HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-15; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 342; Carlsbad Village Self Storage-
-
I
1
I
(
I
1
i
i i
i
i
I r
1
I
t
t
t
E
ti
1
r;
a c
tl P
tc
Y
V
1.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL 2
AB# 34a TITLE:
MTG. lek8&
DEPT. HIRED
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
RP 01-09
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution Nom APPROVING Major
Redevelopment Permit No. RP 01-09 with variances for Carlsbad Village Self Storage, as
recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
3n November 26, 2001, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for a new self-storage project known as'carlsbad Village Self Storage.
The subject property is located on the west side of Tyler Street between Pine Avenue and Walnut
4venue in Land Use District 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The proposed project
ncludes the construction of two three-story buildings consisting of 146,637 square feet of storage
area and a 1,350 square foot office on the ground floor facing Tyler Street. Other site improvements
nclude: five (5) on-site parking spaces for the office use, a thirty foot (30') wide drive aisle to
xcommodate one way traffic with parking on both sides, security gates at the ingress and egress,
md extensive landscaping along the perimeter of the property.
4t the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (30, Marquez and
blarois -absent) to recommend approval of the project as proposed with the following variances:
I. Front and rear yard setbacks which exceed the maximum range; and ?. Roof elements on the interior of the project that are less than the minimum 5:12 roof pitch
standard.
n addition, the Board discussed specific issues regarding the hours of operation and the size of
rucks that would be accessing the site. The Boards concern over the hours of operation relate both o on-site security and impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The Board wanted assurance that
he users of the self-storage facility could only access their units during the hours of operation when
I manager was available on-site. Therefore, the Board voted 3-0 to add the following condition to
he project:
The hours of operation for the self-storage facility shall be limited to 6:OOam through
8:OOpm."
'he second concern expressed by the Board was the size of trucks and other moving vehicles that
vould be utilizing the site for pick up and delivery of items to be stored in the facility. This issue was
aised in response to the concerns expressed by neighbors in the area regarding the number of large
,chicles (i.e. tow trucks and delivery trucks) that currently utilize Tyler Street and adjacent streets as
I means of access to existing manufacturing and automotive repair uses in the immediate vicinity.
)wing the Design Review Board hearing, engineering staff confirmed that the turning radius of the
lroposed drive aisle could not'accommodate vehicles in excess of 40 feet in length. To insure larger
ucks would be prohibited from accessing the site, the Board voted 3-0 to add the following condition
3 the project:
'The property owner shall inform all customers that no trucks over 40 feet long shall
be permitted on-site.''
Both of the aforementioned conditions have been incorporated into DRB Resolution No. 279, which
is attached for review by the Commission. The Design Review Board staff report, the draft minutes of
the November 26, 2001 meeting, and a copy of public comment letters are also attached for the
Commission’s review.
There were a number of people who attended the public hearing and addressed the Design Review
Board on the proposed project. A majority of those present spoke in opposition to the proposed
project expressing disapproval over the proposed use and size of the facility. Many of the residents
do not support the light industrial uses, which include self-storage facilities, that are permitted within
Land Use District 6 and feel the proposed buildings are too large for the area. The project design
was not an issue to either the Design Review Board or the people who attended the public hearing.
The consensus from all parties involved was that the design of the buildings was exceptional,
especially given the nature of the use. The draft minutes of the Design Review Board hearing are
attached for the Commission’s review and include the specific comments of all persons who
addressed the Board.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
was issued for the subject project by the Planning Director on November 6, 2001 and made
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of staffs review, a Negative Declaration
available for public review. No comments were received on the environmental document. The
Design Review Board‘s adoption of DRB Resolution No. 278 recommends approval of the
environmental documentation prepared for the project. Adoption of the attached Housing and
Redevelopment Commission Resolution approves the Negative Declaration for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project will have a positive impact in terms of increased property tax. The current
assessed value of the project site is $1,350,000. With the new construction, it is estimated that the
assessed value will increase to approximately $8 million. The increase in value would result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $66,500
per year. .Additionally, the project may setve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either
new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
EXHIBITS:
A. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.33, APPROVING RP 01-09
C. Design Review Board Staff Report dated November 26,2001, w/altachments
B. Design Review Board Resolutions No. 278 and 279 dated November 26,2001
D. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated November 26,2001
E. Public Comment Letters
Exhibit A
HRC Resolution
3
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 349
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RPO1-09,
INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS
WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE AND ROOF
ELEMENTS ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE BELOW
THE MINIMUM 5:12 ROOF PITCH, FOR A NEW SELF-STORAGE
FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TYLER
STREET BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND WALNUT AVENUE IN LAND
USE DISTRICT 6 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NO: RP 01-09
APPLICANT: HNB, INC. (ROBERT SCHMITT)
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2001, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-09) for construction of a 3-
story, 147,987 square foot self-storage facility on property located at 3235-3281 Tyler Street, and
adopted Design Review Board Resolutions No. 278 and 279 recommending to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-09) 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 01-09); and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the front and
rear yard setbacks which exceed the standard range; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting a variance for roof
elements on the interior of the project that are less than the minimum 5:12 roof pitch standard; 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, a Negative Declaration was issued for the
subject project by the Planning Department on November 6, 2001 and recommended for approval by
Design Review Board Resolution No. 278 on November 26,2001.
HRC RES0 NO. 349
PAGE 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-09) is APPROVED and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolutions No. 278 and 279, on file in the City
Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission with the added conditions as follows:
a. The perimeter fencing required by Design Review Board Resolution No. 279
General Condition No. 18 shall be limited to a maximum height of 6-feet and the
use of razor wire or barbed wire or the like shall be prohibited.
b. The Developer shall construct a trash receptacle within the approved building
envelope enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City
Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location
and design of said receptacle shall be approved by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director which shall be of similar colors andor materials to the
project.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed,
analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration (RF’ 01-09), the environmental impacts therein
identified 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 Negative Declaration. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds
that the Negative Declaration (RF’ 01-09) 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:
...
HRC RES0 NO. 349
PAGE 2
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions hereafter
collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day
following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such
petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which
the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or hisher attorney of record, if he/she
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the
City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.” ...
...
...
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22”d day of January, 2002
by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAW:
Commission Members Kulchin, Finnila, and Nygaard
Commission Member Lewis
None
Commission M
HRC RES0 NO. 349
PAGE 3
Exhibit 6
DRB Resolutions
No. 278 & 279
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
2:
2:
2.:
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
L3
!4
.5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
I I
1
I
DESIGN RF,vIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 278
A RESOLUTION OT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMlT NUMBER RPO1-09 TO ALLOW
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TYLER
STREETBETWEENPINEAVENUEANDWALNUTAVENUE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
CASE NO.: RP 01-09
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26th day of November 2001
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF-STORAGE FACmY ON
IN LAND USE DISTRICT 6 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
\
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 testimon)
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
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 hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated November 6,2001, and “PIT’ dated November
1,2001 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
.. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for Carlsbad
Village Self Storage (RP 01-09) the environmental impacts therein identified for
this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad, and 8
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2:
2:
24
2!
2t
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
L5
.6
.7
8
9
0
1
2,
3<
1r I
SI
I
1
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City o
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EL4 Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidenct
the project will have a significant effect on the environment in that the initia
study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant impact on the environment. The adjacent streets are adequate in size
to handle traffic generated by the proposed project and there are no sensitive
resources located onsite or located in close proximity to the subject property so as
to be significantly impacted by this project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26th day of November
2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Compas, Heineman, Lawson
NOES: None
ABSEIW Marquez, Marois
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD DESIGN~&VIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
> IEBBIE FOUNTAIN
3ousing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RES0 NO. 278 -2-
-
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2:
2:
2c
2:
2t
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.5
.6
7
8
9
0:
11
2
3
I
i
ia
(
I(
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 279
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMh4XNDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REbEVELOPhfEhT PERMIT NUMBER RP 01-09, INCLUDING
VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED
THE “UM STANDARD RANGE AND ROOF ELEMENTS ON THE
INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE BELOW THE “UM 5:12
ROOF PITCH, FOR A NEW SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TYLER STREET BETWEEN PINE
AVENUE AND WALNUT AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 6 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILJTIES MANAGEhENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
APN: 204-070-01thrU07 and 204-010-11Br12
CASE NO RP 01-09
WHEREAS, HNB, Inc., a corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified applicatio~
with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding pperty owned by
Oceanside Glasstile and Soils Organic Solutions, Inc., “Owners”, and known as Assessol
Parcel Number 204-070-01thru07 and 204-010-11&12, and more thoroughly described ir
Attachment A, “the prom, and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, a
shown on Exhibits “A-I” dated November 26,2001, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Carlsbad Village Self Storage RP 01-09”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 2@ day of November 2001, hold a
My noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
rguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
Carlsbad Village Self Storage RP 01-09”.
.
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1;
l!
2(
21
2;
2:
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.2
,3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
L
!
I
1
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations m true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Revie?
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Village Self Storage RP 01
09, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with th
fiidings contained herein for setback and roof pitch variances, is in confonnanc
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopmer
Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based o
the facts set forth in the staff report dated November 26,2001 including, but not limit0
to the following:
a.
b.
C.
d.
The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that it provide
for a light industrial use in an appropriate location within the Viage. Thl
use serves to enhance the shopping, working and living environment of th~
Village by meeting the off-site storage needs of both residents and businesses
The project provides new economic incentives in the area through thc
redevelopment of an underutilized and blighted property. Finally, thc
project design reinforces the Village character and assists with the effort tc
create a distinct identity for the Village as an area which provides a wid4
variety of uses.
The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual in that, as set forth in the Village Master Plan, storagt
buildinglwarehouse is classitied as a permitted use in Land Use District 6.
The project as designed is consistent with the development standards f01
Land Use District 6, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable
regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the
exception of the requested variances.
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
IRB RES0 NO. 279 -2-
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1'
11
l!
2(
21
2:
22
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
I
L
I
1
I
2.
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into andlor ar
transported within storm drainage facilities.
e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open spacl
withii the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Spa0
requirements for new development withii the Village Redevelopment Am
and the City's Landscape Manual.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front and real
yard setbacks that exceed the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will' result in practica
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsisten
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, ir
that the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopmenl
Plan is to create development standards and design guidelines for the Villagc
that result in projects that can co-exist in a mixed-use environment. Thc
increased setbacks along the front and rear of the property work toward thi~
purpose by creating an aesthetically pleasing light industrial project in a mixed-
use area.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties 01
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in thaf
successful operation and improved security of the self-storage project warrants
the need for security gates along the ingress and egress of the project. In order
to provide parking for customers of the project and not impact street parking,
parking spaces must be provided along the front of the proposed project. In
order to provide the required number of parking spaces and the required
landscape setback between the parking and the front property line, the front
building setback must be increased. In addition, industry standards dictate the
interior size of the individual self-storage units. Adding square footage to the
building in order to meet the rear yard setback standard does not make
economic sense and would only increase lot coverage.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
additional setback allows a greater landscape buffer between the proposed use
and the mixed use district on the east side of Tyler Street, thus increasing the
livabfity of the area and reducing impacts to surrounding properties. Similar is
true for the increased setback along the rear of the property. The additional
landscape buffer along the railroad right-of-way both shields and breaks up the
rear fapde of the building as viewed from the raiiroad right-of-way.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
IRB RES0 NO. 279 -3-
e
e
e
a
P
I
t
1
t
?
?
1.
t
i
,
I
!
!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
2:
2:
2r
25
26
21
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
5
I
1
3.
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique objectives of each land use district found within the
Village Redevelopment Area. In this case, the increased setback is consistent
with the goals and objectives for Land Use District 6 which encourage the
provision of substantial landscaping along the front of the property to provid
for a greater transition between the light industrial uses in District 6 and th
residential and commercial use8 of adjacent District 5.
e. The project is in a location that is in close proximity to the mixed-use district 0.
the east side of Tyler and the higher density residential mnes located south a
Walnut Avenue. The increased setback on the front of the property creates ~
substantial landscape buffer between the project and the adjacent street ant
serves to protect the livability of the existing residential development in the ares
Similarly, the increased setback on the rear of the property serves to buffer th
view of the proposed project from the adjacent railroad right-of-way.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for roof elements on the interior o
the project that are less than the minimum 512 standard:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practica
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsisten
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, i~
that strict adherence to the minimum 512 roof pitch across the entire buildin!
would result in a significantly taller structure than is permitted in this district
This increase in height would be inconsistent with the development stand&
for Land Use District 6 and would not result in an overall aesthetic improvemenl
to the project as viewed from the exterior of the property.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties a
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that tht
nature of the proposed use warrants the need for internal circulation between
the two buildings. Since the internal circulation cannot be viewed from tht
exterior of the project, the incorporation of a 512 roof pitch along the interior of
the project does not justify the signiticant financial increase to the cost of the
project, which makes this a condition unique to the proposed development.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
design standard for a minimum 5:12 roof pitch has been incorporated into all
exterior sides of the building. The interior of the building, where. the 512 roof
pitch has not been incorporated, cannot be seen from outside the project
boundaries. Therefore, the granting of the variance to incorporate flat roof
components along the interior of the property will not be injurious or materially
detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the area.
...
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -4-
le
le
If
a
d
e
I.
If
a
t
1
z .
E
t
r
!
I
!
F
!
!
1
f 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
1'
1:
l!
2(
21
2;
22
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
2
1
I
!
I
!
1
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in th
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in th
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexibl
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to incorporat
various design guidelines, where feasible, to improve the aesthetics of new
projects. The proposed project includes substantial building articulation on al
sides of the building and various rooflines with a minimum 512 roof pitcl
where they can be seen from the exterior of the project. These design element
are consistent with the standards established in the Village Master Plan ant
Design Manual.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Loca
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies an(
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct 01
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collectior
and -.atrnent; water, drainage; circulation; fue; schools; parks and other recreationa
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,
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
publle 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.
NOLLANDOLAN FINDING
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
...
...
DRB Res0 NO. 279 -5-
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1’
21
2.
2:
2:
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(2
13
.4
.5
6
7
8
9
D
1
1
5
I
I
I
6
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified hemin, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance
building permits.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
’.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to b
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be s
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the CityiAgency shall have th
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuanc
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates a
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecut1
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for thei
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by th~
City’dAgency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all correction
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary tc
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the projecl
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposa
development different from this approval, shall requk an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law!
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the paymen)
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project art
‘challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Sectior
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalic
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the projecl
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The DevelopedOperator 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) DevelopedOperator’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.
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -6-
If
e
0
e
e
If
e
,r
e
S
3
i
P
t
I
I
t
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
2
2
2:
2:
2r
2:
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
.6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
i
i
I
'< -
7.
8.
9.
10.
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 th;
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providin
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City th:
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at th
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity an
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Landscape Conditions:
11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscap
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Ph
and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install al
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in ;
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, kh, and debris.
12. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to thc
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by thc
project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
13. 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 Redevelopmenl
Permit by Resolution(s) No. 278 and 279 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.
In-site Conditions:
14. Outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -7- 6
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I!
2(
2:
2:
2:
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LO
11
12
.3
,4
5
6
7
8
9
3
1-
1 1
I
I 2
‘3
..
D
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housinl
and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply witl
the approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval 01
an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflecl
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 5 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A”.
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.
Developer shall install &foot high (minimum). perimeter fencing along the sides and
rear of the property to preclude pedestrian access through the property. Location
and materials of fencing shall be to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopme1
Director.
The hours of operation for the self-storage facility shall be limited to 6:OOm
through 8:OOpm.
The property owner shall inform all customers that no trucks over 40 feet long shal
.be permitted on-site.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon th~
approval of this proposed Major Redevelopment Permit, must be met prior tc
approval of a grading permit.
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction sik
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from the City Engineel
for the proposed haul route.
!. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements oi
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if ‘and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
RB RES0 NO. 279 -8-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
2:
2:
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.5
6
7
8
9
0:
1
2
5
I
’1
,
D
FedAereements:
4.
5.
6.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer __
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regardin
drainage across the adjacent property.
Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighbodmod Improvemen
Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Tyler Street along th~
subdivision frontage for a half skt width of 20 feet. Public improvements shall includ
but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, undergrounding o
relocation of utilities, and streetlights.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shal
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the are:
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Stree
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
7. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the sitt
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain I
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
8.
9.
,o.
Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City andor otha
appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the site plan. The
offer shall be made by a separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered
free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that are already
public are not required to be rededicated.
Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with approflate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including, but not
limited to, installation of water lines, fire hydrants and related appurtenances.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in
said agreement.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
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 of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the
maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and
RE RES0 NO. 279 -9-
t
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1'
21
2:
2:
2:
24
25
26
21
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
LO.
11
12
13
.4
,5
6
7
8
9
D
1
1
5
1
1
1
I
11.
12.
13.
post-construction phases of the project, At a minimum, the Plan shall:
1) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
2) Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter said
3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper
procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
pollutants.
4) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
5) Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall consolidate Lot 6 and ?
into one lot by processing an adjustment plat through the City Public Work
Department's plan check procedure.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the City with prooj
that all affected on-site easements have either been quitclaimed or that the easemenl
holder has granted permission to construct, work and develop over said easements.
Prior to issuance of building permit, developer shall have design, apply for and obtaim
approval of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic
index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking
area andor aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the
aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information and
approved by the City Engineer as part of the building or grading plan review whichever
occurs first.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or
within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate
maintenance, access andor joint utility purposes. The water easement shall be
dedicated to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District prior to the. issuance of a
building permit. Application for easement dedication must be procaed with the
City Public Works Department,
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieeo Countv Water
Authority cauacitv chareek) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall install potable water meters at a location approved by the District
Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals .shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
IRB RES0 NO. 279 -10-
2
1
1
1
I
1
1
2
2
2:
2:
21
2!
2t
25
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
11
12
13
14
15
16
.7
8
9
,O
1
2
3
1
i
)
I
18.
19.
20.
21.
The Developer shall design and construct public water and sewer facilities substantiall)
as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public
facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the entire potable water and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can k
met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
A fire flow system shall be required for this industrial development and it shall b
constructed as a looped system. The Developer shall complete the looped water syste~
by tying into the existing waterline system on Tyler Street to the satisfaction of th
District Engineer.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited B
the following code requirements.
- FeeS:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Polic:
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Sectiol
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any dts authorized b1
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicabk
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All suck
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfew and not paid, thir
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Sectior
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
3. This approval shall become null and void if building permits not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
1. 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.
i. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
..
DRE? RES0 NO. 279 -11-
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1’
1;
l!
2(
21
2;
22
24
25
26
27
28
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 buildings shall be equipped wjth automatic fire sprinklers.
8. Electric gates shall be equipped with Knox override switches.
9. All fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Departmer
prior to installation.
10. Rental agreements shall include language stating that storage cannot be within 2 feet <
the ceiling.
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 a
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. I
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Sectio~
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager fo
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timel!
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, Q
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexaction!
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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given 5
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
...
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -12-
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I!
2
2:
2:
22
24
25
26
27
28
ll PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Revie\
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2@ day of November 2001 by th
4 following vote to wit:
5
6
7
8
9
LO
11
12
13
AYES: Compas, Heineman, Lawson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Marquez, Mamis
ABSTAIN: None
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
a& -\
/
.4 D~FOUNTAIN
,5
6
7
8
9
D
1
1
1
i
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
I
I
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -13-
Exhibit C
DRB Staff Report
November 26,2001
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN -REVIEW BOARD
ADDbCATiON COMDhE DATE STnff: LORI ROSENSTEiN
08/30/01 MikE CRiM FNV~RONMENTA~ REVIEW: Dnvld Rick
NEC~~VE DEC~AT~ON
MvEMbER 6,2001
DATE: November 26,2001 ITEM NO. 1
SUBJECT: RP 01-09 - “CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE”: Request for a Major
Redevelooment Permit to allow the construction of a 3-StOP4, 147,987 square
foot self-itorage facility on property located on the west sibe of Tyler Street
between Pine Avenue and Walnut Avenue in Land Use District 6 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 278 and 279
recommending APPROVAL of RP 01-09 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, HNB Inc. (contact person: Robert Schmitt), has requested a major
property located at 3235-3281 Tyler Street. The property is located on the west side of Tyler
redevelopment permit to allow the construction of a 147,987 square foot self-storage facility on
development on the north and south and is bordered by the railroad right-of-way to the west.
Street between Pine Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The site is surrounded by industrial
To the east, across the Tyler Street right-of-way, is a mixture of vacant land, auto repair, and
single family residential development.
The subject property consists of 2.03 acres and is currently under two separate ownerships.
The northern half of the property (3235 Tyler Street) is owned by Soils Organic Solutions, Inc.
and, up until recently, was being leased to Oceanside Glasstile for its manufacturing operations.
Currently occupying this portion of the property are two “Quonset Hut” metal buildings
3281 Tyler Street) is owned by Oceanside Glasstile and was purchased a few years ago with
constructed in 1953 and totaling 18,000 square feet. The southern half of the property (3251 -
the intent of locating their corporate headquarters on the property. There are three small
buildings that occupy this half of the subject property. Most recent use of the property has been
for overflow parking for Oceanside Glasstile’s adjacent manufacturing operations with three
small buildings used for product display, warehouse, and a small showroom for their products.
Oceanside Glasstile has recently acquired an industrial building in the Carlsbad Business Park
and has relocated their offices and manufacturing operations to their new location. The subject
property is presently vacant.
HNB Inc. currently is under contract to purchase both properties with the purpose of
redeveloping the site as a self-storage facility. The proposed project includes the construction
of two three-story buildings consisting of 146,637 square feet of storage area and a 1,350
square foot office on the ground floor facing Tyler Street.
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
PAGE 2
NOVEMBER 26,2001
111. 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
a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation
in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops: 3)
corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses: and 4) a City that encourages a variety
of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social
environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a light industrial use in an appropriate location
the Village by meeting the off-site storage needs of both residents and businesses.
within the Village. The use serves to enhance the shopping, working and living environment of
Additionally, the project provides new economic incentives in the area through the
redevelopment of an underutilized and blighted property. Finally, the project design reinforces
the Village character and assists with the effort to create a distinct identity for the Village as an
area which provides a wide variety of uses.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Villaae as a Qualitv ShODDinO: Workina and Livina Environment.
The proposed project will result in development of a new self-storage facility to serve residents
and businesses within the Village. Currently, no similar use exists in the area. Due to the small
their storage needs on-site. Additionally, due to the fact that there are smaller and older
lot sizes and limited building area in the Village, many business owners have difficulty meeting
store on their property as well. By satisfying a need for residents and businesses alike, the use
residential units in the area, many residents have found that they are limited in what they can
contributes to improving the shopping, working and living environment of the Village.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaae Area. The proposed
use results in very little traffic generation. Furthermore, it is replacing a use that previously
resulted in a tremendous amount of overflow parking on Tyler Street. While Tyler Street is not
considered a primary pedestrian area, the proposed project will serve to improve vehicular
circulation on the street.
Goal 3: Stimulate Prooertv lrnorovements and New DeVeIODment in the Villaae. The Master
Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development andlor
improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
new development. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development
Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Service Commercial Support District (District 6).
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 3
Goal 4: IrnDrove the Physical ADDearanCe of the Villaae Area. The applicant has made a very
good effort to design a project which will convert an underutilized, blighted site into a physically
attractive project. Furthermore, the proposed project results in a design which is sensitive to
surrounding development within the area while maintaining the functionality of the proposed
use.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, storage buildingdwarehouses are
classified as a permitted use within Land Use District 6 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although
Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are
these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review
Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is
still required.
District 6 has traditionally functioned as a light industrial area with an emphasis upon
automotive towing, repair and detailing uses. Other building services and light industrial
activities have also occupied large parcels in the area. District 6 is the only land use district
within the Village Redevelopment Area that allows light industrial uses. The goal of District 6 is
to continue to allow these types of uses in the area with some limitations to better integrate
them into the surrounding Village environment. The land use plan set forth in the Village
Master Plan allows for the gradual transition of the area into uses which include both supportive
commercial and residential development. The land use standards for this district promote
additional landscaping along Tyler Street to improve the area’s appearance and screen
industrial uses from view of Roosevelt Street development.
Staff believes that the proposed self-storage facility provides for a use that is needed in the
compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood; and 3) provides for a
area and which: 1) results in minimal impact on adjacent uses; 2) incorporates a design that is
substantial amount of landscaping along the Tyler Street.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 6 are as
follows:
Buildina Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 6, the front setback is 5-20
feet and the side and rear setbacks are 5-10 feet. The project has been designed with varying
building starts at 35 feet from front property line and steps back at 10-foot increments to 65
rooflines and building articulation along Tyler Street. The building fapde on the front of the
feet. The side yard setbacks of the proposed project range from 5 to 10 from the side property
lines and the rear yard setback varies from 15 to 20 from the rear property line.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. For approval of a setback standard that is
above the maximum or below the minimum for the subject land use district, a variance must be
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Variances may only be granted if
the findings set forth in Section 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are met. In addition,
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 4
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RF' 01-09
a variance for a setback standard that exceeds the top of the range may only be granted if the
project meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area.
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
2. The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential .
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space
subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to
the subject project.)
The second criterion noted above applies to the subject project. Increased setbacks on the
front and rear of the property which exceed the maximum standard are justified because the
project is in a location that is in close proximity to the mixed use district on the east side of Tyler
and the higher density residential zones located south of Walnut Avenue. The increased
setback on the front of the property creates a substantial landscape buffer between the project
and the adjacent street and .serves to protect the livability of the existing residential
development in the area. Similarly, the increased setback on the rear of the property serves to
buffer the view of the proposed project from the adjacent railroad right-of-way.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for setback standards that
exceed the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings necessary to grant the requested variances. In order to approve the requested
variances to exceed the maximum setbacks on the front and rear of the property, the Design
Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must be able to make the all four
findings contained within Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35. Staff offers the following
justification for granting the requested variances to exceed the setback standards:
Variance Findina #7: The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code
Chapter 21.351 will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan. Justification: The general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village
Area Redevelopment Plan is to create development standards and design guidelines for the
setbacks along the front and rear of the property work toward this purpose by creating an
Village that result in projects that can co-exist in a mixed-use environment. The increased
aesthetically pleasing light industrial project in a mixed-use area.
Variance Findina #2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. Justification: Successful operation
and improved security of the self-storage project warrants the need for security gates along the
ingress and egress of the project. In order to provide parking for customers of the project and
not impact on street parking, parking spaces must be provided along the front of the proposed
project. In order to provide the required number of parking spaces and the required landscape
setback between the parking and the front property line, the front building setback must be
increased. In addition, industry standards dictate the interior size of the individual self-storage 27
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 5
units. Adding square footage to the building in order to meet the rear yard setback standard
does not make economic sense and would only increase lot coverage.
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 5
jer to meet the rear vard setback standard
Variance Findinu #3 The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
increased setback above the maximum range along the front of the property will not have a
detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the additional setback allows a greater
landscape buffer between the proposed use and the mixed use district on the east side of Tyler
Street, thus increasing the livability of the area and reducing impacts to surrounding properties.
Similar is true for the increased setback along the rear of the property. The additional
landscape buffer along the railroad right-of-way both shields and breaks up the rear faGade of
the building as viewed from the railroad right-of-way.
Variance Findinu #4: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
objectives of each land use district found within the Village Redevelopment Area. In this case,
the increased setback is consistent with the goals and objectives for Land Use District 6 which
encourage the provision of substantial landscaping along the front of the property to provide for
a greater transition between the light industrial uses in District 6 and the residential and
commercial uses of adjacent District 5.
Based on these variance findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow building setbacks that exceed the established range on the front
and rear of the property.
Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects
in Land Use District 6 is 50% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 54.6%
which is within the established range. The bottom of the range is considered the desired
standard. The substantial building articulation incorporated into all sides of the building results
in a project design which is interesting and visually appealing'and reinforces the village
character for the area. Therefore, staff finds that the building coverage is consistent with the
desired standard.
Buildina Helaht: The height limit for Land Use District 6 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. The project proposes a maximum roof height of 35 feet with a front tower element
that extends to 40 feet. The project meets the building height standard and the additional
height for the tower element is permitted under Section 21.46.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code which permits architectural elements such as towers to exceed the building height as long
as the architectural feature does not increase floor area. The tower on the front of the building
is specifically for architectural purposes and intended to help break up the faqade of the
building. The tower does not include any useable floor area.
The building has varying rooflines with pitched roof features (5:12) at the front, rear and sides
of the building. The interior of the project incorporates flat roof elements that cannot be seen
from the exterior of the property, but requires the granting of a variance, because the minimum
5:12 roof pitch is a development standard which applies to the entire building similar to building
setbacks, building height and lot coverage. Staff offers the following justification for granting
the requested variance to provide for flat roof features along the interior of the property:
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 6
Variance Findina #I: The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code
Chapter 21.351 will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan. Justification: Incorporating the 5:12 roof pitch on the interior of the
property results in the ridgeline of the roof being in the center of each of the buildings. This
would increase the overall height of the structures and exceed the maximum height permitted in
this district. Strict adherence to the minimum 5:12 roof pitch across the entire building would
therefore be inconsistent with the development standards for Land Use District 6 and would not
result in an overall aesthetic improvement to the project as viewed from the exterior of the
property.
Variance Findina #2 There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. Justification: The nature of the
proposed use warrants the need for internal circulation between the two buildings. Since the
internal circulation cannot be viewed from the exterior of the project, the incorporation of a 5:12
roof pitch along the interior of the project does not justify the significant financial increase to the
cost of the project, which makes this a condition unique to the proposed development.
Variance Findino #3 The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
design standard for a minimum 5:12 roof pitch has been incorporated into all exterior sides of
the building. The interior of the building, where the 5:12 roof pitch has not been incorporated,
cannot be seen from outside the project boundaries. Therefore, the granting of the variance to
incorporate flat roof components along the interior of the property will not be injurious or
materially detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the area.
Variance Findino #4: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to incorporate various design guidelines,
where feasible, to improve the aesthetics of new projects. The proposed project includes
substantial building articulation on all sides of the building and various rooflines with a minimum
5:12 roof pitch where they can be seen from the exterior of the project. These design elements
are consistent with the standards established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Based on these variance findings, it is staff's position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow flat roof elements along the interior of the project.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters,
open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating
areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the open space. The project, as proposed,
provides for a total of 17,675 square feet of open space/landscape area, which represents 20%
of the site and is consistent with the open space requirement.
Parkinq: Both the Village Master Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance are silent on
specific parking requirements for a self-storage facility. Traditionally, parking has only been
required for the office component of the project. This standard has been applied to other self-
storage facilities in the City of Carlsbad. In the Village Redevelopment Area, the parking
29
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 7
requirement for office use is 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. Due
to the nature of the use, the drive aisles of the facility then serve to satisfy the parking needs for
the storage use. Information received from the applicant on the subject of parking has shown
that this parking requirement is consistent with the industry standard for this type of use. The
proposed project includes 1,350 square feet of office space. At one parking space for every
300 square feet of gross floor area, 5 parking spaces are required for the project. The project
design includes five (5) parking spaces at the northeast corner of the subject property. These
parking spaces provide for convenient customer access to the office while maintaining security
for the remainder of the facility. Therefore, staff has determined that the proposed parking
satisfies the parking requirement for the project and is consistent with the parking standards
applied to other self-storage projects within the City.
Residential Densitv and lnclusionaw Housina Reauirements: There is no residential
component proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing
requirements are not applicable to this project.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design
a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. The Design Review Board and
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the
applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These
design principles are:
1.
2.
3. 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Development shall have an overall informal character.
Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
Development shall be small in scale.
Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
IO. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The applicant has
taken a use, which typically requires nothing more than a concrete box in which to operate, and
incorporated several design elements to achieve the desired Village character. Each of the
building facades incorporate faux elements such as varying roof heights on the front of the
building, spandrel divided paned windows and shutters, and multiple building recesses. The
project design provides for an overall informal character while expressing the unique nature of
the use and site location. The architectural design provides for variety and diversity through the
incorporation of the following elements: varying roof heights, archways, divided paned windows,
building articulation on all elevations, and varied building setbacks. The project incorporates an
abundance of informal landscaping along the perimeter of the property that serves to enhance
the architectural design of the building. A strong emphasis has been placed on the design of
the front faGade, especially at the ground floor where the office entrance is located. Finally, as
discussed in greater detail below, signage for the project is consistent with the sign standards
for the Village Redevelopment Area and appropriate to a village character. A summary of the
design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (Exhibit 3).
30
NOVEMBER 26,2001
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
PAGE 8
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
As indicated on the building elevations, the applicant is proposing one monument sign on Tyler
Street, one wall sign on the east elevation of the building facing Tyler Street, two wall signs on
the west building elevation facing the railroad right-of-way. The area of the monument sign
measures 8’ wide by 3’ tall for a total sign area of 24 square feet. In addition, the monument
sign sits on a 2’ high base for a total height of 5I-O. The wall sign on the front of the building
measures 17’-6 wide by 3’-6” tall for a total sign area of 61.25 square feet. The two wall signs
on the rear of the building are located at the north and south sides of the rear elevation. Each
one measures 15”O wide x 2‘-IO tall for a total sign area of 42.95 square feet each. All wall
signs consist of internally illuminated channel letters. The sign regulations for the Village
Redevelopment Area are one square foot of signage per linear foot of building frontage. The
building has 196 linear feet of frontage on Tyler Street. The total sign area of all three signs
equates to 194.1 5 square feet and is less than the maximum allowed sign area for the project.
The proposed signs are consistent with the sign regulations set forth for the Village
Redevelopment Area in terms of size, type and location of the sign.
IX. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation which is greater than $150,000.
The project must have a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested, consider
the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then
take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the requested variances for
front and rear setbacks that exceed the established range and flat roof elements on the interior
of the project.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore a Coastal Development
Permit is not required.
X. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City’s requirements for the following:
Traffic & Circulation: The total projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the project is 382 trips.
A traffic study was not required because of the insignificant impacts projected to the local street
system.
The City uses the latest SANDAG generation rates to determine a project’s projected traffic
demand. However, SANDAG does not have a projected rate for self-storage facilities.
Therefore, traffic generation was determined using studies completed by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. Their studies project a rate of 2.6 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor
area. Based on this rate, the project is anticipated to generate an average of 8 vehicles per
hour and a peak generation of 29 vehicles at the noon hour on Saturdays. Safe site distance
will be maintained.
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
PAGE 9
NOVEMBER 26,2001
The developer will connect to the main with a 4" sewer lateral. The total number of sewer Sewer service to the project will be provided by existing sewer facilities in Tyler Street.
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) required for the project is calculated to be .75 for the office
use.
- Water: Water service will be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. An on-site water line for fire protection is proposed and improvement plans will be required. The system
will be looped. In addition, two fire hydrants are proposed within the Tyler Street parkway.
determined appropriate by the Water District Engineer.
Reclaimed Water: The use of reclaimed water will be incorporated where feasible as
Gradina: Grading for this project will primarily consist of the treating of the first 3-4 feet of soil
with removal and compaction. Existing utility pipes to be abandoned or that are currently abandoned will be removed during grading. According to the soils report, the proposed non-
perforated drainpipe located along the north and south property line is sufficient for carrying
surface drainage away from the proposed building's foundation and the neighbor's existing
building foundations. The surface between these buildings must be compacted to 90% of the
maximum dry density. In addition, to prevent movement of the neighbor's building during on-
site excavation, shoring or bracing techniques are required.
Drainaae and Erosion Control: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project.
site drainage. This drain will allow for water to percolate into the soil before any excess water A three-foot deep "French drain" will be placed at the east end of the lot for retention of all on-
discharges off-site to the west.
Land TiNe: Several SDG&E easements, a water easement and a private easement exist on-
the easement holders give permission for encroachment. A 4.5-foot easement will be required
site. The project will be conditioned to require that these easements either be vacated or that
to be dedicated to the City along the project frontage for public right-of-way.
The subject property consists of several parcels which are not legal lots, but separate assessor
parcels for tax purposes. A legal lot line, however, separates lots 6 and 7. The project is
conditioned that these lots be consolidated prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Imorovements: Curb and gutter currently exist along the property frontage. There are no
required public improvements at this time. The project is located in an area that has been
designated as an alternative design street per the "City Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee Final Report". As an alternative to processing street design plans for approval, the applicant
may enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City. The project has been
conditioned accordingly for remaining public improvements.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. Earlier analysis of this proposed
project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA94-01) and related Master
Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) that reviewed the potential impacts of build out of
the City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. CEQA Guidelines
state an MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to
the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MER to 32
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - Rp 01-09
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 10
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. However, although the
MElR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds
that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the
MElR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, with intersection failure at
Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, has been mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could have been
known at the time the MER was certified. Therefore, the MER remains adequate to review
later projects.
In addition to the MEIR, earlier analysis of this proposed project has been completed through
the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design
Manual (SS92-01) dated 10/1/95, which analyzed the build out of the Village Redevelopment
Area pursuant to the amended Village Redevelopment Master Plan. Without exception,
development of the proposed project has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the
earlier environmental review and no additional environmental review or mitigation measures are
necessary.
As a result of staff’s review, a Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the
Planning Director on November 6, 2001 and made available for public review. No comments
were received on the environmental document. Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution
No. 278 will recommend approval of the Negative Declaration for this project to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached as part of
Exhibit 1.
XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot
will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
XIII. CONCLUSION
As of the date of this report, staff has received one letter in response to the proposed project.
The letter is from Ofelia (Ofie) Escobedo, local resident and owner of Lola’s Market on
Roosevelt Street. In her letter, Ms. Escobedo objects to the placement of a self-storage facility
on Tyler Street and contends that a mixed-use project would be more consistent with the
surrounding area. A copy of Ms. Escobedo’s letter is attached for your review (see Exhibit 4).
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant a variance for front and rear
yard setbacks that exceed the maximum standard allowed and findings to grant a variance to
permit less than a 5:12 roof pitch on the interior of the project. Development of the site will
have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in
fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
33
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE - RP 01-09
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 11
EXHIBITS
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 278 recommending approval of the Negative
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 279 recommending approval of RP 01 -09.
3. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
4. Letter from Ofelia Escobedo, dated October 18,2001
5. Location Map
6. Exhibits “A - I”, dated November 26,2001, including reduced exhibits.
Declaration.
34
EXHIBIT 1
DR6 Resolution No. 278
35
I
I
!
1(
11
1:
1:
1L
1:
1C
li
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 278
A RESOLUTION OT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RPO1-09 TO ALLOW
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TYLER
STREET BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND WALNUT AVENUE
IN LAND USE DISTRICT 6 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITJES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
CASE NO.: RP 01-09
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26th day of November 2001,
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF-STORAGE FACILlTY ON
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, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
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 hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated November 6,2001, and “PII” dated November
1,2001 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findines:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for Carlsbad
Village Self Storage (RP 01-09) the environmental impacts therein identified for
this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
1
1
t
I
5
1(
11
1:
1:
14
1:
1C
1;
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City ol
Carlsbad; and
I d. based on the EL4 Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment in that the initial
study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant impact on the environment. The adjacent streets are adequate in size
to handle traffic generated by the proposed project and there are no sensitive
resources located onsite or located in close proximity to the subject property so as
to be significantly impacted by this project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26th day of November
2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, Chairperson
CARISBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
! ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
11 DRB RES0 NO. 278 -2-
Exhibit llND1l
Citv of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation:
Project Description:
West side of Tyler Street, between Oak Avenue and Walnut Street,
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Redevelopment Permit for the replacement of a glass and tile
manufacturing building with a 148,000 square foot, three-story
self-storage facility with a 1,350 square foot office on an existing
industrial lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments bm the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED: NOVEMBER 6,2001
CASE NO: Rp 01-09
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 6,2001
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-6559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @3g
Exhibit “PIP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART JI
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 01-09 DATE: November 1.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Villaee Self-Storaee
2. APPLICANT: HNB. Inc
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 29095 Rockv Point Wv. Escondido. CA 92026 760-751-2017
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Julv 25,2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Redevelment Permit for the mlacement of a dass and tile manufacturine buildine with a 148.000 sauare foot. three-stow self-storape facilitv with a 1.350 sauare foot office on an existine inddal lot.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCircUation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 utilities & service systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
water 0-b 0 cultural Resources
lxlAi.witY Noise OReCreatiOn
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96 37
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
0
Ixl
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect@) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon'the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of prior Compliance has been prepared.
A
IIIzlOI
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 40
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e
e
e
e
0
e
e
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an infomation source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A ‘Wo 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 hm “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 “EM-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 EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and @) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental dbcument is required (Prior Compliance).
When ‘Totentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence’
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rcv. 03/28/96 41
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 42
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Impaa
Significant Potentially LessThan No Significant significant Impact
Mitigation Unless imP=t
hcorpaared
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
uroiect? (#]:Pas 5.6-1 - 56-18)
SO^ #(s): (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 OIXI
0 OB
0
0
c) Be -inco&pati& with existingland use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pas 5.61 - 56-18) 0 0 OIXI
0 OB d) Affec~agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or
0
0 0 0 IXI
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major inh~cture)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#I:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
a) FaUkNpture?(#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
0 om
0
o n OIXI
0 0 0
0 om OIXI 0 OIXI c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e). Landslides or mudtlows? (#I:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, gtadiug, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
~,
5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#I:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
0
0 0
0 OIXI
0 OIXI 0 OH
0 0 0
0 OIXI 0 OB 0 om i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absoIption rates, drainage pattcms, or the rate and amount of surface runof€? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
surface water quality (eg. temperature, dissolved
5
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 01x1
0 OIXI
Rev. 03/28/96 43
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
UnlesJ Mitigation
"=E**
0
0
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#I:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11) 0 Changes in the quantity of ground watm, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
interception of an aquifer. by cuts or excavations or
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? capability? (#I:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
U
0
om om
0 om
0
0 om om
0 0 om
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 43-12)
IXI 0 00
OIXI om om 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips 01 eaffic congestion? (#I :Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design featum (e.g. sharp curves or da~gmus ink~~~ti~~) 01 incompatible uses
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or banins for pedestrians or bicyclists?
r) conflias with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.& bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterbomc or air eaffic impacts? (#I:Pgs 5.7-1 -
propoddtin:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
0
0 00 om 0
0
0
U
0
0 om om om om
0
0 .o
om
W.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) EndangereQ threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, !ish, insects,
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
animals, and bhds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
inimpactsto:
(#I:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
0 om
om 0
Rcv. 03/28/96 4+ 6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastalhabitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (#I :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#I:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
Proposal7
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
M. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5) ThC creation of any health hazard 01 potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
healthhazards?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ortrees? (#I:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
potentially Potentially I.essnlan No
Significant Significant Sigruficaat Jmpact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
0 0 om
0 0 OIXI
0 0 OIXI
17 0 OIXI
0 om
0 0 OIXI
X. NOISE. Would the proposal redt in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0 OB
1 - 5.9-15) 0 0 om
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, 01 result in a need for new or altered government
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
services in any of the following areas:
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 0 OIXI 0 0 OIXI 0 0 om 0 0 OIXI C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 om
W.UTIL.IlTES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7 Rev. 03/28/96 45
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Imp&
Signifcant Potentially
Unlcss
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0 O
17 o 0 0
Significant Less Than
mm Impact
NO
0 0 IXI a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
o 0 IXI IXI
0
o B 0 0 0 0
IXI IXI IXI IXI g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:PgS
c) Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1-5.11-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
17
0
0 0 IXI
IXI
IXI
0 0
0 0 0
XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical chsqge which
would deet unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
1 0)
10)
1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect .existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0
IXI
IXI 0
0 0 IXI IXI
IXI 0 0 0
0 0 0 IXI
Ixl 0 0 0
XVI. MAMlATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a me or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
0 0 0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96 4b 8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially LessThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Mitieation hpaa
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
1ncor;;orated
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 UIXI
(“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 ment projects, and the effects of
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
probable future projects)?
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0 0 IXI
XW. EARLIER ANALYSES.
The Carlsbad Village Self-storage site has undergone envirohental review on two previous
occasions. The previous environmental review documents include the Master Environmental
Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. The MEIR
reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with buildout of the City’s General
Plan, including transportation and air quality. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual reviewed the potential environmental
impacts associated with the development of the Village Redevelopment Area in accordance with
the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. All applicable mitigation measures
contained in these two documents that are relevant to the proposed project have been
incorporated into the project design or are expressly listed in the mitigation measures below.
As mentioned above, the project falls within the scope of the City’s MER for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic.
MEIR’s may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is
currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review
subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s
preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect
to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed
circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, has been
mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information,
which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified.
Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. All feasible mitigation measures
identified by the MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the
project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 47
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves the demolition of an existing glass and tile manufacturing facility and the
construction and operation of a self-storage facility on an existing lot generally located on the
west side of Tyler Street, between Oak Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1. The site is surrounded by industrial development on the north and south
and is bordered by the North San Diego Railroad right-of-way on the west. To the east, across
the Tyler Street right-of-way, is a mixture of vacant land, auto repair and single family
residential development.
The proposed self-storage facility would consist of two buildings totaling 148,000 square feet.
The buildings would contain three stories and would measure 35 feet in height. An architectural
feature on one of the buildings would reach 40 feet in height to the peak of the pitched roof. The
148,000 square feet would also include a 1,350 square foot office for facility operations and
management. The site has been reviewed through a geotechnical evaluation (Preliminary
Geotechnical Evaluation for 3235 - 3265 Tyler Street and UDdate Geotechnical Evaluation for
3267/3281 Tvler Street, Carlsbad. San Diego County. California, dated November 2, 2001, HNB, Inc.) and no significant adverse soils or geologic impacts will occur. The proposal
conforms to all applicable regulations, including the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual as well as the City’s General Plan. The proposed in-fill project, therefore, will
not create any significant adverse environmental impacts.
AIR OUALIrn
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
hm the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
10 4t Rev. 03/28/96
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER
This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to’ fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) 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-Mc 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 build-out of the. General Plan due to regional though-Mc, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked ‘Totentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MER was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MER remains adequate to
review later projects.
11
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuoa for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual, adopted December 5,1995, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for 3235 - 3265 Tyler Street and Uudate
Geotechnical Evaluation for 3267/3281 Tvler Street. Carlsbad. San Dierro Countv.
California, dated November 2,2001, HNB, Inc.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 50
EXHIBIT 2
DRB Resolution No. 279
1
I
I(
lj
1:
1:
14
12
If
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 279
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED
THE MAXI” STANDARD RANGE AND ROOF ELEMENTS ON THE
INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE BELOW THE “UM 5:12
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TYLER STREET BET(NEEN PINE
AVENUE AND WALNUT AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 6 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
APN 204-070-01thrUO7 and 204-010-11&12
CASE NO: RP 01-09
REDEVELOPMENT PERMII NUh4BER RP 01-09, INCLUDING
ROOF PUCH, FOR A NEW SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ON PROPERTY
WHEREAS, HNB, Inc., a corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
1
Parcel Number 204-070-01thruO7 and 204-010-11&12, and more thoroughly described in
Oceanside Glasstile and Soils Organic Solutions, Inc., “Owners”, and known as Assessor
with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by,
Attachment A, “the property”; and
i
I
1
I WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
I shown on Exhibits “A-I” dated November 26,2001, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
1 Department, “Carlsbad Village Self Storage RP 01-09’’, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26’h day of November 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
“Carlsbad Village Self Storage RP 01-09”.
(
I
!
1(
11
1:
1:
1L
1!
1t
1;
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board a:
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Reviea
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Village Self Storage RP 01.
09, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for setback and roof pitch variances, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on
the facts set forth in the staff report dated November 26,2001 including, but not limited
to the following:
a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that it provides
for a light industrial use in an appropriate location within the Village. The
use serves to enhance the shopping, working and living environment of the
Village by meeting the off-site storage needs of both residents and businesses.
The project provides new economic incentives in the area through the
redevelopment of an underutilized and blighted property. Finally, the
project design reinforces the Village character and assists with the effort to
create a distinct identity for the Village as an area which provides a wide
variety of uses.
b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual in that, as set forth in the Village Master Plan, storage
building/warehouse is classified as a permitted use in Land Use District 6.
C. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for
Land Use District 6, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable
regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the
exception of the requested variances.
d. 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
11 DRB RES0 NO. 279 -2-
1
c
4
L -
f
5
8
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into andlor are
transported within storm drainage facilities.
e. 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.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front and rear
yard setbacks that exceed the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
that the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment
Plan is to create development standards and design guidelines for the Village
that result in projects that can co-exist in a mixed-use environment. The
increased setbacks along the front and rear of the property work toward this
purpose by creating an aesthetically pleasing light industrial project in a mixed-
use area.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that
successful operation and improved security of the self-storage project warrants
the need for security gates along the ingress and egress of the project. In order
to provide parking for customers of the project and not impact street parking,
parking spaces must be provided along the front of the proposed project. In
order to provide the required number of parking spaces and the required
landscape setback between the parking and the front property line, the front
building setback must be increased. In addition, industry standards dictate the
interior size of the individual self-storage units. Adding square footage to the
building in order to meet the rear yard setback standard does not make
economic sense and would only increase lot coverage.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
additional setback allows a greater landscape buffer between the proposed use
and the mixed use district on the east side of Tyler Street, thus increasing the
livability of the area and reducing impacts to surrounding properties. Similar is
true for the increased setback along the rear of the property. The additional
landscape buffer along the railroad right-of-way both shields and breaks up the
rear faqade of the building as viewed from the railroad right-of-way.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -3-
1
I:
L
L
t - I
6
5
1(
11
12
13
14
15
It
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
3.
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
consideration the unique objectives of each land use district found within the
Village Redevelopment Area. In this case, the increased setback is consistent
with the goals and objectives for Land Use District 6 which encourage the
provision of substantial landscaping along the front of the property to provide
for a greater transition between the light industrial uses in District 6 and the
residential and commercial uses of adjacent District 5.
e. The project is in a location that is in close proximity to the mixed-use district on
the east side of Tyler and the higher density residential zones located south of
Walnut Avenue. The increased setback on the front of the property creates a
substantial landscape buffer between the project and the adjacent street and
serves to protect the livability of the existing residential development in the area.
Similarly, the increased setback on the rear of the property serves to buffer the
view of the proposed project from the adjacent railroad right-of-way.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for roof elements on the interior of
the project that are less than the minimum 5:12 standard:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan; in
that strict adherence to the minimum 512 roof pitch across the entire building
would result in a significantly taller structure than is permitted in this district.
This increase in height would be inconsistent with the development standards
for Land Use District 6 and would not result in an overall aesthetic improvement
to the project as viewed from the exterior of the property.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the
nature of the proposed use warrants the need for internal circulation between
the two buildings. Since the internal circulation cannot be viewed from the
exterior of the project, the incorporation of a 512 roof pitch along the interior of
the project does not justify the significant financial increase to the cost of the
project, which makes this a condition unique to the proposed development.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
design standard for a minimum 512 roof pitch has been incorporated into all
exterior sides of the building. The interior of the building, where the 5:12 roof
pitch has not been incorporated, cannot be seen from outside the project
boundaries. Therefore, the granting of the variance to incorporate flat roof
components along the interior of the property will not be injurious or materially
detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the area.
..
DRB RES0 NO. 219 -4-
'
t
2
5
1(
11
1;
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to incorporate
various design guidelines, where feasible, to improve the aesthetics of new
projects. The proposed project includes substantial building articulation on all
sides of the building and various rooflines with a minimum 512 roof pitch
where they can be seen from the exterior of the project. These design elements
are consistent with the standards established in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. 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,
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 he paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
will he collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
5. 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.
...
I1
...
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -5-
1
L
1 -
c
r I
8
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise suecified herein. all conditions shall be satisfied urior to the issuance o
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
building permits.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to b~
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be sc
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have thc
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuancc
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates 01
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for theil
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City’dAgency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit.
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 tc
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.
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 con&tion 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 nondiscretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, includmg 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.
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -6-
I
I
1(
1:
1:
1:
lr
I!
1f
1;
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, i
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36 blueline drawini
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to thc
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation tc
provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are requirec
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 thal
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:
11. 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.
12. 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:
13. 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 by Resolution(s) No. 278 and 279 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:
14. Outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -7-
1
t
t
$
1(
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15.
16.
17.
18.
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 Housing & Redevelopment 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.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 5 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “A”.
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.
Developer shall install dfmt high (minimum) perimeter fencing along the sides and
rear of the property to preclude pedestrian access through the property. Location
and materials of fencing shall be to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment
Director.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed Major 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
for the proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
3. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
FeeslApreements:
4. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
5. Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement
DIU3 RES0 NO. 279 -8-
(
I
.I(
1:
1:
1:
1L
1:
1t
1;
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Tyler Street along thc
subdivision frontage for a half street width of 20 feet. Public improvements shall includt
but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, undergrounding 01
relocation of utilities, and streetlights.
6. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shal:
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the are2
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Streel
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading:
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.
DedicationdImDrovements:
8.
9.
10.
Developer shall cause Owner to make an offer of dedication to the City andor other
appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the site plan. The
offer shall be made by a separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered
free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that are already
public are not required to be rededicated.
Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including, but not
limited to, installation of water lines, fire hydrants and related appurtenances.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in
said agreement.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
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 of the California Regional 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:
1) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
2) Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to fdter said
pollutants.
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -9-
1
1
t
t
5
1(
11
12
l?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11.
12.
13.
3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper
procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
4) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
5) Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall consolidate Lot 6 and 7
into one lot by processing an adjustment plat through the City Public Works
Department's plan check procedure.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the City with proof
that all affected on-site easements have either been quitclaimed or that the easement
holder has granted permission to construct, work and develop over said easements.
Prior to issuance of building permit, developer shall have design, apply for and obtain
approval of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic
index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking
area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the
aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information and
approved by the City Engineer as part of the building or grading plan review whichever
occurs first.
WaterISewer:
DRB RES0 NO. 279
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or
within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate
maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. The water easement shall be
dedicated to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Application for easement dedication must be processed with the
City Public Works Department.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall install potable water meters at a location approved by the District
Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
The Developer shall design and construct public water and sewer facilities substantially
as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public
facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
-10-
I
I
I(
1:
1:
1:
11
1!
1t
1;
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -11-
20.
21.
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time o
occupancy.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the entire potable water and sewer system shall bc
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can h
met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer,
A fire flow system shall be required for this industrial development and it shall bt
constructed as a looped system. The Developer shall complete the looped water systen
by tying into the existing waterline system on Tyler Street to the satisfaction of tht
District Engineer.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited tc
the following code requirements.
&e&
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 #1 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
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
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 18 months from the date of final project approval.
4. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Enpineerine:
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.
I
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
- Fire:
7. All buildings shall be equipped with automatic tire sprinklers.
8. Electric gates shall be equipped with Knox override switches.
9. All fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Department
prior to installation.
10. Rental agreements shall include language stating that storage cannot be within 2 feet of
the ceiling.
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
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. 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 feedexactions
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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously othenvise
expired.
..
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -12-
1
<
4
6 -
f
1
E
5
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26* day of November 2001 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EFOkF'AS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 279 -13-
Attachment "A"
PARCEL ONE:
Lot 6 of Industrial Tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 1743, fded'in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County. January 3, 1923.
-,
APN: 204-010-11; 204-010-12
PARCEL TWO:
The Northwesterly 20.2 feet of the Northeasterly 118.00 feet and the Northwesterly 20.00
feet of the Southwesterly 100.00 feet of the Northeasierly 218.00 feet of Lot 7 of Industrial
Tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according. to Map
thereof No. 1743, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, January
3, 1923.
APN: 204-070-01
PARCEL A:
A portion of Lot 7 of Industrial Tract; in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof No. 1743, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1923 and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly side of Tyler Street (shown as First Street on said
Map) North 34'33'00" West, 59.00 feet along said side of Tyler Street from the Lot line
common to Lot 7 and Lot 8; thence continuing North 34"33'00" West, 59.00 feet; thence
parallel to said common Lot line South 55"27'00" West, 118.00 feet; thence parallel to said
Southwesterly side of Tyler Street North 34'33'00" West, 0.20 feet; thence parallel to said
common line South 55"27'00" West, 50.00 feet; thence parallel to said Southwesterly side
of Tyler Street South 34"33'00" East, 118.20 feet to the said common line; thence along
said common line North 55"27'00" East, 50.00 feet; thence parallel to said Southwesterly
line of Tyler Street North 34'33'00" West, 59.00 feet; thence parallel to said common line
North 55"27'00" East, 118.00 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL B:
Southeasterly 59.00 feet of the Northeasterly 118.00 feet of Lot 7 of Industrial Tract, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
1743, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, January 3, 1923.
PARCEL C:
The Southwesterly 50 feet of the Northeasterly 218 feet of Lot 7 of Industrial Tract, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
1743, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on January 3, 1923.
EXCEPTING THJBEFROM the Northwesterly 20 feet thereof.
PARCEL D:
That portion of Lot 7 of Industrial Tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map th&of Na. 1743, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on January 3, 1923, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly comer of said Lot No. 7, thence Northeasterly along the
Northwesterly boundary line of said Lot No. 7 a distance of 50.87 feet to the true point of
beginning; thence continuing Northeasterly along said Northwesterly line 50.87 feet; thence
Southeasterly at right angles 138.20 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Lot; thence
Southwesterly along said Southeasterly line 50.87 feet to a line which bears Southeasterly at
right angles from the true point of beginning; thence Northwesterly 138.20 feet to the true
point of beginning. .. 6b
PARCEL E:
That portion of Lot No. 7, of the Industrial Tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1743, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, January 3, 1923, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot No. 7, running thence Northeasterly
along-the Northwesterly boundary line of said Lot No. 7, a distance of 50.87 feet to a,point
on the said boundary line, thence Southeasterly at right angles 138.2 feet to a point in the
Southeasterly boundary line of said Lot No. 7; thence at right angles along the
Southeasterly boundary line'of said Lot No. 7 to the most Southwesterly comer of said Lot
No. 7: thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly boundary line of said Lot No. 7 to the
point of beginning.
PARCEL F:
An easement for ingress and egress for road and incidental purposes over, under, along and
across the Northwesterly 20:2 feet of the Northeasterly 118 feet and Northwesterly 20 feet
of the Southwesterly 100 feet of the Northeasterly 218 feet of Lot 7 of Industrial Tract, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof
No. 1743, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 9,
1935, in Book 433, Page 368 of Official Records.
APN: 204-070-02. 03, 04, 05, 06, 07
EXHIBIT 3
Design Guidelines Checklist
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial There are a variety of setbacks along Tyler Street.
block front. The proposed project has front setbacks which
range from 35 to 65 feet in 10 foot increments.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian Tyler Street is not a retail corridor with high
frontages. pedestrian activity; therefore no sitting areas are
incorporated into the project.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented The proposed project will not conflict with retail
frontaaes. continuitv.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
~~~ I No drive through service use is included in project.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses. There are no residential uses located to either side
of the proposed project and the project backs up
to the railroad right-of-way. There are no windows
along the perimeter of the proiect.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Villaae Drive. State Street. Grand Avenue.
The nature of the use does not warrant off-street
courtyards for pedestrian use.
Landscaped areas along all sides of the building
will provide for an informal setting.
Landscaping will be provided along all sides of the
building.
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots Landscaping is provided on all sides of the
proposed parking lot and creates a nice buffer
between the parking area and Tyler Street.
The property does not abut an alley. Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots. For security purposes, parking cannot be located
at the rear of the property.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for All areas not required for parking spaces and
Darkina maces or circulation to IandscaDina. drivewav aisles have been landscaped.
Avoid parking in front setback areas. The IO-foot setback between the parking and the
front property line is landscaped and within the
setback range for District 6.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas. There are two curb cuts along the 276-foot
frontage, which is not a major pedestrian area.
69
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking A 1 0-foot landscaped setback is provided betweel
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved the parking lot and Tyler Street.
pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their No portion of the ground floor space of thf
ground floor space to parking uses. building is devoted to parking.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential It is not feasible to provide parking below grade.
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces. There are only 5 parking spaces included in thc
project. The minimal amount of surface parkinc
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
mere copies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
The proposed design of the building provides fol
articulation on all sides of the building, varying
rooflines, and other architectural features whict
provide for a unique character.
The front faGade of the building incorporates a
stepping back effect.
Break large buildings into smaller units. The project consists of two separate buildings with
vehicular access between them. From Tylel
Street this creates the illusion of three separate
buildings and breaks up the 276-foot frontaQe.
I Maintain a relatively consistent building height along The height of the building is fairly consistent with
block faces. other light industrial buildings on adjacenl
properties.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and “look at meu
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
is not trendv or “look at me” in design.
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater.
Roof features with the minimum 5:12 pitch have
been provided throughout the exterior of the
project.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. I The project design does not lend itself to the use
of dormers.
2
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
~
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
\void the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
:arpeting; distressed wood of any type
4void tinted or reflective window glass.
Jtilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
netal door and window frames.
This will be a requirement of the project.
Fagade elements made to look like roofs an
important for the aesthetic improvement of thf
building.
By providing for attractive facades anc
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing
Visual interest is added to the building througt
architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates desigr
elements into all building facades, thereby creating
visual interest in the building. The project make:
good use of archways, divided paned window3
with shudders, varying roof heights, anc
landscaping.
The proposed project provides for divided panec
windows to achieve the Village character.
The building design provides for recesses anc
projections that will create shadows and contrasi
along all sides.
The upper levels of this project provide for an
architectural tower and attractive window features
that reflect special attention in design.
The upper levels of this building will be accessec
internally. Therefore, no special treatment of uppel
level use entries is necessary.
Detail elements have been incorporated into all
sides of the building. Various stucco colors and
shudders around windows provide for detail which
adds visual interest.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The exterior walls utilize a stucco finish of varying
neutral colors.
At this time, none of the noted materials have
been indicated for use.
The windows are clear glass.
Spandrel glass windows will be utilized as required
by building code.
3
Utilize light and neutral base colors.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less colors)
Provide significant storefront glazing.
\void large blank walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
- mcourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
Nindows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Incourage the use of dutch doors.
Jtilize small paned windows.
)evelop a total design concept.
'rovide frequent entries.
.hit the extent of entry openings.
rvoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
ecurity grilles over windows along street frontages.
imphasize storefront entries.
itegrate fences and walls into the building design.
canopies.
The project utilizes a light and neutral colo
scheme.
The project incorporates 3 stucco colors and twc
trim.
Glazing is provided along the ground floor office.
FaGade projections, varying roof heights, anc
various window designs serves to break ur
exterior walls.
Not applicable; no restaurant proposed within thc
project.
No fabric awnings to be used; not a retai
operation.
No display lighting. Not applicable to project.
Dutch doors are not proposed.
The applicant is using small divided paned
windows.
All facade design elements are unified. The appli-
cant was able to develop a total design concept
which is functional and visually interesting.
The proposed use does not warrant multiple
entries.
The extent of the entry openings has been limited
through the design.
The project does not include pull down shutters,
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontage.
The front office entry is the focal point of the
project with pedestrian access leading from the
parking lot and the street.
Fences and walls have been incorporated into the
building design.
4
72
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
disual importance to the house itself.
'rovide quality designed fences and walls.
disually separate multi-family developments into smaller
:omponents.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not aoolicable. I
Not applicable.
Not aoDlicable.
Not applicable. A
Not applicable. II
Not applicable. I
Not applicable. I
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
5
73
EXHIBIT 4
Letter from Ofelia Escobedo
74
18 October 2001
Ms. Debbie Fountain
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
2965 Roosevelt Street
Suite 0
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Debbie:
Just a follow-up on our telephone conversation the other day. Mr. Robert J. Schmitt, of
HNB, Inc. recently stopped by our business to apprise me of their intentions to build a
Storage facility on property located on Tyler Street. He showed us the plans and
though it is a nice looking project, I feel that it is not in the best interest of our Barrio
community to allow this type of a facility in such close proxjmity to our Village area and
the residential and commercial that surround it.
Once a project has been allowed. it is difficult to discourage other same type
businesses to move in and this is what happened in the 1980's when the city allowed
all the industrial and manufacturing businesses to locate on Tyler Street in the
predominately Hispanic residential neighborhood. My feelings reflect those of
SANDAGS SMART GROWH philosophy, "Connect housing with jobs, service and
transportation. Focus on integrating land uses, closer to jobs, more livable pedestrian
oriented communities" The ideal thing for this community would be something like what
Mr. Schilling has proposed. Retail on bottom, Residential on top..
I have discussed the situation with some of the property owners in the immediate area
and they are in agreement with me. Some of the residents are: Carreon Family,
Gastelum Family, the Alegre and Pacheco Family, Javier Umta. the TreJo's and the
Jauregui's. Of course we understand your position, but hope you can consider the
feelings of the immediate neighborhood residents.
Sincerely
Chairperson SANDAG
75
EXHIBIT 5
Location Map
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
SELF STORAGE
RP 01-09
EXHIBIT 5
Reduced Exhibits “A-I”
i U
t- u)
w a
t- w W
t- u)
a
X w
r X w
X W
s xs a
e e
Exhibit D
Draft DRB Minutes
November 26,2001
DRAFT I "
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:Ol p.m.
November 26,2001
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Board Members: Anthony Lawson
Chairperson: Bill Compas
Board Members: Sarah Marquez
Courtney Heineman
Harriet Marois
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein
Project Engineer: David Rick
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Compas asked Board Member Anthony Lawson to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 27, 2001 Minutes:
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded by Board
Member Lawson to accept the Minutes of August 27, 2001 with one
noted change.
VOTE: 3-0-0
AYES: NOES: Lawson, Heineman and Compas
None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Compas reviewed the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
There were no comments from the audience.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Compas called the applicant to the podium to verify if the applicant would like to
Chairperson Compas moved ahead to the first Agenda Item and gave the floor over to Lori
proceed though not all Board Members were present. The applicant agreed to move ahead.
Rosenstein.
Ms. Rosenstein shared that the applicant, Robert Schmitt on behalf of HNB Inc., has requested a major redevelopment permit for the construction of a 147,987 square foot self-storage facility on
property located at 3235-3281 Tyler Street. The property is located in Land Use District 6 of the
Tyler St. to the east, and the railroad right-of-way to the west. The subject property is located on redevelopment area. The borders of District 6 are Oak Ave. to the north, Walnut Ave. to the south,
the west side of Tyler Street between Pine Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The site is surrounded by
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINOTES
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 2 of 14 DRAFT
industrial development on the north and south and is bordered by the railroad right-of-way to the west. To the east, across the Tyler Street right-of-way, is a mixture of vacant land, auto repair,
and single-family residential development.
separate ownerships. Soils Organic Solutions, Inc. owns the northern half of the property and
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the subject property consists of 2.03 acres and is currently under two
Oceanside Glasstile owns the southern half of the property. Up until recently, Oceanside Glasstile
has been leasing the northern half of the property for its manufacturing operations. In the past couple of years the company purchased the southern half of the subject property with the intent of
locating their corporate headquarters on the property. Most recent use of the property has been
for overflow parking for Oceanside Glasstile’s adjacent manufacturing operations with three small
buildings used for product display, warehouse, and a small showroom for their products.
Oceanside Glasstile has recently acquired an industrial building in the Carlsbad Business Park
and has relocated their offices and manufacturing operations to their new location. The subject
property is presently vacant.
Ms. Rosenstein continued that as set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, storage
buildingsharehouses are classified as a permitted use within Land Use District 6 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right
Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district.
required.
Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still
She stated that District 6 has traditionally functioned as a light industrial area with an emphasis
upon automotive towing, repair and detailing uses. Other building services and light industrial
activities have also occupied large parcels in the area. District 6 is the only land use district within
the Village Redevelopment Area that allows light industrial uses. The goal of District 6 is to
continue to allow these types of uses in the area with some limitatibns to better integrate them into
for the gradual transition of the area into uses which include both supportive commercial and
the surrounding Village environment. The land use plan set forth in the Village Master Plan allows
along Tyler Street to improve the area’s appearance and screen industrial uses from view of
residential development. The land use standards for this district promote additional landscaping
Roosevelt Street development.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that staff believes that the proposed self-storage facility provides for a use that is needed in the area and which: 1) results in minimal impact on adjacent uses; 2)
incorporates a design that is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhood; and 3) provides for a substantial amount of landscaping along the Tyler Street.
She shared that the applicant is currently under contract to purchase both properties with the
construction of two three-story buildings consisting of 146,637 square feet of storage area and a
purpose of redeveloping the site as a self-storage facility. The proposed project includes the
added, Building B is in a horseshoe shape with Building A situated in the center. The office space
1,350 square foot office on the ground floor facing Tyler Street. Pointing to the site plan she
is located in the center of Building A.
Continuing to refer to the site plan, Ms. Rosenstein stated that five parking spaces are located off
Tyler Street at the north end of the property. Both the Village Master Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance are silent on specific parking requirements for a self-storage. facility. Traditionally,
applied to other self-storage facilities in the City of Carlsbad. In the Village Redevelopment Area, parking has only been required for the office component of the project. This standard has been
the parking requirement for office use is 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 3 of 14
NOVEMBER 26,2001 DRAFT
area. Due to the nature of the use, the drive aisles of the facility then serve to satisfy the parking needs for the storage use. Information received from the applicant on the subject of parking has shown that this parking requirement is consistent with the industry standard for this type of use.
The proposed project includes 1,350 square feet of office space. At one parking space for every
300 square feet of gross floor area, 5 parking spaces are required for the project. The project
design includes five (5) parking spaces. These parking spaces provide for convenient customer
access to the office while maintaining security for the remainder of the facility. Therefore, staff has
determined that the proposed parking satisfies the parking requirement for the project and is consistent with the parking standards applied to other self-storage projects within the City.
codes of each tenant. Other security measures include camera monitoring systems with time
She stated that security gates adjacent to the parking area are equipped with keypads for access
someone is trying to enter an unauthorized space.
lapse recorders and security alarms on each of the individual units that signal the manager if
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front, rear
the side and rear setbacks are 5-10 feet. The project has been designed with varying rooflines
and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 6, the front setback is 5-20 feet and
and building articulation along Tyler Street. The building faqade on the front of the building starts
setbacks of the proposed project range from 5 to 10 from the side property lines and the rear yard
at 35 feet from front property line and steps back at 10-foot increments to 65 feet. The side yard
setback varies from 15 to 20 from the rear property line.
She stated that as set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top
that is above the maximum, a variance must be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment
of the range is considered to be the desired setback standard. For approval of a setback standard
Commission. Staff supports the granting of the variance because the project is in a location that is in close proximity to the mixed use district on the east side of Tyler and the higher density
residential zones located south of Walnut Avenue. The increased setback on the front of the
serves to protect the livability of the existing residential development in the area. Similarly, the
property creates a substantial landscape buffer between the project and the adjacent street and
increased setback on the rear of the property serves to buffer the view of the proposed project from the adjacent railroad right-of-way.
Referring to the building elevations, Ms. Rosenstein stated that the height limit for Land Use
of 35 feet with a front tower element that extends to 40 feet. The project meets the building height District 6 is 35 feet with a minimum 512 roof pitch. The project proposes a maximum roof height
standard and the additional height for the tower element is permitted under the Carlsbad
Municipal Code which permits architectural elements such as towers to exceed the building height as long as the architectural feature does not increase floor area. The tower on the front of the
building is specifically for architectural purposes and intended to help break up the faqade of the
building. The tower does not include any useable floor area.
Continuing to refer to the building elevations she stated that the building has varying rooflines with 532 pitched roof features at the front, rear and sides of the building. The interior of the project
incorporates flat roof elements that cannot be seen from the exterior of the property, but requires
the granting of a variance, because the minimum 5:12 roof pitch is a development standard which
applies to the entire building similar to building setbacks, building height and lot coverage. The
Since the internal circulation cannot be viewed from the exterior of the project, the incorporation of
nature of the proposed use warrants the need for internal circulation between the two buildings.
the cost of the project. Therefore, it is staff's position that the proposed project warrants the a 5:12 roof pitch along the interior of the project does not justify the significant financial increase to
granting of a variance to allow flat roof elements along the interior of the project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 4 of 14
She stated that the proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined in the Village
concrete box in which to operate, and incorporated several design elements to achieve the Design Manual. The applicant has taken a use, which typically requires nothing more than a
desired Village character. Each of the building facades incorporate faux elements such as varying roof heights on the front of the building, divided paned windows and shutters, and multiple building
recesses. The project design provides for an overall informal character while expressing the
diversity through the incorporation of the following elements: varying roof heights, archways,
unique nature of the use and site location. The architectural design provides for variety and
divided paned windows, building articulation on all elevations, and varied building setbacks. The
that serves to enhance the architectural design of the building. A strong emphasis has been
project incorporates an abundance of informal landscaping along the perimeter of the property
placed on the design of the front faGade, especially at the ground floor where the office entrance is
located. Finally, signage for the project is consistent with the sign standards for the Village
related to the project is provided as an exhibit to the staff report.
Redevelopment Area and appropriate to a village character. A summary of the design features
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the
Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a light industrial use in an
appropriate location within the Village. The use serves to enhance the shopping, working and living environment of the Village by meeting the off-site storage needs of both residents and
businesses. Additionally, the project provides new economic incentives in the area through the
redevelopment of an underutilized and blighted property. Finally, the project design reinforces the Village character and assists with the effort to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area
which provides a wide variety of uses.
the project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of
Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of staff's
review, a Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Director on
environmental document. Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No. 278 will recommend
November 6, 2001 and made available for public review. No comments were received on the
approval of the Negative Declaration for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-
She stated that the proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a
utilized lot will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village She stated that the development of the site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and
Redevelopment Master Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Design Review Board adopt
Design Review Board Resolutions No. 278 and 279 recommending approval of RP 01-09 to the
setbacks that exceed the maximum range and a variance to permit roof elements on the interior Housing and Redevelopment Commission with variances to permit front and rear yard building
of the project that are less than the minimum 512 roof pitch standard.
Ms. Rosenstein added to the record that there were four additional letters received besides the one included with the agenda bill, one from Sean Gildea of Oceanside Glasstile supporting the
project, one from Alex Kononchuk who own K & K Laboratories supporting the project, one from
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 5 of 14
Rickard Schneider of San Katrina Apartments opposing the project and a draft which came with
Mr. Schneider's letter from Louis Torio of Village Pointe Apartments opposing the project.
Chairperson Compas asked Ms. Rosenstein to give her response regarding the opposing letters
received and if the use is acceptable for this site.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the opposition was to the light industrial use in this location, security
associated with the project and traffic generation. She said that based on the Village Master Plan,
Land Use District 6 allows the only light industrial uses in the redevelopment area and based on
the Land Use Matrix, storage and warehouse is identified as a permitted use.
Board Member Lawson asked Ms. Rosenstein to elaborate on District 6 and its unique setting
and debate and asked if this was the first significant project within this particular district to be
here. He stated his understanding was that it has gone through extensive public review process
implemented through the new Master Plan.
quite small being one block long, situated between Walnut and Oak Avenue on the west side of
Ms. Rosenstein stated that it is the first redevelopment project within this District and the District is
Tyler. She said in 1994 the Village Master Plan Advisory Committee was established to come up
with permitted land uses and provisional land uses within the Redevelopment Area. She said
goals and objectives were identified for each of the nine Land Use Districts. She said that in
stated that throughout the Redevelopment Area there are some remaining light industrial uses, District 6 considerable discussions took place over what would be done with this District. She
such as automotive repair and construction and building contractors with significant outdoor
storage, especially on north State Street. She stated that in 1994 it was determined that it was
best to prohibit light industrial uses throughout the redevelopment area, but allow them in one
particular District which turned out to be District 6. This area was chosen due to the significant
number of light industrial uses that were already in existence in this area along with the properties proximity to the railroad tracks, which makes it less visible from the main corridors. These land
uses were put into affect by the City Council when they adopted the Master Plan in 1995.
Chairperson Compas asked for an explanation on how the traffic will work within the horse shoe and if there was parking on the inside and what has been the experience on the ones that have
been built if the standard was ok or not. He asked how many storage units, how many users and how often they visit their storage units? He asked further explanation regarding the gates and
walls.
Ms. Rosenstein explained that there was one ingress into the property and one egress. She stated
that ingress would be at the north end of the property at the end of Tyler, with five parking spaces
for utilizing the office area, a security gate with a keypad entry giving tenants access to the interior
circulation which is 30' wide (a typical two-way drive aisle), and four elevators. Ms. Rosenstein
stated the applicant would give the storage unit information. She stated the proposed parking met
that there were two different users; business clients typically using the site on weekdays and
Engineering standards and City standards for other self-storage projects in the City. She added
resident clients with peak use mid-day Saturday and Sundays.
Ms. Rosenstein stated the front gates are approximately 200 feet from the units in the back providing an abundance of drive aisle parking for loading and unloading.
Board Member Heinemen asked how close residential sites are to the proposed project site? He
asked if there were also automotive repair sites across the street.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 6 of 14
NOVEMBER 26,2001
Ms. Rosenstein stated on the east side of Tyler Street are a few single-family homes mixed in with
other uses. On both sides of Tyler Street are various types of automotive repair businesses. She
stated on the west side of the railroad track is higher density multi-family residential.
Board Member Lawson asked if there was a study showing the comparison of traffic generated
from the previous business on this site versus the proposed amount of traffic projected for the
new business on this same site.
Mr. Rick stated staff did not have exact figures for Oceanside Glasstile but stated there were 135
employees on-site and staff estimated about 550 ADT. He stated that the proposed project is
estimated to generate up to 400 ADT.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to come forward.
Robert Schmitt, President, HNB Inc., 29095 Rocky Point Way, Escondido, CA 92026. He stated
they have worked with staff for about nine months and have come up with an unusual project for a
self-storage facility based on the City's architectural design guidelines. He stated they have
reached out and spoken to the adjoining neighbors who were available.
Board Member Lawson asked the difference between having on-site resident managers or not
and how it relates to security concerns.
Mr. Schmitt stated their project is designed without a manager living on-site and stated that many
facilities operate within normal business hours and have changed from a family type set up to a of the larger businesses nationwide have become non-resident manager facilities. Most newer
virtual business oriented situation, even though permit wise, the project is permitted to have a resident manager. He stated the gates, card access and cameras looking at any motion and/or
activities provide security plus the alarm system notifies the police after business hours. During business hours the personnel at the office have the ability to call 91 1. He stated they will have a
perimeter fence as well.
how they came up with the setbacks being proposed all the way around the project. He asked for
Board Member Lawson asked if the office area was going to have some retail use. He also asked
clarification on the perimeter windows being architectural features and not windows for viewing
maintained and thrive.
inside and outside. He asked if there was an on-going budget for the proposed landscaping to be
tenants convenience. He pointed out that the design provides one-way access in and out,
Mr. Schmitt stated there would be storage accessories displayed in the office area for the existing
benefiting the traffic flow and stated there is a 20% open space requirement which caused them
to blend in with the residential area. He stated their facility was designed to give a pleasing
to reduce the size of their buildings. He stated the windows are aesthetic only, allowing the project
landscape to provide a sense of safety, secure and looking more like a business park versus the
old style storage facilities.
Board Member Heineman asked if the walls on the inside of the horse shoe and the outside of the
center building would be stucco above with roll up doors below.
Mr. Schmitt stated that was correct and there is drive up access to 17% of the total units and the
balance are accessed either on the ground floor or through the elevator. He stated there is a 30- foot drive aisle on the north and the south sides of the central building and there is about 240 feet
from the front of the properly to the rear building. As viewed from the front of the properly you would mostly see concrete wall because of the angle.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 7 of 14
NOVEMBER 26,2001
Chairperson Compas asked to have explained the lighting at night in the horseshoe. He asked
the prices be? He asked Mr. Schmitt if he owns other storage projects.
how many storage units would be available, how many tenants do they anticipate and what would
low intensity lamps. He said the facility size is about 147,000 square feet with about 11 3,000 being
Mr. Schmitt stated they are proposing downcast lights that will not spread beyond the project with
net usable for working storage units averaging between 100 and 110 square feet per unit. The
range of units start at 5x5’ and up. There are about 1,100 total units for the facility. He said in
many cases a single tenant leases multiple units. He estimated there would be 2/3 to 3/4 tenants vs. storage units. The price he did not share specifically. He thought there would be more
commercial use visiting once a month or weekly possibly. He said this is his sixth project and they will bring in experienced and professional management.
Board Member Lawson asked if dollies or hand truck would be provided?
of steel, which prevents damage.
Mr. Schmitt stated they have hand trucks and dollies provided. He said the interior walls are made
Chairperson Compas asked the architect to come to the podium.
windows were false basically except at the office area near the entry. He went on to explain about Rick Wallace, Valli Architectural Group, 81 Columbia, Suite 200, Alicia Viejo, CA. He stated the
the setbacks and the reasons for their footage amounts. He stated that they wanted the front to have a curb appeal and possibly could put in a statue for a park-like setting and they intend to keep with the earth tones on the coloring of the building. Mr. Wallace addressed the lighting
be motion sensitive. He addressed the safety and security of the project adding that it has state of requirements and the specifics of the lamps and that the ones on the perimeter of the property will
the art security systems.
Chairperson Compas opened public testimony.
John Jimenez, 7114 Mimosa Drive, Carlsbad, CA. He stated he is a board member for the
festival held annually in this area. He stated he has looked at the report by City staff and was concerned that there was no foundation for how this project would enhance the area as the report
stated. He said there is no proof that there is a great need for this project to the businesses in the
completed in 1994 and was more than five years old as mentioned on page 9 of the staff report.
area. He was concerned that the Master Environmental Impact Report used for the project was
Board Member Heineman asked why Mr. Schmitt would invest a considerable amount of money in
this project if there was no need for it in this area?
objecting to this project when they must have renters who would need storage? Mr. Jimenez asked why the two apartment complexes directly across the railroad tracks would be
antique stores need for storage. He asked if Mr. Jimenez was an owner of an antique store or if Board Member Lawson asked what the basis was for questioning the applicant‘s statement of the
he has been in touch with the owners to find out their needs.
Mr. Jimenez explained he has become quite involved with the business community and stated they need to have their goods on the floor for sale not in storage, therefore, he doesn’t see the foundation of the staff report.
NOVEMBER 26,2001
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 8 of 14
Consuelo Trejo, 3383 Adam Street, Carlsbad, CA. She stated she is present to oppose the
project and asked that the Board consider what is best for the residents.of the Barrio and not for
the industrial community. She shared that while there are no storage facilities in the area, there is also no theatre or community center. The document pertaining to redevelopment was to create a
the area. Village area for the people to shop, work and live. She felt this project defeats what is the need of
project. He asked her what would be her expectation as to what should be done with the property.
Board Member Lawson asked if there was a cultural center and theatre would this still be a bad
Ms. Trejo stated that the project is just too large for the area. She stated they have always strived
for something like South Cedros with little shops instead of a storage facility and that downtown
would extend further south with more pedestrian traffic, shops, deli's and little boutiques.
Walnut and Roosevelt and their family has been in the area since 1943. Their business is the Ophelia Escobedo, 1611 James Drive, Carlsbad, CA. They have a business on the corner of
oldest one in the City and their quadrant is the oldest in the City as well. She felt the project would
be inappropriate because of the size and the height in the area where there are mostly one-story
single-family homes. She explained there were many hazardous businesses and the owners of
these businesses do not live in the area with all the families with children and there is potential for
criminal activities.
Sean Gildea, 1576 Tracer Monis Way, Encinitas, Oceanside Glasstile. 3251 Tyler Street,
stated self-storage is a permitted use for this area. He reviewed the age, design and condition of Carlsbad, CA. He is one of the existing owners of the southern portion of the subject properly. He
two months ago. When they were operating their business they had 7-10 deliveries and pickups the existing buildings and the land in question. He said Oceanside Glasstile vacated the site about
daily Monday through Friday. The trucks would parallel park on the street causing traffic
problems. He also added that they were operating their business six days a week around the clock. He shared that the project in question is a much better use for the site.
Joyce James, 3931 Garfield, Carlsbad, CA. She owns properly on Tyler and had looked at purchasing the subject properly' in the past. However, due to an environmental report she saw
she decided not to purchase the property because of the type of businesses that have operated
there in the past. She was concerned about the potential hazardous waste problems she might
incur. She shared her concerns regarding the width of Tyler Street. With parking permitted on only one side, double-parking blocks the movement of traffic. She also expressed concern over
trash management for the potential facility, the traffic impact near the Boys and Girls Club, and the
school children's safety going and coming from Jefferson School.
Russell Edwards, 3333 Roosevelt #E5, Carlsbad, CA. Shared support for the subject project. He stated the people who do not support this project also do not want a satellite police station in the
area. He stated he does not want light industrial taking place inside the units (people renting the
spaces for manufacturing purposes), automobile storage, or people working on cars in the facility.
He wanted to know the hours of operation and supports limiting access after 7:OO p.m. He
suggested that the developer be a good neighbor and put some money towards a community center or pedestrian overpass from Chestnut Street over the tracks.
stated his concern over the parking. He has had several tickets because he has a handicapped
Matt Minkee, 3369 Roosevelt, Carlsbad, CA. He submitted two photos of the street area and
child and needs to park near his home. He feels the streets are substandard and in need of
repair. He supported the project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 9 of 14
Joe Canales, 3447 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, CA. He asked if a survey was taken regarding the
need for a self-storage facility and why some items were not known. He also stated he was not
anyone would live inside their units, what the hours of operation were, and what type of safety
given much notice of the project. He felt 1,100 units were too many. He also wanted to know if
cautions were proposed. He thought it would be good to do a survey of the area. He feels the
project is in the wrong area.
Jan Giacinti, 2132 14th Street, Encinitas, CA. She stated she was the former director of the
exists for the children at the Club due to the automotive uses on Tyler Street. She feels the
Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club for four years. She wanted to point out the dangerous situation that
proposed project will add to the danger. She stated 83% of the facilities would not have drive up
access. She said she has utilized self-storage for business purposes in the past and has seen
encouraged the Board not to ignore the residents concerns.
how they operate. She shared concern over the availability of dumpsters for the units. She
live in the area so they do not see what the neighbors do. He stated the vitamin business receives
Robert Carreone, 3309 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA. He stated the business owners do not
weekends. He said the cars and tow trucks fly through the streets and traffic do not stop for older deliveries and pickups from large trucks; the automotive businesses operate nights and
people or children.
Ron Sipiora, 3606 Florida Street, San Diego, CA. He is the current Executive Director for the
the children walking from Jefferson School to the Club.
Boys and Girls Club. He went over the traffic concerns that the Club has regarding the safety of
Boys and Girls Club and he is concerned about the traffic in the area. He would like to change the
Daniel Teta, 525 Chestnut, Carlsbad, CA. His daughter walks from Jefferson Elementary to the
disapproves of the height of the proposed building and the minimal amount of parking being light industrial area to eliminate these types of businesses and the traffic they generate. He
proposed. He pointed out the limited amount of street parking on Tyler Street, which is greatly
impacted by all the people attending special events like the Village Faire. He wants to see more
sidewalks in the area with more landscaping.
Javier Eureta, 3280 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA. He was concerned what was going to
didn’t see any proposed for the project. He said he did not receive any information on the
happen to the existing power lines on-site. He too wants to see more sidewalks in the area and
wall.
proposed project. He was concerned with the fence and the need for shrubs in addition to the
Mario Monroy, 749 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. He was a member of the last group that
to change the zoning for the area at that time. He stated the area needs more foot traffic and not
updated the Master Plan for the Redevelopment area. He stated the properly owners did not want
cars, which would make the neighborhood safer. He does not want to see guard dogs at the facility. He shared his concern regarding the possibility of U-Haul trucks being rented on-site and not allowing two-way traffic on-site. He commented on the dangerous traffic situation near
Jefferson Elementary and the need to solve this problem. He stated there is no transition between the residential area and the business area.
Mr. Minkee asked if there was a fire lane on-site.
At 8:07 p.m. Chairperson Compas stated there would be a five-minute break and the meeting
would resume again at 8:13 p.m. beginning with the applicant.
NOVEMBER 26,2001
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 10 of 14
Mr. Schmitt stated that the other businesses in the area including, the automotive repair, vitamin
manufacturer and the tow yard were not his businesses and he could do nothing regarding the
problems they created in the area. He stated his proposed hours of operation were 7:OO a.m. to
7:OO p.m. The business tenants would typically use the premises midmornings on weekdays and resident tenants would use the facility Saturday and Sunday afternoons for 15-20 minutes. He
said their parking meets the demand plus there are 50 spaces internally. He added that there would be an average of 3-8 cars per hour on the weekend and up to 24 cars at any given time.
Chairperson Compas asked what the frequency is of tenants who need two vehicles for pick up
trash solution. and delivery and what percentage are trucks. He also asked Mr. Schmitt to clarify the proposed
tenants are residents and not usually large trucks. He stated that they originally had plans for
Mr. Schmitt replied the frequency of two vehicles per tenant is not often and that the majority of
sidewalks, but the City said not yet. He said the tenants would have to remove their own trash and
there would be a penally if otherwise misused.
Chairperson Heineman asked if it turned out that the parking was not enough could they add
more.
Mr. Schmitt replied that yes, they could add more parking if needed. He stated the hazardous
waste is not a major problem as the machine oil and other substances from previous users will be
handled according to County requirements.
Chairperson Compas asked if anyone could access the facility at night.
time could the tenants access the site. Each tenant has a code to key in and key out and the
Mr. Schmitt replied that the hours of operation would be from 7:OO a.m. to 7:OO p.m. and no other
manager will insure that each person who accesses the site leaves in a timely fashion, preventing
anyone from residing in the units.
Board Member Lawson asked if there was any other electricity available internally and if they were
Schmitt had any leases at his other businesses which allow the conducting of business from the proposing any U-Haul rental trucks or if they could live without U-Haul rentals. He also asked if Mr.
leased storage unit! He asked for an explanation on the undergrounding of utilities for the project.
Mr. Schmitt stated there are no electrical sockets in the units for tenants to use. He stated they
have not looked at the possibility of U-Haul rentals but if they did, they would park internally. He
stated this type of business has lower traffic than any other business. He shared that it is
prohibited in the lease agreement to conduct a business from any of the units. He said the City
and SDG&E dictate the removal of power poles on the property and they will be meeting the
requirements as stipulated by the City.
storage of U-Haul trucks.
Board Member Heineman asked if the 30-foot internal drive aisle is sufficient to accommodate the
Mr. Schmitt stated that yes it would be wide enough as they meet the Fire Department standards.
Chairperson Compas asked why it does not bother Mr. Schmitt that Tyler Street is so narrow and the traffic problem it creates. He asked what streets users of the site would use. He asked Mr.
Schmitt to comment on the opponents statements that the project is too high and not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 11 of 14
NOVEMBER 26,2001
Mr. Schmitt replied that the uses that are a problem are outside his control. He said both the
adjacent vitamin manufacturer and his storage business would not contribute to the traffic
problem. He said most of the problems come from other businesses on the street. He said users
of his site would most likely use Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Oak Street and Tyler Street
or Carlsbad Village Drive, Pine Street and Walnut Street, but he does not know for sure. He
as noise and overflow parking on Tyler Street. He chose this area because self-storage is a pointed out that the facilities presently on-site are non-conforming and create other problems such
permitted use. District 5 does not permit storage and the nearest storage facilities are in
to the site, including lot coverage and building height. He said they are addressing their own Oceanside and off Palomar Airport Road. He stated they meet all land use regulations pertaining
issues and other businesses in the area need to do the same.
Chairperson Compas asked the architect to speak.
Mr. Wallace shared that the scale of the project is the same size as a three-story condo project
and is 35 feet high.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony and asked staff for their comments and questions.
Board Member Heineman asked Mr. Rick if Mr. Schmitt's comment on traffic generation was
accurate?
Mr. Rick replied yes and that the project would have no significant impact on Tyler Street. He
stated that the previous business generated more traffic. He stated the ADT statistics for each.
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out that turning radius of the internal drive aisle could not accommodate large semi-trucks. Furthermore, the developer would not be permitted to rent U-Haul trucks on-
site, which could be added as a condition upon agreement from the Board.
a semi-truck deliver the products. He asked how this could be prevented.
Board Member Lawson shared his concern that a business may want to rent three units and have
a single tenant, but the Board could limit the size of trucks that could access the site.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that it would be difficult to limit the number of units, which may be rented by
make the turn on-site, but not a semi-truck. He stated typical U-Hauls are 30' max. He said Tyler Mr. Rick stated he did check to see what the turning radius for the project is and a 40' truck could
Street is 30' curb to curb while a standard street is 40'. He said that one year ago the City Council
adopted an ordinance for alternative design streets and Tyler Street was listed as one such street.
Therefore, the project would not be required to install street improvements at this time, but the
developer would have to bond for future street improvements and enter into a Neighborhood
Improvement Agreement before those improvements could be installed.
Board Member Lawson asked some questions regarding undergrounding utilities, estimated
improvements, and street widths associated with the new traffic calming street design standards.
Mr. Rick stated the new street design standards range from 36 to 40' in width and the property
owner would be responsible for paying for future improvements.
Board Member Heineman stated the new street standards for traffic calming only apply to residential streets.
99
NOVEMBER 26,2001
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 12 of 14
Mr. Rick stated that the soils report recommended that three to four feet of soil be uplifted,
any significant environmental contamination to the soil in the report. removed of any debris or old piping and recompacted. He stated that there was no indication of
Board Member Lawson asked staff to provide clarification regarding the Master Environmental
Impact Report being more than 5-years old.
Ms. Mobaldi commented that the speakers concern regarding the Master Environmental Impact Report which was used as a foundation for the environmental review in this case is more than five
years old. She stated it is allowable under the Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines to use a Master Environmental Impact Report that is more than five years old if you, in
your preliminary analysis, determine that there is no new information available that was not available at the time the original report was done and also that there are no substantial change in
circumstances. She stated that both of those findings were made in the staff report and resolution
with regard to the environmental review. In other words, the use of the Master Environmental Impact Report in this case is not precluded because it is more than five years.
Regarding the issue raised on the need for the proposed use in this area, Ms. Rosenstein stated it
is not for the City to determine if the use is needed. The developer has completed an extensive
market analysis and would not be expending the amount of money necessary to build the project
if studies did not show it would be profitable. She added that several business owners have
shared their concerns of site limitations that make on-site storage difficult and expensive. The type of businesses that have expressed difficulty meeting their on-site storage needs includes:
retail shops, law firms, accounting firms, and escrow companies. She also replied to the concern of how this business would enhance the working environment of the village. She stated the
facility that conforms to current land use regulations. Currently, there are no legally existing self- proposed use would provide a self-storage option to local residents and business owners in a
storage facilities in the redevelopment area. She further explained the site planning and
architectural design process taken by staff in working with the applicant to make the proposed
project compatible with the surrounding area.
Chairperson Compas asked the Board Members to share their decisions.
Board Member Lawson stated this project is a permitted use that is of low intensity, it has been
thoroughly checked into by staff and conditions have been added to the proposed use, therefore he supports the project.
felt the project would reduce traffic in the area, which is a concern for the residents. He added,
Board Member Heineman expressed his agreement with Board Member Lawson. He stated he
therefore is in favor of its’ approval.
because the site backs up to the railroad tracks that it would be an ideal use for the site and
Chairperson Compas commended the applicant’s design and also those who opposed the project.
wanted to vote against this project, what findings could they come up with since the project
He asked what findings could be stated in opposition to this project. He asked Ms. Mobaldi if they
appears to meet all the City standards.
requested or the project in general which is consistent with the General Plan that enhances
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it depends on whether he is talking about the variances that are being
found in Resolution No. 279. If these things are found not to be true based on the facts that the shopping, working and living environment, reinforces the Village character and all the findings
Board has heard from public comment then they could deny the project. With regard to the
variances they are looking at issues such as, the unique nature of the property, any
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 13 of 14
NOVEMBER 26,2001
circumstances which would make a hardship on the applicant if the variances were not granted, etc.
Chairperson Compas stated it is the concerns expressed by the residents that bother him, not the
requested variances. He asked that conditions be added regarding the hours of operation and the
stated that he would be in favor of limited the hours of operation to 6:OO a.m. thru 8:OO p.m. He
maximum size of the trucks that could access the site and then he would support the project. He
added that he felt the project would result in less traffic and enhance the appearance of the area.
here so those concerned can take their case forward.
Board Member Lawson asked, in assisting the audience, to discuss where the project goes from
the City Council are the elected officials of the City and this will go before them. At that time, the Chairperson Compas stated the Board is only making a recommendation to the City Council, but
conditions he discussed would be called amendments and should the Board vote on them public will have a chance to express their concerns to the Council. He asked staff if the added
separately.
Ms. Rosenstein stated if it is the consensus of the Board, that the recommended conditions could
Commission. be added to Resolution No. 279 for consideration by the Housing and Redevelopment
Chairperson Compas asked staff to prepare the wording for the added conditions.
Ms. Rosenstein, with the assistance of Mr. Rick, stated the recommended conditions would read
through 8:OOpm; and 2) The properly owner shall inform all customers that no trucks over 40 feet as follows: 1) The hours of operation for the self-storage facility shall be limited to 6:OOam
long shall be permitted on-site.
ACTION:
Review Board adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 278 and No.
Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Design
279 as amended, recommending approval of RP01-09 of the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE:
AYES: Lawson, Heineman and Compas
ABSTAIN:
NOES: None
None
3-0-0
Chairperson Compas closed the public hearing.
would be in the record and the City Council would get a chance to review the minutes which will He thanked the staff, the applicant, and the public who spoke and stated that everything said
Council. include the comments given. He encouraged all concerned to attend the meeting before the City
Board Member Lawson asked if there was any news as to when KFC was coming back.
Ms. Fountain stated staff has not set a date as of yet, but the Board needed to discuss the next meeting date scheduled for December 24th.
/Of
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 26,2001
PAGE 14 of 14
Ms. Rosenstein stated that there is not an item pending even if they were to move the meeting
date up a week. She suggested they hold off until the regular January meeting date.
Ms. Fountain clarified the December meeting will be cancelled and the next meeting will be in
January when the next project will be heard.
Ms. Rosenstein stated the KFC project might be ready for the January meeting. To date, there is
a new architect on the project and they have brought forward a much more improved design. The
applicant is currently working out final site issues. When it is completed staff will bring the entire
project back to the Board for their review.
Ms. Fountain stated the Board may see KFC in January, but there are a couple other projects they
are working on and are not sure which one will make it in January.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of November 26,2001 was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
JUDY KIRSCH Minutes Clerk
APPROVED.
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE
Exhibit E
Public Comment Letters
Distributed to DRB
To: Desien Review Board Houzng and Redevelopment Department City of Carlsbad 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, Ca 92C08-2389
From: Louis F. Torio
326 Rosemont Street La Jolla, Ca 92037
Owner, Village Pointe Apartments, 25 apartments 3160 Lincoln Street Carlsbad, Ca M1x)8
210 Acacia Avenue Owner, triplex
Carlsbad. Ca 92008
November 21,2001
Case name: Carlsbad Village Self Storage Re Case No. RP 01-09
across the railroad track from residntial, and just two block from the beachfront, I believe variances for front and back yard setbacks is a little too much.
For a three story building in that location, which is surrounded by mostly residential,
In fact I question the usage and its effects on the immediate neighborhood, especially its proposed height and the traffic it will generate. I th~nk it will have a deletorious effect on the habitability of the bamio and nearby sections for the next 30 or 50
But large projects like ths can diminish that atmosphere. years. This area has had an open, small town atmosphere and has been a good place to live.
Sincerely,
Louis F. Torio
November 26,2001
City of Carlsbad Lori Rosenstein
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Housing and Redevelopment Department
Carlsbad. Ca 92008-2389
RECEIVED
NOV 26 2001
Dear Lori,
glass tile made from recycled bottles, has been located in Carlsbad Wage since 1994. We leased
I am one of the principal owners of Oceanside Glasstile Company. Our Company, a manufacturer of
Street property two years ago. Both properties are currently being sold to the owner of the Carlsbad
the property located at 3235 Tyler Street for the past 8 years, and purchased the 3251-3281 Tyler
Village Self Storage project.
Earlier this year we made the decision to relocate our operations to a different facility that could meet
our future business expansion needs. Unfortunately, the two Tyler Street properties did not appear to be viable for meeting these needs. Accordingly we purchased a 48,000 square foot facility near Palomar Airport. It was important to us that we stayed in Carlsbad, as we consider it our home, and as it is home to many of our employees. We are committed to our employees and the community of Carlsbad.
The condition of the 3235 Tyler street buildings is in a total state of disrepair. The 3 metal structures were built in the 1940's and lack the most basic level of functionality for any legitimate business.
Additionally, the appearance of the property does not help the image of the neighborhood. The
adjacent property is basically an unimproved lot, which does not add to the value of neighborhood either. Without the Storage project, these two properties would most likely remain unoccupied and
derelict.
project and I am very impressed. I think the design of the property is a good fit with the mission style I have reviewed the architectural drawings and color elevations of the Carlsbad Village Self Storage
approach to Carlsbad. This will be one of the nicest looking buildings in the village, and will significantly contribute to the neighborhoods revitalization. The Carlsbad Village Self Storage
project is a needed component of the village that will add great economic benefit to the community of
Carlsbad.
As a business owner I want to officially state my support for the Carlsbad Village Self
Storage project.
Best regards, fl
President "
“Quality You Can Trust” K& K LABORATORIES, INC.
November 23, 2001
Lori Rosenstein
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street
Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
NOV 2 I- 2001
HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF CARLSBAD
D &, ARTMENT
Case: Carlsbad Village Self Storage
RP 01-09
Dear Lori,
Thank you for returning my call so quickly to answer my question regarding permit RP 01-09.
Kononchuk family our support for the proposal to build the self storage
I would like to express on behalf of K & K Laboratories, Inc. and the
business adjacent to the south side of the proposed project, we would be
facility at 3235-3281 Tyler Street. As owners of the property and
more adversely affected by an inappropriate use or development at that
site than most of our neighbors. Having reviewed the plans with Robert
both use and design, and would provide a service not readily available
Schmitt, however, I believe that the facility would be appropriate in
in this part of Carlsbad.
It is good public policy to approve good proposals, in my opinion. It
encourages investment by the sort of businesses that contribute to the city and its communities. While varying opinions regarding architectural
reason to reject it, I believe that the Design Review Board should
taste are entitled to a fair hearing, absent a compelling objective
of good governance. approve the progosal botk or: its om consideraS1e merits air,d as a matter
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alex Kononchuk, Jr.
Director of Operations
3305 TYLER STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008
/Ob
(760) 434-6044
!&diard-G. SCh&
7136 ‘Viita CDeLMar
La Jo& Cacifomia 9203 7
(858) 456-3866
November 16,2001
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEW. 2965 Roosevelt Street
Suite B
Carlsbad, California 92008-2389
RE: CASE NO. mol-09
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
Dear Gentlepersons:
I am the owner of a 48-unit apartment community known as San Katrina Apartments, located at 336 Pine
Avenue, directly across the railroad tracks from your proposed self storage development. I, along with many
of our tenants, would like to register our objection to this project, as we believe this site could be used much
more beneficially for a higher and better use than self storage. The reasons for our opposition is that we feel
that the area is primarily residential, and is just several blocks from the beachfront. The fact that this
building will be three stories, and almost 150,000 square feet, will provide both a visual blight and add to
congestion in the beach area. Certainly, there are better uses for this desirable site, and housing for both
single family, or multi family, might be one of them.
This is a rare opportunity for Carlsbad to improve this desirable area, rather than to impose a project that
will forever have a negative impact.
Yours trulv. w2- ichard . Schneider
/O 7
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR RESIDENTS IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND WE, CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD
OBJECT TO THE BUILDING OF A THREE STORY SELF STORAGE BUILDING
COMPLEX IN OUR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREA. WE ARE INFORMED
AND BELIEVE THAT IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION,
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS, SUCH AS AN
AESTHETICALLY INAPPROPRIATE SKYLINE. OUR VILLAGE AREA, ESPECIALLY
OUR BARRIO IS NOT7HE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS LARGE
DEVELOPMENT '
PARKING PROBLEMS, CRIMINAL ACTLVITY. AND RAISES OTHER
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR RESIDENTS IN CLOSE
OBJECT TO THE BUILDING OF A THREE STORY SELF STORAGE BUILDING
PROXIMITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND WE, CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD
COMPLEX IN OUR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREA. WE ARE INFORMED
AND BELIEVE THAT IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION,
PARKING PROBLEMS, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. AND RAISES OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS, SUCH AS AN
AESTHETICALLY INAPPROPRIATE SKYLINE. OUR VILLAGE AREA, ESPECIALLY
OUR BARRIO IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS LARGE
DEVELOPMENT
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
.
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
January 14,2002
TELEPHONE MESSAGE
TO: MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOE TOSTO
PHONE: 729-3445 (home)
949-660-0144 ext. 122
Mr. Tosto called regarding the self-storage facility proposal. He said he has lived in
Carisbad since 1975, and feels the City has done an outstanding job in developing the (&. However, he doesn't think that the self-storage facility proposed on Tyler Street
C&M@l to consider not approving it.
&.be at in keeping with the dreapacter of the barrio and urges the
C XRLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AGENDA ITEM #
January 14,2002
Mayor Bud Lewis
Mayor Pro Tem Ann Kulchin
Council Member Julie Nygaard
Council Member Matt Hall
Council Member Ramona Finilla
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
In 1996, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce supported the creation of a vision
and plan for the "Barrio" community in Carlsbad. At that time the proposed plan
was not adopted and a revised plan was never brought forward.
We believe that the controversy over the proposed self-storage facility would
have been avoided if there were an updated plan in place.
The Chamber requests that you use this issue as an opportunity to reconsider
implementation of a plan for the area. We hope that the City staff in cooperation
with "Barrio" residents, businesses and property owners would consider revisiting
the vision and pian for their community.
The Chamber would be happy to participate in any such endeavor
Gary l%l
Chairman of the Board
5620 Paseo Del Norte, Suite 128 Carlsbad, California 92008
Phone: (760) 931-8400 Fax: (760) 931-9153 E-mail: chamber@carlsbad.org Web: www.carlsbad.org 3 IICCIILDOTED
"Quality You Can Trust"
City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Commission c/o City Clerk
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
K8e K LABORATORIES, INC.
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council,
I would like to express on behalf of K & K Laboratories, Inc. and the
Kononchuk family our support for the proposal to build the self storage
facility at 3235-3281 Tyler Street. As owners of the property and
more adversely affected by an inappropriate use or development at that
business adjacent to the south side of the proposed project, we would be
site than most of our neighbors. Having reviewed the plans with Robert Schmitt, however, I believe that the facility would be appropriate in
both use and design, and would provide a service not readily available
in this part of Carlsbad.
encourages investment by the sort of businesses that contribute to the It is good public policy to approve good proposals, in my opinion. It
city and its communities. While varying opinions regarding architectural
taste are entitled to a fair hearing, absent a compelling objective
reason to reject it, I believe that the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission should approve the proposal both on its own considerable
merits and as a matter of gsoc! governance.
Thank you.
Alex Kononchuk, Jr. Director of Operations
cc: Lori Rosenstein
3305 TYLER STREET - CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 434-6044
HNB. Inc.
A Development, Investment and Commercial Brokerage Group
29095 Rocky Point Way - Escondido, CA 92026
Phone 760-751-2017 - Fax 760-751-2019 - E-mail rschmitt@nctimes.net
AGENDA ITEM #f 4 R /
January 1 1,2002
Mayor Claude Lewis and Council Members
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
As the applicant for a redevelopment major use permit for a self-storage project at 3235-
328 1 Tyler Street I thought I would respectfully offer a brief summary of our proposed
project.
In the fall of 2000 we performed our initial market study and determined that based on
the demographic analysis and competition study that there was a market need for a self-
storage project. Our competition serving the west of 1-5 market are as follows:
1. Security Public Storage, 2.1 miles north of subject 1501 S. Coast Highway, Oceanside
2. U-Haul Storage, 2.6 miles north of subject, 802 S. Coast Highway, Oceanside
3. U-Haul Storage, 4 miles south of subject, 6175 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad
Based on the amount of square footage of these facilities, age of projects, management of
projects and population being served we determined that we could successfully operate a
facility in the area bounded by the 1-5, Pacific Ocean and the two lagoons.
In addition we determined that the “Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan’’
allowable land uses for District 6 “Light Industrial” permits by right storage
buildings/warehouses. Further the other permitted land uses for district 6 are limited to
the following:
a. Auto painting/detailing
b. Auto repairhervices
c. Auto towing
d. Parking lotlstructures
e. Parks
f. Cabinet shops
g. Parcel delivery service
h. Plumbing shop
i. Plumbing shop supply yards
j. Stained glass studios
k. STORAGE BUILDINGSlWAREHOUSES
1. wholesale businesses
3235-3281 Tyler Street
January 1 1,2002
Page 2
With the determination of market need and storage being a permitted use in District 6 we
have entered into escrow to purchase and develop our proposed project. In addition we
have expended well over two hundred thousand dollars paying for five iterations of
architectural drawings, soils engineering studies, civil engineering studies, environmentd
studies, markeVdemographic studies as well as considerable consultant time. We have in
the past year worked closely with staff and we have designed a project that is reminiscent
of a condominiudapartment project. We attempted to follow the design concept of the
Lutheran senior facility on Carlsbad Boulevard and implement it for our use.
We believe that the end result of our working with staff is a hallmark storage project, one
that elicited the following comments from the Design Review Board members:
William Compas, Chairperson stated “I’m impressed by the design” and also ‘‘ I believe
the project would result in less traffic and enhance the appearance of the area”
Board Member Heineman stated that he feels that the site is not suitable for many things
because it is adjacent to the railroad but the city is fortunate that the proposed “design is
outstanding and it will enhance the area not detract”
Board Member Lawson stated, “it is a permitted use that is of low intensity”, and “is
impressed with what the applicant has prepared”
There have been some concerns that were voiced by the some of the members of the
audience at our DRB meeting about 1 .traffic/parking 2.crime 3. Toxic waste and 4. Land
use, which we would like to address.
1. TrafficiParking: It has been estimated by city engineering staff that the proposed
project will reduce the traffic on Tyler Street by 28% from the past use of glass
tile manufacturing. It was stated by David Rick at the DRB meeting that the
proposed project would have no significant impact on Tyler Street and also that
the previous business generated more traffic and other permitted uses would also
likely generate more traffic and parking issues. In addition staft‘ has stated in the
staff report that the proposed onsite parking satisfies the parking requirement for
the project and is consistent with the parking standards applied to other self-
storage projects within the city.
provide storage space for our customers household and business goods. Our state
of the art facility will be professionally managed, fenced, alarmed, gated, coded
access and video monitored 24 hours a day and we will proactively work closely
with the Carlsbad Police Department. We anticipate a well managed and secure
project such as ours will have far less crime than an empty warehouse or a vacant
yard. Our project is a very expensive development, an estimated nine million
dollar investment that we cannot allow to become “an eyesore” or allow to “
detract from the Village image.”
2. Crime: Self-storage by its very nature requires a very secure facility as we
’ 3235-3281 Tyler Street
January 1 1,2002
Page 3
3. Toxic Waste: The subject site has a long history of use as a manufacturing site,
well over 45 years. As responsible business owners we cannot acquire for
development, land that is contaminated. We have thoroughly reviewed the
environmental studies that have been performed by previous owners and those
studies that were performed for our benefit. We have provided staff with full
environmental reports and including a “Phase One” summary report dated June
20,2001 provided by PIC Environmental Services, 742 Genevieve Street, Suite
G, Solana Beach, CA 92075. Phone 858-259-3140, Contact Daniel C. Oliver. We
are including with this letter a letter submitted to the current landowner from the
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Land and Water
Quality Division, Dated August 4, 1999 by Chris Gonaver, Chief, Land and Water
Quality Division. The bottom line of the studies and letter from the County is “ no
further action is required at this time”
4. Land Use: Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area District 6 is unique among the 9
districts in the Village. It has a long history of manufacturing and service
businesses. The district has been thoroughly studied and the above-mentioned
uses are the uses the community, business owners and staff concluded were the
most appropriate district uses and are in the prevailing Master Plan.
We have been available to discuss our project by phone or in person throughout our
application process and we again offered at the DRB to meet with any concerned citizen
or group at any time or location to further discuss our project. To date no one has
contacted us and it is our understanding that only one-submittal package has been picked
up at the redevelopment office on Roosevelt for review.
We are available to meet with council prior to the Redevelopment Commission Hearing
should there be any specific questions that might need clarifying.
Thank you for your consideration of our project and we look forward to being a good
business neighbor in the “Village”
Sincerely,
President
GARY ERBECK
QWCTOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION
P.O. BOX iZS261, SAN DIEGO. CA SZ~IZ-SZCi
((IS) aa~-zzzz FAX (cis) aaa-zan
August 4, 1999
Ms. Lebriz Tosuner-Fikes
Carlsbad, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 517
Dear Ms. Tosuner-Fikes:
VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM -- DEH FILE NO. H09657-001 3235 TYLER STREET, CARLSBAD, CA
The county of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has
Environmental Services (PIC). With the provision that the information completed review of the .environmental documentation prepared by PIC
provided .to this agency was accurate and representative of existing
conditions, it is the position of this office that no further action is
required at this time.
Please be advised that this. letter does not relieve you of any liability
under the California Health and Safety Code or the Porter Cologne Water
Quality Control Act. If previously unidentified contamination is discovered which may affect public health, safety and/or water quality,
additional site assessment and cleanup may be necessary.
Thank you for your efforts in resolving this matter. Please contact Jim
Schuck of the Land & Water Quality Division, at (619) 338-2908, if you zeqaire additio-a1 assistance.
Sincerely,
CHRIS GONAVER, Chief .~ Land and Water Quality Division
CG : JCS
Enclosure
cc: Regional Water Quality Control Board
’ Daniel C. Oliver, PIC
COGSWE,LPNAK4ZRWR Fax:562-951-3933 Jan 9 2002 14:42 P. GI
ROBERT E, COPPOLA 197 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone (760) 720-5370
Fax (760) 720-3973
January 9,2002
The Honorable Bud Lewis Mayor, City of Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am unable to attend the meeting on January 15 where the City Council will vote
on the construction of a thnc story self storage building on Tyler between Pine and Walnut
streets.
I am opposed to such n project bocausc of its size, compared to the surrounding
buildings in the area.
Thank you.
..
January 11,2002
TO: SECRETARY TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CORRESPONDENCE FROM ROBERT SCHMITT REGARDING VILLAGE
SELF-STORAGE PROJECT
Robert Schmitt, the representative for the applicant for the Village Self-Storage project,
requested that the attached letter be distributed to the Mayor and City Council prior to the
public hearing on this project on Tuesday, January 15,2002. The letter is fonvarded to
you at this time for distribution. Thank you for your assistance. n
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN /
C: City Manager r/
Community Development Director
Management Analyst, Rosenstein
HNB, Inc.
A Development, Investment and Commercial Bmkemge Group
29095 Rocky Point Way - Eswndido, CA 92026
Phone 760-751-2017 - Fax 760-751-2019 -E-mail rschmitt@nctimes.net
A Development, Investment and Commercial Bmkemge ~ro~p
29095 Rocky Point Way - Eswndido, CA 92026 Phone 760-751-2017 - Fax 760-751-2019 - E-mail rschmitt@nctimes.net
January 1 1,2002
Mayor Claude Lewis and Council Members
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
As the applicant for a redevelopment major use permit for a self-storage project at 3235- 328 1 Tyler Street I thought I would respectfully offer a brief summary of our proposed
project.
In the fall of 2000 we performed our initial market study and determined that based on
the demographic analysis and competition study that there was a market need for a self-
storage project. Our competition serving the west of 1-5 market are as follows:
1. Security Public Storage, 2.1 miles north of subject 1501 S. Coast Highway, Oceanside
2. U-Haul Storage, 2.6 miles north of subject, 802 S. Coast Highway, Oceanside
3. U-Haul Storage, 4 miles south of subject, 6175 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad
Based on the amount of square footage of these facilities, age of projects, management of
projects and population being served we determined that we could successfully operate a
facility in the area bounded by the 1-5, Pacific Ocean and the two lagoons.
In addition we determined that the “Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan”
allowable land uses for District 6 “Light Industrial” permits by right storage
buildingdwarehouses. Further the other permitted land uses for district 6 are limited to
the following:
a. Auto paintingtdetailing
b. Auto repair/services
c. Auto towing
d. Parking lot/structures
e. Parks
f. Cabinet shops
g. Parcel delivery service
h. Plumbing shop
i. Plumbing shop supply yards
j. Stained glass studios
k STORAGE BUILDINGSlWAREHOUSES
1. wholesale businesses
3235-3281 Tyler Street
January 1 1,2002
Page 2
With the determination of market need and storage being a permitted use in District 6 we
have entered into escrow to purchase and develop our proposed project. In addition we
have expended well over two hundred thousand dollars paying for five iterations of
architectural drawings, soils engineering studies, civil engineering studies, environmental
studies, marketldemographic studies as well as considerable consultant time. We have in
the past year worked closely with staff and we have designed a project that is reminiscent
of a condominidapartment project. We attempted to follow the design concept of the
Lutheran senior facility on Carlsbad Boulevard and implement it for our use.
We believe that the end result of our working with staffis a hallmark storage project, one
that elicited the following comments from the Design Review Board members:
William Compas, Chairperson stated “I’m impressed by the design” and also “ I believe
the project would result in less traffic and enhance the appearance of the area”
Board Member Heineman stated that he feels that the site is not suitable for many things
because it is adjacent to the railroad but the city is fortunate that the proposed “design is
outstanding and it will enhance the area not detract”
Board Member Lawson stated, “it is a permitted use that is of low intensity”, and “is
impressed with what the applicant has prepared”
There have been some concerns that were voiced by the some of the members of the
audience at our DRJ3 meeting about 1 .traf€ic/parking 2.crime 3. Toxic waste and 4. Land
use, which we would like to address.
1. TrafficParking: It has been estimated by city engineering staff that the proposed
project will reduce the traffic on Tyler Street by 28% from the past use of glass
tile manufacturing. It was stated by David Rick at the DRB meeting that the
proposed project would have no significant impact on Tyler Street and also that
the previous business generated more traffic and other permitted uses would also
likely generate more traffk and parking issues. In addition staff has stated in the
staffreport that the proposed onsite parking satisfies the parking requirement for
the project and is consistent with the parking standards applied to other self-
storage projects within the city.
provide storage space for our customers household and business goods. Our state
of the art facility will be professionally managed, fenced, alarmed, gated, coded
access and video monitored 24 hours a day and we will proactively work closely
with the Carlsbad Police Department. We anticipate a well managed and secure
project such as ours will have far less crime than an empty warehouse or a vacant
yard. Our project is a very expensive development, an estimated nine million
dollar investment that we cannot allow to become “an eyesore” or allow to ‘‘
detract from the Village image.”
2. Crime: Self-Storage by its very nature requires a very secure facility as we
3235-3281 Tyler Street
January 1 1,2002
Page 3
3. Toxic Waste: The subject site has a long history of use as a manufacturing site,
well over 45 years. As responsible business owners we cannot acquire for
development, land that is contaminated. We have thoroughly reviewed the
environmental studies that have been performed by previous owners and those
studies that were performed for our benefit. We have provided staff with full
environmental reports and including a “Phase One” summary report dated June
20,2001 provided by PIC Environmental Services, 742 Genevieve Street, Suite
G, Solana Beach, CA 92075. Phone 858-259-3140, Contact Daniel C. Oliver. We
are including with this letter a letter submitted to the current landowner from the
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Land and Water
Quality Division, Dated August 4,1999 by Chris Gonaver, Chief, Land and Water
Quality Division. The bottom line of the studies and letter hm the County is “ no
further action is required at this time”
4. Land Use: Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area District 6 is unique among the 9
districts in the Village. It has a long history of manufacturing and service
businesses. The district has been thoroughly studied and the above-mentioned
uses are the uses the community, business owners and staff concluded were the
most appropriate district uses and are in the prevailing Master Plan.
We have been available to discuss our project by phone or in person throughout our
application process and we again offered at the DRB to meet with any concerned citizen
or group at any time or location to further discuss our project. To date no one has
contacted us and it is our understanding that only one-submittal package has been picked
up at the redevelopment office on Roosevelt for review.
We are available to meet with council prior to the Redevelopment Commission Hearing ’
should there be any specific questions that might need clarifying.
Thank you for your consideration of our project and we look forward to being a good
business neighbor in the “Village”
Sincerely,
President
GARY ERBECK CiRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ENWRONMENTAL HEALTH
P.O. BOX fmc1. SAW OIEGO. CA suimzci LAND AND WATER QUALITY DMSION
((1s) au.nzz FAX (ws) ~JI-WI
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RlcHARD WMS
August 4. 1999
Ms. Lebriz Tosuner-Fikes
P.O. Box 517 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Ms. Tosuner-Fikes:
VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM -- DEH FILE NO. ~09657-001
3235 TYLER STREET, CARLSBAD, CA
The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has completed review of the .environmental documentation prepared by PIC
provided .to this agency was accurate and representative of existing
Environmental Services (PIC). With the provision that the information
conditions, it is the position of this office that no further action is
requiced at this time.
under .the, California Health and Safety Code or the Porter Cologne Water
Please be advised that this.letter does not relieve you of any liability
Quality Control Act. If previously. unidentified contamination is
discovered which may affect public health, safety and/or wqter quality,
additional site assessment and cleanup may be necessary.
Thank you for your efforts in resolving this matter. Please contact JL~ Schuck of the Land 6 Water Quality Division, at (619) 338-2908, if you
zeqtuirc additional assistance.
Sincerely,
CHRIS-GONAVER, Chief -
Land and Water Quality Division
CG: JCS
Enclosure
cc: Regional Water Quality Control Board
' Daniel C. Oliver, PIC
AGENDA ITEM # f/qLR+/
c! Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
TELEPHONE MESSAGE
January 15,2002
TO: MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SHARON AND PHIL SMITH (AND 2 ADULT DAUGHTERS)
915-C CAMlNlTO ESTRADA
RE: TYLER STREET SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
Mrs. Smith called to relate her family's opinion that they hope the Council does not
approve the self-storage facility on Tyler Street. She indicated that they agree with the
folks in the barrio that the area should be utilized for shops that have the shopowners'
homes above the shops.
mhs
EDD-081-KERNSIDE Fax:760-754-5630 ....... Jan 15 '02 16:33 .... P. 01 .. . , .;. ......... ~.~, ,: .,I .,,, i.7._r" ....- -_ " 1._-... i. . ,.I, I, .. ' :. ,. , ..... ... .,;,~ .,,. ..
Jan 15*, 2002
Honorable Mayor, members of Carlsbad City Council,
I urge you to vote against the proposed self-storage structure in the ..... :' .. .. 'I
through this part of Carlsbad and feel the sense of community. . .. ~.
People get out on the sidewalks, in their front yards. They shop . . ,. . ,-
down the street from where they live. They walk. The barrio, of
it's own energy, is evolving into a safe and pedestrian oriented
community. What planners and SANDAG arid redevelopment
dollars have promoted, is in its own fashion, happening in this
oldest part of Carlsbad.
Additional park space coming to the barrio will continue to add
and enhance the livability of this community. A se1.f-storage
facility in the midst of this human energy, will be a detriment.
Thankfully no one ever proposed such a facility in the heart of
Carlsbad's Village in the years prior to its redevelopment, or it
would still be there now as a monument to short sightedness.
Unfortunately Solana Beach was not so foresightful, and to this .,
community. ., I
Self-storage has its place, but not in the barrio.
,I
., .. .. .. ...
.barrio area of Carlsbad. On any afternoon one can walk or bike '. ... , ..
..
..
.. .. .,
~ :.
.,
....
..
day has a huge self-storage in the midst of an otherwise dynamic . ' ,' .!
... .. ..
... ..
Renee Huston
540 Anchor Way
Carlsbad CA 92008 ..i
..
.,
To: The City of Carlsbad
Mayor, Council and Manager
1600 Carlsbad village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
From: Ofelia ESCObedo Lola's Market
3292 Roosevelt St.. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: RP 01-09 "Carlsbad Village Self-storage" Council agenda, January 22,2002
January 19,.2902
, ,I
c: Mayor city Council
City Manager City Attorney
City Clerk
Dear city Leaders:
Please allow this letter to serve as the concerned voice, representing a
slgnlficant number of Carlsbad residents and voters.
YOU are aware of my long standing interest in issues that concern Carlsbad as
a community. That interest has bey described by some people as being limited to the area of Carlsbad, known as "The Barrio" ("The Neighborhood").
I believe that my community interest actually concerns the greater 'good' Df
Carisbad and concerns all of the people of Carlsbad.
"what 1s good for ihe Barrio is good, for Carfsbat7!~M
.With the understanding and. belief..that UIis is a true statement, accept that
the issue of a 3-stow buiidfng in our smati neighborhood .is an issue that concerns all of the residents of Carlsbad. Also, accept that my volce is Speaking for many Carlsbad resklents who We in various parts of our city, lnside.anu outside JH "The Barrio"..
we Object to the sudden placement of a very large. very commercial and exclusively non-residential structure into our very small, very established am very fragile neighborhood.
our feeling at this time, is.that nthis structure is.allowed to be built..ln.spite of our ctisapprwal, with the SeveraJ excqottiMs to and vaffams from the
bullding and planning Code restrictions previously lmpased by the city‘s leaders, then a critical violation of the respect and trust that we have long shared with the leaders of Carlsbad. .has been~committed.
Although.Tj‘ler Street-is. part of the VjUage Redevelopment Area and designated for service commercial support, this street is clearly an area of
the city that~isnat consistent withsurrounding residentialzoning nor.nQarby commercial .zoning.
The existing industrtal uses, such as auto body repair and vitamin manufacturing, are not the types of uses typically found in small downtown viJlages. These are uses that clearly belong in more industrial areas of the city: however, because they have been located at-thepresentsites formany
years they have been allowed to continue to operate and expand.
The question the Council may want to ask itself is: Does the City of Carlsbad want to perpetuate these types of land uses with new buildings that will have a life span of 50 years or more? Is this the direction Tyler Street Is going
to take in the future?
Clearly, the best route for the City to take would be to change the zoning,
and to declare the existing uses “legally non-conforming” uses. This would allow existing uses to continue, but would also prohibit incompatible new uses from belng constructed.
since that option is not being considered, the alternative is for the proposed mini-warehouse to function as a transitional land use, until such time as Tyler
Street redevelops. New uses, including the mini-warehouse, should strive to develop as ideal land uses for the area. New uses should not seek the same
blighted level as the adjacent.businesses wlthout architectural design, landscaping and surrounded by chain link, barbed wire, and razor wire
fencing.
The proposed mini-warehouse does provide architectural detailing,
landscaping and increased setbacks similar to nearby residential uses. All of these will .improve.the.appearance of Tyler Street and exceed the appearance of other businesses on the street. However, there are several areas where compatibility with future land uses could be improved. These include the
following:
..
’. .
2
Scale of Development
The Design Guidelines state that development shall be "small in scale". Yet, the structure reaches the maximum allowed height of 35 feet over all of the
building, except for the tower (which extends to 40 feet) and the smaller, front sections of the building. (which drop down to around 25 feet).
The maximum allowed building height of 35 feet should only be allowed when a 5:12 roof pitch is provided. Because this cannot be provided due to the nature of the building, the number '.. of storles should be reduced to two IeVeIS-
A structure this large, at.a heightDf.35 feet, will create an extremely large
building mass, out of scale with nearby residences and existing industrial
buildings. The only structures that are this high are the Tyler Street Apartments and K&K Vitamins (at the rear of the lot). As stated in the staff
report, the ,proposed building will be setting a precedent for future development on Tyler Street.
A two-story building would he more in keeping with the building heights
south of Carlsbad Village Drive. A mini-warehouse in the Village should not be allowed to be the same height as one in the industriat parks along Palomar
Airport Road or Interstate 5.
_.
signage The other area where there is a lack of compatibility is with regard to signage. The proposed project includes a monument sign (8' x 39, a sign on
the tower 117.5' x 3.6') and two signs near the rear of the buildings (15 x 2'). The Redevelopment Master Plan was approved prior to adoption of the recent sign Ordinance Amendment and therefore allows more signage than will be found elsewhere in the City.
When an ordinance allows a maximum, that does not mean that the
maximum is a "given".
signage Should be in scale to the building and the site.
The signage proposed for this building does neither. The proposed monument sign is all the signage that is requlred for the identification of this building. A large sign on the tower (same sign size as Ralph's Supermarket)
isn't needed at this site. It will not be able to be read by someone driving along Tyler Street because it will be too high in the air. And, it is not compatible with the nearby residences.
3
In addition, signage along the railroad is setting an extremely poor precedent
when the City is getting ready to develop a pedestrian corridor in the railroad right-of-way. Do we want present railroad users and future recreational users to be assailed by sign after sign as they travel and recreate in the
transportation corridor?
Signage proposed at the north and south sides at the rear of the buildings is
clearly lnte~ded to advertise to railroad users and not to the Village as purported. Anyone who has taken the train and experienced the Visual blight
of most railroad corridors would not appreciate the addition of two more signs, particularly of this size.
Carlsbad prides itself on being of the highest quality, this is not a step in that direction.
Design Review Board Resolution NO. 279 Condition No. 14: This condition includes an apparent typo permitting outdoor storage of material which is contrary to common City practices and
Should be corrected by the insertion of the word "not.
Condition No. 18: This condition allows minimum six-foot high fencing to be
Installed along the Sides and rear of the property with the location and materials to be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. This is
contrary to City practice whkh routinely allows only a maximum height of six feet. This condition should address fencing materials, prohibit the use of barbed or razor wire and specify a maximum height prlor to project
approval. This would provide full disclosure to nearby property owners.
Trash Enclosures: Resolution 279 does not include any conditions for trash
enclosures. Mini-WarehOUSeS frequently generate a substantial amount of trash. Enclosures for this type of on-site maintenance should be provided
Within the gated area not wfthin the frontyard setback (landscaped areas or parking areas). No provisions are made for this type of use.
summary and conclusion:
"The Barrio", part of the 'Redevelopment' area of Carlsbad, is an area in transition. It is thus, difficult to plan for this area.
Therefore, does one create compatibility with surrounding, deteriorating land uses, or does one place the burden on the new developer to comply with a yet unknown level of development?
,.
4
This is, and always has been a difficult task. Compromises of positions and
interests always must be made.
In this case, a fair compromise Would be to let the proposed land use be . approved--but with the above suggested modifications to building height and mass, as well as to signage--to create a better interface with existing and
future land uses.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
U ofeiia ESCObedO Carlsbad resident and "Barrio" merchant
5
.. .. .. .. I
We, the undersigned property and business owners in the portion of the Village Redevelopment Area located east of the railroad right-of-way, south of Oak Avenue, west of Roosevelt Street, and north of Walnut Avenue and the southern prolongation of the property at 3305 Tyler
Street, petition the City Council of Carlsbad acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to approve the Tyler Street Self-storage
Project .
AGENDA tTEM # kf 4
c: Mayor
January 15, 2002
Mayor Claude Lewis and Council Members
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
I’m a thirty-year resident and business owner in the “Vil1age”and I would
like to express my unequivocal support for the proposed Carlsbad Village
Self-storage project. We support the proposed use as good business for
the City of Carlsbad and an excellent permitted use for District 6. I have
reviewed the developers proposed project and believe it will be beautiful
project.
I’m president of Soils Organic Solutions, owner of 3235 Tyler Street; we
have a long history as a landlord on Tyler Street. Oceanside ClassTile was
our most recent tenant and they have relocated to the Carlsbad Business Park where they have expanded their manufacturing business to a
54,000 sf facility.
I recognize, and hope that the council does also, the positive impact that
Carlsbad Village Self-storage will have on the Tyler Street area. This
project is the first major financial commitment and redevelopment
proposed for District 6. I believe that it will be a low intensity use, yet
focus development and substantial financial resources on an area that
has not yet benefited from Carlsbad’s growth.
Sincerely,
January 22, 2002
Carlsbad City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Dear Carlsbad City Council Members:
c: Mayor City Council
City Manager
Cily Attorney city cler(c
I am one of the founding owners and President of Oceanside Glasstile
Company. Our Company owns the property known as 3251-3281
Tyler Street in Carlsbad. This is one of two parcels that is part of the
Carlsbad Village Self Storage development proposal submitted by
Robert Schmidt of HNB, Inc.
We made a conscious decision to move to Carlsbad in 1994 from
Oceanside because of our admiration for the City. During the past
eight years, we have been a supportive and growing Carlsbad
business. Our core product is decorative glass tiles made from
recycled bottles. Our Company employee base has grown from 6
employees to 145 over the past 5 years. The majority of our
employees are residents of Carlsbad.
We purchased the Tyler Street property in 1999 (which was adjacent
to the our leased facility (3235 Tyler Street) originally with the
intention of expanding our manufacturing business. In the first part of
2000, an opportunity arose that allowed us to relocate our facility
within the City of Carlsbad (an important point in our relocation
efforts); a 48,000 square foot facility that better met the needs of our
Company's growth plans. This became a reality when Mr. Schmidt
made an offer to purchase our parcel for the development of his Self
Storage project. We entered into this transaction last February with
the knowledge that his proposal was viable, supported by the
Redevelopment Agency, and a permitted use.
If this project is rejected by City Council tonight, it poses a problem for
all property owners on Tyler Street. As this project adheres to the
guidelines of permitted use in the Master Plan, a denial of this permit
would then cast doubts on the consistency of how the Master Plan is
implemented. In light of the fact that both the Redevelopment agency
and the Design Review Board have unanimously approved this project,
and the fact that HNB has cooperated with significant design mandates
from these bodies, rejection of this project compromises potential
business development. The end result would be an extremely
unfavorable precedent for future improvement in this district.
Today's City Council meeting and vote on this project greatly impacts
our financial concerns and interests. Future uses and marketing plans
for this parcel, if the Self Storage project is rejected, would be
questionable at best.
Thank you in advance consideration of this project, my
concerns, and the for the City of Carlsbad.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
January 4, 2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos , California
4th this day
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing
Legal 71880. Janualy 4,2002 I RPo14
II '*' y
nf January, 2002 "
1 NORTH COUNTY TI~ES
Legal Advertising
m 122M1
room (zzz-) AS SmIL wNllO3 ItIlION SO60 T9L 09L XVd 9O:LT flHL IO/LZ/ZT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
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:OO p.m. on Tuesday, January 15, 2002 to consider approval
of Major Redevelopment Permit No. RP01-09 for the construction of a 3-story, 147,987
square foot self-storage facility on property located at 3235-3281 Tyler Street. The proposed
project also includes variances for front and rear yard building setbacks that exceed the
maximum range and a variance to permit roof elements on the interior of the lot that are less
than the minimum 512 roof pitch.
The proposed project is located on the west side of Tyler Street between Pine Avenue and
Walnut Avenue in Land Use District No. 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
(Assessor Parcel Numbers 204-070-01 thru 07 and 204-010-11 & 12).
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 issued a Negative Declaration for the subject project on November 6, 2001.
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 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, Attention: City Clerk's Office, at or
prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 01-09
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
Publish: January 4,2002
Housing and Redevelopment Commission
CARLSBAD VILLAGE
SELF STORAGE
RP 01 -09
CARLSBAD t3 v
NovfXBER 2 2001 \
ALBERT BOVENZI
3668 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFFREY S MCCABE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
267 LA VETA AVE
SCOTT CORDES
SUITE 106
315 1ST ST
ENCIBITAS CA 92024
SHALJNE JESSICA DU
3215 TYLER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SOILS ORG SOLUTION I
OCEANSIDE GLASSTILE CO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3235 TYLER ST
OCEANSIDE
3235 TYLER
SSTILE CO
POINTE L L C VILLAGE
LA JOLLA CA 92037
326 ROSEMONT ST
SCRNEIDER AND PAUTSCB
SUITE 100
8787 COMPIZX DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
2604 EL
TBOHAS ZkD LUCINDA VIGNB
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3880 HIBISCUS CIR
3235 CARLSBAD TyLEB~ A 2008
3235 TYLE
3235-3281 TYLER ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERT NIELSEN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
525 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSB
525 CARL AD VILLAGE DR
l4ATTFtEw AND NANCY HALL
SUITE 8334
2604 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OREAL
2008
SOILS ORGANIC SOLUTION I
2371 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
sulLS OR C SOLUTION I
2371 BUEN
SSTILE CO
3235 TYLE
SSTILE CO
ALEX AND CLAIRE KONONCEUK RAMONA ALVARADO
3305 TYLER ST 3327 TYLER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
SALVADOR ALVARADO
SUITE R
3337 TYLER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FAMILY BERUKOFF
2460 W BLAKE ST
LA HABRA CA 90631
JOHN SCHILLING
CARLSBAD CA 92018
PO BOX 417
ECKHARDT AND SHIRLEY EISEL
421 T?MARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NANCY REVOCABLE REYES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3243 ROOSEVELT ST
MARK EDEE LUPER
PO BOX 2084
CARLSBAD CA 92018
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3448 CAMDEN CIR
EVA FAMILY GASTELUM
CARLSBAD CA 92008
640 WALNUT AVE
HYUNG . YOUNG YANG
2 915 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
FAMILY DAVIS
2720 GALL10 DR
FULLERTON CA 92833
JACK WEST JR.
VISTA CA 92083
790 VALE VIEW DR
PETER AElD JANICE. LOPEZ JR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3225 ROOSEVBLT ST
RUDOLPH BOLL
ENCINITAS CA 92024
1326 TENNIS CLUB DR
E n m JESS JOHNSTON
SUITE 1/2
1025 IRVING RD
EUGENE OR 97404
JOEL . JAVIER URETA
8011 CROSSRIDGE RD DUBLIN CA 94568
TEREUNE GENTRY
SUITE 20
4513 COVE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MONICA MIER PO BOX 4301
CARLSBAD CA 92018
LUPE HERRERA
371 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FAMILY
2720 G
92822
CITY OF )&$AD REDEVEL
3363 TYL CARLSB C 92008
DAVID MCCHESNEY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3235 ROOSEVELT ST
RUBEN GASTELUM
CARLSBAD CA 92008
1975 MAGNOLIA AVE
JOIN HANDS. SAVE A LIFE
3528 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ELEUTERIA CAMPA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3234 ROOSEVELT ST
FRANCES MORENO
1611 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
RAMON KHALONA
3267 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
REYNALDO BARRERA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3221 MADISON ST
KANJI RYOKO MIYAO MARIA MAUGA
3220 LOCUST AVE 3347 ROOSEVELT ST
LONG BEACH CA 90807 CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT ' MANUELA MATA STEVEN MURPHY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3359 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3369 ROOSEVELT ST
JOYCE
3931 G
FRANCES MORENO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
1611 JAMES DR
DOLORES JAUREGUI PO BOX 281
CARLSBAD CA 92018
SIGNE BUCK
VENICE CA 90291
7 02 CRESTMOORE PL
JOE RUTH FLORES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
2010 KARREN LN
COLIN BORNIA
10468 HOT MINERAL SPA RD
NILAND CA 92257 VISTA CA 92083
JOSEFA WAgTINEZ
1292 AplAwR AVE
OFELIA ESCOBEDO
1611 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FAMILY PENDLETON
ENCINITAS CA 92024
1312 'NEPTUNE AVE
RUBEN . SELMA PACHECO
3357 MADISON ST SOFIA MARTINEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
3367 MADISON ST
THERESA CHILDS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3331 MADISON ST
ALFONSO SENTENO
3323 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SUSAN SMITH
3320 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
KELLEY
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
3208 VIA RIBERA
MARIA APODACA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3345 MADISON ST
WILLARD C PETERSON
7428 AVILA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 91730
LARRY R KINSER CLICK . AriTUMN WALLACE
665 WALNUT AVE 525 CARL VILLAGE DR 3378 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAVID - BARBARA SANDWELL 1020
3390 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
L P MIS= ET AL
4275 EXECUTIVE SQUnaE
LA JOLLA CA 92037
FRANCIS FORD JR
PO BOX 2724
SAN PEDRO CA 90731
WeLLS LIVING PAHILY
1350 E FLAELINGO RD
SUITE 36
LAs VEGAS NV 89119
LIVING KORBONSKI HARRY ' SHARON MELLANO
33 73 1 GLOCAMORA LN PO BOX 100
SAN JUAN CAPI'STRANO CA SAN LUIS REY CA 92068
92675
STEVE RODRIGUEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3207 MADISON ST
MONICA MIER
CARLSBAD CA 92018
PO BOX 4301
M GUADALUPE MUNOZ
3250 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MAURO . RAMONA FLORES
CARLSBAD CA 92018
PO BOX 80
STEPHEN . GINA RUGGLES
3149 FAIRVIEW DR VICTOR .,: MARIE MONTAN'EZ
VISTA CA 92084
3167 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
MACK STOUT FAMILY VALDEZ
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
2914 LUANA DR
VISTA CA 92084
2506 SAN CLEMENTE AVE
THOMAS MONREAL JR
3160 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHAUNE JESSICA DU
3150 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHELLEN LTD PARTNERSHIP
4522 TRIAS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
ARTNERSHIP
BOYS . GIRLS CLUB OF CAR EDWARD RONALD NEVARES I PO BOX 913 3135 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92018 CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOYCE JAMES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3931 GARFIELD ST CYHAY.
2604 EL
ELVA M CASTRO
3176 TYLER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 2604 EL
NANCY EAu
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT CARREON SR LUPE .AKA CASTRO
3309 ROOSEVELT ST 3324 TYLER ST , CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
FAMILY MARTINEZ
3274 ROOSNELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANGELITA "ARIL
4232 HUBBARD ACE
STOCKTON CA 95215
BURGAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92115
4438 51ST ST
VISTA CA 92084
SHELLEN LTD PARTNERSHIP
4522 TRIAS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
CIRCLE K STORES INC
PO BOX 52085 PHOENIX AZ 85072
D NEVARES
DAVID & DORA VALADEZ JR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3177 ROOSEVELT ST
KATHERINE BALINO
511 WALNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RAYMOND M ANGEL
CARLSBAD CA 9200 8
3329 ROOSEVELT ST
PAT .,. JUDY ENTEZARI
4377 TUOLUMNE PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARGARET POTTER
856 SEABRIGHT LN
SOMA BEACH CA 92075
GARY ' DEBRA FLETCHER
FREMONT CA 94539
1000 DURILLO CT
QUINN KREKORIAN
BEAVERTON OR 97005
5950 SW ELM AVE
RONALD MCCORMICK
29138 ROCK CREST CT
HIGHLAND CA 92346
JACK WEST JR
790 VALE VIEW DR VISTA CA 92083
CHESTNUT L L C CARLSBAD
LA JOLLA CA 92037
1120 SILVERADO ST
Y R C ETHEL NAYmU Y R '._ E NAYUDU
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
428 sANTA CECELIA 428 SANT
STANLEY POTTER ATTILA HETHELY
856 SEABRIGHT LN 15 COTTONCLOUD
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 IRVINE CA 92614
ROGERS DONALD & SARAH ROGERS
2912 AVENIDA VALERA 2912 AVENIDA VALERA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LANCE .. KATHLEEN SCHULTE JAMES ROXANNE CUBA
7386 ESCALLONIA CT 341 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARK STONE
PO BOX 4485
CARLSBAD CA 92018
DANA GRACE
335 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARK GOSSELIN FRANCES JAUREGUI
SUITE 207 525 CHESTNUT AVE
2907 SEELTFX ISLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO CA 92106
PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENT V MICHAEL ROANE JR
537 SANTA VICTORIA 73 S PEAK.
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
MARY PINAMONTI
VISTA CA 92084
2244 S. SANTA FE AVE #BO2
Public A
COUNTY TRAN
December 13,2001
TO: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF
STORAGE RP01-09 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 -.
/ -(S-O A
Thank you.
trl /ah lor
HOUmG & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE
Citg . . : " 0- - .. - m-..
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE ,~5- 0%
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearinq in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO pm on Tuesday, Janbi2002, to consider
approval of Major Redevelopment Permit No. RPOl-09 for the construction of a 3-story,
147,987 square foot self-storage facility on property located at 3235-3281 Tyler Street.
The proposed project also includes variances for front and rear yard building setbacks that
exceed the maximum range and a variance to permit roof elements on the interior of the
lot that are less than the minimum 5:12 roof pitch.
The proposed project is located on the west side of Tyler Street between Pine Avenue
and Walnut Avenue in Land Use District No. 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area (Assessor Parcel Numbers 204-070-01 thru 07 and 204-010-1 1 & 12).
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 issued a Negative Declaration for the subject project on November 6,
2001. 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 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 01-09
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 (760) 434-2810/2811 - FAX (760) 720-2037 @
R30 3442
d2 1-aa-a-
We, the undersigned property and business owners in the portion of the Village Redevelopment Area located east of the railroad right-of-way,
Avenue and the southern prolongation of the property at 3305 Tyler
south of Oak Avenue, west of Roosevelt Street, and north of Walnut
Redevelopment Commission to approve the Tyler Street Self-storage
Street, petition the City Council of Carlsbad acting as the Housing and
Project.
ADDRESS
December 26,2001
TO: CITY MANAGER
VIA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SELF-STORAGE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR TYLER STREET AND CONSISTENCY WITH
VISION FOR AREA
The following information is provided in response to Ofie Escobedo's letter to the Mayor and City
Council requesting that the Major Redevelopment Permit for the Self-Storage Facility proposed for Tyler
Street be denied by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Self-Storaee Project
On January 15,2001, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will hold a public hearing to consider
an application submitted for a major redevelopment permit to allow for the construction of a new self-
storage facility on the west side of Tyler Street between Pine Avenue and Walnut. The Design Review
Board reviewed the project on November 26, 2001 and recommended approval of the project. As Ms.
Escobedo stated within her correspondence, the building does consist of two three-story buildings which
provide for 146,637 square feet of storage area (approximately 1100 units of storage) and 1,350 square
feet of offlce. The proposed project is consistent with the permitted land uses in the area and complies
with the applicable development standards, with the exception that the project provides for setbacks
which exceed the range and a portion of the roof element does not meet the required 5: 12 roof pitch.
rendering of the proposed project.
Therefore, variances will need to be approved for these elements of the project. Attached is a reduced
Vision for Area
In 1995, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopted the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The Master Plan sets forth the goals, objectives, and vision for the nine (9) land use districts
within the Village Area. The proposed project is located within Land Use District 6 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. District 6 has traditionally functioned as a light industrial area with an emphasis on
automotive towing, repair and detailing uses. It should be noted that this industrial area is very small. It
contains approximately 19 parcels which make up about 9 actual lots which have existing industrials uses
operating on them.
As part of the Master Plan development process, it was agreed that the existing industrial uses would be
allowed to continue in the area. While the hope was that over time this area might be able to transition
Escobedo served on the Master Plan Advisory Committee which met for nearly four (4) years and
into more of a commercial retail and business area, the industrial uses are permitted by the Plan. Ms.
recommended this land use strategy. As a result of the adopted land use strategy, Self-Storage facilities
are permitted by right within Land Use District 6 of the Village Redevelopment Area. The development
standards allow the proposed size of the building, including the height.
Although the self-storage facility is not the most exciting land use and staff would prefer a use with more
of a Village character, we do not believe it is realistic to expect that the first new project to be constructed
in this industrial area would be one that requires visibility or foot traffic to survive. Projects in this area
will tend to be more destination-oriented businesses such as the use proposed. Also, many other uses
(such as residential or mixed use) would be incompatible at this time with the existing industrial uses. It is
staffs hope that this project will at least serve as a catalyst for other redevelopment within the area. With
this project, it is more likely that other types of desirable uses (commercial and mixed use) may come into
the area primarily because this project will clean-up a very blighted site and provide a land use which has
a reduced impact from an industrial and compatibility standpoint. Staff believes this is necessary in order
to facilitate the development of the land uses most desired by Ms. Escobedo.
As indicated above, staff was not thrilled with the self-storage use and did, in fact, try to discourage the
the right to proceed with his application. Therefore, we worked with the applicant for many months to
applicant. However, because the Master Plan allows this use by right, staff accepted that the applicant had
obtain the best design possible on the building. We believe that the proposed design is more consistent
with the look of an apartment building rather than an industrial, self-storage facility. We also believe that
the proposed project is better than many of the alternative land uses (auto detailing, towing, etc) that are
permitted within the area.
Barrio Specific Plan and Lot Consolidations
Due to disagreement within the community, the Barrio Specific Plan was never adopted and no
Plan was adopted and has been implemented since 1995. In the draft Barrio Specific Plan, the area in
alternatives have been proposed as Ms. Escobedo indicated within her letter. However, the Village Master
Area and subject to the applicable regulations as set forth within the Village Master Plan. Property owners
which the proposed project is located was noted as being included within the Village Redevelopment
are required to comply with the adopted land use strategy as well as the goals, policies, programs and
procedures set forth within the Village Master Plan. This would not have changed with adoption of the
Barrio Specific Plan.
The draft Barrio Specific Plan did address lot consolidations and limited them according to planning
areas. The proposed maximum lot sizes ranged from 10,ooO to 24,500 square feet in the residential and
residential professional areas. The commercial areas had no maximum lot size and no discussion within
the draft Specific Plan which would have limited lot consolidations. The Village Master Plan does not
prohibit lot consolidations in any of its land use districts. In fact, lot consolidation is typically considered
desirable from a redevelopment standpoint. Many of the properties within the Village Area are too small
for development under existing standards. Therefore, lot consolidation will actually be necessary in many
cases in order to develop desirable projects. For the noted project, two properties will be consolidated
into a single lot approximately 88,400 square feet in size.
Size and Heieht of Proposed Building
It is true that the proposed building is larger in size and taller than many of the surrounding buildings,
especially the single family homes. However, it is important to note that any new commercial or multi-
family building being constructed within the area will most likely be larger and taller than existing
buildings. The land values have increased substantially over the years. Therefore, to maximize profit, any
new developer/property owner will require larger buildings than those existing in the area at this time. As
and taller than other buildings in the area. These projects were not opposed by the residents in the area.
an example, the approved Join Hands Youth Facility and the Schilling Mixed Use Project are both larger
The proposed project is generally consistent with the development standards permitted for the area.
Although Ms. Escobedo focused on the size of the building in her letter, it is our understanding that Ms.
Escobedo is primarily opposed to the use. She would like a mixed use project or retail project withii the
area. From a financial standpoint, these type of projects are not feasible at this time. However, it is also
safe to assume that if these type of projects were built they would be similar in size to the proposed
project.
. . ..
I
Livable CommunitiesA’eighborhoods
Ms. Escobedo does not believe that the proposed project fits into the Livable Communities concept
adopted for residential communities within Carlsbad. While it is true that the project is probably not
consistent with the noted concept, it is also true that the area in question is not primarily a residential
community. The proposed project is located within a commerciaVindushia1 area which has residential
areas in close proximity. Therefore, the goal has been to be sensitive to the residential community while
also allowing the commercidindustrial uses to continue. The livable neighborhoods concept encourages
pedestrian-friendly streets with walkways. Although Redevelopment Staff would like for the proposed
project to install sidewalks, the project was not conditioned to do so because the project is located in an
area that has been designated as an alternative design street per the “City Street and Sidewalk Policy
Committee Final Report”. The applicant has been conditioned to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement and not required to install any public improvements at this time. Although this is contrary to
the desires currently being expressed by some residents in the area who would lie to see improvements
to the street and especially would like sidewalks installed on Tyler Street, the condition is consistent with
the recent policies established by the City Council as related to sidewalk and street improvements. The
develop a design for Tyler Street. The process for completing this design process, however, has not yet
subject property owner will ultimately be required to participate with other property owners in the area to
been developed. It should be noted that the applicant is willing to install sidewalks along the frontage of
his property if so desired by the City Council/ Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
SUMMARY
Although the use is not desired by Ms. Escobedo, staff believes that the proposed project may, in fact,
address many of the concerns expressed by residents within the area. The proposed use will not have the
environmental impacts that other permitted industrial uses in the area currently have on existing residents,
traffic (400 ADT) which is less than the current industriaVmanufacturing use (est. 550 ADT). The project
such as noise, 24 hour operations, smell and visual blight. In addition, the proposed use has projected
hours of operation (6am to 8pm). Ms. Escobedo and many of the residents signing the petition opposing
will provide a well-designed building, substantial landscaping which will improve the area and limited
the project do not believe that the project is consistent with the vision for the area. However, per the
existing Master Plan, the proposed project is, in fact, consistent with the adopted vision. If the
Commission would like for staff to work with the community to develop a new vision for the area, we
would need direction to do so.
Please let me know if you would like any additional information related to the proposed project or Ms.
Escobedo’s opposition.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
I-Koa
Location: west side of Tyler Street between where Pine Avenue and Walnut
Avenue intersect Tyler Street.
Surroundinq uses:
o North: automotive towing
o South: manufacturing (K i3 K Vitamins)
o East: (across Tyler Street) vacant land (Join Hands), automotive repair,
o West: railroad tracks
ProDosed use: self-storage facility
and single-family residential uses
o Permitted use: Village Master Plan land use matrix identifies
storage/warehouse as a permitted use.
Proiect facts:
o ProDertv size: 2.03 acres
o Two separate 3-story buildings
o 146,637 square feet self-storage, 1,350 square feet office
o 1,126 storage units proposed. Some of the smaller units may be
o Parking: 5 spaces for office and ability to park 50 vehicles on internal
o Building height: 35 feet (architectural tower: 40 feet)
o Buildina setbacks (from Dropertv lines):
.I
combined to create less overall units.
drive aisle of project.
ProDosed:
9 Front: 35-65 feet (stepping back at 10 foot increments)
9 Sides: 5-10 feet
Rear: 15-20 feet
Reauired:
Front: 5-20 feet
9 Sides: 5-10 feet
9 Rear: 5-10 feet
Reauested Variances:
o To exceed front and rear yard setbacks, resulting in a greater setback on
the front and rear of the property.
o To permit less than the minimum required 5:12 roof pitch on portions of
the buildings that cannot be seen from the exterior of the property.
DRB Added Conditions:
o “The hours of operation for the self-storage facility shall be limited to
6:OOam through 8:OOpm.”
o ‘The property owner shall inform all customers that no trucks over 40
feet long shall be permitted on-site.’’
,- , ..
CARLSBAD VILLAGE SELF STORAGE
Issues Raised bv Neiahbors
Obiection to the Use - The land use regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan
identify the use as a permitted use in this district. The land use policies and
regulations for District 6 were established as part of the creation of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual approved in 1996 and were based on the
recommendations of the Village Master Plan Advisory Committee.
Under the current land use policies for District 6 the following uses are permitted by
right: automotive paintinddetailing, auto repairkervices, auto towing, parking
IoVstructures, parks, cabinet shops, parcel delivery service, plumbing shop,
plumbing shop supply yards, stained glass studios, storage buildingdwarehouses,
wholesale businesses.
All other uses are provisional or prohibited.
If it is the Commission's desire to prohibit this type of use in the future or change
the land use policies for District 6, staff should be directed to amend the Village
Master Plan to prevent this and similar types of uses from being proposed in the
future.
Obiection to Size of Proiect - The proposed project is consistent with all
established development standards for parking, building height, building setbacks,
lot coverage, and open space. The setback variance that is being requested is to
than that which is set forth in the Village Master Plan. The development standards
allow the building to have setbacks on the front and rear of the property
to not address the number of stories in a building, but rather the limitations of the
building envelope.
The adjacent building to the south, owned by K & K Vitamins, is between 30 and
35 feet in height. The Join Hands Save a Life and Schilling Mixed Use projects
were approved to the maximum height allowed, which in District 5 is 30 feet. Both
projects are located on the east side of Tyler Street across from the proposed
project. Tyler Court Apartments further south on Tyler Street is three stories and
stands 34'4" with a flat roof. Therefore, the height of the proposed project is
consistent with other buildings in the area.
Crime - There have been concerns raised regarding crime associated with the
proposed use. The applicant is proposing to use the latest in surveillance and
security technology including; alarms, gates, coded entries, 24 hour video
monitoring. The Carlsbad Police Chief has stated the Police Department has a
very close working relationship with all existing self-storage facilities in the City,
which are monitored on a regular basis to prevent the storage of illegal items.
Contaminated Soils and Hazardous Waste - Some of the comments received from
the public had to do with concern over the condition of the soil on-site and the
possibility of hazardous waste from prior uses. The applicant has completed a
soils report and a Phase I and Phase II environmental study on the site. To date,
County Environmental Health has found that, based on the studies conducted, no
environmental contamination has been found which would warrant further action on
the part of the applicant. If any contamination is found during grading and/or
construction of the site appropriate actions will be required at that time. Many
times appropriate actions involve the excavation of contaminated soil and aeration
for a limited period of time.
-
V
i
1
1
a
g e
F
a
i
r
e -
n" I