitory
deficiency resulting from the fire of 1999.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 276 recommending approval of RP 99-14.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 277 recommending approval of CDP 99-49.
3. Housing and Redevelopment Commission No. 273, Design Review Board Resolutions No.
232,233, and 234 approving RP 94.02/CDP 94-02.
4. Location Map
5. Disclosure Statement
6. Exhibits “A” - “J”, dated May 21, 2001, including reduced exhibits.
Exhibit 1
DRB Resolution No. 276
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 276
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALlFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP99-14 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80-BED DORMITORY ON THAT
PORTION OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BLVD. SOUTH OF PACIFIC AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMlTORY
APN: 203-041-02 & 203-010-16
CASE NO: RP 99-14
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
approved Resolution No. 273 on the 12* day of December, 1995 approving a Negative
Declaration, Redevelopment Permit (RP 94-02) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 94-02)
establishing a Master Site Plan for the Army & Navy Academy on property generally located
along the east and west sides of Carlsbad Boulevard north of Beech Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 273 remains effective and establishes the permitted land use
for the property within the Master Site Plan boundaries; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution No. 273 a Major Redevelopment Permit is
required for all development within the boundaries of the Master Site Plan in the V-R Zone to
insure the proposed project is in compliance with the adopted Master Site Plan, the Design
Guidelines, and the conceptual landscape plan for the Army & Navy Academy property; and
WHEREAS, Army & Navy Academy, a non-profit organization, “Developer”; has
filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
property it owns, and known as Assessor Parcel Number 203-041-02 and 203-010-16, and
more thoroughly described in Attachment A, “the property”; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-J” dated May 21, 2001, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
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
Department, “Army & Navy Academy Dormitory RP 99-14”, as provided by Chapter
21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 21St day of May 2001, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
“Army & Navy Academy Dormitory RP 99-14”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
RP 99-14, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or reconstruction of a
pre-existing structure on the same site) of the state CEQA Guidelines. In making this
determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2
of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan, Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and Army & Navy Academy Master Site Plan
and Design Guidelines as amended herewith based on the facts set forth in the staff report
dated May 21,200l including, but not limited to the following:
a. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as
outlined in the Carlsbad General Plan, in that it serves to preserve and
enhance the existing Army & Navy Academy campus by providing for a
I new/replacement residential facility.
DRB RESO NO. 276 -2-
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual in that, as set forth in the Village Master Plan, the land use
and site lay-out for the Army & Navy Academy campus were approved
through a Master Site Plan (RP 94-02, CDP 94-02, CUP 94-02) by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission/City Council (Resolution No. 273)
on December 12, 1995. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with
the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan for land use
district 9.
C. The project is consistent with the Army & Navy Academy Master Site Plan
in that the approved site plan identifies the replacement of Dorman Hall with
a two-story dormitory. In addition, development of the proposed project will
not result in an increase in the maximum student enrollment established
under the Master Site Plan.
a. The project as designed is consistent with the design guidelines established
for the Army & Navy Academy site approved as part of the Master Site Plan
with the incorporation of the amended architectural guidelines approved as
part of this project and identified as Exhibit “J”.
e. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be 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.
f. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area
and the City’s Landscape Manual.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
3. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
DRB RESO NO. 276 -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
a.
b.
C.
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval and the applicant is conditioned to execute a
Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA) with the City for future
public improvements.
The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
4. 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 CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
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 of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/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
City’s/Agency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
DRB RESO NO. 276 -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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
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.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
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.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 99-49 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 277 for that other
approval.
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.
Landscape Conditions:
12. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
DRB RESO NO. 276 -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
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
13. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Noticing Conditions:
14. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit and Coastal Development Permit by Resolution(s) No. 276 and 277 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.
On-site Conditions:
15. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When
so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter
comply with the approved plan.
16. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
17. 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 Housing and Redevelopment.
18. The demolition of portions of two existing dormitories and the conversion of some
existing facilities, currently being used as dormitories, back to their original uses as
faculty housing, classroom space, and administrative offices is necessary to maintain
the maximum 334-bed count. No Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed new 80-
bed dormitory building shall be issued unless all necessary conversions and
demolitions to the existing buildings (as outlined on Exhibit “B”, dated May 21,
2001) have been completed to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
19.
DRB RESO NO. 276 -6-
All proposed parking as shown on Exhibit “C”, dated May 21, 2001, shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to
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
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed go-bed dormitory.
20. Prior to or concurrent with the processing of any future discretionary land use
permit for the subject property, the applicant shall file with the Carlsbad Planning
Department an application for amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94-
02 requesting the design guidelines for those portions of the Army & Navy Academy
property located outside the redevelopment area boundaries be revised to be
identical to the amended design guidelines approved as part of this project and
identified as Exhibit ‘J”.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
NOTE:Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed Redevelopment Permit, must be met prior to approval of a
grading permit.
General:
1.
2.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for, and obtain approval from the City
Engineer, a construction staging plan and proposed haul route.
Developer shall install sight distance corridors, as shown on the Redevelopment Permit
Architectural, Civil, and, preliminary Landscape site plans, in accordance with
Engineering Standards.
Fees/Agreements:
3. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
4. Prior to issuance of building permit, Developer shall cause property owner to enter into
a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City for the future public
improvement to Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive along the project frontage for
a half street width of 42 feet (based on a half street of 30 feet, plus 12 feet). Public
improvements shall include but are not limited to: Paving, Base, Sidewalks, Curbs and
Gutters, Pavement Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing, Under-grounding or Relocation
of Utilities, Sewer, Water, Fire Hydrant(s), Street Light Standard(s), and Driveway
Approach, etc., to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall process a Plat
and Legal Description (NIA Exhibit ‘A’), and submit an improvement cost estimate (used
to prepare NIA Calculation Sheet & NIA Exhibit ‘C’), through the City’s Engineering
Department as a “PR Number.” The NIA Calculation Sheet shall include, but not be
limited to, all of the above-referenced improvements, Design, 20% Contingency, and
Standard Assessment District, Plan Check and Inspection costs.
Grading:
5. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
DRB RESO NO. 276 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur
outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a
recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the
owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must
either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading
will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a plan consistency
determination from both the City Engineer and Planning Director.
7. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Coastal Conditions:
8. Since a Grading Permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can
be completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”,
April 1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November
15th upon written approval of the City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all
erosion control measures are in place by October 1st.
Dedications/Improvements:
9. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
10. Mountain View Drive shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage based on a
centerline to right-of-way width of 30 feet, including the curb return radius (35’
radius) at the northwest corner of the Mountain View DriveKarlsbad Boulevard
intersection, and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Additionally, the
Owner shall also dedicate a 35foot curb return radius at the southeast corner of the
Pacific Avenue/Ocean Street intersection, in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
11. Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year frequency storms of 6
hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
conditions. Both 6 hour and 24-hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
12. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
DRB RESO NO. 276 -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
prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be
limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic
and hazardous waste products;
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other
such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or
into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal
of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other
such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
requirements as prescribed in their respective containers;
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
9. The applicant shall submit for City approval, a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions
established by the San Diego Region Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall
address measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff
at both construction and post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan
shall:
A.
B.
Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants;
Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter
said pollutants;
C.
D.
E.
. . .
DRB RESO NO. 276 -9-
Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and
resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and
disposal of pollutants;
Ensure long-term maintenance of all post constructed BMPs in
perpetuity;
Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site
will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a lo-
year, 6-hour storm event.
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
Special Engineering Conditions:
14. The 48’ right of way dimension shown on the Mountain View drive typical street
section, on sheet C-4 (Civil Site Plan), shall be revised to 50’. This revision shall be
shown on the site plan conforming mylar.
15. Condition of Approval No. 10, of DRB Resolution No. 233, is still applicable to the
ANA Master Plan and is still valid and in full force and effect; however, the
condition will be held in abeyance until such time as the ANA submits for an actual
Master Plan Amendment (MPA). Once a MPA is submitted, the phasing condition
shall once again become operative, and improvements shall be completed, in
accordance with the phasing plan, the NIA, and, alternative street design criteria.
SEWER AND WATER CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Prior to approval of improvement or grading plans, Developer shall meet with the Fire
Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities; including, the San Diego County Water Authority
capacity charge(s).
The Developer shall install potable water and fire service water services, and meters, at a
location approved by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of said services
shall be reflected on public improvement plan DWG 133-6, in accordance with a
construction change to the plan.
The Developer shall install sewer lateral(s) and clean-out(s) at a location approved by the
Deputy City Engineer - Utilities. The locations of the sewer lateral(s) shall be reflected on
public improvement plan DWG 133-6, in accordance with a construction change to
the plan.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
Fees:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #l special tax (if applicable), 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.
DRB RESO NO. 276 -lO-
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. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 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.
Engineering:
6. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
Fire:
~ 7. All fire alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1 DRB RESO NO. 276 -ll-
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 special meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21s’ day of May, 2001 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 276 -12-
Lenal Description
Army & Navv Academv Propertv
Lot 46 and a portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park according to Map thereof No.
1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76, 94-96, 98-130, 131, 153-170, 177-
198 inclusive of Granville Park No. 2, according to Map thereof No. 2037, June
18, 1927; a portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No.
755, February 15, 1894; that portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition to
Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; that portion of Lot 1,
Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, according to Map
thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
Exhibit 2
DRB Resolution No. 277
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 277
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 99-49 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN SO-BED DORMITORY ON THAT
PORTION OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BLVD. SOUTH OF PACIFIC AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
APN: 203-041-02 & 203-010-16
CASE NO.: CDP 99-49
WHEREAS, Army & Navy Academy, a nonprofit organization, “Developer”,
has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
property it owns and known as Assessor Parcel Number 203-041-02 and 203-010-16, and more
thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A-J” dated May 21, 2001, on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department, “Army & Navy Academy Dormitory CDP 99-49” as
provided by Chapter 21.81.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 21st day of May 2001, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Army & Navy Academy Dormitory CDP
99-49 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, which serve
as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Carlsbad Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development involves
the replacement of a pre-existing structure on the same property, the development
does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone,
and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the
site.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to
the shore.
3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes exist
within the proposed construction area, all grading will conform to the City’s erosion
control standards, and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to
accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
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 of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/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
City’s/Agency’s approval of this Coastal Development Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
DRB RESO NO. 277 -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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
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 Coastal Development 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.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Coastal Development Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
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.
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.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 99-14 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 276 for that other
approval.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 2 1.8 1.160 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
DRB RESO NO. 277 -3- rd
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
13. Since a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can
be completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”,
April 1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November
15th upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures
are in place by October 1st.
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 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 special meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of May 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 277 -4-
ATTACHMENT “A”
Lenal Description
Armv & Navy Academv Propertv
Lot 46 and a portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park according to Map thereof No.
1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76, 94-96, 98-130, 131, 153-l 70, 177-
198 inclusive of Granville Park No. 2, according to Map thereof No. 2037, June
18, 1927; a portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No.
755, February 15, 1894; that portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition to
Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; that portion of Lot 1,
Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, according to Map
thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
Exhibit 3
HRC Resolution No. 273
DRB Resolutions No. 232, 233 & 234
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
20
RJBOLUTION NO. 273
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE ARMY
AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PIAN ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST
AND WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH Of BEECH AVENUE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY MASTER
SITEPLAN CASE NO: RP 94-02/CDP 94-02
WHEREAS, verified applications for a Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit for certain property to wit:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According
to Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 5%73,75,
76,94-96,98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No . 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037,
June 18, 1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 755, February 15, 1894; That
Portion of Block 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad,
According to Map Thereof No. 893, April 8, 1903; That
Portion of Lot 1, Block “A” of Hayes Land Company Addition
to Carlsbad, According to Map Thereof No. 1221, November
4, 1909; all Filed in the Office of thy: Zounty Recorder of San
Diego County, and all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Des@ Review Board; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on September 6, 1995, and
October 4,1995 hold a duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said I 1
applications for a Redevelopment Permit (RP 94-02); and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP 94-02); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on October 4,1995, after hearing
and considering all the evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard, adopt ’
Design Review Board Resolution No. 232 recommending approval of the Negative
. 5x
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'26
27
28
Declaration and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 233, and 234 recommending
approval of a Redevelopment Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, on the 12th day of December , 1995, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider the Board’s recommendations and all evidence, testimony,
and argument of those persons present and desiring to be heard and approved the
Negative Declaration, Redevelopment Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on June 16, 1995 and
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day review period, and no comments were
received during that review period.
WHEREAS, the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board
Resolution Nos. 232, 233 and 234 approving the Negative Declaration, Redevelopment
Permit, and Coastal Development Permit constitute the findings and conditions of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the &bay
of December , 1995, approved a Negative Declaration in compliance with the City of
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality
Aa
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing -. and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as’follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Negative Declaration is approved and that tie findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 232, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Redevelopment Permit, RP 94-02 is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 233, &r
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
4. That the Coastal Development Permit, CDP 94-02 is approved and
that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No.
234, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
5. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopts and
incorporates Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 232,233, and 234 approving the Army
and Navy Academy Master Site Plan’s Negative Declaration, Redevelopment Permit (RP
94-02), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 94-02).
4 Independent Judgment: The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission’s independent judgment.
b) Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6(d), all the materials that constitute the administrative
record in this proceeding are in the custody of and can be found in the offices of the. City
Clerk and the Director of Planning in the City of Carlsbad. The administrative record
includes, but is not limited to: the Negative Declaration and all public comments thereon
received during the public review period and responses thereto, and the proceedings of the
Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission thereon.”
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, ‘Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANF
The time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate
court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on
which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the ‘estimated cost of preparation
of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if
he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be fled with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California 92008.”
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
..*.
:
I
4
c -
E
7
t
z
1c
11
li
13
I!
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
!
3
I
i
i
,
3
3
1
I
b . 1
I
N
j
ATIYEST:
f
I
I
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the lzh :
- dayof December , 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Comnissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hallj
NOES: None .:
ABSENT: None
/
ABSTAIN: None
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 232
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE CONTINUE D USE AND FUTURE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMY AND NAVY
ACADEMY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST AND WEST
OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN MOUNTAIN
VIEW DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP-94-OWCDP 94-02
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 6th day of September, 1995, /
and the 4th of October, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony j ,
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyxing the information submitted by staff, and \
I considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors I
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review / /
Board as follows: I I
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
F-9 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design /
Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated June 16, 1995, and “PII”, dated
1
!
June 5,1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following /
findings:
Findiws:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration RP 9442/CDP 94-02, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending
approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approval of the
Negative Declaration.
The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration RP 94Q2/CDP 94-02
reflects the independent judgement of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad.
The City’s MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are signifkant and
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considerations. ‘I’he project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those
effects, no additional environmental document is required.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Compas,
Marquez, Savary, and Vessey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
KIM WEUHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTESTZ
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 232 -2-
?&J
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Cypress Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Conceptual Master Site Plan for the redevelopment of
the private school campus, including the relocation, upgrade
and replacement of existing facilities and the addition of on
site parking.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on tile in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of
date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department
at (619) 438-l 161, extension 4455.
.
DATED:
CASE NO:
JUNE 16, 1995
R.P 94-O2/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02 Planning Director
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 16, 1995
JG:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 l (619) 436-l 161 ’ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 9
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02
DATE: June 5. 1995
3ACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Army & Naw Academv Master Site Plan
2. APPLICANT: Thomas Cox Architect
3. [IDDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3242 Halladav. Suite 204
(7141 5574666
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 2. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Conceptual Master Site Plan for the redevelopment of the mivate school
camnus. including the relocation. upgrade and renlacement of existing facilities and the addition of on site
;UMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
‘he summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
rke impact that is a “PotentialIy Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
ncorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
_ Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
x Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. .
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepmi
l find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
u
q
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/M~IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
SOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
dnd (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. q
5-a it \ 19% Date
Date
IG.vd
2 Rev. 3/28/95
$I
TATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
mpact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
mpact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
3 use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
jr to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ElR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document
have been incorporated into this document, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. Ln this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
3 Rev. 3/28195
An EIFt must be preped if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the
following &cm: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or, (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
4 discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. particular attention should be given to discussing
nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined signiftcant.
Rev. 3/28PS
kues (and SqJputing Lnfunlaticm sarnts):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant
impact
PorEntidly Sipnifrant
Ud?SS Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan Significant No lmpac t impact
a>
b)
cl
d)
d
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source n(s): #l)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( 1
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( 1
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or fatmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? ( 1
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established ‘community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ( 1
x
x
x
x
x
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( 1
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1
5 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and supputing fnfamati~ sclums):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
a)
W
cl
d)
e)
0
g)
h)
0
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
Fault rupture? ( )
Seismic ground shaking? ( )
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (
Landslides or mudflows? ( . )
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
gxading, or fill? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? (
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially Significant
lmpct
POtcncidly
SigllifiiVn UllkSS Mitigation Incorporated
LessThan
Significant NO Impact Impact
1
1
a) Changes in abso@n rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of mface*runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/95
-It
Isles (and suppating Inf- -==9:
c)
d)
e>
9
I31
h)
0
Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? ( )
Pomially Significant Impact
POrentidly
SigIiifii
Ullleg Mitigation Incqmatai
LesThan Siguificant No
Impact Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( #l ) x .
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( j
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/95
7;
ksues (and supputing rrlfanlati~ somccr):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a>
b)
c)
4
e>
9
g)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( #2 )
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( #2 )
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( #2 )
Insuffxient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (See Site Plan)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( #2 )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (See Site Plan)
Potemiauy Significant Impact
POtGtially
Significant
UlhS Mitigation
kmrpcrated
LessTlun Signifkant No
Impact Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects,animals,andbirds?( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? ( )
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
8 Rev. 328195
aces (and suppatitlg rnfarmraiao sautcu):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? ( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
PI=? ( 1
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? (
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
>
a>
b)
c>
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( )
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuatiop plan? ( )
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? ( 1
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
Potentially Significant
m=t
Potmillly Sigllifiimt UlllCSS Mitigation
Lacocporated
LessThan Significant No Impact Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Issues (and suppating lnfamatlal sances):
e) hmease fm hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, ortrees? ( . )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? ( )
1
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
a)
b)
cl
d)
d
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
Pie protection? ( )
Police protection? ( )
Schools? ( )
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( 1
Other governmental services? ( )
XII. UTJLITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natuml gas? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotnliJly Signifiivu
UtllaS LesTtlan Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x b) Communications systems? ( )
10
ksm (sod suppating lnfamaw stnJfw):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid wastedisposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (See Landscape Plan)
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
cl
4
e>
Disturb paleontological tesources? ( #3 )
Disturb archaeological resources? ( #3 )
Affect historical resources? ( #3 )
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( #3 )
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( #3 )
Povxltiaily Significant
Impact
Potcnfially Signifiiant
UllkS Mitigation lncurpxated
lkssThan Significant NO
Impact Impact
x
x
x
_-
x
x
x
x
x
A.-
x
11 Rev. 3/28/95
kue!s (and supputing lnfamariap sauces):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant UtllesS Mitigation
hccaporated
LesThatl Significant NO Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for ne@borhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( I- -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) -
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects) x -
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indkctly?
l
x
x
x
x
12 Rev. 3/28/95
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a)
W
cl
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or UKKC effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review
- (See Source Document No. 1).
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis - (See discussion under Air Quality and Mandatory Findings).
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refmed from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
13 REV. 3f2al95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
. Environmental Settiw opd Prulect Backnrouad:
The Army and Navy Academy is located on 15.89 acres and is an existing private junior and senior high school
for boys. The school currently has dormitories to accommodate 296 students, with facilities that include faculty
housing, academic halls, a library, chapel, dinning hall, gym, infiiy, athletic fields, pool, administrative offices,
25 on site parking spaces, and maintenance buildings. The campus is located in an area of mixed land use which
includes existing commercial and residential land uses, a city park, State Parks and Recreation facility, and major
highway and railroad transportation corridors. The campus contains a number of buildings and facilities surrounded
by ornamental planting and lawn, and a large grass athletic field. Much of the project area has been disturbed by
construction activities that have taken place since the fust buildings on site were constructed in the 1920’s.
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain, has an average rainfall of approximately 13 inches, and
moderate temperatures. Geologically the site is located on Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits. The
land type is Terrace Escarpment, character&d by 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine
sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. Vegetation includes introduced eucalyptus trees, rubber trees, box shrubs
of various species, roses, and other decorative plants. Approximately 80 percent of the ground surface is covered
with non-native grass (Archaeological Survey Report, May 1995).
The project consists of a conceptual master site plan for the school that would guide the future renovation of the
campus facilities. The master site plan would not grant specific discretionary entitlement to construct any of the
facilities, but rather, provide a master plan framework for the review of future land use development permits. The
master site plan would coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private improvements to the campus
and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall architectural and land use design of the school. For the
actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown on the plan, the developer would apply for
an individual development permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City codes and policies,
conformance with the master site plan, including the proposed design guidelines, and impact on the environment.
Each future development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific
environmental impacts that could not be asses& at the master site plan level. For example, sufficient grading,
drainage, and building details, and geotechnical analysis necessary to assess potential significant visual and geologic
impacts has not been provided as part of this conceptual plan. However, some technical analysis, such as a traffic
study and cultural resource report have been prepared as part of the master site plan, and can be utilized as a data
base for the environmental review of future development permits.
In addition to the technical analysis conducted as part of the master site plan, the City has certified a Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master EIR is on file in the
Planning Department. ‘I&e Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for
project’s that are consistent with the plan, including projects within the Village Redevelopment area.
The master site plan is a conceptual land use plan which covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of
existing land uses and facilities on an existing and highly disturbed infill site. The plan does not constitute the
addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school, therefore, the following
“environmental evaluation categories” either result in “no impact” or are not applicable due to the nature of the
project and there is not a discussion or evaluation in the text of this Initial Study:
14 Rev. 3/28/95
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
d)*)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
a>-c)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURG:
ah)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
a>-4
(x. HAZARDS:
.a)-e)
X. NOISE:
a)-W
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a>-d
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS:
ah3
xv. RECREATION:
a)-b)
XIII. AESTHETICS:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The private school is consistent with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan. In addition, private
schools are permitted in residential areas within the City with the approval of a conditional use permit. The school
has been located on the site since 1937 and over the years the campus has been considered to be compatible with
the mounding land uses.
15 Rev. 3/28P5
V. AIR QUAW:
The continued operation of the school land use was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan, and will result
in gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in the emission of
carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols
are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego
Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative
significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minim& the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification
of Final Master EIR 9341, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding
Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all land uses
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review
of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TMNSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
The school would generate approximately 1400 average daily trips and a Traffk Study was prepared for the master site plan by Robert Kahn, John Rain & Associates, Inc., dated December 7, 1993. The study concluded that the
surrounding and existing circulation system in the area was adequate to handle the traffic generated by the school
at buildout of the site plan with no sign&ant adverse impacts to road segments or intersections in the
neighborhood. As the development of the school occurs, the developer would be required to improve the site’s
street frontages along Pacific Avenue, Ocean Street, Cypress Avenue, Garfield Street, Beech Avenue, and Mountain
View Drive. Frontage improvements may include street widening, curb/gutter and sidewalks, and the
undergrounding of utilities. These street bprovements would facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians
through the area, and provide for continued and adequate access to the neighborhood. The project would not
impact the railroad to the cast of the project site nor conflict with policies supporting alternate transportation. The
school has major street frontage along Carl&ad Boulevard for the provision of bus stops if required by NTCD.
XIII. AESTHETICS:
Buildout of the master site plan would result in the removal of approximately 30 trees, however, the conceptual
landscape plan indicates that up to 111 additional trees would be planted on the property, therefore, a significant
visual impact to the area from the removal of mature trees would not result.
16 Rev. 3nat95
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A Phase I Archeologicat Survey and H@ricaI/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Academy was
prepared by PhilIipa Research Services, dated May, 1995. The report indicates that the proposed plans for the
future development of the campus would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources and no further
evaluation or work was recommended by the consultant.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDING QF SIGNIFICANCE:
The continued operation of the school land use was considered and included in the updated 1994 General Plan.
The project will result in increased traffic volumes, and roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate the
City’s buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-
traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control, These generally include all freeway interchange areas and
major intersections along Carl&ad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number
of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minirnize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR: These include measures to ensure the provision of
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections
at buildout of the GeneraI Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 9341, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to aII existing land uses covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
Source Documents; All source documents are on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive.
1) Carl&ad General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report, dated September 1994.
2) Cypress Avenue Vacation Traffic S&dy, Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associcates, Inc., dated December 7,
1993.
3) Phase I Archeological Survey and Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Academy,
Phillips Research Services, dated May, 1995.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 3/28/95
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 233 (
I A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CONTINUED USE AND FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE
OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN MOUNTAIN
VIEW DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE. CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP 94-02
WHEREAS, the Army and Navy Academy has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit as provided by Chapter 2135 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 6th day of September, 1995, and on the 4th day of October, 1995,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According to
Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21, 1924; Lots 58-73, 75, 76,
94-96, 98-101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037, June
l&1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, According to
Map Thereof No. 755, February 15,1894; That Portion of Block
1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carisbad, According to Map
Thereofho. 893, April t&1903; That Portion of Lot 1, Block “A”
of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, According to
Map Thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all Filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and all in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of ah persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered aI.I factors relating to RP 94-02.
il
/
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review \
I
2
/I Board as follows: I I I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMlT/RP 94-02, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findbs:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project will have no significant impact on
the environment, and has recommended approval of the Negative Declaration for the
project.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein for ’
Redevelopment Plan RP 94-02, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s i
General Plan/Redevelopment Plan, based on the following: I
a.
b.
Land Use - A private school is a permitted conditional use in the V-R Zone /
with a Major Redevelopment Permit; I
I
Circulation - The project would provide roadway and frontage improvements,
and there would be no operational deficiencies at intersections and roadways
serving the project;
c. Open Space and Conservation - Based on an archaeologkal survey and
historical inventory, the project would not significantly impact cultural
resources.
3. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
amI 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.
26 4.
27
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions
of approval.
28 5. This project has been cknditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -2- 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
6. The project is consistent with the intent of the Carisbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan and the development standards and design criteria required by the Village
Design Manual and Village Redevelopment LCP. The school land use is compatible
with surrounding commercial and residential land uses, and a private school is
allowed in the Village Redevelopment Zone with a Redevelopment Permit. A portion
of the proposed project is located within Sub-area 5 of the plan. Permitted land uses
in Sub-area 5 include visitor serving commercial uses and uses allowed in the R-3
Zone, which includes private schools with a Redevelopment Permit. In the Village
Area Redevelopment Plan the Army and Navy Academy site is not designated for
commercial usage, therefore, the LCP requirement for properties with commercial
land use designations such that “the entire ground floor of all projects shall be
devoted to visitor commercial uses” is not applicable to this project.
i
7. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of the Major
Redevelopment Permit for the RP 94-02 project entitled “Army and Navy Academy
Master Site Plan”. (Exhibits “A - “J” on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference, dated September 6, 1995) subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer
to make all corrections and modifications to the approved documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and conform to Housing and Redevelopment Commission final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different
from this approval, shall require ;?? rF?ecdzzzt tq this approval.
2. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the - - Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect i
DRB RESO NO. 233 -3- * :‘, 1.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
the conditions of approval by the City. The Site Plan copy shall be submitted to the
City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, which ever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of
the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying
all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued
a Major Redevelopment Permit by Resolution No. 233 on the real property owned
by the developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval
as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an
amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing
of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Approval of RP 94-02 is granted subject to: 1) Approval of the Negative Declaration,
Resolution No. 233; 2) Approval of CDP 94-02; and 3) Planning Commission
approval of CUP 94-02. RP 94-02 is subject to all conditions contained in Design
Review Board Resolution No. 234 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 3797.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, for
development shown within the V-R Zone on the master site plan, the developer shall
obtain an individual permit and/or an amendment to this permit RP 94-02. All
development shall be consistent with the adopted master site plan, the Design
Guidelines (Exhibit “J”), and the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit “I”). The
Design Guidelines, Exhibit “J” shall be amended to state that the implementation
and interpretation of the Design Guidelines shall also be subject to the review and
approvai of the City’s final decision-maker for ail applicable development.
EngineerinP Conditions:
10. The future building development of the Army/Navy Academy may be accomplished
in the order shown on exhibit “G” iabeied “Phasing Plan,” dated September 6,1995.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for ail public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of any
grading or building ,permits for the construction of any facilities within a given
phase, the applicant shall install, or agree to instail and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan, which consist of,
DRB RESO NO. 233 -4-
ii .,
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
the following:
Public Imurovement Phasing Prom-am
Phase A - North side of Cvuress Avenue
1. Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from Carisbad Boulevard to ’
Garfield Street. I
2. Relocate utility pole 16 as needed. I
Phase A - South side of Cvuress Avenue
1.
2.
3.
4.
Half street improvements to Cypress Avenue from the most easterly property
line to Garfield Street.
/
Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the most
southerly property line.
Underground utility segment 15.
Relocate utility pole 13 as needed.
Phase 1 - At Carisbad Boulevard and Mountain View Drive
1. Haif street improvement to the west side of Carisbad Boulevard from the /
northerly property line to Mountain View Drive. 1
2.
3.
Reiocate utility pole 20 as needed.
Haif street improvement to the north side of Mountain View Drive from 1
Carisbad Boulevard to the most westeriy property line (i.e., to the Phase J 1
westerly boundary Sine). I
Phase B
1. Haif St&t improvements to the east side of Ocean Street from Pacific Avenue
to Cypress Avenue. I
2. Underground utility segments 9 through 11.
3.
4.
5.
Relocate utility pole 10 as needed.
Haif street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Ocean
Street to Garfield Street.
Underground u&y segments 7 and 8.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -5- a’~
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. Relocate utility pole 5 as needed.
Phase C
1. Haif street improvements to the west side of Ocean Street from Pacific
Avenue to Cypress Avenue
Phase D
1. Half street improvement to the north side of Beech Avenue along the project
frontage.
2. Underground utility segments 22 and 23.
Phase E - Fronting Garfield Street
1. Half street improvements to Garfield Street from Cypress Avenue to the
southerly property line.
2. Underground utility segments 14 and 17.
Phase E - Frontiw Ocean Street
1. Half street improvements to Ocean Street along the project frontage.
2. Underground utility segments 12 and 13.
Phase F
1. Haif street improvements to the south side of Pacific Avenue from Garfield
Street to Mountain View Drive.
2. Underground utility segments 4,6,18, 19 and 20.
3. Relocate utility pole 1 as needed.
PhaseG l
1. Haif street improvements to Mountain View Drive from Carisbad Boiiievard
to Pacific Avenue.
2. Underground utility segments 2, 3 and 21 an the utility Sine from pole 1 ta
pole 20.
Phase H
1. Underground utility segment 1.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -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. Complete items 1 through 3 of Phase F if not alreadv comuleted.
J Phase
1. Underground utility segment 24.
Concukent with any development of the site, the phase 1 portion of the parking lot !
shall be constructed along with items 1 through 3 of the Phase 1 - At Carlsbad 1
Boulevard and Mountain View Drive improvements.
In accordance with the above Public Improvement Phasing Program, full
improvements shall include but not be limited to the following:
. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk. . Asphalt/Concrete or Concrete roadway pavement widening. . Installation of handicap ramps. . Storm Drain facility Improvements. . Sewer facility improvements. . Water facility improvements. . Installation of Street Light Standards. . Installation of Fire Hydrants.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
secured Improvement agreement or such other time as provided In said agreement.
Fire Conditions:
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Pire Department shall evaluate building
plans for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state
and local Fire Codes.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervais of 300 feet along public streets
and private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when
posslble, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street
or driveway.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
The plan should include offkite fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all-weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall
be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire
Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other
reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations
DRB RESO NO. 233 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16.
18.
19.
cease until the condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall
contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to
installation.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required
access for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with
the requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
All buildings having an aggregate floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet must be
protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Plans and specifications must be
approved by the fire department, and a permit obtained prior to installation.
Water Conditions:
20. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can
be met.
21. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuaa.ce of th building permit. The San
Diego County Water Authority capacity charge wilf be collected at issuance of
application for meter installation.
22. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs
from appropriate parties.
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improi;ement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie -
GPM-EDU).
23. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to
be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
DRB RESO NO. 233 -80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code Remlndersz
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements.
24. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provide herein.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Compas,
Marquez, Savary, and Vessey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
KIM WELSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
I
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 233 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 234
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT’PERMITTO ALLOW THE CONTINUED
USE AND FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMY
AND NAVY ACADEMY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW
DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: CDP 94-02
WHEREAS, the Army and Navy Academy has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as provided by Chapter 2181 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 6th day of September, 1995, and 4th day of October, 1995, hold
a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as:
Lot 46 and a Portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park According to
Map Thereof No. 1782, February 21,1924; Lots S&73,75, 76,
94-96, 98101, 102-130, 131, 153-170, 177-198 Inclusive of
Granville Park No. 2, According to Map Thereof No. 2037, June
18,1927; A Portion of Block 3 of Town Carlsbad, According to
Map Thereof No. 755, February 151894; That Portion of Block
1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition To Carlsbad, According to Map
Thereof No. 893, April 8,1903; That Portion of Lot 1, Block “A”
of Hayes Land Company Addition to Carlsbad, According to
Map Thereof No. 1221, November 4, 1909; all Filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and all in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
II WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to CDP 94-02.
II II . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows:
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMITKDP 94-02, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Design Review Board finds that the project will have no significant impact on
the environment, and has recommended approval of the Negative Declaration for the
project.
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CDP 94.
02, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan/Redevelopment
Plan, based on the following:
a. Laud Use - A private school is a pe~Wtted conditional use in the V-R Zone
with a Major Redevelopment Permit;
b. Circulation - The project would provide roadway and frontage improvements,
and there would be no operational deficiencies at intersections and roadways
serving the project;
C. Open Space and Conservation- Based on an archaeological survey and
historical inventory, the project would not significantly impact cultural
resources.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available,
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available,
and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service
for this project.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions
of approval. .*
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
DRB RESO NO. 234 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. The project is consistent with the intent of the Carisbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan and the development standards and design criteria required by the Village
1
Design Manual and Village Redevelopment LCP. The school land use is compatible 1
with surrounding commercial and residential land uses, and a private school is 1
allowed in the village Redevelopment Zone with a Redevelopment Permit.. A portion
of the proposed project is located within Sub-area 5 of the plan. Permitted land uses
1
i
in Sub-area 5 include visitor serving commercial uses and uses allowed in the R-3 I
Zone, which includes private schools with a Redevelopment Permit. In the Village /
Area Redevelopment Plan the Army and Navy Academy site is not designated for 1
commercial usage, therefore, the LCP requirement for property with commercial
land use designations such that “the entire ground floor of all projects shall be
1
devoted to visitor commercial uses” is not applicable to this project.
7. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the ’
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of the Coastal
Development Permit for the CDP 94-02 project entitled “Army and Navy Academy
Master Site Plan”. (Exhibits “A - “J” on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference, dated September 6, 1995) subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer
to make all corrections and modifications to the approved Documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and conform to Housing and Redevelopment
Commission final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, which ever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of
the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director; notifying
all interested parties and successors iu interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued
a Coastal Devefopment Permit by Resolution No. 234 on the real property owned
by the developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval
as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an
amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing
of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
3. Approval of CDP 94-02 is granted subject to: 1) Approvai of the Negative
Declaration, Resolution No. 232; 2) Approval of the RP 94-02; and 3) Planning
Commission approval of CUP 94-02. CDP 94+2 is subject to all conditions
DRB RESO NO. 234
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 233 and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3797.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, for
development shown within the V-R Zone on the master site plan, the developer shall
obtain an individual permit and/or an amendment to this permit CDP 94-02. Ail
development shall be consistent with the adopted master site plan, the Design
Guidelines (Exhibit “J”), and the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit “I”). The
Design Guidelines, Exhibit “J” shall be amended to state that the implementation
and interpretation of the Design Guidelines shall also be subject to the review and
approval of the City’s final decision-maker for ail applicable development.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOEYllED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Compas,
Marquez, Savary, and Vessey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
KIM WELSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN’ REVIEW BOARD
EVAN BECKER Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RESO NO. 234 -4-
Exhibit 4
Location Map
BUENA
PROPOSED PARKING .
EDEVELOPMENT
’ BEECH AVE
1 4’
a
ARMY NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN Rp gg-14/cDP:99-49
Exhibit 5
Disclosure Statement
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, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association. social club. fraternal
organisation, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and couny. 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 properry 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 corporation or partnershin. 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 pubiiciv-owned corporation. include the
names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person Corp/Par;t Non-Profit
Title Title Army and Navy Academy
Address Address 2605 Carlsbad Blvd, Carlsbad, CA
7 -. 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 uannership, include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO 1NDlVlDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corporation. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate“
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Carp/Pan Nor,-Frofit
Title Title Army & Navv Academy
Address Address2605 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-1161. FAX (760) 438-0894 .-
:. NON-PROFIT ORG&NIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant fo (I) or (2) above is a nonorofit organization or a trust. list 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 Profit/Trust Steven Mi 11 er Non Profit/Trust
Title President Title
Address 2605 Carlsbad Blvd-, Carl SbadAddress
CA
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit>. staff.
Boards. Commissions. Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
1 certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Steven Miller
Print or type name of owner
Steven Miller
Prim 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 398 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 6
Exhibits “A” - “J”
0 /
\ \ \ // /
- L??SWW%mmrrpt*B VIIW”L!tllJ UIOJIWJ
- ,.“l.. r . YDL axvMno9 avmm so92 hvm-xmtiawmv 6td6da3 aw tmd
E c9xhnv-a- -V-W= - -yD I. m75-w I ..- -> -
III! :
i 1 12 pLz
! j rQ t -H
JI . ,t& J
wfxda3 aw w6dx
awuirm avmiv3 so9z ~wm3v~vt4atw~ww
SlN3WMOldWI 31lS/ll3.llS
QNV 3Nlallna A~oliwdoa
-
L1Ww,,,,W Km6 “lilWlM v411m %uuI nrmd I*1 IIof annm 10 NW 1
6P-fhda3 CINV flGd21
LpuIhDy smtWUCdKlVV7SWVY SAnam~MYDI -**u3
6t66do3 aw tt-66d1
L SlN3WlAOldWI US/U3US aNv 3Nlaim A4oltw4oa .I. d I I
ss Q
Ii \, z s e
e 4 “0
- Dmnvrr-*
zz -A--T - -,m
I
LILIBloy mc?bw-‘~ wsaswKv*Msm -*UC m-&da3 ONV *15&n
blNi+CMM’- DWMnoa avwllvJ SW hwnv ANN atw Aww
SlN3wJAOUWI USIU3UlS aNv 3Niaiina AloiiwIoa L
ta%lmmL* lurnu* lae6nePR WU--lS& F-w-JP@ ,+bbJOl + C:-bbdd
!!L
..;; :.I c.: .,> ‘1.. j,: ;& ;.‘,. -- j’ .; .i;e L i . ; ;g :, ,.<,? $ .j’$ :+.f *‘. ;
&$ ‘d f-;;
t-c I I I 1 I I I I i I l-7 n I I‘ I
d
I I I I I I
I
I I I I
1,
iI
t I
+L
I I
I
i- T
k s e 72 .k e
5 .Z E B n
. . . . . . . .
f i
t
I
t
I I
I
i
i
i .
; I . ; t ; .
i
4
1 ! I
i
1 i ,
i I
I
i
i
i .
; I .
;
t
; .
i
4
. . . . .
(k 0
I /
I
I
I
;
i . I .
; c .
; .
;
; .
.
EXHIBIT D
Draft DRB Minutes
Dated May 21,200l
DRAFT Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of meeting: May 21,200O
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Compas asked for Board Member Marquez to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members: Chairperson: Bill Compas
Tony Lawson
Sarah Marquez
Harriet Marois
Courtney Heineman
Staff Present: Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein
Senior Civil Engineer Skip Hammann
Chairperson Compas confirmed there was full attendance for Design Review Board at this meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the last meeting are from June 26,200O.
DISCUSSION
None.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of June 26,200O.
VOTE:
AYES:
5-o-o
Bill Compas Tony Lawson
Sarah Marquez
Harriet Marois
Courtney Heineman
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
It was a unanimous passage of the minutes.
REVIEW MEETING PROCEDURES
Chairperson Compas reviewed the procedures the Board would be following for tonight’s public hearing.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,ZOOl
PAGE 2 of 17
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA DRAFT
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. RP 99.14/GDP 99-49 - “ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY”: Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a 2-story, 80-bed dormitory on the Army &
Navy Academy property located at 2585 Carlsbad Boulevard in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area.
Chairperson Compas introduced Lori Rosenstein to make tonight’s presentation.
Ms. Rosenstein welcomed everyone back and began to introduce everyone to the item before the Board which is a request by
the Army and Navy Academy for the approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the
construction of an eighty-bed dormitory on the south side of Pacific Avenue, west of Mountain View Drive. She stated the
proposed dormitory is intended to replace Dorman Hall, which was a single-story, 28-bed dormitory destroyed by fire back in the
early part of 1999. Ms. Rosenstein shared that a majority of the Army and Navy Academy campus is located in the Village
Redevelopment Area and provided a map showing the boundary. She said the portion of the campus that is within the
Redevelopment Area boundary is mostly on the south side of the property, south of Pacific Avenue, and portions of the campus
north of Pacific Avenue, west to Ocean Street and south to Cypress Avenue are located outside the Redevelopment Area
boundaries. She stated the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a Master Site Plan and Design Guidelines for
the Army and Navy Academy property on December 12, 1995. Furthermore, the Master Site Plan for the campus did not grant
specific discretionary entitlements to construct any of the facilities outlined in the plan, but rather it was intended to coordinate the
provision and timing of public improvements and to provide a comprehensive framework for the overall land use and architectural
design of the school. She shared that as a condition of the Master Site Plan approval, the Academy is required to obtain
discretionary approval prior to construction of any new facilities. She stated that the new dormitory is located within the Village
Redevelopment Area and therefore, in accordance with the conditions of approval for the Master Site Plan, a Major
Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit are required to ensure that the building is in conformance with existing
land use regulations and city policies regarding new construction. Ms. Rosenstein stated since the Master Site Plan guides
development on the subject property, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must make the
necessary findings to determine that the project is in compliance with the governing plan. She shared that the approved Master
Site Plan shows a two-story structure on the location of the previously existing Dorman Hall. She pointed out that they have
several plans to the Board’s left which includes a site plan of the proposed project, building elevations of the proposed dormitory,
a copy of the approved Master Site Plan, and plans showing the campus as it exists today. She said they also have colored
elevations and a materials board which she would discuss later. Ms. Rosenstein explained that in the approved Master Site Plan
the dormitory is identified as the northernmost portion of what is called out as North Hall, which consists of two separate buildings
totaling 25,334 square feet and includes 64 rooms with 128 beds. She pointed out as stated previously, the Master Site Plan was
not a detailed blueprint for final build out, but rather a conceptual framework for the future redevelopment of the site. Ms.
Rosenstein stated that staff has determined that the proposed dormitory, which totals 14,210 square feet with 40 rooms and 80
beds is consistent with the existing Master Site Plan and any future phases of the southern most portion of North Hall would be
subject to the same discretionary review as the proposed project to ensure consistency with the Master Site Plan. She went on to
say that the specific design guidelines were approved as part of the Master Site Plan, but development standards were not,
therefore when staff received this project, they felt that it made sense to look at the project in conformance with the Village
Master Plan development standards. Ms. Rosenstein shared that the property is located within Land Use District 9 and staff has
found that the project is consistent with the development standards for Land Use District 9 for setbacks, height limit, lot coverage
and open space. She stated that in terms of parking, the Master Site Plan includes 136 parking spaces provided at final build out
following the completion of 110 additional onsite parking spaces. She shared that the approving resolutions for the Master Site
Plan allow for the phasing of additional parking with a majority of the additional parking being constructed as part of a new 107.
space parking lot at the northwest corner of Mountain Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. Ms. Rosenstein pointed out this parking lot
on the map for the Board to view. She then went on to show the proposed dormitory, pointing out Pacific Avenue, Mountain View
Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. She stated that when the Master Site Plan was established, the phasing plan allowed for half of
the parking lot to be built upon the first phase of construction, so the first project that came forward was responsible for installing
half of that parking lot. She stated that the proposed parking lot improvements on Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard include 40 new parking spaces, two of which are handicap accessible, a retention basin to accommodate drainage, light fixtures
DRAFT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 3 of 17
and landscape improvements. Ms. Rosenstein stated that through additional site improvements and the restriping of an existing
parking lot, twelve additional parking spaces are proposed west of Mountain View Drive, between Pacific Avenue and Carlsbad
Boulevard. She pointed to it on the map for the Board to view. She said the overall initial site improvements result in 52 additional
parking spaces in accordance with the approved Master Site Plan. She said the proposed project will meet the parking
requirements for the first phase of development and the remainder of the parking lot at Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad
Boulevard will be completed in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in the Master Site Plan. Ms. Rosenstein went on to say
that all new projects proposed on the Army and Navy Academy site must be consistent with the Design Guidelines that were
adopted as part of the Master Plan. She said the Design Guidelines approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
in 1995 focused on the architectural influence of Irving Gill. She pointed out that the guidelines are very specific in terms of roof
forms, entry elements, vertical elements, materials, eaves, cornices and other architectural features. She stated the guidelines
clearly emulate the desire of the Master Site Plan architect and the 1995 Administration of the Academy. Ms. Rosenstein went on
to share that the current Administration supports maintaining the approved design guidelines but would like more flexibility in
incorporating other architectural styles and elements found in existing buildings on site that may not fall within the design
standards set forth in the Design Guidelines that were adopted in 1995. She continued as such, the Academy is proposing an
amendment to the Architectural Design Guidelines and the amendment itself is based on a more California Mission Style and according to the applicant, the Design Guidelines are compatible and compliment the existing guidelines. Ms. Rosenstein stated
the amended Architectural Design Guidelines are intended to be used as optional guidelines for future buildings, additions to or
remodeling of existing buildings. She shared that staff has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Architectural Design
Guidelines for the Army and Navy Academy Site and finds that they are consistent with the Design Guidelines set forth in the
Village Master Plan and are compatible with the architecture in the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that since the
Architectural Design Guidelines are being amended through the redevelopment permit process, they would not apply to that
portion of the property that lies outside of the Village Redevelopment Area boundaries. Ms. Rosenstein said the application of the
amended guidelines to the area outside the redevelopment boundaries would require an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit that was approved as part of the Master Site Plan back in 1995. She went on to say that the existing Administration of the
Academy has expressed an interest in modifying the existing Master Site Plan and they are currently undertaking a
comprehensive needs assessment for the site. The current Administration sees the Academy going in a new direction and they
are looking at a comprehensive Master Plan Amendment to their existing Site Plan based on the needs assessment. She said
that it is anticipated that staff will be returning at the later part of this year with a proposal for the amendment. She stated that
staff also anticipates the processing of the Conditional Use Permit, to apply the amended Design Guidelines to that area outside
the Redevelopment Area boundaries, will also be done at the time of a comprehensive Master Plan Amendment for the site. Ms.
Rosenstein stated that as part of Master Site Plan approval, a phasing plan was developed to link public improvements to
corresponding and associated development in order to alleviate the Academy of the financial burden of providing all public
improvements up front. She added that the approving resolutions allowed for the phases to occur in any order, the idea was that
each phase would develop independently of the others and the conditions set forth in the Master Site Plan would require the
construction of associated street improvements upon the approval of any future development actions on the subject property.
She continued that however, since the approval of the Master Site Plan, the City has enacted an Alternative Street Design
Ordinance, which designates certain streets as Alternative Street Designs. She explained that Alternative Street Designs are
either to be constructed concurrent with adjacent development or deferred in accordance with a Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement. Ms. Rosenstein explained that the two streets adjacent to this proposed project are Pacific Avenue and Mountain View Drive. She clarified that both of these streets are designated as Alternative Street Designs. She stated that since the
proposed project constitutes reconstruction of a damaged building and not additional development of the property, rather than
improving these two streets at this time, the proposed project conditions require a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement to be
executed by the Army and Navy Academy so as to secure improvements to these streets in the future once an alternative design
is prepared. She confirmed that the original conditions outlining the phasing of street improvements is still applicable to the Army
and Navy Academy site, which was established under the Master Site Plan for the property, and will remain in full force, however
the condition will be held in abeyance until such time as the applicant submits for a comprehensive Master Plan Amendment.
She explained that once the amendment is submitted, the Phasing Condition shall once again become operative and
improvements shall be completed in accordance with the Phasing Plan, the Neighborhood Improvement Agreement and an Alternative Street Design Criteria. Ms. Rosenstein shared that the City’s Senior Civil Engineer, Skip Hammann, was available to
answer any questions on the public improvement issue. She went on to explain that the Planning Department has conducted an
Environmental Review for the proposed project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Projection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. Ms. Rosenstein stated that as a result of the
review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15302 of the State CEQA
Guidelines in that it is a replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same site. She stated that based on the
information contained in the report to the Design Review Board, staff is recommending that the Design Review Board adopt
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 4 of 17
DRAFT
Resolutions 276 and 277 recommending approval of Major Redevelopment Permit No. RP99-14 and Coastal Development
Permit CDP99-49 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions set forth
therein.
Board Member Lawson pointed out that staff was making mention that the guidelines were optional and that he was unclear as to
what that really means and how then they would be applied. He asked if it means the applicant has an option and the City has an
option? He asked staff to clarify that.
Ms. Rosenstein replied that the existing Design Guidelines are comprehensive and they focus on a specific style of architecture.
She stated that the Academy’s current administration has expressed an intent to move forward with a different architectural
design for the proposed building as well as future buildings and they wanted the option of either doing the Irving Gill style of
architecture outlined in the existing Design Guidelines or the more Craftsman style that is expressed in the Amended Design
Guidelines. Ms. Rosenstein stated that the applicant’s position is that both architectural styles are compatible with one another
and can co-exist on the same property.
Chairperson Compas asked if Ms. Rosenstein’s statement of “the new academy’s administration wanted to go in a new
direction”, if she was referring to only architecture or other things as well?
Ms. Rosenstein went on the explain that the Academy’s current administration sees different needs for the future of the Academy
and they feel there may be a need for a different make up of administrative, academic, and residential buildings than what was
shown on the Master Site Plan. As a result, they are doing what they should have done initially, which is to complete a
comprehensive needs assessment, having their architectural firm look at exactly what their needs are in order to come up with a
future plan for the build out of the site.
Chairperson Compas asked if this has to go to the Coastal Commission?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the property is not located within the appealable area of the Coastal Commission and the City’s
Village Master Plan acts as our Local Coastal Program, so as such, any property that is developed within the Redevelopment
Area boundaries is not required to go before the Coastal Commission unless on appeal.
Board Member Heineman asked how binding the guidelines which were presumably adopted in 1995 are regarding
architecture?
Ms. Rosenstein stated they are in fact guidelines for the architecture of the future campus buildings, but not specific development
standards. They were intended to guide the future development of the site and the future architecture of any new buildings. She
explained that what happened when the Academy came to Redevelopment Agency with their plan for the new dormitory was
staff’s initial review of the project was that it is inconsistent with the existing Design Guidelines and therefore either the building
would have to be modified or the design guidelines would have to be amended. She said the Academy stated they did not want
to redesign the building, as it is their intent to move forward with this new design concept that they are showing in the dormitory,
so they would much rather amend the Architectural Design Guidelines to allow this building and all future buildings. She further
stated staff reviews all projects for consistency with the approved Design Guidelines.
Board Member Heineman asked if he was right in thinking the direction of the Academy has changed in the intervening period?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that is what she understands.
Board Member Heineman stated then that there is nothing etched in stone so far as changing the guidelines? He asked if the
Board could release them from those old guidelines and can they be released from those old guidelines and can the Design
Review Board recommend this?
Mr. Rosenstein stated that the change occurred between the administration of 1995 when the Master Site Plan and the Design
Guidelines’were originally adopted and the current Administration, and now the current Administration supports this type of
design on this and future buildings. She said that the Design Guidelines, just like the Master Site Plan, could be changed through
an amendment. She stated that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has to make the final decision, but the Design
Review Board can recommend it to them.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,2001
PAGE 5 of 17 DRAFT
Board Member Marois asked if Ms. Rosenstein could address the validity of studies and reports that were done back in 1993,
given all the changes that have occurred in that area and in Carlsbad. She stated she happened to read an article on traffic
before coming to the meeting in the current issue of US News, She pointed out that it is not that the Academy would contribute so
much more traffic or so much more demand for parking, but that there comes in every place these days a critical point, not
because of what they are doing, but because of what is going on all round, not just downtown. She stated that it comes to a point
that one more car basically is the one that causes the gridlock, essentially is what this article is saying and this is a big issue
everywhere and hopes it is being addressed with this project in light of that impact.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that in looking back at what development has occurred in this portion of the City there really has not been
any radical changes and there have been no changes to the Academy’s site or to their enrollment to warrant a new traffic study.
She also stated that the development in the surrounding area has consisted of a couple of in-fill projects, but a majority of the
area was built out prior to 1993. The only development since then has been some in-fill projects which were found consistent
with the Zoning and General Plan for the area. She stated that the future build out of the area was all taken into consideration
when the initial studies were done on the site. Ms. Rosenstein stated that other than traffic volumes on Carlsbad Boulevard there
really have not been any changes in the area, so the studies are still valid. She stated that she thought the Board members were
all aware of regional issues associated with traffic, but a couple things to keep in mind are the proposed project is designed as a
dormitory for students that aren’t of driving age or don’t have a vehicle on campus and the proposed use in itself will not create
an additional impact in terms of traffic in the area. She stated that this particular use in itself will not result in an increase in
student enrollment and therefore will not increase the number of parents that visit for special events. She stated that when a
traffic study is conducted it is evaluating the proposed use and the associated traffic volumes of the use. Since the proposed use
is consistent with the Master Site Plan the traffic impacts were analyzed as part of the approval of the Master Site Plan process.
Board Member Marquez asked if based on the Alternative Street Design Ordinance, does that mean that Pacific and Mountain
View will not be improved as part of the proposed project or is the City going to wait for improvements on both of those streets
until the amendment to the Master Site Plan is looked at? She also asked if the Army and Navy Academy will put up some sort of
bond at this point in time or is that going to be held off? She explained that there is an immediate need for some improvements to
the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Mountain View as there is a drainage problem when it rains, it floods at that corner
and she was wondering when that issue would be taken care of.
Mr. Hammann stated that the entire project was originally conditioned to improve all the streets including Cypress, Pacific
Avenue and Mountain View Street; however, since the proposed dormitory project was submitted the Council adopted the
Neighborhood Improvement Agreement process. He stated that although the dormitory is being expanded it is basically a
replacement structure, so staff decided in order to satisfy the new ordinance, the City should allow the applicant to do a
Neighborhood Improvement Agreement and hold all the street improvements in abeyance until an overall plan could be
developed. The Neighborhood Improvement Agreement process requires that someone, whether it is an individual homeowner
in the area or the Army & Navy Academy, would have to come up with an alternative street design and take it to Council, have
the Council approve it, and then determine the financing of whatever proposal was approve. He stated that no one has gone
through that whole process yet, so it is a new situation. Mr. Hammann explained because of all those reasons and that the Army
& Navy Academy has a need to replace the current dormitory, staff decided to work with the Army & Navy Academy and defer
the road improvements or put requirement into abeyance until the Academy comes up with their next proposal and at that point
the Engineering Department is going to ask them to look at different proposals and take them to Council to try to figure out what
will happen in the area because it is something that needs to be done by the consensus of the neighborhood and taken to
Council. Mr. Hammann explained that the Neighborhood Improvement Agreement would satisfy the bond issues at this time. He
stated that the drainage problem of flooding during a rainstorm at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Mountain View
would be taken care of as part of the Alternative Street Design process. He explained that in these older neighborhoods you get
all these complicated problems of trying to fit into the character of the neighborhood, meet an Engineering Design Standard, and
all the existing deficiencies that exist in some of the older areas that do not meet current engineering standards. It is a very
difficult process that needs to be looked at as a whole. He said that there may be some interim solution that they could do, but
staff wants the Army & Navy Academy to look at the big picture.
Board Member Lawson stated that he was a little confused and would like to get some clarification. He went on to state that as
he understands what the Design Review Board is being asked to do is review and approve a new design of a building that is
supposedly following an existing Master Site Plan and Design Guidelines, but yet there is going to be a revised Master Site Plan
that is going to be coming down the road at some point in time and he was just wondering if by approving this particular change
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l DRAFT
PAGE 6 of 17
in the style, is the City then in essence blessing the new style for everything else for the rest of this site and is the City not
possibly letting the cart get before the horse. He further stated that usually when you have a Master Plan and Design Guidelines,
you have all of those things worked out first and then you follow it up with a specific project such as this. He asked if as a result of approving this project as proposed, would it not then just rubber stamp whatever they want to do for the remainder of the site.
He explained that he is concerned because there is a particular style set for the campus and the proposed project has deviated
from that and he is struggling with trying to develop the nexus between these two things. He also asked the timing of the
potential amendment to the Master Site Plan.
Chairperson Compas agreed that it is a very good and crucial question.
Ms. Rosenstein replied that she felt the applicant should also respond to the timing of the Master Site Plan Amendment. She
stated that it is her understanding that the Academy is currently in the process of conducting their needs assessment and once
that is determined, then their architectural firm will set forth a plan and there would be a Master Plan Amendment for the entire
site showing what the current Administration would like to see at total build out. She stated that the Army & Navy Academy is not
required to conduct the amendment so it is up to the Administration whether or not they will move forward with the changes. She
also stated that the Design Guidelines would fall into the same process and by approving the Amended Design Guidelines
essentially there would be two types of designs for future campus buildings; the Irving Gill Style of architecture and the Craftsman
style alternative. She explained that approval of the amended design guidelines does not eliminate the existing Design
Guidelines. Ms. Rosenstein further explained that the Board needs to keep in mind that each subsequent project would require
discretionary review and would therefore have to come before the Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for
approval.
Board Member Lawson stated that the part he is struggling with is that the Board is being asked to make, as well as include
comment, in approving these amended design guidelines and it is very difficult to do that away from the context of the whole. He
explained that typically the Design Review Board would not review and make comment on Design Guidelines unless they are
looking at a full Master Plan and so this is so far out of context for him. He stated that he is greatly concerned that he did not
have the benefit of being involved when the Master Site Plan was originally approved and does not have background as to what
influenced the decision and support of all of the elements of the design guidelines. He explained that he does not have the ability
to compare the amendment to the full set of Design Guidelines and asked if it is something that the Design Review Board needs
to make sure they do so that they do not step on the toes of those who approved something previously and the Board arbitrarily
says it is ok to do something different now.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the Administration of the Academy had a different architectural firm when they came forward to do
their Master Site Plan for the site. She explained that it was done because they were required to do a Master Plan for the site
before they could build anything and at that time they had funding to build a new dormitory. She further explained that the
building approved at the same time as the Master Site Plan was planned with a certain design in mind. Furthermore, before they
could get approval on the building, they had to do complete their Master Plan for the site. She stated that it was her
understanding it was the desire of the architectural firm, hired by the Academy Administration at that time, to propose a building
with a certain design and then the Design Guidelines were built around that, similar to what is being done presently. If the
Academy wanted to move forward with a design based on the previously approved Design Guidelines they could, but they now
want something different.
Chairperson Compas asked if the Board approves this proposed application as it is shown with the new design of the building, to
what degree does that lock in all future buildings in that same design?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that all future buildings would have to be reviewed based on the Design Guidelines that were approved in
1995 and the Design Guidelines that would be amended as part of this application, essentially it gives two options.
Chairperson Compas asked if these Guidelines are compatible enough that it could be either one?
Ms. Rosenstein stated that they could co-exist on the same property. She pointed out that it would be unlikely they could have a
building that was a mixture of both, but it is more intended to be one or the other.
Chairperson Compas asked if they approve this would all the future ones will be similar?
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 7 of 17
DRAFT
Ms. Rosenstein said they would be similar to the amended Design Guidelines or a building could come forward that is consistent
with the original Design Guidelines, which there are buildings on the site that were built to those Design Guidelines.
Ms. Fountain commented that she was here when the Original Master Plan went through and at that time there were not specific
design guidelines for the Village, thus specific design guidelines were required for the Academy as part of the Master Plan, She
stated that when Housing and Redevelopment reviews a project against the Village Design Guidelines they generally look to see
if the project contains the type of features set forth in the design guidelines, but it does not mean every single guideline has to be
incorporated into the project giving flexibility of approval or disapproval by the Design Review Board. She said that what the
Academy’s new Administration is proposing is probably more consistent with the current Village Design Guidelines than the existing design guidelines for the campus, She stated that Housing and Redevelopment incorporated Design Guidelines into the
Village Master Plan because a mix of designs was coming into the Village Area and people asked for some guidance. Ms.
Fountain pointed out that this new proposal from the Academy is not a standard where the Design Review Board would have to
grant a variance to deviate from it, but with a guideline you actually have the right to be able to deviate in some discretion
although you would want to see it somewhat consistent with the overall intent.
Board Member Heineman shared his concern that if another new Academy Administration should come along in 5 or 6 years the
Design Guidelines could be changed once again and that they are just floating guidelines with nothing firmed up.
Ms. Fountain replied that as part of the Master Plan process at any time the Academy could come in and request an amendment.
She stated in response to Board Member Lawson’s concern that if it had not been for the fire that destroyed the dormitory this
project would not have come forward causing the Academy to comply with the current Design Guidelines. She stated that
Housing and Redevelopment would like to get the modular buildings, that are currently being used by the Academy, offsite as
Housing and Redevelopment does not permit modular buildings, but right now because of the fire, the Academy has to use them
to temporarily replace the destroyed dormitory. She stated this is why Housing and Redevelopment has made some concession
to let the Academy move forward with their amendment to the Design Guidelines. She stated she realizes it does put the Design
Review Board in an awkward position, but Housing and Redevelopment would like the Academy to follow up quickly with their
Master Plan Amendment so the Design Review Board can see where it is going in the future. She expressed that hopefully once
the Academy does their needs assessment, that Housing and Redevelopment will be able to get them to stick to that Master Plan
for future projects.
Board Member Heineman asked if the Board should ignore the Master Plan and go on the merits of the building?
Ms. Fountain stated that she did not think the Board should ignore the Master Plan that they have to be able to make the findings
that the project is consistent with the existing Master Site Plan and Design Guidelines as amended.
Board Member Lawson expressed his concern over the Academy wanting to abandon some of the rich history with this piece of
property and some of its oldest buildings, old landmarks especially the gymnasium building and Fegan Hal. He read from the
four submitted pages of the Amendment concerning the option to emulate the existing building elements of Fegan Hall and the
gymnasium. He then pointed out that Anderson Hall is the design the Academy is presenting in the amendment and it is the one building that is different from all the others in that it is the older kind of more cottage-looking building in the southeast corner of
the property with a whole different style. He stated that the buildings that were approved and built seven some years ago
reflected the architecture of Irving Gill and now this new amendment does not have any Irving Gill in it. He asked how this is in
compliance more than what they had before?
Ms. Rosenstein responded that the staff report stated that the proposed project is consistent with the Design Guidelines as
amended on the proposed four pages which calls out the architecture of the proposed building. She stated that staff is saying
that if the Design Guidelines are amended to include these four pages then this project is consistent with the Master Plan for the
site and the Guidelines as amended. She stated that staff felt that the proposed project was not anything like an Irving Gill style,
which includes flat roofs, thick windows, thick walls, columns etc., but she stated she was comfortable saying this building could
co-exist on this site and with these other styles of architecture because there are some similarities in terms of materials and other
architectural elements. She stated that the proposed design is more consistent with Housing and Redevelopment’s Village
Design Guidelines than what was originally approved for this site and being on the border of the Academy site it creates a nice
transition into the surrounding area, thus making it more compatible with the surrounding area than the Irving Gill style of
building. She also concluded that the applicant has stated that it is their desire not to tear down old buildings, but rather to use the amended architectural style for future buildings.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 8 of 17 DRAFT
Board Member Lawson asked if staff is operating on the premise that everything done in the future would be somewhat
consistent in this style, which is a general assumption that you have to make at this point in time?
Ms. Rosenstein agreed that it was her understanding from the Academy plus if these are the established Design Guidelines then
staff will be reviewing all projects for consistency with them.
Board Member Marquez asked if the temporary buildings that they have located on the campus and temporary power poles etc. will all be removed once they get this building completed?
Ms. Rosenstein responded in the affirmative. She stated this temporary solution, as a result of the fire, has resulted in some
students living off-site in housing that was never intended for students, other academic buildings being converted to residential
buildings, and the use of modulars which staff would like to see removed.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to come forward and speak.
Anthony DePaola, Principal with TBP Architecture, 2300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA. He introduced his partner, Mr.
Lucian Rongi, Designer with TBP Architecture, 2300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA. He introduced some of the members of
the Academy, Colonel Steven Miller, President of the Academy; Mr. Richard Hannish, Vice President of the Academy; and Roger
Cellini, Director of Facilities for the Academy.
Mr. Lucian Rongi, Historic Preservationist Architect with TBP Architecture. He stated he has done this for twenty years and
shared several of his projects in construction and historic preservation and research. He went into detail to give some
background as to how they arrived at their present proposal for amending the Design Guidelines. He shared information
regarding Irving Gill and his abilities. He went over which buildings were most compatible with the Academy’s needs. He also
mentioned much of the design of the new dormitory was based on issues of security and maintenance expressed by members of
the Academy.
Board Member Lawson stated that both Crean and Atkinson Hall have a lot of articulation facing Cypress Street and it is pleasing
from the public perspective. He asked if the proposed design was following in that style and that level of community sensitivity.
He stated that both buildings include deep elements and articulation that would appear to conflict with the security related issues
discussed by Mr. Rongi.
Mr. Rongi detailed the reasons for changing the design to fit this need.
Board Member Lawson read from the amended Design Guidelines, ‘The Design Guidelines acknowledge this approach by
recognizing the architecture of Irving Gill as an influence to the existing campus architecture.” He stated that he interprets that as
an important element of what is now being proposed and asked what in this proposed building is acknowledging Irving Gill in his
particular style of architecture.
Mr. DePaola shared his points as to the connection between the original guidelines with the newly proposed guidelines and
explained that they tried to incorporate as many elements of the previously approved guidelines and compromise with the needs
for security and safety of the students.
Board Member Lawson explained his reasoning behind making sure the new proposal to amend the Master Site Plan was clear
to the Design Review Board’s decisions.
Mr. Rongi assured that they wanted to do this as well and be complete in their accuracy as to what their plans were and the
reasons behind them.
Board Member Lawson confirmed the timing of the Master Site Plan Amendment and found it to be between one to two years.
Board Member Marios pointed out that the Board is being asked to make a decision on this building now when they are told there
will be changes in the future and having two options for design guidelines is an issue to her. Her opinion is that they should be
looking at the project to see if it is compatible with downtown Carlsbad, as opposed to how internally consistent it is on the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 9 of 17 DRAFT
campus. She asked about the colors of the side facing the street and if the recesses of the archways area a different color than
the white?
Mr. Rongi replied the both the window frames and the area along the top of the towers will have tile accents to represent the
colors of the Academy. He stated the archways are not proposed to be a different color.
Chairperson Compas opened public testimony.
Karen Tejacka, 202 Pacific Avenue, Carlsbad. She stated that her and her husband have lived there since October of 1989. She
thanked the school for inviting them to a previously held open house. She shared that her neighborhood is very quiet and is
much different than on the south side of the campus. She shared that the south side has extremely bright lights at night and
extremely large windows, but on the north side there are many single family homes and her concerns are the density, size of the
proposed building, and the placement of a huge structure on one side of the street with very small houses on the other side. She
stated that other large buildings like this in Carlsbad are near major arteries or other large buildings which mesh with the area but
not with her neighborhood. She was concerned with lights from the building, windows looking onto the street, noise from
students, traffic, and security. She suggested the possibility of installing a fence along Pacific Avenue, a smaller size structure
with one-story vs two.
Board Member Lawson asked if Ms. Tejacka was concerned with the public looking into the rooms or the students being able to
look into the neighbor’s private world?
Ms. Tejacka said both.
Chairperson Compas asked if the neighbors had the same problem previous to the fire.
Ms. Tejacka replied a little bit, but it was a low level building with higher windows and mentioned the noise would no longer be
buffered.
George Caracciolo, 202 Pacific Avenue, Carlsbad. He was concerned about the possibility of 800 more students in the future. He
shared concerns about the interactions from the students in the dormitory with the neighbors. He stated the widening of Pacific
Avenue would bring faster traffic which was a real concern for the citizens in that area and if the parking places would be slanted
or parallel and he would prefer parallel because it would mean less traffic. He asked what is the length of time to establish the
construction of this building, as it would affect the neighbors. He was concerned that there would be more people involved now in
the summer programs which was previously a quieter time neighbors.
Board Member Marious confirmed that they lived there since 1989 and they have seen an increase in traffic over the years. She
asked if the time of the year made a difference.
Mr. Caracciolo stated he felt that was an off shoot to the increase in size of Carlsbad and that neighborhood is a very desirable
area to be in since it is close to the beach. He stated it did make a difference in the time of year as more tourist occupy the area in the summer.
Chairperson Compas seeing no one else wishing to speak asked the applicant if he wished to come back and respond to the
public testimony.
Mr. DePaola stated that they appreciate the homeowners comments and that they have taken action on some of these items. He
stated that the buildings are designed with heavy-duty walls, improved insulation, and the windows are dual-glazed for sound
attenuation making the building much quieter. He stated the windows are only going to open eight inches preventing students
from “hanging out the windows”. He mentioned the outside lights and stated they have mandated to their electrical engineer that
any light that is put on the outside of the building be shielded so that the light will be directed to wash the building and not shine
onto adjacent property. He stated there will always be a maximum of 350 students. Regarding the widening of Pacific Street, he stated it is not part of this project and there are no plans to go with diagonal or 90 degree parking on the future improved street if
is parking allowed. He stated it would be a maximum of eight months for the length of construction and they would be requiring
that the contractor put in a solid plywood barricade along Pacific and a chain length fence with some opaqueness around the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 10 of 17 DRAFT
project site so the construction will not be seen by the homeowners, He stated they are following all the City Ordinances and
campus rules, prohibiting dogs, boom boxes, fraternization, etc.
Mr. Rongi stated in terms of glass they are looking at using obscure glass so they do not have to worry about any interface
between the students and the exterior as the windows are mainly for light. He stated that they could also, if it pleases the Design Review Board and the neighbors, look at the windows opening eight inches from the top. He pointed out in terms of noise; they
are putting in the wall, the planting, landscaping, the ivy and more trees. He confirmed that the lights will wash the wall in a glow
rather than being blatant security lights sitting on top of the building where you have to shield your eyes and low-level lighting on
the sidewalks as a garden walk way along the street.
Chairperson Compas asked how far the windows are from the street?
Mr. Rongi stated the windows are 15 feet from the right-of-way and then of course the curb, gutter and sidewalk would be outside
of that dimension.
Board Member Lawson stated that there are two projects being built; the building and the parking lot. He asked if it is fair to
assume they are building the structure first and use the area where the parking is as a staging area for all of the surplus
equipment,
Mr. DePaola stated he thought the parking lot would be done first and that way the contractor could store his materials and move
them over to the building area.
Board Member Lawson stated there have been other construction activities down the street from this site, which are very
disruptive to residents in the area, therefore critical attention is needed regarding this.
Mr. DePaola stated that they will mandate as part of the construction contract that the contractors have to use one road and the
major trucks have to come in a certain way and only use that area and not go around Ocean, Cypress and all the other
neighborhoods.
Board Member Lawson asked if there is any potential for further and greater articulation and offset of the north face of that
building, because reference was made to the architecture of Anderson Hall which is a little over 1 OO’-150’ long and this building is
a much larger mass. He stated he understands the need for security and safety but he stated that 4”, 6” and even 8” is not much
offset on a building that is 233’ long and is there opportunity to increase some of the articulation,
Mr. Rongi stated that they could take a serious look at it and see what they could do with the input of the Academy. He wanted to
make sure that he understood from Board Member Lawson what is acceptable to him in terms of that offset, if he is looking at a
foot, 18” or 3’. He stated that IO” could provide students with a place to hide. He asked Board Member Lawson what figure he
had in mind.
Board Member Lawson replied that it was the maximum they could afford to do and to him it seemed like there was not enough articulation for that large of a building.
Mr. Rongi stated they would take a look at it and see what they could do and work with the staff and see what it comes down to.
He stated in terms of the parking lot that they had been talking about how they were going to do this and one of the things that
Mr. DePaola had suggested is that the parking lot would be constructed first minus the asphalt and used as a staging area for
equipment.
Chairperson Compas asked if the applicant would be willing to let the Design Review Board stipulate it as a condition?
Mr. Rongi stated he did not think that would be a problem.
Chairperson Compas stated they would like to stipulate that and asked that the question about the summer program be
answered.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 11 of 17 DRAFT
COI. Steven Miller, 2505 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, President of Army and Navy Academy. He stated they have had summer
program since 1943, called Camp Pacific and in the last decade since 1994 or 1995 they added an academic program of a bit
higher quality called Academy By The Sea. He stated that there is a huge difference between the winter and summer in that in
the summer program all of their staff lives on campus. He went on to say in terms of the number of campers versus cadets,
summer versus winter, there is actually a smaller number. He said some of the noise comes in to play with one of the elements
they have in their program, the Sheriffs Cadet Program did receive some complaints last year and they are going to make
modifications this year. He said last year they had six different groups and this year they have dropped two of those. He stated
that in the future they are looking at more of the academic and recreational camps as opposed to the group camps, because it
appears the groups contribute to the most noise complaints and problems with neighbors. He shared that they had a very good
experience last week when all of their neighbors were invited to an open house sponsored by the Academy. He said it was very
beneficial to the Academy and he intends to continue this type of event in the future.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that any modifications the Design Review Board recommends for building should be conditioned
accordingly, unless the Board conditions the applicant to come back before them.
Board Member Heineman moved that the Design Review Board adopt Design Review Board Resolutions No. 276 and 277
recommending approval of RP 99-14 and CDP 99-49 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained there in.
Chairperson asked for a second which was given by Board Member Marquez. He stated the Board could discuss and make any
amendments at this time.
DISCUSSION
Board Member Lawson stated that at this stage if there were no changes made to the proposal he would not be able to support
it, because he has concerns about the general proportion and mass of the building and there is not enough articulation. He said
the applicant keeps making reference to Anderson Hall as being the building they want to emulate, yet the proposed building is
more than 2.25 times it’s size. He said that the simplicity associated with Anderson Hall is one thing when the building is that
small, but keeping that same simplicity on a bigger longer building is quite different. He stated that compatibility to the
surrounding neighborhood was crucial when Carlsbad By The Sea was going through discretionary review. In that particular
project a lot of give and take was done to make sure that the project was compatible. He also expressed concern that the mass of the proposed building is an example of the direction the Academy desires to go with future buildings. He stated that with
respect to the concerns expressed earlier with regard to the Irving Gill architecture, he stated he is uncomfortable from the
standpoint that they continue to make reference to it. He said he would much rather have them be up front and say, ‘That the
Irving Gill architecture is nice, it does not work for us and we really feel that we need to go in this particular direction, which is
different.” He stated that is fine and he can respect that, but he would rather have them come up front and tell him that that is
where they want to go, He stated that most importantly from a community standpoint, where the building is, its mass, scale and
size is a little troublesome to him given the fact that it is 223 feet long, excluding the stairwell, and only limited amounts of
variation in the whole wall plain. He said if those issues could be addressed he could support it the project, but without that he
could not.
Chairperson Compas asked if there were any amendments proposed that would allow Board Member Lawson to change his
feelings about the project or would he rather have it pre-designed?
Board Member Lawson stated that he is right on the borderline because to say, as the applicant has indicated, that anything more than IO” is a hiding spot, is still not enough in that big of a building.
Board Member Heineman stated that Mr. Lawson felt qualified to architecturally critique the building and he does not, even
though he is quite familiar with a lot of architects including several earlier. He said he did not believe the Design Review Board is
there to redesign buildings and the important thing is to decide if they are departing from the spirit of the Design Guidelines and
how this design will serve the Academy and the City of Carlsbad. He stated that it seems to him that the architects have
addressed the problems which are peculiar to a dormitory and it appears to him, particularly for its location which is not in the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l DRAFT PAGE 12 of 17
center of Carlsbad but rather in an isolated spot, that it is an attractive building. He stated he has no objections and he would be
in favor of the project.
Board Member Marois stated that she has very mixed feelings at this point and stated that Board Member Lawson has made a
very good point that it does seem like it is a very large, fairly stark building across the street from smaller houses and though it is
deemed to be a replacement for an existing building, it is almost three times the size of a former building and she does not
understand how it is considered a replacement. She stated there is one other issue that she is very concerned about regarding
the original resolutions that were passed and there is not an Environmental Impact Report needed for this project as she
understands, but there was an environmental evaluation of some sort that looked at various things like traffic and there seems to
be more traffic in the area today. Whether or not this increased traffic is a direct result of the dormitory size or the parking lots,
she would like to see staff go back and look at these issues where traffic was looked at quite a long time ago. She stated that
given all the growth and changes that have occurred, not only in the immediate area but also in Carlsbad in general, it would be
an issue that would be worth looking at. She asked if it is possible to ask for that from staff?
Mr. Hammann stated that there is really nothing that has changed to the project that would warrant staff to ask the applicant to do
another traffic study. He said that the traffic criteria staff used in 1993 and 1995 are basically the same today. He said the only
thing that has changed is the regional traffic that is coming into the area from growth all over the City, so the impacts from the
project itself would not change. He stated that in 1995 they would have projected it out to the year 2000,2010, and 2020 as the
build out model, so they looked at the future impacts even back in 1995. He said there really would not be a lot of benefit to doing
another traffic study because whether this project went forward or not, the traffic is going to increase in that area, but not as a
result of this project but because of regional growth. He stated that staff would have a hard time justifying a new traffic study, but
the Board could ask the applicant to do it. In his opinion, there is really no basis for it and because of the time and expense there
would be very little value.
Board Member Marois remarked that what she is noting is that in 1993, when they assessed the traffic, the number of vehicles in
the area was a certain amount and President Miller just stated that after 1993 they instituted programs in the summer time which
do bring more people and more cars, buses etc. She stated that if it was worth looking into in 1993, it was worth looking into
today when there have been changes according to President Miller.
Mr. Hammann replied that they could ask the applicant to update the traffic report, specifically as it relates to the summer
programs, but typically staff uses Caltrans criteria and SANDAG Traffic Generating criteria and those generally use off-peak
numbers which general over the year and are based on the number of students, square footage of the buildings, etc. Therefore,
the numbers the traffic report would generate would be based on the school year and the traffic report would not necessarily
focus on the summer programs because it is going to look at the peak numbers for the school when it is open. He said that staff
could ask the applicant to focus on the summer, but it is going to show that the traffic in the summer from school is less than
during the winter and the traffic increase in that area is from regional traffic from people coming to the beach. For those reasons,
staff did not feel it was warranted for the applicant to spend the extra time and money to do a new traffic study.
Board Member Marois replied that she understands what Mr. Hammann is saying, in other words it is not the Academy’s fault
that the traffic is increasing, but she stated again having just read the U.S. News article, that it is exactly the point that they are
making. She asked if nothing else, if staff could look into the U.S. News article.
Ms. Fountain asked Board Member Marois to clarify what she would like to see happen as a result of a new study, because if
staff requires that the study be done, the question will be what happens to the project as a result of the study and staff has to
have a nexus for anything special requirement, She stated that staff would have to make sure they are clear on what information
the Board is trying to receive from a new study. She stated that presently the basis of the recommendation for approval is that it is a replacement facility, that they are not increasing the number of students or anything like that, so staff does not have the
nexus to require the applicant to do additional traffic studies, She asked if Board Member Marois would be looking at additional
conditions for the project or possibly a re-design of the project as a result of a new traffic study.
Board Member Marois stated she would not know what the outcome would be, but stated that her feeling is that the information
used today is possibly out of date.
Ms. Fountain stated that the reason they required the traffic study back in 1993 was because staff was not clear whether the school was expanding, what the total number of students was going to be, or what the impact of having teachers live on campus
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l DRAFT
PAGE 13 of 17
or off campus would be. She added that staff is saying none of those conditions have changed to warrant doing an additional
study.
Board Member Marois stated she would accept Ms. Fountain’s opinion on that, but stated that there is nothing to say that at
some point the school will not want to expand.
Ms. Fountain stated that if the Academy does wish to do that then staff would probably require additional studies, but since the
applicant is not proposing to do that staff does not have anything that would trigger those additional studies unless they knew
what the Board was trying to gain from that them.
Board Member Marois deferred to Ms. Fountain’s opinion but stated that it is very hard for her to understand how a building that
is almost three times the size has no additional impacts and is considered simply a replacement.
Ms, Fountain stated that staff could possibly explain that as there is some reconfiguration and some changes in existing building
use to help her understand that a little bit better.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the Academy is doing some reconfiguration by eliminating portions of the two adjacent dormitories to
make room for the new dormitory and reconverting some facilities that are currently being used as residential facilities back to
administrative offices and back to academic buildings. She explained that currently the students that were displaced during the
fire are just being housed in temporary facilities. She stated that it is important to keep in mind that there is an overall number of
student enrollment that cannot be exceeded. The Academy is currently approved for a maximum of 350 students, which consist
of any combination of resident students and students who live off-site. She stated it is the Academy’s desire to have all students
live on campus. She said that by constructing the new dormitory the Academy will not be increasing their enrollment, but the
number of resident students could increase slightly and the number of off-site students could decrease, resulting in less traffic as
less students are dropped off and picked up.
Board Member Marquez stated that she felt very fortunate to have sat on the Board that actually approved the Academy’s Master
Plan back in 1995. She stated they had a big decision to make because they did not want to see the property operating under a
conditional use permit, as it previously was. The new Master Plan grandfathered-in the non-conforming use of the property as
the City accepted the Academy along with the Lutheran Home operation. She explained that if someone came in and bought a
site this size downtown there would be no way they could utilize it as a school the way the City’s current Master Plan reads now.
She stated that the Board felt at that time that the Academy did contribute to the Carlsbad Village atmosphere and she feels the
buildings were well designed and are very attractive for the intended use. She stated that there is perhaps a minimum articulation
in some Board Members eyes, but she felt the building does have some nice outstanding architectural characteristics to it and
considering what was there before the fire, this is going to be a definite upgrade to the residential neighborhood as she sees it.
She said since this is a dormitory building and balconies and offsets are appropriate and one must keep in mind the use of the
building. She stated she supports the project as proposed.
Chairperson Compas stated he appreciated Board Member Lawson’s concerns about the articulation particularly in the size, but
he stated he also thought it was a nice improvement to the facility. He said what he would like to do is to offer two amendments
for the Board to consider: 1) on the north wall of the dormitory, that the Board ask the applicant to incorporate articulation of at
least IO” and 2) that the Board stipulate that the parking lot be built first except for the final surfacing. He made a motion for an
amendment to the project that the applicant incorporate articulation of 10”on the north wall of the dormitory. There was no
second.
Board Member Lawson suggested that if the applicant could incorporate the same amount of articulation shown on the tower
elements on the south side of the building on the north side he could be more supportive of the project.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to come back to the podium and asked him if the Board were to approve an
amendment for 18” of articulation on north side could they accept that.
Mr. DePaola pointed out that the tower elements are protruding 18” to 24” from the face of the building on the south side and 10
on the north side.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l DRAFT
PAGE 14 of 17
Board Member Lawson asked if it is possible to have those elements carry through on the north side to break up the plane a little
bit more at the same amount. He stated that the applicant stated they could not have more than IO” but their plan actually
provides for that. He asked if the protruding distance on the north side could be the same as on the south side?
Mr. DePaola pointed out that the three elements that are protruding out 24” on the south side are the tower elements, the
building itself is within the line of the wall.
Board Member Lawson pointed out that if you look down the building you could see those pop outs that would break up that
plane.
Mr. DePaola asked if he could consult with the owner.
In the meantime, Chairperson asked to make a motion on the parking lot requirements.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Chairperson Compas and duly seconded, to add an amendment requiring the applicant
to build the parking lot first except for the final surfacing.
VOTE: 5-o-o
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Board Members Heineman, Lawson, Marquez, Marois
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
After consulting with the owner Mr. DePaola stated that they can bring out the roof element and a portion of the tower element
approximately 18”. He stated that the toilet portion itself would remain the same size, but like the south side, where they are just
moving the tower element roof and the facade of the roof out, they will do that on the north side.
Chairperson Compas asked Ms. Rosenstein if she could prepare an amendment to that affect that the Board could vote on.
Ms. Rosenstein asked clarification if it is 18” total or an additional IS”?
Chairperson Compas stated it was a total of 18”.
Ms. Rosenstein also asked if this was an extension of the tower elements all the way down to the ground or just the roof elements?
Chairperson Compas stated it was just the roof element.
Board Member Lawson asked clarification that they were not talking about the wall plane, but they are just talking about bringing
out the roof?
Chairperson Compas replied that he thought that is what the applicant said.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that she did not think that is what Board Member Lawson desires.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to return to the podium.
Mr. DePaola stated he was not talking about just the roof, he stated he was talking about the element and pointed it out on the
plans, that it would all protrude out.
Board Member Lawson asked if it was to be all the way to the ground plane?
Mr. DePaola stated it was to the ground.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 15 of 17 DRAFT
RECESS
Chairperson Compas called a Recess at 8:25 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Compas called the Meeting back to order at 8:30 p.m. with five Board Members present.
Mr. DePaola stated that they wanted to make a design change that on the three tower elements they would move them out 18”
all the way to the bottom and make it all the way from the roof down to the floor level.
Board Member Lawson stated that with this kind of a change he thought he could be supportive of the project at this time and
appreciated the applicants flexibility in this and stated that he does feel strongly that the Board always needs to make sure that
they are aware of what it is going to look like from the public perspective. He apologized for taking as much time as it has but he
thinks it will result in a better project that the City can be proud of.
Chairperson Compas agreed and stated that taking the extra time resulted in something positive.
Board Member Marquez asked if an enhancement of 18” at the ground floor level might invite some concealment of cadets,
especially if they are going to have a wall.
Chairperson Compas state that the wall is not very big.
Mr. DePaola stated that with an 18” pull out they would put the lighting in such a way that if somebody was going to be concealed
there they would throw a big shadow up, because most of the time the concealment is at night. He stated that they would use the
lighting correctly.
Board Member Marquez asked how tall the wall would be.
Mr. DePaola stated that they are still working with the neighbors, but they were saying that they would like to see something six
feet, a combined wall with wrought iron and landscaping of at least six feet.
Board Member Marquez stated that the ground floor articulation would not even be seen from the street.
Ms. Rosenstein said that staff would not support a six foot fence on the front of this project. She said a six-foot fence would not
be allowed even though they are talking about working it out with their neighbors. She proposed the condition would read as follows: The proposed project shall be redesigned to increase the articulation on the north side of the building such that the face
of the tower elements shall be increased 18” in depth towards Pacific Avenue. The increase in depth of the tower elements on
the north side of the building shall be equal to that of the south side of the building.”
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to return to the podium and asked him if that amendment is acceptable to them.
Mr. DePaola replied that it is acceptable.
DISCUSSION
None.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Chairperson Compas and duly seconded, to add an amendment where the condition
would read as follows: “The proposed project shall be redesigned to increase the articulation on the
north side of the building such that the face of the tower elements shall be increased 18” in depth
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 16 of 17
DRAFT
towards Pacific Avenue. The increase in depth of the tower elements on the north side of the
building shall be equal to that of the south side of the building.”
VOTE: 4-0-l
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Board Members Heineman, Lawson, Marquez
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
Marois
Chairperson Compas stated that they could proceed to the overall motion made by Board Member Heineman.
DISCUSSION
None.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolutions No. 276 and 277 recommending approval of RP 99-14 and CDP 99-49 to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
5-o-o
Chairperson Compas, Board Members Heineman, Lawson, Marquez and Marois
NOES: ABSTAIN: None
None
Chairperson Compas stated the project is accepted and closed public hearing.
It was asked what the next step after this is.
Chairperson Compas stated the next step is that it goes to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and asked when that
would be. He stated that the public could appear before the Commission and make their concerns known as well. He said the
Commission would get a copy of the minutes.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that a Commission date was not established as of yet, but it would be a minimum of 30 days away and
would include full public notification.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of May 21,200i was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21,200l
PAGE 17 of 17
JUDY KIRSCH
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
DRAFT
Public Comment Letters
MAY 21,200l
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department
Design Review Board Agenda Item 1 - Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
The attached letters have been submitted in response to the Army & Navy
Academy Dormitory (RP99-14/CDP99-49) on tonight’s Design Review Board
Agenda. They are being submitted for your review and for inclusion into the
recordqight’s proceedings.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
William J. Crawford
Past Council Chairman MD4
:.lir..
k.yjp.
“>‘[.‘&
%/
rB !
-.z. \ :. .(, ;*‘ _- <’
,t o%f&9 .. ,:s .G,
. +;,:q$;~~+,
‘.+$(,$
‘.:’ i ,‘;J
May 6,200l
City of Carlsbad
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 920 18
RE: Dormitory for Army and Navy Academy
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing this letter to express my support of the Academy’s plan to build a new dormitory to
replace the one lost to fire.
As a grandparent of a student at the Academy, and my role in Lions Clubs International
overseeing 982 Lions Clubs in California, and their activity in youth development, I know
firsthand the positive effect the Academy has on the lives of boys transitioning into young
adulthood. As a resident of North County, I am proud to have an institution in our community
that is well known for its high standards in developing character and academic ability. Its 95%
acceptance rate of graduates into four-year universities and colleges is a worthy accomplishment.
I am impressed by the Academy’s long history as a member of the Carlsbad community since the
1930s. To help continue its legacy of providing quality education in a setting conducive to
academic and personal growth, I urge the City to approve the Academy’s plans for a new dorm.
1731 Tattenham Rd + Encinitas, California 92024 + H:(760) 753-8793 F:(760) 753-4685
May 12, 2001
Lori Rosenstein
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Ave.
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Re: Rebuild of ANA dorm
Dear Ms. Rosenstein;
I am a proud Carlsbad resident. The boys of the Army Navy
Academy have been part of our community for as long as I can
remember. I want to encourage you to speed up the process in
which they can rebuild their dorm. It is the least of which the
community can do for one of its own.
Thank You,
52&Y*
6620 Ambrosia Ln.#419
Carlsbad, CA 92009
May 15,200l
Lot-i Rosenstein
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: approval for ANA dorm
Dear Mrs. Rosenstein;
I am the parent of a cadet at the Amy Navy Academy and a
new homeowner in Carlsbad. As such, I wish to encourage you to
accelerate the process for approval of the dorm under consideration by
your department.
We relocated to the area with the expressed goal of achieving
the best possible education for our son. Happily, the Academy gives
us that. However, the boys are living in rooms that were built before
most of us were born. Although, there has been some construction of
newer dorms and some remodels over the years, there still exists a
severe need for more up-to-date facilities, especially with the
destruction of one.
If the Army Navy Academy is to continue to be a source of
city pride, I enlist your attention in this matter.
Thank You,
Susan Gardner
4934 Loma Laguna Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Cc: Col. Miller
CATALYST
POW E R
A” ABB Company
' 2131PalomarAirportRd i Suite300
I Carlsbad.CA92009
: Phone:1:760-431-5159
i Fax: l-760-431-5160 :
i www.catalystpower.com
: :
MAY 17 2001
May 14,200l
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: dorm-Army Navy Academy
Dear Ms. Rosenstein;
It has been brought to my attention by a co-worker that there has been some
opposition to the rebuilding of the fire-destroyed dorm at the Army Navy Academy. As an
Olde Carlsbad resident, I consider the ANA a pleasant addition to our downtown area. I am
concerned that, in the need for business development, we will become simply a high density
tourist area. The expansive grounds breaks up the solid rows of houses with little or no set-
backs. Please support the Academy’s efforts by soliciting your departments quick approval.
Thank you,
376 Juniper Ave. #23
Carlsbad, CA 92008
QQQc ;.Ff ; -(UT :rrl= ,-=F N ;F:: ttiz g? - Er.
52
PROOF OF PlJBLlCATlON
(2010 i? 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the COUnty aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the print& of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and me Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudged newspapers of general CirWMiOn by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbala’ Solana Beach and San Diego County: that the hotice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
June 29, 2001
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San marcon
this 29th , California
June, 2001 day of
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of . Notice of Public Hearing
NO1 Con COL at 6 Ret
pro nor (As exi caf
‘ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment rmjssion of the city of Carlsbad wilt hold a Public Heanng in the crty .
nctl Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlabad, Calibforn!a, ,OO pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2001, to consider approval of a Mator &opmant Permit (RP99-14) and Coastal Development Permit pgg-49) to allow the construction of a 2-story, 80-bed dormitory on Army & Navy Academy property located at 2385 Carlsbad Bl;‘$ z
)osed project also includes parking tot Improvements thwesterty corner of Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Blvd. sessor Parcel Number 203-010-16) and an amendment to the ;ttng design guidelines for that portion of the Army & Navy A+am) ~n~,s located within the Village Redevelopment Area boundanes.
Ttt be NC NL
e proposed &rmitorY is located on the south side Of PaCitiC Aveny tween Mountain View Drive and Garfield Street tn Land Use Dtstrw: ) g of the Cartsbad Village Redevelopment Area (Assessor Pam6
imber 203-041-02).
’ Tt’ atl Of Rc
ose persons wishing to speak r and the public hearing. tf the staff report, please contac devdcmment Departmer
In this proposal are cordially invited t
you have any questions or would kke, a cop t ion Rosenstein in the Housmg an
It at (760) 434-2813. You may also provid the Housing and Redevelopmel - . . .-. P‘--l-L-.l p* ognf)n LF.co&ments in writing to :partment at 2965 Roosevelt Street, SlJlle a, bmauau, VP. UL---.
; a result of the environn -,vironmentat Quality Act dinance of the city Of Cam
termined that the prC
A El 0’ dc re
S’ rs fr C d
rental review under the Catiforn (CEQA) and th’e Environmental PrOteC ;bad, the Planning Department hk )ject is categorically exempt from th 7 of environmental documents pursuant 1
ate CEQA ,$i$:;:;a;e r@~o~~~; $jrement for preparation &ion 15302 of the St; construction of a pre-existing structt ,m the public ar e
ommission will be car 3termination during the public 1
nvrted. tne ‘go%ing and Redevelopme rsidennq approval of the environment
4
.- learing.
I
’ I1 F C r ir t I I
I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTlCE OF PUBLIC
’ WEARlNG
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
ia m 1s 18 t0
:A nt al
: you challenge the Major
lk {edevelopment Permit and Coastal ;oastal
h Ievelopment Permit in court, You fi, YOU
n B nay be limited to raising only those ssues you or someone e!se raised ?t s 2ised at
h he public hearing described In thrs cribed in this
lotice or in written correspondence 11 IndencS
jl je[iVemd to the City of Carlsbad at 01 ad at 01
31 orior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 99-14lCDP 99-49
I I
0
ly ,d le nt
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAW
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
CLG 7 f / hy
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp %..
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego
! Q I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have Proof of Publication of
been adjudged newspapers of general NotiLe of Public Hearing
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach - CARLSBAD -
and San Diego County; that the notice of which NOTtCE OF PUEIi!Jc
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
HEARING
ARMY 81 NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
July 12, 2001
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopmen Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the Cq Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad; California at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2001, to consider approval of a Majo Redevelopment Permit (RP99-14) and Coastal Development Permi (CDP99-49) to allow the construction of a P-story, &bed dormitory or the Army & Navy Academy property located at 2565 Carl&ad Blvd. The proposed project also includes parking lot improvements at thm northwesterly corner of Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Blvc (Assessor Parcel Number 203-010-16) and an amendment to ths existing design guidelines for that portion of the Army 8 Navy Academ campus located within the Village Redevelopment Area boundaries.
Dated at San Marco3 , California
12th this
July, 2001 day
of
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
The proposed dormitory is located on the south side of Pacific Avenu’ between Mountain View Drive and Garfield Street in Land Use Distrk
No. 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area (Assessor Parcx Number 203-041-02).
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited t attend the public hearing. If you have any questions or would like a cop of the staff report, please contact Lori Rosenstein in the Housing an Redevelopment Department at (760) 4342613. You may also provid your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopmar Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, S$te 6, Carlsbad, CA 92006.
As a result of the environmental review under the Californi Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protectio Ordinance of the Cii of Carlsbad, the Planning Department ha determined that the project is categorically exempt from ths requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant t Section 15302 of the State CEQA Guidelines as replacement c reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same site. Comments from the public are invited. The Housing an’
Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of th’ environmental determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development 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 Cit of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE RLE NO.: RP 99-14lCDP 99-49 CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT ,iCOMMISSION i’
/ Legal 70501. July 12.2001
Cite b a; .‘b”., - m-0. -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
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, July 24, 2001, to consider
approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP99-14) and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP99-49) to allow the construction of a 2-story, 80-bed dormitory on the Army & Navy
Academy property located at 2585 Carlsbad Blvd. The proposed project also includes
parking lot improvements at the northwesterly corner of Mountain View Drive and
Carlsbad Blvd. (Assessor Parcel Number 203-010-16) and an amendment to the existing
design guidelines for that portion of the Army & Navy Academy campus located within the
Village Redevelopment Area boundaries.
The proposed dormitory is located on the south side of Pacific Avenue between Mountain
View Drive and Garfield Street in Land Use District No. 9 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area (Assessor Parcel Number 203-041-02).
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 project is categorically exempt from the requirement
for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same site.
Comments from the public are invited. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission will
be considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development 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 99-14/GDP 99-49
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B l Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 l (760) 434-2810/2811 l FAX (760) 720-2037
1
FROFOSED
REDEVELOP W
PARKING
ARMY NAW ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
RP gg- WCDP-99-d
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
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, July 10, 2001, to consider
approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP99-14) and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP99-49) to allow the construction of a 2-story, 80-bed dormitory on the Army & Navy
Academy property located at 2585 Carlsbad Blvd. The proposed project also includes
parking lot improvements at the northwesterly corner of Mountain View Drive and
Carlsbad Blvd. (Assessor Parcel Number 203-010-16) and an amendment to the existing
design guidelines for that portion of the Army & Navy Academy campus located within the
Village Redevelopment Area boundaries.
The proposed dormitory is located on the south side of Pacific Avenue between Mountain
View Drive and Garfield Street in Land Use District No. 9 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area (Assessor Parcel Number 203-041-02).
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 project is categorically exempt from the requirement
for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same site.
Comments from the public are invited. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission will
be considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development 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 99-14/GDP 99-49
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B l Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 l (760) 434-2810/2811 l FAX (760) 720-2037 a9
FROFOSED PARKING
/
REDEVELOPM
’ BEECH
IENT
ARMY NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN I
RF’ gg-WCDP-99-d
50+1 pPqQ-\cI I CbP s+y”r
203-010-12
OCCUPANT 2303 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2226
203-021-08
OCCUPANT
2497 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2234
203-021-09
OCCUPANT 2489 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2234
203-022-01 OCCUPANT
2480 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233
203-022-02
OCCUPANT 2490 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233
203-022-03
OCCUPANT
164 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2243
203-022-09 OCCUPANT 2485 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2215
203-023-06
OCCUPANT
260 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2222
203-023-07 OCCUPANT 2340 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2252
203-023-08
OCCUPANT 2300 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2224
203-023-09
OCCUPANT 2425 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2221
203-023-10
OCCUPANT
2445 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2221
203-023-12
OCCUPANT
237 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2223
203-023-13 OCCUPANT 231 NORMANDY LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2223
203-023-14
OCCUPANT
250 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
203-023-15
OCCUPANT
240 PACIFIC AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
203-023-17
OCCUPANT
230 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
203-023-18
OCCUPANT 219 NORMANDY LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-2223
203-023-19 OCCUPANT 222 PACIFIC AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
203-023-20 OCCUPANT
202 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
203-023-21
OCCUPANT
213 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2223
203-023-22
OCCUPANT 270 PACIFIC AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
203-043-06 OCCUPANT 2505 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2236
203-051-01
OCCUPANT
2560 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2205
203-051-02
OCCUPANT
2564 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2205
203-051-03 OCCUPANT 2500 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2205
203-051-04
OCCUPANT
2550 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2205
203-140-02
OCCUPANT
2605 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
203-140-03-01 OCCUPANT 2609 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
203-140-03-02 OCCUPANT 2611 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
203-140-28-01
OCCUPANT
2599 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2236
203-141-01
OCCUPANT 2600 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237
203-142-02
OCCUPANT 2645 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2253
203-142-06 OCCUPANT 2630 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2216
203-140-28-02 OCCUPANT
2601 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
203-141-02
OCCUPANT
2608 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237
203-142-03 OCCUPANT 2655 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2208
203-023-lb occ\,PAFSt
203-140-28-03
OCCUPANT
2603 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
203-141-23
OCCUPANT
2615 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217
203-142-04 OCCUPANT 258 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
LOS-023-23
OCCL) cm3
ZbB 8 die fia
tdsbd, CQ '3~
*** 40 Printed ***
@CO’ 03WS Lid& se
1 RNA bOYM ww~ /chP4w~
JOHN C LEVY JOHN C LE 1825 ASTON AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-7341 92008-7341
MCMAHAN FURNITURE CO RPR HOLDINGS L P PO BOX 8000 2531 STATE ST E
CARLSBAD CA 92018-8000 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1625
JOHN B & DARLENE YONCE RBJ ENTERPRISES 2501 STATE ST 325 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-1624 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2928 CA 92008-2928
JERRY H BUSS BUCHER MARCIA K RADELET 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 2365 RUE DES CHATEAUX 4024 HUMBOLDT DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2991 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2250 HUNTINGTO&N-t32649-2130 b
ROBERT B HOLLAND RONALD E EVANS GAVIN PO BOX 1391 2335 RUE DES CHATEAUX 12432 EVENINGSIDE DR
ORANGE CA 92856-0391 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2250 SANTA ANA CA 92705-3378
CARROLL ESTATE SPAGNUOLO MENDRELLA TR 342 STARLIGHT CREST DR 810 W 1ST ST 2252 PAVILLION DR
LA CANADA CA 91011-2839 TEMPE AZ 85281-2676 SANTA ANA CA 92705-3341
RICHARD R PERCIVAL CAROL L GRIMES DORENE J ROEPKE 2320 RUE DES CHATEAUX 2330 RUE DES CHATEAUX 2340 RUE DES CHATEAUX CARLSBAD CA 92008-2250 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2250 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2250
SAMUELSON JACK
5140 JARVIS AVE LA CANADA i%& 91011-1643 F\inbdqe, CA
JAMES CAPPOS 7720 EL CAMINO REAL 2A
CARLSBAD CA 92009-8510
BRACKMAN FAMILY
PO BOX 2045
VISTA CA 92085-2045
DENISE T HOEFER DANIEL J PHELAN
2360 RUE DES CHATEAUX 7720 EL CAMINO REAL 2A
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2250 CARLSBAD CA 92009-8510
JOHN E FORD JEANETTE T KIRK
15 TIBURON BAY DR 2459 OCEAN ST A
CORONA DEL m&2625-1035 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2234
HENRY J STRUIKMANS D J & J STROH 8535 EDISON AVE 2469 OCEAN ST CHINO CA 91710-9247 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2234
DAY
10429 REXFORD CT
CYPRESS CA 90630-4633
KATHERINE R PALMATEER HELENBART CO 2497 OCEAN ST 6520 E EXETER BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2234 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251-3104
AUDREY J KOLB HENRY L HAAP JOSEPH B & JEAN PLATT 2480 OCEAN ST 2725 JEFFERSON ST 7 452 W 1lTH ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233 CLAREMONT CA 91711-3833
JOHN L & WANDA FORBES BOLTON
2485 GARFIELD ST 2448 OCEAN ST CA 92008-2233 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2215 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233
LAWRENCE MONZON DAVID C FITZGERALD ROBERT J HANNA
3322 BUDLEIGH DR 2435 GARFIELD ST 2465 GARFIELD ST
HACIENDA HEIG15,91745-6407 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2214 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2214 CA
YVONNE M JOHNSON KELLY JIM ESTATE MARY B PARENTE 2478 OCEAN ST 2468 OCEAN ST 8559 EDISON AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233 CHINO CA 91710-9247
ANGELO & KATHLEEN NIXON STEPHEN T TURLEY MANSOUR 2438 OCEAN ST 31070 MESA CREST RD 1547 VIA CORONEL CARLSBAD CA 92008-2233 VALLEY CENTE 92082-5006 A PALOS VERDES,Ch90274-1941
LAWRENSON WILLIAM G SUMNER DON HOEFER
47 THE COLONNADE 2390 OCEAN ST
LONG BEACH CA 90803-4044 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2224 CA 92008-2222
DONALD P HOEFER HENTHORN DONALD E JACKSON 224 NORMANDY LN 2382 OCEAN ST 260 NORMANDY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2222 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2224 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2222
MICHAEL J MURPHY KAY FANG DOWNEY PO BOX 2206 PO BOX 481 1402 LOMBARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92018-2206 DEL MAR CA 92014-0481 VISTA CA 92084-3867
CATHERYN F CHRISTIANSEN WASHBURN RICHARD L EASLAND PO BOX 1932 5601 SYCAMORE AVE 5120 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92018-1932 RIALTO CA 92377-3914 CARLSBAD CA 92008-4326
DONNA J JACKSON BELL-SCHIFF TR WALLACE G MULLINS
260 NORMANDY LN 825 MARYHURST DR 222 PACIFIC AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2222 CLAREMONT CA 91711-3318 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
ETHEL L IRVING MULLINS GEORGE J CARACCIOLO 219 NORMANDY LN PO BOX 2327 202 PACIFIC AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2223 CARLSBAD CA 92018-2327 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245
JOHN P & CYNTHIA MYERS WANDA L MAGANA JIMMY W ANDERSON 5379 CAROLYN VISTA LN 270 PACIFIC AVE 1846 POUMELE WAY BONITA CA 91902-2567 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2245 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6185
ACADEMY & EDE NAVY 2600 OCEAN ST CA 92018-3000 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 D CA 92018-3000
ARTUKOVIC 2550 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2205
ARTUKOVIC ACADEMY & ARMY NAVY
PO BOX 3000
92008-2205 CA 92018-3000 CARLSBAD CA 92018-3000
PERL KORNBERG
~~:E~L~:,~~,~~O210-4917
10880 WILSHIRE BLVD 190
LOS ANGELES Cb90024-4120
LAGUNA L PARK 7241 LANKERSHIM BLVD NORTH HOLLYWCCQg1605-3804 CA
IRA MEIBERGER
2607 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
PATRICK W MCGUIRE BRADLEY H WELLS MULLEN 2609 OCEAN ST 2121 BROADWAY ST 1 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 SAN FRANCISCO 94115-1359 'cfh
MULLEN SABA TR BURCHFIELD 2617 OCEAN ST 3065 DONA SUSANA DR 4930 NELSON AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 STUDIO CITY C&91604-4358 CLOVIS CA 93611-9445
ILLSLEY COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PR PATRICK B BOWNES
2633 OCEAN ST 1 PO BOX 10549 2649 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2239 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85271-0549 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
JACK D PHILLIPS HAWTHORNE DEL S PUESTA 2667 OCEAN ST PO BOX 708 PO BOX 4086 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 SAN DIEGO CA 92112-4125 CARLSBAD CA 92018-4086
DEL S KLETT LORI T EMSLIE
PO BOX 4086 2683 OCEAN ST
92018-4086 CARLSBAD CA 92018-4086 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
tc-x\sw\ -=-u&k
KLOSTERMAN 35&J ii \U ctnqbY\ bVW
1565 HILLCREST AVE
GLENDALE CA 91202-1237 h\Ja&w, CR woa
*** 103 Printed ***
MOONEY MARY S RUSSELL W & MARY GROSSE PHILIP R PALISOUL
PO BOX 315 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 2653 OCEAN ST LEXINGTON KY 40588-0315 CARLSBAD CA 92008-4465 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238
EDE ACADEMY & ARMY NAVY ILLSLEY 650 HARRISON AVE PO BOX 3000 2633 OCEAN ST 1
CLAREMONT CA 91711-4595 CARLSBAD CA 92018-3000 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2239
DOROTHY M SCHAKEL LADWIG TR IRMA T ALGOVER 1150 BEVERLY WAY 2642 OCEAN ST 2650 OCEAN ST ESCONDIDO CA 92026-3206 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237
PATRICK D BILLER DONALD P HOEFER IRVING J & DORIS GORDON
PO BOX 2303 2668 OCEAN ST 2678 OCEAN ST
VISTA CA 92085-2303 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237
EDWARD W & CHAD BIXBY MARIE SIDUN RALPH B BERRY
2680 OCEAN ST 621 LAS FLORES DR 2677 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-6221 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217
STREET ALONZO M FULLMER ANN K ELLINWOOD
1445 MERCADO GLN 2838 DENTRO DE LOMAS RD PO BOX 2770
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-1650 VISTA CA 92084-1204 RANCH0 SANTA 92067-2770
PAULINE MCALPINE JOYCE R TOY ARMY&NAV 839 TERRA LN 2501 E COMMONWEALTH AVE PO BOX 300 EL CAJON CA 92019-1061 FULLERTON CA 92831-4447 CARLSBAD C 2018-3000
SCOTT J BARTEL HARRIS & WAILES TR J B MCGRATH
2689 GARFIELD ST 2729 OCEAN ST 2685 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2241 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217
JACK D PHILLIPS ACADEMY & 2667 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 CARLSBAD C 92008-2238 92018-3000
PARISH OF ST MICHAELS-B MICHAELS-B -BY-THE-SEA PO BOX 127 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0127 CARLSBAD C 2018-0127 92018-0127
ST MICHAELS-BY-THE-SEA BELL WELCH
PO BOX 127 PO BOX 151 351 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0127 ANAHEIM CA 92815-0151 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2204
ANTHONY F TOMARO ROBERT H & JOANN CAAN
367 BEECH AVE 8038 VALLE VISTA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2204 RANCH0 p CUC--a7A, CA y\-l3fJ
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTE 110 W C ST 1901 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3909
*** 38 Printed ***
June 26,200l
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY
DORMITORY RP99-14/CDP99-49 for a public hearing before the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The attached public hearing notice must be published,
posted and mailed at least 10 days before the hearing. Please notice the item for a
special Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting on July IO, 2001.
Thank you.
6 226 / / 61
PMENT DIRECTOR DATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 346
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, C
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80-BED DORMITORY 0
OF THE ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PROPER
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSB
PACIFIC AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN ILITIEs ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: ARMY & NAVY A
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2001, the City of ad Design Review Board held a duly noticed
Permit (CDP 99-49) for construct1
Academy property located on t; s
View Drive, and adopted
Housing and Redevelop
Development Permit (CDP 99-4
en Garfield Street and Mountain
ment Permit (RP 99-14) and Coastal
WHEREAS, the Ho
of this resolution held a noticed public heari
persons interested in o
Permit (CDP 99-49);
to the Guidel’ for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to be categorically
exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15302
of the State CEQA Guidelines as replacement or reconstruction of a pre-existing structure on the same
site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
HRC RESO NO. 346
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-14) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 99-
49) are APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in
Resolutions No. 276 and 277, on file in the City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference,
are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevel ent Commission.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Co sion of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed,
analyzed, and considered the environmental determi on for this project and any comments thereon.
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the ronment and hereby approves the environmental
determination. lopment Commission finds that the environmental
determination reflects the iqlep ment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of
the City of Carlsbad.
1 the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time
Limits for Judicial Review”
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within w judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collective1 erred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has be applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
tition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the
ter than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision
er, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
ceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to
d 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.”
HRC RESO NO. 346
PAGE 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the -day of , 2000
by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
AUDE A. LEWIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
RAYMOND R. PAT
HRC RESO NO. 346
PAGE 3 7
7;24-0 /
/7$ p xt%M f
Pfi 337
July 20, 2001
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: RP 99-14/DCP 99-49 - Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
Dear City Council members:
This project has been called a “Motel 6” by a Design Review Board member. This letter will
outline why we oppose the current plans for this project and what modifications are important to
create in order to satisfy neighbor and homeowner concerns.
We reside at 202 Pacific Ave, directly across the street from this dormitory complex, for the past
11 years. A dormitory housing 80 boys, with large windows facing a quiet residential street is
inappropriate for the neighborhood. Consider the issues:
lncompatibilitv with Neiohborhood:
All homes or apartments are single family or small apartments surrounding the immediate
area. There is a “village” feel to the area, which is one of the many reasons why we moved
to the area.
The A & N Academy dormitory built on the south side of the campus - on Cypress Street -
would be very similar to the one being built facing Pacific Ave. It has very large windows
providing full on views of students in the rooms, and allowing full on views of residents across
the street. There are extremely bright lights emanating from the rooms and from the security
lights on the buildings.
Newly constructed buildings of this size are not compatible with residential communities and
have not been located across the street from small residential homes in the immediate
vicinity within the Carlsbad Village area. These buildings include the dormitory of A&N on
Cypress Street, and the Lutheran retirement facility, (The residential home across the street
from it is used by the A&N Academy).
There are multi-million dollar homes within a half block from this building referred to as a
“Motel 6” by one of the individuals who has already approved the plans for this project at the
Design Review Board level.
Traffic in the village has already increased substantially in the last few years in particular.
There are actually traffic jams on Carlsbad Boulevard on the weekends and some weekdays.
The dormitories would only serve to add to this problem. Widening of Pacific Avenue can
only serve to add to this growing problem.
The recent building approval of a three story, three unit condominium on the corner of Pacific
Ave and Ocean Ave, approved by a 4-3 vote, has disturbed many neighbors. It is the
sentiment of most neighbors that this building does not fit into the neighborhood, adds
unneeded density to it and received variances which were clearly outside the scope of what
is appropriate. Adding another, much denser building within a % block of this site in the
neighborhood just further justifies the opinions that Carlsbad is only pro-growth and does not
serve the needs of existing homeowners.
Property values in this neighborhood are sure to decline with the addition of this building.
Certainly, disclosures to potential buyers of surrounding properties to the A & N Academy
would need to include the noise, security and privacy issues that such a building would
create.
Securitv and Noise Concerns:
l Currently, there are many security and noise problems that have existed throughout the time
period we have owned our home. Unfortunately, we have found that the A&N Academy in 1
Carlsbad City Council, p. 2
l the past has put forth little effort to improve these issues, nor rectify the problems as they
occur, even after repeated attempts to resolve such problems. During the Design Review
Board meeting however, we did receive encouragement from an A & N staff member to call
them when these issues arise. Incidents include rocks being thrown through a car window
with verbal threats being made to the neighbor owning the vehicle, car vandalism, golf clubs,
golf balls, and other heavy objects being thrown frequently into yards (with one nearly
missing a 4 month olds head), students walking around the premises in their underwear in full
view of neighbors, very frequent yelling screaming, and other disruptive behavior, cars
cruising the neighborhood, students sneaking out of windows, yelling out of windows, playing
music loudly with the windows open, a ‘SWAT” like environment with a helicopter that circles
overhead (for one of the many summer camping experiences for students), etc.
l Adding an additional 80 students to live across the street from residential homes will only
increase this problem. Several of the neighbors have young girls who live in this
neighborhood, one of whom receives frequent cat-calling and other inappropriate comments
from these students.
l Being able to see into 40 young men’s rooms at any given time (those facing Pacific Avenue),
and for them to be able to see out and interact with anyone passing by, given the large
windows, bright lights and lack of frequent and direct supervision is unacceptable for a small
quiet neighborhood to endure.
l The noise issues, including the daily loud revelle and taps music, as well as frequent and
loud announcements (some lasting 2 minutes) to all students throughout the morning, day
and evening hours, starting at 6 am and going to 11 p.m. at times has been a consistent
complaint of neighbors. This has continued without abatement by the A&N Academy, despite
frequent complaints and requests to change.
Unconsidered suaaestions to modifv to fit neiahborhood needs
The following is a list of suggestions that were made in the Design Review Board meeting that
were not discussed and not acted upon:
l Reduce the size of the building
l Reduce the density of the number of students within the building
l Face the dormitory building to the inside of the campus, so that there were no windows facing
onto Pacific Avenue.
l Move the dormitory to the west side of campus, where the dormitory would not be located
across the street from homes.
. Building a 1 -story property instead of 2 story.
l Create windows that were much smaller, were inescapable and were made of glass in which
people could not see in and out. Other dormitories on this campus already have this type of
window. This suggestion was discussed briefly in the Design Review Board meeting but no
requirements were made of the A & N Academy.
l Outdoor lighting that will consistently light up the neighborhood. This was discussed at the
Design Review Board meeting but no requirements were made of the A & N Academy.
In conclusion, this large densely built dormitory does not meet the needs of a quiet residential
neighborhood. While the A&N dormitory recently built facing Cypress Street was allowed to have
been built, a dormitory as planned to be sited on the North side of the campus would be located
in a very different environment and is not compatible to the local neighborhood.
Consider whether you would want to live across the street from a building considered to be a
“Motel Six” that houses 80 boys, where 20 boys used to live. Exponential increases in security,
noise, traffic, and density problems are what you would look forward to.
We urae YOU to vote no on the aooroval of this oroiect and seek modifications listed below. This
list has been developed in conjunction with a neighborhood meeting that took place to assess
input from residents who live in the near vicinity. There are also petitions that have been signed
by local residents outlining the same requests.
Carlsbad City Council, p. 3
Requests bv Neiahbors and Homeowners to modifv the buildina plans for the A & N Academy
dormitorv
l Reduce the size of the windows, locate them near the ceiling, and make them of obscure
glass, as last presented by the architect of the building.
l Eliminate direct outdoor lighting on sides of the buildings.
l Redesign the staircases so that they are inside the building or are enclosed on the outside of
the building.
. Require a written agreement be signed by November 1,200l between the City of Carlsbad,
the A & N Academy and neighbors who reside on Pacific Avenue that will outline the
prevention of noise, privacy and security issues and how they will be ameliorated when they
occur.
Karen D. Tejcka
George J. Caracciolo
202 Pacific Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
cc:
Lori Rosenstein, Housing and Redevelopment Department
Colonel Steve Miller, President, Army and Navy Academy
. JUL-LXUI I’IUIY U3’44 rl’l rixllir. bnm cnct~ urr lb,c3 rm iw, 3 r, ur _.
Corporate Offices PrimeCare Medical Group of Temecula
328 1 East Guasti Road, Seventh Floor 27699 Jefferson Avenue
Ontario, CA 9 176 1-7643 Temecula, CA 92590
Phone: 909160%8044 Phone: 909/676-0171 x232
Fax: 909/605-803 1 Fax: 909/694-4011
DATE:
TO:
COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
PAGES:
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet
7/20/O 1 ~~6blqsc oajua
4 Carlsbad City Council Members
+ Mr. Patchett, Carlsbad City Manager 1
lths1;1mw
Lori Rosenstein, Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
Colonel Steve Miller, President, Army and Navy Academy
Various
Various
Karen D. Tejcka, Vice President
4 (including cover sheet)
If all pages are not received, please call number listed above. Thankyou.
MESSAGE:
Attached please find a letter in response to RP 99- 14/DCP 99-49 - Army and Navy Academy
Dormitory requesting that the City Council require modifications to the plans as presented and
approved by the Design Review Board.
We will be presenting our views at the City Council meeting and will provide the signed
petitions from local residents as well.
. JUL-2HJI IIUN UJ; 44 t’l”l I’Kll’lk I;HKlz IzXtS Upt- IGzS PHK NW, Y r, UL
July 20, 2001
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. California 92008
Re: RP 99-141DCP 9949 -Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
Dear City Council members:
This project has been called a “Motel 6” by a Design Review Board member. This letter will
outline why we oppose the current plans for this project and what modifications are important to create in order to satisfy neighbor and homeowner concerns.
We reside at 202 Pacific Ave, directly across the street from this dormitory complex, for the past
11 years. A dormitory housing 80 boys, with large windows facing a quiet residential street is
inappropriate for the neighborhood. Consider the issues:
lncomoatibilitv with Neiahborhood:
All homes or apartments are single family or small apartments surrounding the immediate
area. There is a “village” feel to the area, which is one of the many reasons why we moved
to the area.
The A & N Academy dormjtory built on the south side of the campus - on Cypress Street -
would be very similar to the one being built facing Pacific Ave. It has very large windows
providing full on views of students in the rooms, and allowing full on views of residents across
the street. There are extremely bright lights emanating from the rooms and from the security
lights on the buildings.
Newly constructed buildings of this size are not compatible with residential communities and
have not been located across the street from small residential homes in the immediate
vicinity within the Carlsbad Village area. These buildings include the dormitory of A&N on
Cypress Street, and the Lutheran retirement facility, (The residential home across the street
from it is used by the A&N Academy).
There are multi-million dollar homes within a half block from this building referred to as a
“Motel 6” by one of the individuals who has already approved the plans for this project at the
Design Review Board level.
Traffic in the village has already increased substantially in the last few years in particular.
There are actually traffic jams on Carlsbad Boulevard on the weekends and some weekdays.
The dormitories would only serve to add to this problem. Widening of Pacific Avenue can
only serve to add to this growing problem.
The recent building approval of a three story, three unit condominium on the corner of Pacific
Ave and Ocean Ave, approved by a 4-3 vote, has disturbed many neighbors. It is the
sentiment of most neighbors that this building does not fit into the neighborhood, adds
unneeded density to it and received variances which were clearly outside the scope of what
is appropriate. Adding another, much denser building within a % block of this site in the
neighborhood just further justifies the opinions that Carlsbad is only pro-growth and does not
serve the needs of existing homeowners.
Property values in this neighborhood are sure to decline with the addition of this building.
Certainly, disclosures to potential buyers of surrounding properties to the A-& N Academy
would need to include the noise, security and privacy issues that such a building would
create.
l Currently, there are many security and noise problems that have existed throughout the time
period we have owned our home. Unfortunately, we have found that the A&N Academy in
1
m JUL-23-01 MON 03:45 PM PRIME CARE EXEC OFFICES FAX NO, 9
Carlsbad City Council, p. 2
the past has put forth little effort to improve these issues, nor rectify the problems as they
occur, even after repeated attempts to resolve such problems. During the Design Review
Board meeting however, we did receive encouragement from an A & N staff member to call
them when these issues arise. Incidents include rocks being thrown through a car window
with verbal threats being made to the neighbor owning the vehicle, car vandalism, golf clubs,
golf balls, and other heavy objects being thrown frequently into yards (with one nearly
missing a 4 month olds head), students walking around the premises in their underwear in fujl
view of neighbors, very frequent yelling screaming, and other disruptive behavior, cars
cruising the neighborhood, students sneaking out of windows, yelling out of windows, playing
music loudly with the windows open, a “SWAT” like environment with a helicopter that circles
overhead (for one of the many summer camping experiences for students), etc.
Adding an additional 80 students to live across the street from residential homes will only
increase this problem. Several of the neighbors have young girls who live in this
neighborhood, one of whom receives frequent cat-calling and other inappropriate comments
from these students.
Being able to see into 40 young men’s rooms at any given time (those facing Pacific Avenue),
and for them to be able to see out and interact with anyone passing by, given the large
windows, bright lights and lack of frequent and direct supervision is unacceptable for a small
quiet neighborhood to endure.
The noise issues, including the daily loud revelle and taps music, as well as frequent and
loud announcements (some lasting 2 minutes) to all students throughout the morning, day
and evening hours, starting at 6 am and going to 11 p.m. at times has been a consistent
complaint of neighbors. This has continued without abatement by the A&N Academy, despite
frequent complaints and requests to change.
Unconsidered suaaestions to modifv to fit neiahborhood needs
The following is a list of suggestions that were made in the Design Review Board meeting that
were not discussed and not acted upon:
l Reduce the size of the building
l Reduce the density of the number of students within the building
l Face the dormitory building to the inside of the campus, so that there were no windows facing
onto Pacific Avenue.
l Move the dormitory to the west side of campus, where the dormitory would not be located
across the street from homes.
l Building a l-story property instead of 2 story.
l Create windows that were much smaller, were inescapable and were made of glass in which
people could not see in and out. Other dormitories on this campus already have this type of
window. This suggestion was discussed briefly in the Design Review Board meeting but no
requirements were made of the A & N Academy.
9 Outdoor lighting that will consistently light up the neighborhood. This was discussed at the
Design Review Board meeting but no requirements were made of the A & N Academy.
In conclusion, this large densely built dormitory does not meet the needs of a quiet residential
neighborhood. While the A&N dormitory recently built facing Cypress Street was allowed to have
been built, a dormitory as planned to be sited on the North side of the campus would be located
in a very different environment and is not compatible to the local neighborhood.
Consider whether you would want to live across the street from a building considered to be a
“Motel Six” that houses 80 boys, where 20 boys used to live. Exponential increases in security,
noise, traffic, and density problems are what you would look forward to.
We urce vou to vote no on the aooroval of this oroiect and seek modifications listed below. This list has been developed in conjunction with a neighborhood meetrng tnaI rook place lu assess
input from residents who live in the near vicinity. There are also petitions that have been signed
by local residents outlining the same requests.
2
c JUL-ZJ-UI I’IUN UJ;4b t’1’1 I’KIII~ UHKiz lW$ UpF l&l~S PI-IX NU, Y
Carlsbad City Council, p. 3
Reauests bv Neiahbors and Homeowners to modifv the buildina Plans for the A & N Academv
dormitow
l Reduce the size of the windows, locate them near the ceiling, and make them of obscure
glass, as last presented by the architect of the building.
l Eliminate direct outdoor fighting on sides of the buildings.
l Redesign the staircases so that they are inside the building or are enclosed on the outside Of
the building.
l Require a written agreement be signed by November 1, 2001 between the City of Carlsbad,
the A 8 N Academy and neighbors who reside on Pacific Avenue that will outline the
prevention of noise, privacy and security issues and how they will be ameliorated when they
occur.
Karen D. Tejcka
George J. Caracciolo
202 Pacific Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
cc:
Lori Rosenstein, Housing and Redevelopment Department
Colonel Steve Miller, President, Army and Navy Academy
July 24, 2001
7-24-o 1
An 337 I-t\? 17-
If-m \
Claude Lewis, Mayor
Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tern
Ramona Finnila, Council Member
Matt Hall, Council Member
Julianne Nygaard, Council Member
RE: RP99-14/GDP 99-49 - ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Having lived alongside the Academy since 1976, we feel the Academy is an intricate part of our lives
and neighborhood. We enjoy their parades, sports and activities and admire their contribution to our
city. We look forward to the improvements of their property and our neighborhood.
We don’t want to oppose or stop the project. We would only like to see this project be as
neighborhood friendly as possible.
At the Community Meeting and the Design Review Board Meeting, the Academy’s Architects
expressed in detail the problems and security issues the Academy faces. The design of this building
was to reflect this. The architect and residents recommended using obscure glass in the windows and
opening only a few inches. We were under the impression this was how they were going to be.
Discussing this later with Lori Rosenstein from your staff, I was told the 48 windows facing Pacific
Street will not be obscure or have security openings. This is a great concern!! We felt it would
create a buffer from noise and viewing for us and our homes. This would also help eliminate the
students exiting out the windows all hours of the night. Playing cat and mouse with the D.I.‘s, the
cat calls, the mooning, plus observing the boys dressing and running around in their towels and
underwear, which are existing ongoing problems. Boys will be boys! !
In addition, a main staircase placed in the middle of the proposed dorm, or enclosing the staircases
entirely would eliminate the mentioned problems.
The architects recommended a fence to help as a buffer. That was also denied by staff
Please take into consideration the impact and size of this building. How it is going to effect the
quality of our lives. We have an opportunity to solve problems before they have a chance to begin.
Respectfully submitted,
WANDA FORBES
2485 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Local Homeowner and Neighbor Petition
Concerning the Army 8, Navy Academy Dormitory
to be built on Pacific Avenue
City Planning Project Number RP 99-491DCP 99-49
July, 2001
-pP-kn
Hqu3e.d
M3 337
We the undersigned homeowners and neighbors are concerned about the current
plans for the construction of an 80 bed dormitory in the above mentioned location. We
support the Army and Navy Academy’s mission and want them to continue as
neighbors in our community. While we do not desire to block the project nor increase
the expense of its construction, we are very concerned about :
l Preserving the quality of life in our small residential community
l Preventing further growth of security, privacy and noise issues
We request that the plans be modified to include the following elements:
1. Reduce the size of the windows, locate them near the ceiling, and make
them of obscure glass, as last presented by the architect of the
building.
2. Eliminate direct outdoor lighting on sides of the buildings and add
motion detectors for these purposes.
3. Redesign the staircases so that they are inside the building or are
enclosed on the outside of building.
4. Require a written agreement be signed by November I,2001 between
the City of Carlsbad, the Army and Navy Academy and neighbors who
reside on Pacific Avenue that will outline the prevention of noise,
privacy and security issues and how they will be ameliorated when they
occur.
NAME (PRINT)
‘* ~lleq! +h;
2.F-m~e~ zj~a~
3. S+wW CL\ O-fvhJ
4, /-/J~JGl FA o +%4-l -?I
ADDRESS SIGNATURE
Local Homeowner and Neighbor Petition
Concerning the Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
to be built on Pacific Avenue
City Planning Project Number RP 99-49/DCP 99-49
July, 2001
We the undersigned homeowners and neighbors are concerned about the current
plans for the construction of an 80 bed dormitory in the above mentioned location. We
support the Army and Navy Academy’s mission and want them to continue as
neighbors in our community. While we do not desire to block the project nor increase
the expense of its construction, we are very concerned about :
l Preserving the quality of life in our small residential community
l Preventing further growth of security, privacy and noise issues
We request that the plans be modified to include the following elements:
1. Reduce the size of the windows, locate them near the ceiling, and make
them of obscure glass, as last presented by the architect of the
building.
2. Eliminate direct outdoor lighting on sides of the buildings and add
motion detectors for these purposes.
3. Redesign the staircases so that they are inside the building or are
enclosed on the outside of building.
4. Require a written agreement be signed by November I, 2001 between
the City of Carlsbad, the Army and Navy Academy and neighbors who
reside on Pacific Avenue that will outline the prevention of noise,
privacy and security issues and how they will be ameliorated when they
occur.
NAME (PRINT)
13.
14.
Local Homeowner and Neighbor Petition
Concerning the Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
to be built on Pacific Avenue
City Planning Project Number RP 99149IDCP 99-49
July, 2001
We the undersigned homeowners and neighbors are concerned about the current
plans for the construction of an 80 bed dormitory in the above mentioned location. We
support the Army and Navy Academy’s mission and want them to continue as
neighbors in our community. While we do not desire to block the project nor increase
the expense of its construction, we are very concerned about :
l Preserving the quality of life in our small residential community
l Preventing further growth of security, privacy and noise issues
We request that the plans be modifmd to include the following elements:
1. Reduce the size of the windows, locate them near the ceiling, and make
them of obscure glass, as last presented by the architect of the
building.
2. Eliminate direct outdoor lighting on sides of the buildings and add
motion detectors for these purposes.
3. Redesign the staircases so that they are inside the building or are
enclosed on the outside of building. ”
4. Require a written agreement be signed by:Rovember I, 2001 between
the City of Carlsbad, the Army and Navy Academy and neighbors who
reside on Pacific Avenue that will outline the prevention of noise,
privacy and security issues and how they will be ameliorated when they
occur.
Local Homeowner and Neighbor Petition
Concerning the Army CL Navy Academy Dormitory
to be built on Pacific Avenue
City Planning Project Number RP 99-49/DCP 99-49
July, 2001
We the undersigned homeowners and neighbors are concerned about the current
plans for the construction of an 80 bed dormitory in the above mentioned location. We
support the Army and Navy Academy’s mission and want them to continue as
neighbors in our community. While we do not desire to block the project nor increase
the expense of its construction, we are very concerned about :
l Preserving the quality of life in our small residential community
l Preventing further growth of security, privacy and noise issues
We request that the plans be modified to include the following elements:
1. Reduce the size of the windows, locate them near the ceiling, and make
them of obscure glass, as last presented by the architect of the
building.
2. Eliminate direct outdoor lighting on sides of the buildings and add
motion detectors for these purposes.
3. Redesign the staircases so that they are inside the building or are
enclosed on the outside of building.
4. Require a written agreement be signed by November I,2001 between
the City of Carlsbad, the Army and Navy Academy and neighbors who
reside on Pacific Avenue that will outline the prevention of noise,
privacy and security issues and how they will be ameliorated when they
occur.
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS
Local Homeowner and Neighbor Petition
Concerning the Army & Navy Academy Dormitory
to be built on Pacific Avenue
City Planning Project Number RP 99=49/DCP 99-49
July, 2001
We the undersigned homeowners and neighbors are concerned about the current
plans for the construction of an 80 bed dormitory in the above mentioned location. We
support the Army and Navy Academy’s mission and want them to continue as
neighbors in our community. While we do not desire to block the project nor increase
the expense of its construction, we are very concerned about :
l Preserving the quality of life in our small residential community
l Preventing further growth of security, privacy and noise issues
We request that the plans be modified to include the following elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
58.
Reduce the size of the windows, locate them near the ceiling, and make
them of obscure glass, as last presented by the architect of the
building.
Eliminate direct outdoor lighting on sides of the buildings and add
notion detectors for these purposes.
Redesign the staircases so that they are inside the building or are
znclosed on the outside of building.
Require a written agreement be signed by November I,2001 between
the City of Car&bad, the Army and Navy Academy and neighbors who
Leside on Pacific Avenue that will outline the prevention of noise,
Drivacy and security issues and how they will be ameliorated when they
xcur.
August 2,200l
Colonel Miller
Army & Navy Academy
P.O. Box 3000
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Dear Colonel Miller:
Per Mayor Pro Tern Ann Kulchin’s request, enclosed is a summary of the public
hearing held by the Carlsbad l-lousing and Redevelopment Commission on July
24, 2001. She asked that the proceedings of that meeting regarding the Army &
Navy Academy Dormitory be sent to you.
Sincerely,
Deputy City Clerk
Enclosures
Cc: Mayor Pro Tern Kulchin
SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CARLSBAD HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ON JULY 24,200l.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AB #337 - RP 99-14/GDP 99-49 -ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY DORMITORY
RAY PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER: Yes, Mr. Chair, Members, this item is to hear an
application for the Army & Navy Academy Dormitory. Lori Rosenstein, Management
Analyst, Housing and Redevelopment, and Bob Wojcik, Public Works, Engineering, will
do the staff presentation.
LORI ROSENSTEIN, MANAGEMENT ANALYST: Thank you, Mr. Patchett. Honorable
Mayor. City Council Members. Before you this evening is a request by the Army and
Navy Academy for a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for
the construction of a new eighty bed dormitory on the south side of Pacific Avenue west
of Mountain View Drive. Lorraine, can you dim the lights. Thanks. A majority of the
Army and Navy Campus is located within the Village Redevelopment Area, with
portions of the campus north of Pacific Avenue, west of Ocean Street, and south of
Cypress, located outside of the.. . located outside of the Redevelopment Area
boundaries. A Master Site Plan and Design Guidelines for the Army and Navy
Academy property were approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
back in December of 3995. The Master Site Plan for the campus did not outline the
plan, but rather it was... I’m sorry. Let me restate that.. . that the Master Site Plan for the
campus did not grant specific discretionary approval for. . . to construct any of the
facilities outlined in the plan, but rather, it was intended to coordinate the provision and
Page 1 of 39
timing of public and private improvements to the property, and, to provide a
comprehensive framework for the overall land use and architectural design of the
school. As a condition of the Master Site Plan approval, the Academy is required to
obtain discretionary approval prior to the construction of any new facilities. The new
dormitory is located within the Village Redevelopment Area and, therefore, in
accordance with the conditions of approval contained in the Master Site Plan, a Major
Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit are required to ensure the
building is in conformance with the existing land use regulations and city policies .
governing new construction. On May twenty-first of this year, the Design Review Board
conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed project. The three components of
the project include the construction of the new dormitory and in the site plan it is shown
in yellow here. Construction of a new parking lot, along with improvements to existing
on-site parking, here’s the new parking lot. Here’s restriping of existing parking and an
amendment to the existing Design Guidelines for the campus. The primary component
of the proposed project is the construction of a fourteen thousand two-hundred and ten
square foot, two story dormitory with forty rooms, eighty beds, total, and associated
landscape improvements on the south side of Pacific Avenue between Mountain View
Drive, which is here. Carlsbad Boulevard is here. The dormitory is intended to replace
dorm and hall, which was a single story twenty-eight bed dormitory destroyed by fire in
March of 1999. The Master Site Plan for the property shows a total of one hundred
thirty-five parking spaces provided at final build out following the completion of one
hundred ten additional on-site parking spaces. The approving resolutions of the Master
Site Plan allow for the phasing of additional parking with a majority of the additional
Page 2 of 39
parking to be provided by the construction of a one hundred seven space parking lot at
the north westerly corner of Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. The
phasing plan of the Master Site Plan requires the construction of half of this parking lot
concurrent with the first phase of development. Therefore, in conjunction with the
proposed dormitory, construction of half of the proposed parking lot at the corner of
Mountain View Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard is required and included as part of this
project. This parking lot consists of forty parking spaces, two of which are ADA
accessible. A retention basin for drainage, which is located right here.. .light fixtures
and landscape improvements. Other parking lot improvements associated with the
project include restriping of an existing parking lot on the west side of Mountain View
. Drive, between Pacific Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard, that’s the area here. ..and
thesef parking lot improvements result in a net increase of twelve parking spaces.
Overall, the proposed project results in the addition of fifty-two new parking spaces on
the subject property, with the addition of twenty-eight existing on-site spaces, it yields a
total of eighty spaces overall. The remainder of the parking lot, which is not shown in
this picture which is further located up here, will be constructed in accordance with the
Master Site Plan phasing plan. The third component of the project is an amendment to
the Design Guidelines for the Army and Navy Academy campus created as part of the
Master Site Plan approval. Through the amended Design Guidelines, the Academy
seeks to incorporate an alternative architectural design that complements the
architectural style set forth in the existing Design Guidelines. During the Design Review
Board hearing, the Academy’s representatives expressed the reason for this desired
change is to incorporate an architectural style that allows for reduced maintenance cost
Page 3 of 39
e
and increased security. The building elevation in front of you, here.. . the south
elevation is the side that faces along the inside of the campus with open walkways
above and elevation on the bottom is the side that faces Pacific Avenue with three
tower elements and a minimum five and twelve roof pitch throughout. The side
elevations include stairways that lead from the second to the first levels. At the public
hearing, the Design Review Board Members voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the project and raised a few concerns relative to construction impacts to
surrounding residents associated with the proposed development and to the lack of
building articulation along the north facing wall of the proposed dormitory as viewed
from Pacific Avenue. As a result of the first issue raised by the Board, they voted to
recommend adding the following condition to the resolution of approval. The condition
reads, “To mitigate impacts to the surrounding area from construction activity,
construction at the parking lot at the northwest corner of Mountain View Drive and
Carlsbad Boulevard shall be completed first except for final surfacing, then used as a
staging area for the construction of the dormitory building. The second concern
expressed by the Board was the minimal amount of architectural articulation on that
portion of the dormitory building facing Pacific Avenue. In response to this concern, the
Board recommended that the building articulation be increased. What they proposed is
that those three tower elements be increased eighteen inches in depth towards Pacific
Avenue. The condition was added as is stated before you on the screen. With the
addition of these two conditions, the Design Review Board recommends that the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopt a resolution approving Major
Redevelopment Permit RP 99-14 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-49 for the
Page 4 of 39
.
construction of the eighty bed dormitory on that portion of the Army & Navy Academy
generally located on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, south of Pacific Avenue.
That concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any question the Council may
have.
MAYOR CLAUDE LEWIS: Ms. Kulchin.
MAYOR PRO TEM ANN KULCHIN: Thank you, Mayor. Let me start off.. . Lori, we
received some.. .a lot of letters.. . not a lot.. . .two specific letters from people, and in .
looking it over and reading the minutes of the Design Review Board, see that there’ s a
lot of concern about the Pacific Avenue view in terms of the window treatment there,
and how wide you could open the windows. Would you address those problems,
please.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: What we heard at the Design Review Board meeting from the
residents that live across the street at 202 Pacific Avenue was that.. . .their existing
concerns with the campus. And, right now what they’re experiencing is the dormitory
that faces Cypress Street on the other side of the campus, does have a long line of
windows that faces the public street and residents in the area express concern that
there is behavior of the residents of that dormitory that they feel is inappropriate. I
probably can’t address how that should be dealt with, but the applicant’s here,
representatives from the academy are here to probably address those concerns.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: I’ll hold my questions.
MAYOR LEWIS: Ms. Finnila.
Page 5 of 39
.
COUNCIL MEMBER RAMONA FINNILA: Ms. Rosenstein in the drawing.. . .or
elevations that we have, how many of these rooms are single.. .single occupant rooms
or are they all double occupancy rooms?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: They are all double occupancy rooms. Each room has.. . .there’s
forty rooms and each room as two single beds in it.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: O.K.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: What you see on the Pacific Avenue elevation...half of the rooms
face the inside of the campus and half face the outside. So, essentially, you have
twenty rooms facing Pacific Avenue and twenty rooms facing the inside of the campus.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: And...and. ..each one...then, the windows that you see
there are the only source of.. .of.. .outdoor.. . .li.. .access.. . ..lighting that we.. . .that they
have. They don’t have access on the other side. Each room only has that one.. . .the
one set of windows to the outside.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Yes. Exactly. And.. . .
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: O.K. So, if we did something to reduce the window
size, you’re really cramming in the Ii.. .the.. . uh . . . .the amount of light coming from the
outdoors for each room, correct?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Yes. The.. .we have a floor elevation to your left. And, if you’ll
permit me, I’ll go over and show you what I’m talking about.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: Thank you.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Right here are the rooms-that face Pacific Avenue and as you can
see, each one of these has a foyer. So, on the inside of the campus, the covered
balcony.. .you have a foyer that opens up into, essentially, four rooms. So, these two
Page 6 of 39
rooms, at the end of each of the foyer only has access...the door...the door to the room
leads to the foyer and then has two small windows in the back.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: O.K. Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: Ms. Nygaard.
COUNCIL MEMBER JULIE NYGAARD: You talked about adding eighteen inches to
the depth of towers. Is that the total articulation of the tower from the building?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: That’s eighteen inches more than what it is now.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: And, what is it currently?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: It’s a tot....1 take that back. It’s a total of eighteen inches. There
is.. . I will have a.. . I’d ask the architect to respond to that, but some of the concerns that
we heard at the Design Review Board meeting in terms of adding more articulation on
that side had to do with security issues and also long term maintenance issue. The
Academy’s representatives had some examples of some of the existing buildings on
site that had very thick walls, very thick arches...and essentially what we hear from
them is that there is a security problem with some of the little alcoves that are created
by the design of those buildings and then also this.. . .this.. . .the maintenance issues
associated with that and I’ II letthem respond to exactly what those were.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: O.K. It looks like there’s some design over the top of
the windows to make them look like they’re arches. Is that correct?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Yes. Essentially, what you have on the Pacific Avenue
side.. . (inaudible) Thanks, Lorraine.. . is there’s some architectura! plant-ons here that
create a different depth and recesses, but you get the...you get the impressions that
Page 7 of 39
there’s depth there, but there’s not a great amount of depth. I don’t want to mislead
you.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: O.K. Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: In reference to the addition that is being considered tonight, this will
bring the student body up to what . . . .about three hundred fifty or sixty kids? Is that
right?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: The Master Site Plan for the project sets the maximum limit at
three hundred fifty students. Essentially, the Academy could have three hundred fifty
students now. They only have so much room to accommodate resident students on
site and the difference they can make up by day students.. .students that don’t live on
’ site, but commute in in the daytime. That doesn’t change the overall number.
MAYOR LEWIS: The facilities that we are looking at tonight, aren’t they very similar to
the facilities that were built four or five years ago? Don’t they kind of.. , .the others were
two-stories. ..(inaudible) dormitories and I believe what.. . there were two built at that
time?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Yes. Both Korean and Atkison Hall. They’re located on the south
side of the property on Cypress. They’re very similar. They’re two story dormitories.
They have flat roofs, thicker walls, arches and what have you. Staff felt that this design,
while it is different from that, is more in conjunction with what we’re planning for the
Village Redevelopment Area. The minimum five and twelve roof pitch and what have
you.
MAYOR LEWIS: But, if I recall, they’re Master Plan from several years back, these
were always, I thought, included of.. .a planning . . . ..taking down the single story because
Page 8 of 39
they were built in what, during the thirties or forties. I mean they were in terrible, excuse
me, but they were terrible dormitories as far as living in and such and these were
always (inaudible)... but they were always assumed, at least I thought they were, that
eventually these others would be replaced by modern dormitories, at least two story.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: The Master Site Plan identifies all the locations of future academic
as well as residential buildings on site. And, in this location there was actually two
separate buildings intending to be two-stories in height.
MAYOR LEWIS: Yes, because when we looked at this the last time, we reviewed the
very same thing showing when the Atkinson Building.. . the other was built.. . .other
facilities built, that these dormitories would eventually be set up as soon as their fund
raising got completed and of course, I think the burn-out helped a little bit, there, as
well. But, I mean these were always a big... considered....If my memory’s correct, that
was always the Master Plan had been geared. Is that right?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: That is absolutely correct. Before staff took the project forward to
the Design Review Board, we worked extensively with the applicant to come up
with.. .made sure that the design and the location, the number of (inaudible) rooms, the
eventual maximum number of students was all conducive with the approve site.. .Master
Site Plan approved back in ninety-five.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. One other question.. .do we still have the historical (inaudible)
cafeteria or the mess hall? Is that still intact?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Yes. I believe it is.
MAYOR LEWIS: And, how about the gymnasium complex that was built in the
twenties? Is that still in tact?
Page 9 of 39
.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Yes, it is.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Alright. Mrs. Finnila.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: Yes. If I am remembering correctly, it was a candle
that brought down the last dormitory, so could you discuss some of the safety features
as far as fires go and.. .and the.. . .placement of staircases in relation to quick escape
and things like this or maybe we should call in Mr. Smith.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: I would have the architect respond to that. When...
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: O.K.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: When they come up. I think they can be more detailed.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: O.K. Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: Mr. Hall?
COUNCIL MEMBER MATT HALL: Yes, going back to what Mrs. Nygaard was
speaking to is that Pacific Street Wall and you spoke to the relief in the building. Could
you.... when you say “not much”, is that six inches.. . I mean how much does that
building move in and out along that side? When you look at the difference between
the top view .and the bottom view, it seems to me there’s a lot of... .a lot of
architecture.. .a lot of style in the. ..in the.. . . in the one facing wall there and the other
wall, from this appearance, looks to be rather flat except for the.. .except for the three
towers. .
MS. ROSENSTEIN: I think you’re absolutely correct. The reason for the articulation, of
course, on the south elevation shown at the top is because there’s that extensive
covered walkway with the arches built in and then you have the railing and the pillar’s
coming down and all of that adds to the social interaction of the students with the rest of
Page IO of 39
the campus, while that was... I...1 believe attempted to be avoided on the outside of
the...um . . . .I would like to have.. . uh.. . .Tony DePAOLA here from TBP Architecture
respond to the actual amount of articulation. We’re only talking inches.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K. The next question I have is how.. .the temporary
buildings on site.. .will those be removed when...when this is built?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Absolutely.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K. I just want to make sure... .
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Actually, we’re anxious to see those removed. We only approved
them for a very limited amount of time and we’re well beyond that.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K. And, then the street improvements. You had some
discussion on that. What’s going to trigger the street improvements in this area? They
were, at one time, required to do all of the improvements and now how is that going to
take place? How and when?
BOB WOJCIK, DEUTY CITY ENGINEER: Originally with the Master Plan there was a
set up of phasing for if a certain building was built, then a certain set of improvements
would be done. The change here is that we felt because the need for the dormitory
was because the other dormitory had burned down and the fact that this is in the middle
of the block, we didn’t feel that it was appropriate to go ahead and ask for
improvements at this time. And, those streets are also designated as alternative design
streets, so the whole procedure for the alternative designs would also have to be gone
through by the applicants for that.
Page I I of 39
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: So, is it a correct understanding to say when they come in
with the next renovation that that’s going to have to be part of their application to do the
street improvements?
MR. WOJCIK: That’s correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Before we have the applicant.. . let’s stay on the street
improvements for just a moment. That whole area down there going from south to by
the.. . past the chapel and all the way down to what I call the modern development in
that sector, there are no street improvements at this time. Is that correct?
MR. WOJCIK: I think there is a...the condo immediately next to the chapel. I think they
had put in some curb, gutter and sidewalk.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. But the point that Mr. Hall made about the....where the
neighborhood looks at the street where som...they may have a street, but kind of a
rolling curb, or what have you. Before we require any type of improvement, don’t we
have to go through that process of the whole neighborhood to find out what type of
improvements we’re gonna have? We can’t just say sidewalks and curbs and gutters
anymore until we have the neighborhood agree. Is that correct?
MR. WOJCIK: That’s correct. There’s a whole public outreach... . .
MAYOR LEWIS: But, these folks will be on.. .on notice when this is finally approved
that they would be responsible for those improvements. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. WOJCIK: That’s correct.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Alright. Any other questions before we open it up? Alright, if
we could have the applicant or his representative come forward, please.
Page 12 of 39
TOM BLOOMQUIST: Good evening, Mayor Lewis, Council Members. My name’s Tom
Bloomquist. I’m the Dean of Academics at the Academy. I’ve been there eleven years.
I’m standing in tonight for Colonel Miller, who is out of state on vacation. I’m here on
behalf of the Academy to ask your support for our new building project on our campus.
I might add that we do have a pool that might be able to help out Carlsbad High School,
if need be. For those who don’t know, the Academy was founded in 1.910. Moved to
Carlsbad in 1936. Most of our buildings, as Mayor Lewis pointed out, are very old and
one of the goals of this project is to renovate and make a nice living space for our
cadets. To design the project, we selected the Blue Rock Partnership of Newport
Beach. They’re here with us to answer any technical questions that may come up.
. And, as was mentioned by Lori, the first step in our building project is to develop a
parking lot. We agree to do this to help the large vehicle traffic.. . leviate large vehicle
traffic and a place to park the contractors’ equipment that needs to be placed there. As
was also mentioned in May we held an open house in our library and invited our
neighbors. Our architects were there as well as many of our administrative staff. We
presented the project and entertained numerous questions and comments about the
project. As was said at the meeting, we apologize in advance for any inconvenience to
our neighbors. We realize that we need to be good neighbors. And, that’s....in talking
to one of the neighbors today, that’s what we realize that needs to happen. We need to
have better communication with our neighbors for many of their concerns that were in
the letter that you have received and possibly looked at already. Once completed, this
building will be an improvement to the campus, and we believe, the neighborhood. We
as the Council’s support for this project. With me tonight Mr. Tony DePAOLA, who’s
Page 13 of 39
the architect for Blue Rock; Roger Cellini, our facilities manager; and, Debbie McIntyre,
who is our Development Officer, sitting in the back. So, without further adieu, we
reserve the right to address any comments that may come up and I thank you at this
time.
MAYOR LEWIS: Questions? Mrs. Finnila?
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: Mr. Bloomquist, maybe you could do a non-construction
question. We received in one of the letters an allegation that the cadets were not
supervised and that they were hanging out of windows and so forth. Are there any
resident.. . .like.. . .what used to be advisors in college days, who stays in the dorm with
the cadets or are they the senior students or how is this worked?
TOM BLOOMQUIST: Well, technically, the seniors are in charge from that aspect
much like (inaudible) in a dormitory would be a student. The seniors have the
leadership responsibility, although we have adults roaming the campus on a constant
basis. I think one of the problems, and I can’t speak for the letter, because I don’t know
exactly what they’re referring to, but right now we have.. . since the hall burned down, we
have the empty space there. And, it’s true if a kid runs out of his room in his underwear
because he’s messing around with another kid, that could happen. And, unfortunately,
we have a gap there and I think part of the problem is that gap. Once the building is
built, I think we’ll prevent a lot of that. Before, with a one-story building, the kids could
climb on top, could climb out...1 don ‘t think they could climb out the windows because
the windows were very small and with poor lighting. I... I...when....when I was a
lifeguard there for Camp Pacific, the light.. . .the rooms were literally that.. . .the windows
were that big. So, they couldn’t have been climbing out those windows, but I think what
Page 14 of 39
they’re referring to is they’re running around between the two dormitories. And, not that
we don’t love middle school students, but primarily the middle school students are the
ones that live there now and I think that will be covered up with the new dormitory.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: O.K. So, there is security.
TOM BLOOMQUIST: Yes. Twenty-four seven.
MAYOR LEWIS: Other questions? Alright, Sir. Thank you.
TOM BLOOMQUIST: Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: Did Council . . . ..do you have any questions of the architect before we
start? Yes, if you’ll come forward, please.
ANTHONY DePAOLA: Good evening. My name is Anthony DePaola and I’m with
TBP, which stands for The Blue Rock Partnership, in Newport Beach, California. I don’t
have a whole lot to add. It was a splendid job. We’ve worked with staff for over two
years now on this project. And, we’ve made all of the additions and corrections, but, my
call from Colonel Miller at the very beginning was to provide a dormitory.. . .to provide a
building that was.. . . that had low maintenance, but also that . ..that took care of the
supervision aspects of the campus. Some of the things...some of the lessons that we
learned are.. . that the Academy learned on the Korean Atkisson building. As you know,
the building has flat roofs; it has large projections outside the windows. And windows
that where the children...the cadets can hang out the window. On this building, we took
those lessons and we tried to design into our building the.. . to take care of those items.
We took....our ledges outside the windows, as you can see, are only about two inches.
As you can see...the...the arches and what have you are about two inches deep. The
tower elements are eighteen inches. And, we at first had them twelve inches because
Page 15 of 39
we thought kids could hide.... cadets could hide in those areas and supervision is the
key word. As for the campus itself, there was some talk about the fire rating and what
have you. The buildings are one-hour fire rated throughout. They’re also fully fire
sprinklered. So, the cadets have a very safe...very safe.....room. The other thing I
wanted to say was the supervision from the roving...Dl’s I call them when I was in the
service, but as you notice in each of the...rooms, there’s a foyer. And, they have
glazed entrance, so that as the supervisory personnel pass by, they can see into these
rooms and see into the area through the windows. So, I think the only think I can add
on this is that supervision is the by word. And, we done.. . the Academy has done
everything to maximize that. Colonel Miller, with us and other staff.. . I’ve had.. . .I’ve
gone to community meetings. We’ve talked to homeowners and we tried to build into
the dormitory as many items as we can. I...on the windows....1 think that was brought
up, on the windows, we changed the windows around. They are large. Large enough
to get light and ventilation into the rooms. The windows. ..we changed the windows so
that they open from the top down and we raised them as high as we could. They’re up
about eight foot six inches, which is higher than a normal residential ceiling. So, they’re
up very high and to open the windows you have to go up and roll them down. To try to
alleviate the kids from hanging out the windows and that sort of thing. We’ve also put a
security screen. I have a sample with me here. It’s a... .we’ve put a.. . .we’ve
established a security screen. It’s dark in color. The glass is also dark. It’s a gra. ..it’s
a gray tinted glass. And, we’ve put a heavy security screen on it so that the.. . .to stop
the kids...the cadets from you know, putting their feet out and hanging out the windows.
So, we know that’s a big issue and we’ve done the best we can in that regard.
Page 16 of 39
MAYOR LEWIS: Ms. Finnila..
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: One more question, if you don’t mind, about the
staircases. There was some discussion about the placement of the staircases and
whether or not they should be enclosed. Could...you like to address that?
MR. DEPAOLA: Yes, I’d be happy to. May I get the plan?
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: Yes. That microphone works.
MR. DEPAOLA: As you will notice,
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: Turn it on. Yes.
MR. DEPAOLA: As you will notice . . ..oh...thank you...as you will notice this stair on the
right side is fully enclosed. And, that is the stairs that will be...that we will be using
throughout the campus. The stair on the left side is a temporary stair. As you can see
from this drawing, here’s our new dormitory. The Master Plan is calling for the next
dormitory in this area. At that time, this temporary stair will be removed and interior
stairs will be used in conjunction with the building that is going right next to it.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: So, it will be contiguous.
MR. DEPAOLA: Yes, ma’am. While I’m at it, I might as well address the streets and
what have you. Our planning.. . and we’ll be talking with staff right after this.. . after this,
hopefully, approval. Is that we will be . . , .our call is to put the streets in on the next
phase.. .on Pacific and Ocean. I think that was a question that was brought up.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Ms. Nygaard.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: Mr. DePaola, could you address lighting? I know
there was concern about lighting against this building. Could you talk to us about what
that’s going to be like?
Page 17 of 39
MR. DEPAOLA: Yes. The lighting that we have on the rear of the building, facing the
residences will be all shielded lighted. So, the lighting will be...will be directed down to
wash the buildings so that we have security, but yet not shine into the residents’ home.
MAYOR LEWIS: Other questions? O.K. Anyone else from the applicant? ’ Alright, this
is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Council please come up, state your
name, your address, and I’ll give each one of you five minutes.
KAREN TEJACKA: Good evening. My name is Karen Tejacka and I live at 202 Pacific
Avenue. And, I’m here tonight to represent many of our neighbors and some of them
are here this evening. I’d like them to stand.
MAYOR LEWIS: Just raise your hands. That’s all you have to do.
’ KAREN TEJACKA: Thank you. The neighbors surrounding the site want to say first of
all that we support the Army/Navy Academy. We support their mission and we like
having them in the neighborhood. So, it’s not as,though our concerns are really
directed at that so much as that we are looking for them to work with the local neighbors
in terms of respect. One of our neighbors said tonight, you know, look at what’s on the
wall of the Army/Navy Academy and one of the big.. . I think there’s some mottos that I
think are very nicely done on the building.... and one of them is respect. So, I think that
the tone of the conversation is really kind of geared around that. I’m gonna just hit
briefly on some of the things that I’ve noted in my letter and then I want to talk about
some of things that...a petition that was sent around to the neighborhood with thirty
signatures, which I’ve submitted to your Clerk, talk about. Briefly, at the Design Review
meeting... I’ll back up a minute...we did attend the neighborhood meeting and there
were a lot of comments and suggestions made, but not a lot of agreement around those
Page 18 of 39
suggestions. So, when we went to the Design Review Board meeting, we sat and
listened and made many recommendations and I’m going to list some of those a little
later on in the letter in terms of what we said to them in terms of what our
recommendations were. But, basically, what we were surprised about was an actual
comment from a Design Board Review member who said, “ Yes, it looks like a Motel 6”.
But, I guess they needed to feel as though they needed to approve the project. So,
when we look at this and we think of this in terms of a Motel 6, with a dormitory housing
eighty boys, facing a quiet residential street, there are many concerns that are raised.
Primarily, that is a Village Type community. If you look at the building that was built on
Cypress, very much like this building, it doesn’t face residential homes. So, it’s...you
know.. .it seems pretty acceptable to the community and it obviously doesn’ t create a
lot of disruption. But, if you walk past there, particularly in the evenings with the bright
lights and the open windows and all of them were open just the other night.. . .when I
attended the Design Review Board meeting, you saw every student in their room doing
something. Very bright lights. So, it is a very different feel for the community, in terms
of what might be, in our view, acceptable, for that type of building and the size of it, to
be located right across the street from neighbors. It really... .we don’t feel it’s
compatible because of the size of it. Because of the close proximity to small homes
and apartments. There are multi-million dollar homes half a block down the street, yet
this project is termed a “Motel 6”. Traffic in the Village has already been impacted. We
feel this will be somewhat impactiful (sic) as well. The recent building of a three-story
unit just a half a block down, created a lot of controversy in our local community. It was
approved by a four three vote, and I think our residents in our neighborhood are just
Page 19 of 39
battle weary of feeling as though people aren’t listening to local community concerns
and these projects are being approved with, we don’t feel, enough concern about
neighborhood input. Property values we do feel absolutely will be impacted by this and
not only that, if we choose to sell, we will have to create disclosures that talk to potential
buyers about the privacy issues, the security issues and the noise issues. There are
many security and noise issue problems and I’m dismayed to say, and I was
apologizing to the school tonight, I really...we prefer not to talk in negative tones, but, I
need to talk about the facts of it so you understand why you hear the kinds of
complaints and concerns that we have. I’ve listed lots of them...some in graphic detail,
so I won’t go into a lot of detail, other than to say they are consistent problems that are
not easily (inaudible) by the school . . . .even when you call and request that they be done
and that includes noise levels, noise that starts at six o’clock in the morning ‘til eleven
o’clock in the evening. Screaming, yelling, consistent kinds of disruptive behavior and
when we do call the school...someone asked me, “Is there a response that you get?”
And, I said the eleven years I’ve lived across the street from the school, I’ve received
one phone call back when I requested some kind of decision maker to call us back and
talk to us about our concerns. So, unfortunately, I don’t think that there’s that kind of
interest in (inaudible) the many problems that I have listed in the letter. We feel that an
addition eighty students across the street is, for so many reasons, going to quadruple
the many issues that already exist. There were about twenty or twenty so students, I
guess, that lived across the street before. That was act.. . .That was acceptable. We
felt that this will quadruple that problem. Our suggestions were reduce the size of the
building, reduce the density of the number of students, face the dormitory to the inside,
Page 20 of 39
move the dormitory to the west side of the campus, create a one-story, create windows
that are small and outdoor lighting and only one of those issues, we think, has been
addressed. So, in conclusion, our requests are as follows: reduce the size of the
. windows, locate them near the ceiling and make them of obscure glass as last
presented by the architect of the building. Eliminate direct outdoor lighting on the sides
of the building. I’ve heard that that’s what they will do, but I don’t know that we got final
agreement or some type kind of written documentation that they will do that. But, I’m
pleased that they’ve said that publicly that they would do that. Redesign the staircases
so that they’re inside the building or enclosed. And, finally, require a written agreement
between all parties so that we have some kind of understanding about how we’re going
to proceed to be good neighbors amongst one another and that that be done within a
time period of November 1. If we don’t, our concern is that we would like to talk to the
Army/Navy Academy about this. And, the decision makers were not available tonight to
talk to them about that and so given the timing of it all, we would prefer that we be able
to talk to the school and see if we can have these issues (inaudible) before you approve
it. If you feel the need to approve it this evening instead, then I would request that you
approve the modifications that we’ve asked for and that the thirty neighbors with the
petition have asked for as well. I’m sorry. I’ve gone over my time.
MAYOR LEWIS: Questions? I have one question, ma’am. I attended. ..when the other
two halls were built, I attended all the sessions. Did you.. . I don’t recall anyone getting
up and talking about a Master Plan, as presented at that time, because along that side,
the Master Plan did designate a two-story building.. . .two different buildings.
KAREN TEJACKA: We heard that in this review, but.. . .
Page 21 of 39
MAYOR LEWIS: Did you attend any of the meetings?
KAREN TEJACKA: No. None of our neighbors... I don’t think anyone was aware of
that until we got to the Design. . . . until.. . I think it was the Design Review Board Meeting
when we heard that there was this Master Plan that included all of these large buildings.
I can say, since I’ve lived there eleven years, had I known that, you would have heard
from us a lot earlier than now. So, no. The other buildings that you’re referring to are
inside the campus, so I don’t we would have responded to those.
MAYOR LEWIS: I know, but the Master Plan dealt that whole sector there and I would
assume that the neighbors on all sides would come in because they were talking about
two-story dormitories during the whole time period. It must have been four or five
meetings. And you weren’t aware of these meetings?
KAREN TEJACKA: No. And, I don’t think any of our neighbors were...that I know
of....No.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Any other questions? Alright. Thank you ma’am. Next, please.
GEORGE CARACCIOLO: Good evening. Mr. Mayor. Council Members. Thank you
for allowing me to speak. My name is George Caracciolo. I’m Karen Tejacka’s
husband. And, as she stated,. we live at 202 Pacific Avenue. I’d like to preface my
comments by first of all saying, that as my wife said, that first of all we’re in full support
of the Army/Navy Academy. Any institution that molds young boys into responsible
adults is of great value to our society in general and to our communities specifically.
Most of the issues that I wanted to talk about.. .I won’t bore you again because my
wife’s already addressed them. But, one of the things that I’d like to say is that over the
course of the eleven years that we’ve lived there, we’ve seen a steady deterioration of
Page 22 of 39
supervision of the students and that’s directly impacted the whole neighborhood. And,
with this dormitory being built, we can see the problem being exacerbated as opposed
to being the other way around. And, as my wife stated, I’d like to see some sort of
written documentation giving us some course of action to follow, should these situations
arise again. That’s basically it.
MAYOR LEWIS: Any questions?
GEORGE CARACCIOLO: Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: Next, please.
SUSAN GARDNER: Bear with me. I have a little laryngitis. My name is Susan
Gardner. I live at 4934 Loma Laguna Drive. And, I’m a mother of one of those cadets.
’ And, unfortunately, in today’s society, a lot of times our families get sent from hither to
yon. Grandparents are hundreds of miles away and there’s a tendency to try to put our
children out of sight and out of mind. And, I’m very happy to here tonight, this group of
people first worrying about water polo teams and wading pools in developments and I
can appreciate that Carlsbad is a City that appreciates its children. And, so that being
said I’m cone . . . .my major concern is some of the proposed changes, specifically in
changing window sizes and obscuring the glass. It sounds like they’re trying to put my
son in a cave, and, first of all they are required to be in their rooms a good of the time
because they have what they call “Call to Quarters”...someone has to help me with
some of the terminology because they’re required to study a great deal of time and I
would hate to have him in a room with obscure windows with a very small opening and
even with the fire protection they say that they will have, which I’m grateful for, I would
Page 23 of 39
still like to know that there’s a window available for my son to slip out, even if it is on the
second floor, so that’s essentially all I’m here to say.
MAYOR LEWIS: Questions? Ma’am. I’ve one question. What grade level is your
youngster in?
SUSAN GARDNER: My son is just finishing middle school. And, I would like to
address that. My son comes home to shower because he’s afraid to disrobe at
campus.. . or not afraid to.. . but he’s embarrassed by it. So the idea of him running
around in his altogether is kind of absurd to me. And, he’s a middle schooler and
everyone knows what twelve and.. .
MAYOR LEWIS: Yeah.. .
SUSAN GARDNER: . . . thirteen year olds are like, so, I don’t know what the high
schoolers are like, but I know that the boys are very modest.
MAYOR LEWIS: Boys are boys...yeah...
SUSAN GARDNER: . . . and boys are boys.. .
MAYOR LEWIS: Thank you, ma’am. Anyone else? Next, please. Alright, then I’ll
close the public hearing. Questions? Mr. Hall?
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: Yes. We have this one building before us tonight, but as
some of the testimony has been stated, there’s gonna be an adjoining building to this
one? How many feet long is that building gonna be? This one’s, what, two hundred
and twenty three.. .twenty five feet?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: The Master Site Plan actually showed two separate wings, It was
originally called North Hall. They were supposed to be of equal size to contain a certain
number of rooms, a certain number of beds. What this dormitory is doing is this...the
Page 24 of 39
proposed dormitory is a little bit longer than what the future dormitory will be. I don’t
know the size of the future dormitory only because what we look at is more in terms of
the total number of beds, set back and the developable area, which it was approved
under the Master Site Plan.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: Well, the reason I state that two hundred and twenty
three feet is a long building. And, if we’re going to add another one hundred fifty or
whatever it is feet, right next to it, it’s.. .it’s really going to have a walled effect. I mean,
you’re going to look a half a block long building so when we start talking about the relief
and the architecture on that side of the building, if I was living across the street, I would
have major concerns. I mean this is.. . this in itself is going to be a large building, but if
you almost double it, it’s gonna be really big. So, has there been any discussion about
that?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: There hasn’t been any discussion about that. . . that. . . .in all honesty
I’m not sure if it was discussed when the Master Site Plan was approved. But, it was
clearly shown on there as a...as a resident hall . . . .as a dormitory with a certain number
of bedrooms.. . .two-stories.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K. I guess, then, I would like to ask the architect if he
would like to come up and tell us how long the next building’s gonna be.
ANTHONY DePAOLA: Don’t have the exact (inaudible). But, this building as we see it
before us, is an eighty bed dormitory, forty... .forty rooms. The next unit that we’re
planning is sixty-four rooms.. .thirty-two.. . . I’m sorry.. .thirty-two rooms, sixty-four cadets.
So it’ll be shorter. And, I’ve written some notes here, as you were talking, we will take
Page 25 of 39
into account the length of the building and try to design something that it doesn’t look
like a real house all the way back.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: In stating that, though, wouldn’t you have to start here
to...and I would think the architecture would have to incorporate itself from one building
to the next.
ANTHONY DePAOLA: That’s correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: So, when you look at that side of the building, how is it
you can put more relief in that side of the building?
ANTHONY DePAOLA: At this point, I...my designer is not with me. We haven’t
designed the building yet. We will work on it...we’ll work with staff on coming up with a
solution.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K. It’s., . you know on your.. . . . . in this artist’s rendering,
it shows, and it’s very hard to depict, but there’re...like...some arches over some of the
windows?
ANTHONY DePAOLA: Correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: Is that going to be continued clear to the...clear to the
ground level, or is it just an arch over the building.. .over the window?
ANTHONY DePAOLA: As you see (inaudible), but that arch is a recess in the
plaster.. .or it’s built out from the plaster wall, and it goes from the ground level all the
way up.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K. Is that like.. . .
ColJNClL MEMBER NYGAARD: It does go all the around both windows? (inaudible)
Page 26 of 39
ANTHONY DePAOLA: The way it’s depicted, it’s a two-story portion to appear like the
front portion, which is a true arch, with the balconies.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K.
ANTHONY DePAOLA: So, the idea is to give some relief, rather than have a flat wall,
that when you look at the building there will be some play in shadows and you would
see the arch as it goes along the rear portion. And, then, of course, the tower elements
that are higher would be eighteen inches deep to give some relief in the overall length
of the building and also break up the long mass of the building.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: O.K.
MAYOR LEWIS: Wait a minute. Before you go, let us all have a shot at you. Mrs.
Kulchin.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: Thank you, Mayor. Mr. DeSalvo.. . Mr. DePaola.. . I’m
sorry, when did you start to meet with the residents.. .did you.. .when you started to get
some ideas about what you’re gonna do, did you have a meeting with them?
ANTHONY DePAOLA: Not at the initial stage. The initial stage of the architecture of
the building was with...was with the A & A Staff. On the supervision and the
maintenance and looking into the building and that sort of thing. We met with the
community at a later date.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: And, how many meetings did you have with them?
ANTHONY DePAOLA: I had one.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHlNi One. Looking back now as it’s...you know, next day
quarterback kind of thing...looking back now and for future things, don’t you think it
would be a good idea to sit down with these people who are very concerned. I mean,
Page 27 of 39
everybody loves the Army/Navy Academy. We’ve heard this from every speaker. But,
in terms of just. ..you know. ..putting something a little bit more massive up there than
they’re used to along this street.
ANTHONY DePAOLA: Absolutely. And, I think before we design the next one, that we
will have community meetings. And, I think in talking.....Colonel Miller’s on vacation
right now, so he couldn’t be here, but from talking to him, the sense that I get from
Colonel Miller is he. . . he wants to be a good neighbor and he wants to have an open
office and listen to the neighbors. And, many of the things that we’ve heard tonight, I
think that will continue on in meetings and my understanding is that.. .that we will try to
get as many of these items into our design on the next phase as we can. ’
. MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: O.K. And, I then have a question for Mr. Bloomquist,
but I think Mrs. Finnila.. .
MAYOR LEWIS: Anybody else wish to.. . ..Yes, Mrs. Finnila?
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: I’ll ask Mr. Bloomquist.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Anyone else? O.K. Fine.
ANTHONY DePAOLA: Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: Mrs. Kulchin?
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: O.K. Mr. Bloomquist, tell me, we heard from the
neighbors that there had been complaints and there was no process set up for returning
telephone calls. Not a good idea.
TOM BLOOMQUIST: No. As I was speaking to Karen earlier tonight, this year I had
two complaints come to me. I’m in the academic area. Usually, that.. .those complaints
go to the Commandant. We’ve had an extreme turnover in Commandants over the last
Page 28 of 39
four or five years. And, you’re right...and I was explaining to her, it’s unacceptable.
One of the things that we need to establish after this is. . . hate to establish more
committees.. . but, give them a number that they can call. And, that number needs to be
called back within twenty-four hours, whether the answer is what they want to hear,
whether it’s a meeting the next day, that needs to be done. I will say that when the two
problems came to me this year, one from an Ocean Avenue resident about the kids
using the public access...we met the very next day and solved the problem. It was
taken care of. Another incident with a cadet over on, I think it’s Mountain View or
Mountain Drive.. . and we changed our procedures as far as loading kids up in vans for
athletic events. The vans needed to pull onto campus. So, we handled those two
things fairly quickly. As far. . . her other complaints over the last eleven years. . . .I don’t
know what they were. I was around, but the last three years I’ve been.. .you know.. .as
an administrator, so I can’t comment on those. But, I do agree with her one hundred
percent that there needs to become a procedure, if you will, that addresses any
complaints, and I even suggested.. . her.. . perhaps.. .a monthly meeting at the Colonel’s
house who lives right there on the beach and simply talking about issues. She’s right.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: Because sometimes, Mr. Bloomquist, it’s very
interesting because those neighbors can . . . .not just complaints, but they have
suggestions and perhaps solutions to some of the things that...you know.. .that. . . that
are problems. They may have the solutions.
TOM BLOOMQUIST: Absolutely.
MAYOR LEWIS: Other questions? Mrs. Finnila?
Page 29 of 39
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: I was going to suggest as well, that there be an
established process for complaints. It’s well known by everybody around that my.. . .I
want to go back to the dormitory makeup. So, I think...1 think what I heard you say is
that within each dormitory there’s a mix of ages of the boys?
TOM BLOOMQUIST: Correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: So, there’s....you don’t put the seniors off in one place
and the mid.. . . .
TOM BLOOMQUIST: No. The. . . the. . . in fact the seniors will probably be.. . there will be
two seniors on the top, two seniors on the bottom and a mix in between. One thing I
would like to mention...in the previous dorm there were twenty-eight students on
ground level facing the street. This time there will be forty. The other dormi.. .the other
rooms will be on the inside of campus. While they have access to those other rooms,
the actual amount of students increases from, I believe, twenty-eight to forty, who ,
actually have visual contact with the street. So, it’s not...while eighty is the number that
are living in that dorm, not all eighty will live viewing.. .viewing the street.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: So, do you have curfews for the dorms and do you
have like the seniors who are exempt from curfews or must also have a curfew?
TOM BLOOMQUIST: Yeah, they have senior privileges, if you will. But, the basic set
up is from seven-thirty to nine-thirty is what we call study hall...study time. The kids are
in the room. And, for the most part it’s fairly quiet during that time. Nine-thirty to ten is
considered quiet time when the kids are getting ready for the next day and that was
implemented in the middle of last year. And, I think there have been some
improvements as far as the noise during the time. I will also say from seven-thirty to
Page 30 of 39
nine-thirty we have a.. .&her a faculty., . a teacher.. .or a military personnel walking
through the dorms. So, there’s usually one per dorm that walks through that area on a
continual basis from seven-thirty to nine-thirty at night to help make sure that the kids
are on task studying and not blaring their radios. The radios aren’t supposed to be on
during that time. So.... and of course during the school day, there’s not a whole lot of
noise. I don’t th.. . .you know.. . in my opinion, there’s not a lot of noise.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: O.K. Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: Are there questions? Alright, thank you. Any other comments? Or
any questions of staff? Mrs. Nygaard?
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: Yes. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Ball. With
regard to having some kind of written documentation for a course of action for
complaints. Have we ever done that?
RON BALL, CITY ATTORNEY: Mrs. Nygaard, no, not to my knowledge. That’s a
private matter. It’s pretty inappropriate for the government to be imposing a private
agreement between private parties. Dispute resolutions. It’s an internal affair.. .an
affair between the neighbors.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: So, we do not have jurisdiction. The only way we
would have....we do that with homeowners’ associations. But, obviously, those are all
within....
RON BALL, CITY ATTORNEY: . . . within the proposed development.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: And, is there any recourse, if at eleven o’clock at
night there’s a lot of noise going on?
Page 3 1 of 39
RON BALL, CITY ATTORNEY: Well, of course, the City has its noise ordinances and
its curfew, so there is those kinds of controls that would exist. It would become a Code
Enforcement or a Police matter.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: O.K. Thank you.
MAYOR LEWIS: And, Mrs. Nygaard, when you were on the school board, we’d call the
cops all the time about your kids, if you remember that...
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: My children?
MAYOR LEWIS: Alright. Any other comments? Mr. Hall?
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: Yes, Mayor. I really think we need to focus back on the
wall. When we look at this, and I sit here and trying visualize this, we’re talking over two
hundred feet.. . .two hundred and twenty three feet by the plan. That’s two-thirds of a
football field by two stories. And, you’re gonna increase it by another
number...probably at least a hundred and fifty feet. You put a staircase in between it.
You could very conceivably end up with three hundred and eighty feet to four hundred
feet...two story down a street. If that side of the building doesn’t have a lot of relief in it,
you’re gonna have one tall wall. And, that’s gonna be ne.. . I think.. . need to be more
than windows and a few arches. I’m not an architect, but after looking at plans over the
years, this isn’t going to look real good, I think, when we get done. And I don’t know if
l...how to condition it or...you know . . . . what to say, but just looking at the...what this
buildings proposed...looking on the plans to see what the next building is gonna look
like, it does look like it steps back about five feet or so, that they’re not directly
aligned... but, I think we need to give strong consideration to that. That’s basically a flat
wall.
Page 32 of 39
MAYOR LEWIS: Other comments on that? I’ll make just a couple comments. I know
when. ..once again I refer back to when I was attending these meetings with the
Academy and the planning that was invited and I did attend three or four of them that
they did have two dormitories set up there. It’s very unfortunate that they neighbors did
not know or did not attend, for whatever reason, but the concept of the dorms to
me.. . these are spacious compared to what these kids worked in before.. . I mean.. . if
you’ve ever been in one of those old dorms.. . the living conditions that existed.. . it’s not
quite appropriate to that of my good study habits. These kids are assigned two in a
dorm, at least the way it was explained to me before, and they do have the upper
classmen with the lower classmen and they do have the.. . .you gotta have good rooms
. for (inaudible) to study because of the way they’re set up and the class sizes, I think,
are...at least when I went around the campus several years ago, they were between
ten to fifteen kids or less. And, so therefore, there was necessity for this kind of study
session. I think Mr. Hall has a good point there about the neighbors, though, in
reference to the walled effect. But, from the notes that I have here, the real problem is
not to so much the physical (inaudible) that’s going on, but the problems that the
neighbors are having with control elements. And, this is something that I think the
Academy must do is get together with these neighbors and work out some kind of a
workable solution that they can live with. The Living Room in the Boy’s School... .if you
do your due diligence.. . these are kids. Middle class.. . . or rather Middle School to that
High School and boys are boys. I don’t care how you look at it and they’re going to be
some activity going on whether the administration wants it or not. But, I think that the
controls can be tighter and I think this is really a PR thing for the Academy in getting
Page 33 of 39
that done. But, they do need the dorms and we do have some leverage here...quite a
bit of leverage, Mr. Architect, to make sure that it’s more compatible to the
neighborhood. I don’t know if... . like Matt said, maybe it’s going to take more shrubbery
or whatever, but we’ve gotta do something about how it affects folks on that side. Mrs.
Nygaard?
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: Yes, Mayor, I was just looking at this design plan
again and often design plans come to us with large trees for us to look at. But, when
it’s actually put down in the ground, they don’t start out with those larger trees. Is there
something that we could do to condition that the landscaping would be more like what
appears in the design? Maybe that’s a question for Ms. Rosenstein.
MS. ROSENSTEIN: May I, Mayor? In response to Council Member Nygaard’s
question, there is a preliminary landscape plan that was reviewed by our landscape
architect who’s on staff, Larry Black, to make sure that the project is consistent with the
City’s landscape regulations. As such, and in all honesty, if you look at the elevation,
here, it doesn’t show the actual proposed landscaping along Pacific Avenue. The
reason for that is the elevation is intended to show more of the building. But, when we
look at the landscape plan, we have a total of eight New Zealand Christmas Trees,
which I believe they also have on the Cypress Street side of the campus. There’s some
large Cypress.. .they look like Cypress Christmas Trees. They’re Cypress that grow in
your traditional Christmas Tree format. There’s eight of them, as well as.. .as well as
some...some low lying shrubs along...along the bottom portion. Let me express to you
what we heard consistently from the Academy in working through the design issues. Is
that...security was an issue to them and we’re working with a very unique use here.
Page 34 of 39
And, as staff, we’re trying to be responsive to that. What we can do is add any....add
additional . . . .add an additional condition to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission resolution which would require more extensive landscaping along that
area. I think we’re back to the security issue and I don’t know why it sits so strong with
me, but it was.. .as you know, we fight very hard to get extensive articulation on all of
our buildings in the redevelopment area. Here I just... I think we felt that it was a unique
use we’re trying to address. The issues on what that would do create greater impacts
to the.. .to the neighborhood, if there was in fact security problems that they had
expressed on the other side of the campus. So, there’s certainly a couple things we
can do. You can always add more articulation on that side of the building. You can
move the building further in. Do some more pop-outs. Increase each of those pop-
outs. We could increase the amount of landscaping required along that.. . .along that
border. Unfortunately, we’re in a position to, because of the way the Master Site Plan
was done, we’re piece-mealing this project. We’re looking at one building here. It
could be two years down the road or six months down the road...you may see another
building come before you and each one will require review of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: Now, did I hear the architect say that the building
has not as yet been designed, so can we rely on this picture being what will happen?
MS. ROSENSTEIN: What he was referring to is the building further west. The next
building hasn’t been designed out.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: But, we can rely on this building being the building
that will appear there?
Page 35 of 39
MS. ROSENSTEIN: Absolutely.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: O.K. What about a little color articulation? Maybe if
those arches had some beige around them...1 don’t want to design this here.. ..I
can’t....but it just seems to me that there might be something that we could do. Maybe
with color and a little landscaping that would make that building more attractive. It
wouldn’t make it as big a security issue. And, I don’t....1 don’t have any ideas about
that. I mean, I’m sure staff could come up with something.
MAYOR LEWIS: Mr. Ball?
RON BALL, CITY ATTORNEY: Mayor and Council. There are really two choices on
how to process. One is that the Commission could retain jurisdiction and ask for the
plans to be redesigned and returned to you for approval. Or, you can delegate the
design to the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director and that will take
place. And, if it’s unacceptable, it will be appealed here.. . back to this Commission. So,
if.. .if the Council agrees in concept, that it needs additional articulation.. . additional
landscaping and consideration of additional colors and perhaps movement of the
building, those kinds of concepts can be included in the condition. And, that retains the
jurisdiction to do so. So, the choice point, I guess, if you will, is that whether or not the
designs come back to the Commission f.or approval or if they . . . if you delegate that
authority to the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
MAYOR LEWIS: Ms, Kulchin.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: I’d just like to follow up on something that Mrs. Nygaard
was talking about. Mrs. Rosenstein, we...you know we hear tonight we’re talking about
a buffer.. .could be a landscaping buffer. But in looking at the plans, have the citizens
Page 36 of 39
had the opportunity to see the landscaping plans that you have before us tonight? DO
you know?
MRS. ROSENSTEIN: The landscape plans were all part of the package that went
out.. .
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: . ..so when they met with the citizens, they had the
opportunity.
MRS. ROSENSTEIN: Well, I’m not sure if the Academy pointed out.. .
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: O.K. .
MRS. ROSENSTEIN: . . .all the details. They do have.. .on campus there’s two large
signs up right now. One where the future dormitory would be and then one where the
future parking lot would be and they do show a very large size of the colored...of the
colored site plan. But, it doesn’t have the extensive landscape plan.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: Yes.
MAYOR LEWIS: Mrs. Finnila.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: When we’ve had this problem before, we’ve solved it
generally in different ways that have been suggested here. One being having a
different color articulation. But., this building is under the guideline of the Village
Redevelopment Plan. Correct?
MRS. ROSENSTEIN: That’s correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER FINNILA: So, it has very stringent guidelines. But, we have that
option. The other time we’ve tiad problem we’ve let the Housing and Redevelopment
Director know that we needed increased articulation and it was accomplished just that
way. And, it worked on a couple of buildings that I can already.. . I can mention. I think
Page 37 of 39
we.. . I think we’re gonna have compliance by the architect for the next dormitory
because he has heard us very well tonight and we have authority to change things on
the next go around, if it is not in our liking. So, I think that we have, right now, the ability
to change it somewhat. We can not change it a great deal, but we do havethe ability to
change it somewhat, and so toward that end, I would like to see us take the alternative
as suggested by Mr. Ball of having the Housing and Redevelopment Director, who’s
very familiar with the Village Redevelopment Guidelines, take a second look at this and
come up with some recommendations.
MAYOR LEWIS: Other...other comments? O.K. Mr. Hall.
COUNCIL MEMBER HALL: It...just when we talk about the architecture and we go
. back to the Design Review Board.. .there was very extensive discussion about what the
building should look like and what it was.. .you know.. , what was being proposed, so.. . I
mean, we didn’t have that testimony tonight, but it’s in the record as to the.. .to what the
architecture is of the building, and I too, would accept the Housing and Redevelopment
Director as being the person to make the decision.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Are we still commenting on this? Are we... .Ms. Kulchin.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: Just a quick comment. Also, is it Colonel Miller is not
here tonight? Yes. I think it would be very wise to have a copy of the proceedings
tonight given to the Colonel so he fully understands that it has taken us a long time to
go through this. And, if we, hadn’t...if you had a little bit more public input, as you heard
the project before, it went very quickly.. .you know.. . I think that you will learn from this,
hopefully, and our citizens will be involved, also too, in terms of the final landscaping
and articulation and all that.
Page 38 of 39
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Any other comments? Alright then, are we ready for a motion?
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: Yes, Mayor. I’ll be happy to move that we adopt
Resolution 346 and that we give permission or approval to the Housing Redevelopment
Director to oversee the extra landscaping and the articulation and to make the
Colonel.. . I want that into the record, too, though...that the Colonel review the
proceedings tonight. I think it’s very important that he do so.
COUNCIL MEMBER NYGAARD: Second.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Will you vote, please.
MAYOR PRO TEM KULCHIN: Oh, skipping.
MAYOR LEWIS: Note that Council has approved Resolution 346 (inaudible) Kulchin. I
think the point, also, to the Academy. We’re very proud to have the Academy in
Carlsbad. You’ve been a real asset to us. But, I think the concerns that the neighbors
have made are very valid as far as the discipline concerns that they had and I’m sure
the Colonel will respond to them. And, I would hope the next time that we hear
anything about this, the neighbors have got together...you don’t always have to agree,
but at least you got together and talked to the problems.
MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Going on to Item Number twenty. ..Excuse me, I’ll adjourn to the
continuation of the City Council Meeting and Item Number twenty-three is to appoint the
sign ordinance committee... . . . .
Page 39 of 39