HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-09; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 345; Laguna Point RP 01-08/CT 01-13HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL I
AB# 345
MTG. 4-9-02
m:
CITY MGR DEPT. HlRED
LAGUNA POINT
RP 01-08/CT01-13 CITY DEPT. ATTY. HD.%*
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No%, APPROVING a
Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01 -08), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 01 -1 3)
with variances for front, side, and rear yard building setbacks which exceed the maximum standard
range and the establishment of the High Residential (HR) density range (15-23 dwelling units per
acre) for the Laguna Point project as recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On February 25, 2002, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit and tentative tract map for a twenty-one (21) unit condominium project
known as Laguna Point. The 1 .I 5 acre site is located on the south side of Laguna Drive between
Roosevelt Street and State Street in Land Use District 4 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area. The proposed project consists of two levels of residential units over a fully enclosed garage.
The three-story building is broken up into two separate components, each with its own security
access garage, connected by a central lobby. In addition to the tenant parking providing in the
enclosed garages, the project includes 8 guest parking spaces in front of the main lobby.
The building was designed as two separate components in order to reduce the mass of the structure
along Laguna Drive. Building A is located on the west side of the property, at the corner of State
Street and Laguna Drive and consists of 10 stacked flats. Building B is located on the east side of
the property at the corner of Roosevelt Street and Laguna Drive and consists of 9 two-story units.
The two buildings are joined by a centralized entryway, enclosed lobby, office, and elevator at the
ground floor. Above the lobby are 2 two-story units.
The project also includes extensive landscaping on all sides of the building, decorative walls along
the street frontages, a pool and spa with separate men and women’s bathrooms, and an indoor
equal distance between State Street and Roosevelt Street. The driveway and front entry sidewalk
recreational room. Vehicular access to the site is off Laguna Drive and is located approximately
consist of enhanced paving. The trash bins are located on the east side of the building and are fully
enclosed with direct access to Roosevelt Street.
The project contains a wide range of units. There are 4 one-bedroom units ranging in size from 829
to 1,022 square feet, 8 two-bedroom units ranging from 1,442 to 1,657 square feet, and 9 three- bedroom units from 1,527 to 2,106 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a private deck.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (4-0, one position
vacant) to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following:
1. Variances for the front, side, and rear yard building setbacks which exceed the maximum range
for the property; and
2. To establish the High Residential (RH) density designation to the subject property to set the
density for the project at 15-23 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point
(GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 345
landscaping for the project. The Board wanted the tower element on the State and Laguna corner of
In addition, the Board discussed specific issues regarding the architectural details and proposed
the building to be enhanced since it serves as the primary architectural feature on a highly visible
corner. Secondly, the Board suggested a design change to the proposed door on State Street to
discourage its perception as a public entrance since the door is intended for tenant use only with
direct access to the secured parking structure. Finally, the Board suggested a clarification on the
landscape plan to insure the proposed palm trees were of a certain trunk height and not identified by
box size, as is the standard for most other variety of trees.
Based on the discussion summarized above, the Board voted 4-0 to add the following conditions to
the project:
1. The tower roof overhang shall be enhanced beyond the rendering presented at the public
hearing, subject to the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
2. The access to the State Street door shall be altered so as to be less conspicuous to the public.
3. The final landscape plan shall specify an average minimum 15-foot trunk height for the palm
trees which shall be of varying heights.
All three of these conditions have been incorporated into DRB Resolution No. 281, which is attached
for review by the Commission. The Design Review Board staff report, the draft minutes of the
February 25, 2002 meeting, and a copy of public comment letters are also attached for the
Commission’s review.
A few members of the public attended the Design Review Board hearing, but chose not to address
the Board. Prior to the hearing, one letter of support was received from Dr. and Mrs. Hayes who live
attachments.
immediately north of the subject property across Laguna Drive. A copy of the letter is included in the
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. As a result of staff‘s review, a Negative Declaration
was issued for the subject project by the Planning Director on January 8, 2002 and made available for public review. No comments were received on the environmental document. The
Design Review Board’s adoption of DRB Resolution No. 280 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 around $1.4 million. With the new construction, it is estimated
that the assessed value will increase to approximately $8.5 million. The increase in value would
result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately
$71,000 per year. Additionally, 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
on the future redevelopment of properties along State Street and Roosevelt Street north of Grand
blighting influence within the area. Staff anticipates that this project will have a very strong influence
Avenue.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 345
EXHIBITS:
A. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 352, APPROVING RP 01-08/CTOI-13
B. Design Review Board Resolutions No. 280,281, and 282 dated February 25,2002 C. Design Review Board Staff Report dated February 25,2002, w/attachments
D. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated February 25, 2002
E. Public Comment Letters
3
Exhibit A
HRC Resolution
Approving
RP01-08/CT01-13
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 352
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALJFORNIA,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 01-13, INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR
FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
HIGH RESIDENTIAL (RH) DENSITY RANGE (15-23 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE), FOR A TWENTY-ONE (21) UNIT CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
LAGUNA DRIVE BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND STATE
STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 4 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: WAVE CREST RESORTS II, LLC
CASE NO: RP 01-08KT 01-13
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RPO1-08 AND
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2002, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Boar :Id a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-08) and Tentative Tract Map
(CT 01-13) for a twenty-one (21) unit condominium project on property located at 539 Laguna Drive,
and adopted Design Review Board Resolutions No. 280, 281, and 282 recommending to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-08) and Tentative Tract
Map (CT 01-13) 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 01-08) and Tentative Tract Map
(CT 01-13); and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the front,
side, and rear yard setbacks which exceed the standard range; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings establishing the High Residential
(RH) density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre for the subject property; 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
HRC RES0 NO. 352
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
subject project by the Planning Department on January 8, 2002 and recommended for approval by
Design Review Board Resolution No. 280 on February 25,2002.
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 01-08) and Tentative Tract Map (CT 01-13) are
APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in
Resolutions No. 280, 281, and 282, on file in the City Clerk's Office. and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed,
analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration (RP 01-08/CT 01-13), 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 wil.1 have a significant effect on the
environment and hereby approves the Negative Declaration. The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 01-08/CT 01-13) reflects the independent
judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
..
...
...
HRC RES0 NO. 352
PAGE 2
!
I
I
!
I(
1‘
1:
1:
Id
1:
If
li
It
1s
2(
21
2;
2:
21
2:
2€
27
20
1
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
2 /I Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time
3 Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
4
5
6
7
9
3
I
I
2
3
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
City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a SDecial meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the &day of APRIL ,
1 2002 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Kulchin, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
)
5
I ABSENT Commissioner Finnila
L
HRC RES0 NO. 352
PAGE 3
Exhibit B
DRB Resolutions
No. 280,281 & 282
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 280
A RESOLUTION OT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP01-09 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER CT01.-13 FOR A TWENTY-
ONE (21) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 539 LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 4
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
CASE NO.: RP 01-08lCT 01-13
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25th day of February 2002,
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 January 8, 2002, and “PII” dated January 8,
2002 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinas:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for Laguna
Point (RP 01-OWCTO1-13) 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
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
25
28
d. based on the EIA 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
to handle traffic generated by the proposed project and there are no sensitive
significant impact on the environment. The adjacent streets are adequate in size
as to be significantly impacted by this project.
resources located onsite or located in close proximity to the subject property so
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 25th day of February,
2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Marquez, Heineman, Lawson, Paulsen
NOES: None
ABSENT None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
h\ h L r&k+.3 r
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 280 -2-
I
t
2
5
1(
11
1;
1:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 281
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
ONE (21) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, INCLUDING VARIANCES
FOR FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE PROPERTY, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 539 LAGUNA DRIVE
IN LAND USE DISTRICT 4 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
APN:
CASE NO:
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 01-08 FOR A TWENTY-
THE RH DENSITY RANGE (15-23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR
203-203-30, 203-1 01 -32 & 203-1 01 -33
RP 01 -08
WHEREAS, Wave Crest Resorts II, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Carlsbad regarding property it owns, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-101-
30, 203-101-32 and 203-101-33 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the
property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit,
including variances for front, rear and side yard setbacks to exceed the maximum range
and the establishment of the RH density range (15-23 dwelling units per acre) for the
property, as shown on Exhibits “A-I”, dated February 25, 2002, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, “Laguna Point RP 01-08”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25Ih day of February, 2002, 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
“Laguna Point RP 01-08”,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
1
c
4
1 -
c
I
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
8. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Laguna Point RP 01-08, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL PLAN 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 variances and the establishment of the RH
density designation for the project, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s
General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village
Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff reports dated
February 25, 2002 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the
Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multl-
family residential use in an appropriate location within the Village. This in
turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential
neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in
the Village. By providing more residential opportunities, the project helps
to create a lively, interesting social environment by encouraging more of a
24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary customer base to
attract complementary commercial uses. The project design serves to
reinforce the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by
providing much needed street improvements along Laguna Drive and
Roosevelt Street. Furthermore, the building itself has a strong street
presence with extensive outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent
streets and fully enclosed parking. Finally, the project assists in the effort
to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area that contains a wide
variety of uses by providing a residential product (multi-family for sale)
that has not been built in the area since prior to the 1980’s.
b. The project is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Plan in that; 1) it
establishes the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living
environment by providing for a multi-family for-sale product which serves
to increase the type of housing options available to people seeking to
reside in the downtown area, 2) it improves the pedestrian and vehicular
circulation in the Village Area by minimizing pedestriadvehicular conflicts
along State Street and Roosevelt Street by limiting vehicular access to the
site from Laguna Drive only and improves the pedestrian environment by
providing for addition sidewalks along all sides of the property, 3) it
stimulates property improvements and new development in the Village
through the development of a highly visible site which may serve as a
catalyst for future redevelopment in the area, and 4) it improves the
physical appearance of the Village Area by replacing a currently vacant site
with an aesthetically pleasing building and site improvements to enhance
the corner of State Street and Laguna Drive which serves as a gateway to
the north end of the Village.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -2-
11
1
1:
1:
1.
1.
11
1’
1:
l!
2(
2
2:
2:
21
21
2(
21
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
3
1
2
3
t
5
5
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
The project as designed is consistent with the land use plan, developmeni
standards for Land Use District 4, design guidelines, and other applicable
regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
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 managemenl
practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into
andor are transported within storm drainage facilities.
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lo1
which has appropriate zoning for a multi-family residential use. The project
is also consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development
within the Village Redevelopment Area and the City’s Landscape Manual.
The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project
meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards.
The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan, the City’s lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the
Redevelopment Agency’s lnclusionary Housing Requirement, as the
Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing
Agreement to provide and deed restrict three (3) dwelling units as
affordable to low income households.
The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set
forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the
Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the project is
comprehensive and incorporates a building that takes advantage of the
unique topographical constraints and unusual lot lay-out of the site. The
buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all conform to the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which serves as the
adopted land use plan for the area. The overall plan for the project
provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, off-street parking,
recreational facilities and other pertinent amenities. The parking is well
integrated into the building and oriented to the topographic features of the
site. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not
negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. Common areas and
recreational facilities are located SO that they are readily accessible to the
occupants of the dwelling units. The overall architecture is compatible
with the surrounding area and consistent with the Village character as set
forth in the Village Design Manual.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -3- !3
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front, side, anc
rear 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 strict adherence to the established setback standards on the second anc
third floors of the building would create a practical difficulty in thc
development of the subject property, because it would preclude the
construction of open decks on each of the units, which is a planned
development standard required for all multi-family projects. Given the
configuration of the property, the only reasonable location for the decks is
along the perimeter of the building. Stepping back of the upper floors of the
building affords necessary light and air to enter the units from the decks.
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 that the
subject property is located at a highly visible corner (intersection of State
Street and Laguna Drive) that serves as the “gateway” into the Village from the
north. Furthermore, the subject property slopes up from the street corner and
the building pad is at a higher elevation than the adjacent streets. These
unique conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the area and
warrant the stepping back of the upper levels of the building to reduce the
mass and height of the building as viewed from the adjacent streets and
pedestrian areas.
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
Increased setback standards reduce adverse impacts to surrounding
properties. The setbacks above the maximum range improve the amount of
light, air, and privacy enjoyed by the residents of the subject property, as well
as, neighboring properties. Additionally, the increased setbacks along the
street frontages assists in the effort to create a more visually appealing
building as viewed from the public 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 those standards were intended to
be somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of
development. The Village Design Guidelines encourage the stepping back of
the upper levels of buildings to allow the maintenance of a small-scale
character near the street level. The proposed project has been designed with
strict adherence to the Village Design Guidelines, including the stepping back
of the upper floors. Therefore, those portions of the project that exceed the
established setback range are consistent with the standards set forth in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and do not create a situation which
contradicts the intent of the plan.
e. The subject project is in a location that has varying setbacks. Both properties
to the south fronting on State Street and Roosevelt Street have greater
setbacks from the adjacent streets than the proposed project. The same is
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -4-
1
.. -
4
C -
f
i
E
4
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
true for the properties on the north side of Laguna Drive. The project’s variec
setbacks along all street frontages and the stepping back of the upper levels
of the building allows for greater architectural articulation, which is strongl)
encouraged in the Village Design Guidelines as a way to maintain and
reinforce the Village character.
f. It is anticipated that the proposed project may serve as a catalyst for the
future redevelopment of nearby properties as similar residential uses or
mixed-uses. The increased setbacks on all sides of the building create a
greater separation between the proposed project and that which may be
developed on adjoining lots. This increased separation would help protect the
livability of the proposed residential development and that which may be
developed in the area by creating more privacy for the residents through
increased setbacks.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for a reduced street side yard
setback (from State Street), for a portion of a second story deck, to a number
within the acceptable range:
a. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties in
that the portion of the deck that is proposed to be setback 8 feet from the
street side yard fronts on a pubic street and is setback significantly from
adjacent properties and therefore, will not impact light, air or privacy of
surrounding properties.
b. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of
the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land
use district in which the project is to be located, in that the reduced standard will
serve to create adequate deck space for the multi-family residential use which
aids the project in meeting the planned development standards required for
for-sale multi-family projects, therefore assisting in the provision of a much
desired residential type in Land Use District 4.
c. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area, in that the
reduced standard will assist in creating greater architectural articulation
adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to make the building visually
interesting and more appealing, which is a primary goal of the Village Design
Guidelines in reinforcing the Village character.
The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the
project is RH (15-23 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control
Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RH General Plan
density designation is as follows:
a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area which contains a
variety of uses such as residential, commercial office, retail, and light
industrial. Residential uses in the area range from single family residential
to high-density multi-family residential. Immediately northwest of the
subject property (across Laguna Drive) and outside the redevelopment
area, the General Plan designation is High Residential (HR 15-23 dwelling
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -5-
I
2
3
4
5
~
c
7
a
s
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
units per acre) and Medium High ResidentiallOffice (RMWO 8-15 dwelling
units per acre). Application of the RH General Plan designation on the
subject property allows for the construction of a project that is compatible
with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall
density.
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality,
diversity, and affordability of housing units within the Village. The higher
density designation makes it financially feasible to construct for-sale multi-
family units in today’s economy. The Village Redevelopment Area has an
abundance of residential rental units, but no condominiums have been
developed in the area since prior to the inception of the redevelopment
plan in 1981.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of
Land Use District 4 by increasing the number of residential units in close
proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Village Coaster
Station). Higher residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas
with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing
balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion
and improved air quality.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS
5. 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,
with need. Specifically,
related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent
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.
c. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
d. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
11 DRB RES0 NO. 281 -6-
1
c
4
4 -
c
i
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. 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.
6. The project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance
of building permits.
General
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates 01
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for
their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by
the City’dAgency’s approval of this 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
the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits.
necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on
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
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and
all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator‘s installation
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities aris.ing from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have
been concluded and continues even if the Agency’s approval is not validated.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -7-
1
L
<
c - I
f
5
1(
11
1;
1:
14
11
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
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.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation.measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. CT 01-13
and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 282
for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at
the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
Housing
12. Prior to the approval of the final map for this project, the Developer shall enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City/Agency to provide and deed restrict 3
dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling
Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted
units, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the
to the Housing and Redevelopment Director no later than 60 days prior to the request
to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all
future owners and successors in interest.
13. The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project's market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the
City/Agency and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an
alternate schedule for development.
Landscape
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing and Redevelopment 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.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15. 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.
Miscellaneous
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance
of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment
Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the
Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a
minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
a. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor
of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to
the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the
right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to
City within 30 days for the official record.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
requirement.
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 are not paid,
this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
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.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
Notice
21. 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’s Redevelopment Agency has issued
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -9-
I
r 1
” -
4
4
~
6
7
a
S
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
a Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit, and Tract Map by Housing
and Redevelopment Commission Resolution(s) No. 280, 281, and 282 on the
property. 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.
Onsite Conditions - Specific
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the
site plan (Exhibit “A”) with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21 .I 05. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter
comply with the approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 42 resident parking spaces
in the enclosed parking structure and 3 covered and 5 uncovered guest parking
spaces, as shown on Exhibits “A” and “B”.
The tower roof overhang shall be enhanced beyond the rendering presented at
the public hearing, subject to the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
The access to the State Street door shall be altered so as to be less conspicuous
to the public.
The final landscape plan shall specify an average minimum 15-foot trunk height
for the palm trees which shall be of varying heights.
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
or grading permit whichever occurs first.
approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building
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
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -10-
1
2
2
4
5
c
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs or/and other
recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: driveways, walkways, storm drain facilities and storm water
pollution elimination devices located therein and to distribute the costs of such
maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the
subdivision.
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.
There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
Developer shall install sight distance corridors (see below for types) at all street
intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following
statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R's).
"No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the
street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the street corners area
identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-
Design Criteria, Section 8.6.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this
condition."
VJpeJI
"No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object shall be placed or
permitted on the subject property along or north of the line designated as the
sight line extending between the project entrance and the west end of Laguna
Drive. No obstructions shall impede nor conflict with the line-of-sight which is
established per City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.1. The
sight line is depicted on the tentative map. The underlying property owner shall
maintain this condition."
The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any
improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this
development.
FeedAareements
7. 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.
8. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -11-
1
t
f
5
1(
11
1;
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
9. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on thc
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for anc
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit fol
the project.
Dedicationdlmprovements
10.
11.
12.
13.
Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Cib
and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the
tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map and/or separate
recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens anc
encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be
rededicated.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide
or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to 01
concurrent with any grading or building permit.
Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision lrnprovemeni
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including,
but not limited to street paving, base, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, driveway, curbs
and gutters, grading, sewer laterals and water services, a street light, and street
striping and signs to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the
provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. 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 filter said
pollutants.
3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to resident 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.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -12-
1
t
8
5
1(
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14.
15.
5) Determine the appropriate size of treatment structuredfacilities to adequate11
treat runoff volumes or flow prior to discharge into the public storm drain 01
receiving water body.
Developer shall cause Owner to vacate a portion of public right-of-way at thr
corner of Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street as shown on the tentative map. Thr
public easement shall be vacated by a certificate on the final map andlor separatr
recorded document. Regardless of how the easement is vacated, a separatr
application for a street vacation shall be submitted to the City Engineering
Department for processing and shall be subject to the street vacation procedures.
Prior to work in the City right-of-way, the Developer shall obtain an Encroachmeni
Permit and Right-of-way Permit for the installation of the private storm drain
connecting to the public storm drain inlet on State Street. This new storm
drainpipe shall be a private improvement and shall be maintained in perpetuity by
the current and future owners of this property.
Final Map Notes
16. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
17. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data:
A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of the following:
1. Curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting State Street, Laguna Drive and Roosevelt
2. Street pavement and base on Laguna Drive and State Street.
3. Pedestrian ramps at the corner of State Street and Roosevelt Street and the
4. Street signs and street striping.
5. Water lines, water meters, and sewer laterals within the public right-of-way.
6. Proposed streetlight fronting Laguna Street.
Street.
corner of Laguna Street and State Street.
B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CONDITIONS
1. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire
Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
2. 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.
3. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by
the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -13-
t
I
5
I(
11
1;
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by tht
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately ownec
unit.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not bt
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer ha$
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time cv
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data
Prior to Final Map approval, Developer shall install a total of 21 water meters for thE
project. Developer shall install 21 potable water meter(s) for residential use and 1 to 2
irrigation meter@) to irrigate the common areas (Homeowner’s Association).
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
0.
The walls separating the U-occupancies (storage closets) from the parking garage shall
be masonry construction. All cells shall be fully grouted.
Entry doors to the storage closets shall be metal frame, metal-door, listed 1% houl
assemblies that have an integral window for viewing inside the storage closets.
The entry doors to the closets shall be master keyed so that the HOA has access to
these areas for routine inspections. There shall be no electrical outlets within the
storage closets. There may be general lighting within the closet installed in conformance
with the National Electric Code.
Signage shall be installed at each closet door noting that storage of flammable liquids or
gasses is prohibited.
Fire extinguishers shall be installed at a minimum 100 feet travel distance throughout
the parking garage and storage closet areas.
Automatic fire protection in storage units shall be upgraded to quick response heads
and the fire sprinkler head for each closet shall be separated from the storage closet
with a chain link ceiling assembly which will prohibit storage above the ceiling level and
allow full operation of the sprinkler head and access to the light fixture for maintenance.
The storage closets shall be owned by and managed by the HOA. The HOA shall have
the responsibility and duty to ensure that all closets uses are limited to storage of
ordinary household goods, which are consistent with the operation of a dwelling unit.
There shall be no storage of flammable liquids or gases of any type in any type of
container.
There shall be gravity ventilation to the exterior from each individual storage closet.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
...
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -14-
2 1. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
3 map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
4
5
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
6 ll General
7
8
9 4. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
3. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
Code Section 18.04.320.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and
approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such
signs.
6. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -15-
1
1
c
4
,&
f
i
E
s
1c
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience a5
“fees/exactions.”
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 timel)
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, 01
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 otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25m day of February, 2002 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marquez, Heineman, Lawson, Paulsen
None
None
None
n ATTEST:
1 > - DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -16-
Attachment “A”
PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-101-30)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF ROOSEVELT STREET, FORMERLY SECOND STREET.
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
PARCEL 2: (APN: 203-101-32)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL
WITH AND 215.39 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SECOND STREET (NOW ROOSEVELT STREET), AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP
AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 78 FEET THEREOF.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP ADJOINING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND TO THE WEST,
AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED COPY OF SAID
RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3: (APN: 203-101-33)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE
WESTERLY LINE OF SECOND STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND LYING PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
WEST, AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE, BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
SAID MAP ADJACENT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND ON THE
SUPERVISORS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED
COPY OF SAID RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 282
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 01-13 TO
SUBDIVIDE 1.153 ACRES INTO TWENTY-ONE (21)
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 539
LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 4 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE I.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
CASE NO.: CT 01-13
WHEREAS, Wave Crest Resorts 11, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
property it owns, known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-101-30, 203-101-32 and 203-101-
33 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A-I” dated February 25, 2002, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department as “Laguna Point RP 01-08/CT 01-13”, as provided by Chapter
21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 25” day of February, 2002,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Laguna Point CT 01-13, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findincis:
I. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, the
Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Titles
I
!
1(
11
1:
1:
1L
12
1c
1;
15
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and wi
not cause serious public health problems.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses sincc
surrounding properties are located within Land Use District 4 of the Villagf
Redevelopment Area and the intent of the Village Master Plan is to provide for I
gradual transition in this district to a mix of higher quality commercial an(
residential uses.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since thf
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at tht
density proposed, in that the development is consistent with the RH densit)
designation which has been assigned to the property based on the following
findings:
a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area which contains 5
variety of uses such as residential, commercial office, retail, and lighi
industrial. Residential uses in the area range from single family residential
to high density multi-family residential. The RH General Plan densiQ
designation allows for the construction of a project that is compatible with
the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size and scale.
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality,
diversity, and affordability of housing units within the Village.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives 01
Land Use District 4 by Increasing the number of residentia! units in close
proximity to shops, restaurants, and the Village Coaster Station.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the property has frontage on Laguna Drive, State Street, and Roosevelt Street
and there are no easements granting access through the property to others.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
That the Design Review Board has considered, in connection with the housing
proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those
housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. Based on
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -2-
1
!
1(
11
1:
1:
1L
1:
1f
1;
It
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds that there i:
no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on thc
environment.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existin!
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project i!
conditioned to comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutan
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is ir
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Village Redevelopmen
Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines based on the facts set forth ir
the staff report dated February 25, 2002 including, but not limited to the following: the
project will provide for a permitted use (multi-family residential) in an appropriate
location within Land Use District 4 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies anc
ordinances since:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer
service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
the Carlsbad Unified School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of
the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a
final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -3-
S
B
1
5
t
1
t
1
?
?
?
1
30
4
L
c - I
E
5
1E
11
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
0.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur: or if they are, by their terms, to bt
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be sc
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment AgencylCiQ
shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or furthe
condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition al
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor ir
interest by the City’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative
Tract Map.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, al
corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map 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. An)
proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to thi$
approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the paymeni of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Projeci
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and
all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) Agency’s approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with
the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of
the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising
from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or
emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Agency a reproducible 24” x 36, mylar copy of the
(Tentative Map/Site Plan) reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -4-
t
I
5
1(
11
1:
1:
1f
I!
It
1;
16
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
9.
10.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providinc
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City thai
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project ai
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. A note to this effeci
shall be placed on the Final Map.
Approval of CTO1-13 is granted subject to the approval of RP01-08.
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 [insert date of 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 NOTlFtED 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 otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25* day of February, 2002 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Marquez, Heineman, Lawson, Paulsen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -5-
Attachment “A”
PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-101-30)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF ROOSEVELT STREET, FORMERLY SECOND STREET.
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
PARCEL 2: (APN: 203-1 01 -321
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL
WITH AND 215.39 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SECOND STREET (NOW ROOSEVELT STREET), AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP
AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 78 FEET THEREOF.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP ADJOINING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND TO THE WEST,
AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED COPY OF SAID
RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3: (APN: 203-101-33)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE
WESTERLY LINE OF SECOND STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND LYING
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
WEST, AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE, BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
SAID MAP ADJACENT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND ON THE
SUPERVISORS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED
COPY OF SAID RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
33
Exhibit C
DRB Staff Report
Dated: February 25, 2002
3y.
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AT
07/26/01
ION COMD~EIE DATE STAff: LORI ROSENSTE~N
MikE GRIM
NE~AT~VE DECIARATION
IANUARV 8.2002
hiRoNMENlAl RWiW. Dnvid Rick
EM NO. 1
DATE: February 25,2002
SUBJECT RP 01-08/CT 01-13 - “LAGUNA POINT”: Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a twenty-one (21)
unit condominium project on properly located at 539 Laguna Drive in Land Use
District 4 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 280
recommending APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Design Review Board
Resolution No. 281 recommending APPROVAL of RP 01-08, and ADOPT Design Review
Board Resolution No. 282 recommending APPROVAL of CT 01-13 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Wave Crest Resorts II, has requested a major redevelopment permit and
tentative tract map to allow the construction of a twenty-one (21) unit condominium project on
property located at 539 Laguna Drive. The properly is bordered by Laguna Drive to the north,
State Street to the west, and Roosevelt Street to the east. To the south of the subject property
is a four-unit apartment project that fronts on State Street and a commercial retaiVoffice building
with surface parking and vehicular access off Roosevelt Street. The subject property has been
vacant for a number of years. The most recent use of the site was for an equipment rental
business (Hawthorne Equipment Rental), which was located on the northwest portion of the
property at the corner of State Street and Laguna Drive.
The proposed project consists of two levels of residential units over a fully enclosed garage.
The three-story building is broken up into two separate components, each with its own garage,
connected by a central lobby. The building was designed as two separate components in order
to reduce the mass of the structure along Laguna Drive. Building A is located on the west side
of the property, at the corner of State Street and Laguna Drive. Building A consists of 18
enclosed parking spaces on the first floor with 10 storage units and 236 square feet of
recreational vehicle (RV) parking. There are a total of 10 units in Building A; 6 single level units
are located on the second floor and 4 single level units are located on the third floor. Building B
is located on the east side of the property at the corner of Roosevelt Street and Laguna Drive.
Building B consists of 24 enclosed parking spaces on the first floor with 11 storage units and
258 square feet of RV parking. There are a total of 9 two level units in Building B. The two 3s
LAGUNA POINT - RF' Ol-OS/CT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 2
buildings are joined by a centralized entryway, enclosed lobby, office, and elevator at the
ground floor. There are 2 two level units above the front lobby area, which are setback
approximately 64 feet from Laguna Drive. In front of the central lobby are 8 guest parking
spaces, three of which are covered with the remainder being open. Roll up gates provide
security entrance to the garages of the both buildings.
The project also includes extensive landscaping on all sides of the building, decorative walls
along the street frontages, a pool and spa with separate men and women's bathrooms, and an
indoor recreational room. Vehicular access to the site is off Laguna Drive and is located
front entry sidewalk consist of enhanced paving. The trash bins are located on the east side of
approximately equal distance between State Street and Roosevelt Street. The driveway and
the building and are fully enclosed with direct access to Roosevelt Street.
The project contains a wide range of units. There are 4 one-bedroom units, 8 two-bedroom
square feet, the two-bedroom units are 1,442 to 1,657 square feet, and the three-bedroom units
units, and 9 three-bedroom units. The one-bedroom units range in size from 829 to 1,022
are 1,527 to 2,106 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a private deck.
111. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, multi-family dwellings are a
permitted use within Land Use District 4. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are
permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals
established for the district. Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory
completion of the Design Review Process and compliance with all other requirements of the
Redevelopment Permit Process is still required for the permitted use.
The site is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, consistency with the Village Local
Coastal Program is not applicable to this project.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will satisfy the following objectives as outlined within the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Villaae as a Quality ShODpina. Workina and Livina Environ'ment.
The subject property is situated on the south side of Laguna Drive between State Street and
Roosevelt Street. The location serves as a predominant focal point for residents and visitors
entering Carlsbad Village from the north. The site is currently vacant and enclosed by a chain-
link fence with a 5-% foot high retaining wall located on the northwest corner of the site. The
proposed project will result in the development of an underutilized lot. The pleasing
architectural design, extensive landscaping and site improvements will serve to enhance a
highly visible corner, thus creating a more visually appealing gateway to the Village. The
proposed residential project also serves to increase the number, quality and diversity of housing
units within the Village. Based on current records, there has not been any multi-family for-sale
projects built within the redevelopment area since it's inception in 1981. The proposed
condominium project will serve to increase the type of housing options available to people
seeking to reside in the downtown area.
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-0WCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25.2002
PAGE 3
Goal 2: Imorove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Wllaae Area. The project has
been designed to minimize the pedestrianhehicular conflicts along State Street and Roosevelt
Street by limiting vehicular access to the site from Laguna Drive only. The project will provide
for the replacement and extension of curb, gutter and sidewalk along all three public streets
fronting the property. Additionally the retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk on the northwest
corner of the site will be removed and replaced with gradually sloping landscaping. These
improvements will serve to enhance the pedestrian environment along the northern portions of
State Street and Roosevelt Street, as well as Laguna Drive.
Goal 3: Stimulate Prooeiiv Imorovements and New Develooment in the Villaae. The Master
Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development andor
improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
new development. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development
within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Residential Support District (Land Use District 4). In
addition, the proposed project increases the intensity of development on the site, resulting in a
higher degree of compatibility with adjacent development. Staff sees the development of the
subject property as a key catalyst for future redevelopment along both State Street and
Roosevelt Street.
Goal 4: lmorove the Phvsical Aooearance of the Villaae Area. The applicant has gone to
extensive measures to design a project which will convert an underutilized, blighted site into a
physically attractive project. The proposed project promotes the following redevelopment
objectives:
It reinforces the Village character with appropriate site planning and architectural
design;
It creates a sense of design unity and character by incorporating design elements of
other buildings in the area while still maintaining a unique quality to the design of this
particular building; and
It results in a design that is sensitive to surrounding development within the area.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 4 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residential projects are a permitted use within this district.
District 4 has in the past been a commercial service and light industrial area featuring
automotive repair, building services and other uses characterized by low levels of investment in
buildings, large exterior service and storage areas and a significant amount of visual
deterioration. The intent of current land use policy is to provide for a gradual transition in this
district to a mix of higher quality commercial and residential uses which will provide positive
support for the Village Center (District 1) and reinforce the Village area north of Beech Street as
a quality residential neighborhood.
Staff believes that the proposed project provides for a highly desirable residential use which
promotes the area north of Beech Street as a quality residential neighborhood. Additionally,
development of the subject property will serve as a catalyst for future residential projects and
residential serving commercial uses along North State Street and Roosevelt Street.
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-OWCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PA r-n. A """
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides for two types of standards that every
project must be consistent with in order to receive approval. The first type is known as
"Universal Standards". Every project within the Village Redevelopment Area must comply with
these Universal Standards. The second type is known as "Individual Standards". These
standards are specific to the Land Use District in which the project is located.
UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Consistency, Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing: and 2) special instructions regarding
Universal Development Standards address 1) the issues of General & Redevelopment Plan
the application of individual standards related to parking, building coverage, building height and
"Universal Standards".
setbacks. The following information is provided to indicate how the proposed project meets the
General and Redevelomnent Plan: The General Plan includes the following goals for
the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living,
working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere
and pedestrian scale; 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging
activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices,
restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a City which encourages new economic development in the
Village and near transportation corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a
City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and
create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The General
Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village
Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family residential use in an appropriate
location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a
residential neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the
Village. By providing more residential opportunities, the project helps to create a lively,
interesting social environment by encouraging more of a 24-hour life in the Village, which
provides the necessary customer base to attract complementary commercial uses. The project
design serves to reinforce the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by
providing much needed street improvements along Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street.
Furthermore, the building itself has a strong street presence with extensive outdoor decks
looking out over the adjacent streets and fully enclosed parking. Finally, the project assists in
the effort to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area that contains a wide variety of
uses by providing a residential product (multi-family for sale) that has not been built in the area
since prior to the 1980's.
located in close proximity to mass transit, parks, the beach, retail, and commercial services.
In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is
The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also been
determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village Redevelopment
Area.
Residential Density: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual does not set forth
specific densities in the land use districts which permit residential uses. Instead, an appropriate
General Plan residential density is to be determined for each project based upon compatibility 36
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-OWCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 5
findings with the surrounding area. Maximum project density may not exceed the Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation unless a density increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. Appropriate findings must also be made per Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code to exceed the GMCP.
After considering the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area, the vision for
Land Use District 4, and surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a High Density
Residential (RH) General Plan Designation for the subject property. Justification for the RH
General Plan density designation is as follows:
1. The density is compatible with the surrounding area which contains a variety of uses
such as residential, commercial office, retail, and light industrial. Residential uses in the
area range from single family residential to high-density multi-family residential.
Immediately northwest of the subject property (across Laguna Drive) and outside the
redevelopment area, the General Plan designation is High Residential (HR 15-23
dwelling units per acre) and Medium High ResidentiaVOffice (RMH/O 8-15 dwelling units
per acre). Application of the RH General Plan designation on the subject property
allows for the construction of a project that is compatible with the mixture of surrounding
uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
2. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village
affordability of housing units within the Village. The higher density designation makes it
Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and
financially feasible to construct for-sale multi-family units in today’s economy. The
Village Redevelopment Area has an abundance of residential rental units, but no
condominiums have been developed in the area since prior to the inception of the
redevelopment plan in 1981.
3. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use
District 4 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops,
restaurants, and mass transportation (Village Coaster Station). Higher residential
densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation
promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced
traffic congestion and improved air quality.
The RH designation allows for a density range of 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre with a Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. The site area for the
proposed project is 1.153 acres (50,224.7 square feet). With 21 dwelling units proposed, the
project results in a density of 18.2 dwelling units per acre, which is both within the RH density
Application of the GMCP (19 x 1.153) to the site results in 21.9 permitted dwelling units. Since
range (15-23 dwelling units per acre) and below the GMCP of 19 dwelling units per acre.
the project density does not exceed the GMCP, a density bonus or density increase is not
required.
lnclusionarv Housinq Requirements: All residential projects within the Village
Redevelopment Area are subject to the City’s lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and those requirements imposed by Redevelopment Law. In
accordance with Redevelopment Law, 15% of the private housing units constructed within a
redevelopment area must be affordable to low and moderate income persons, of which not less
than 40% (or 6% of the total units) must be affordable to very low income households. Per City 3
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-OWCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 6
Ordinance, 15% of the total housing units constructed must be affordable to low income
households.
provide 3 housing units (15% x 21 units) affordable to low income households. The applicant
In order to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for the project, the applicant must
has agreed to enter into an affordable housing agreement to deed restrict three units within the
project for purposes of providing housing which is affordable to low income households for a
period of forty-five (45) years with the assumption that Redevelopment Agency Housing Funds
will be used to assist in financing the project. Otherwise, the housing must be affordable for
thirty (30) years.
DRB Resolution No. 281 includes a condition requiring the developer to enter in an affordable
housing agreement prior to the approval of the Final Map for the project in accordance with the
requirements for for-sale inclusionary units as outlined in Section 21.85.040(E) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. With the provision of three affordable housing units and the execution of the
required affordable housing agreement the project will satisfy its inclusionary housing
requirement.
Planned DeveloDment: The Village Master Plan includes a specific condition for
residential units proposed for separate ownership which states that all such units shall comply
with the development standards and design criteria set forth by Planned Development
Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This requirement was added during
the 1996 update to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual with the intent
to provide an additional layer of development standards to insure that any development
standards unique to condominium projects were included in the Master Plan. A comprehensive
amendment to Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Development
Ordinance) was recently approved by the City Council and became effective on January 18,
2002 for properties outside the Coastal Zone. In accordance with City policies, in the event of a
regulatory change during the review of a development proposal, the project shall be reviewed in
accordance with the regulations that are in place at the time the land use application is found
July 26, 2001, therefore, in accordance with City policies the project was reviewed based on the
complete. The land use applications for the subject project were determined to be complete on
development standards and design criteria of the old ordinance.
In addition to the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the Planned
Development Ordinance provides criteria for building setbacks, parking, recreational space,
antennas. The project was found to comply with each of the development standards and
lighting, utilities, recreational vehicle storage, tenant storage space, refuse areas, and
design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. A discussion of building setbacks and
the project provides for the remainder of the development standards set forth in the Planned
parking as they relate to the project are discussed below. The following is an analysis of how
Development Ordinance:
Recreafional Soace: Open space areas designated for recreational use shall be
The open space areas shall provide for both common and private recreational facilities. The
provided for all planned development projects at a ratio of two hundred square feet per unit.
proposed project provides for both active and passive common recreational facilities which
include; swimming pool, spa, indoor recreation room, restrooms, and sun deck. In addition, as
required by the Planned Development Ordinance, the project provides for private recreational
space in the form of private decks on each unit. Each deck must have a minimal dimension of
six feet. Each of the decks on the proposed project meets or exceeds this standard. A total of 42)
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-OWCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE I
4,200 square feet of recreational space is required for the proposed project (200 square feet x
2lunits). The total recreational space is a combination of common and private areas. The
proposed project provides for a total of 7,306 square feet of recreational space and, therefore,
exceeds the standard.
Liahtina: Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety and sufficient to
minimize security problems shall be provided. As a standard condition of approval, the
applicant shall be required to submit a lighting plan, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director, prior to issuance of the building permit. This condition has been incorporated into the
attached DRB resolution.
Utilities: There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. This condition has been
incorporated into the attached DRB resolution.
Recreational Vehicle Storaae: The Planned Development Ordinance requires that all
storage space is to be located in specifically designated areas and made available for the
projects containing ten units or more provide space to store campers, trailers, boats, etc. The
shall be equal to twenty square feet for each dwelling unit. For 21 units, the required
exclusive use of the residents of the development. The area provided for this storage space
vehicle storage space for the project has been divided between Garage A and Garage B.
recreational vehicle storage space is 420 square feet. As stated previously, the recreational
Garage A has 236 square feet and Garage B has 258 square feet for a total of 494 square feet,
which exceeds the requirements for this size project. While the recreational vehicle storage will
not accommodate a large motor home, the space is large enough to accommodate
motorcycles, jet skis, wave runners, small trailers, and other similarly sized recreational
vehicles. The size of the recreational vehicle space meets the standard requirements, it is
compatible with the size of the project, it will not appear out of character with the remainder of
the underground parking structure, and it will be fully screened from public view.
Tenant Storaae Space: The Planned Development Ordinance requires separate
storage space of at least four hundred eighty (480) cubic feet for each unit. If all the storage for
each unit is provided in one area, this requirement may be reduced to three hundred ninety two
(392) cubic feet. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas that
are normally part of a residential dwelling unit. The project has been designed with storage
closets within the parking garage. Garage A has 10 storage units measuring from 430 to 590
cubic feet. Garage B has 11 storage units measuring from 450 to 630 cubic feet. The tenant
storage space proposed for the project satisfies the requirements set forth in the Planned
Development Ordinance, because each unit exceeds the minimum standard of 392 cubic feet
for units provided in one area. Furthermore, the units are easily accessible by the tenants and
will assist in meeting their on-site storage needs.
Refuse Areas: A centralized refuse-pickup area has been provided on the east side of
the project with access to Roosevelt Street. The refuse area is fully enclosed within the building
with interior access from Garage B and exterior access from a private walkway running along
the south side of the property. Coast Waste Management has reviewed the plans and found
them to be acceptable for refuse-pickup in this location.
Antennas: Individual antennas shall not be permitted. The project shall have a master
cable television hookup. This condition has been incorporated into the attached DRB
resolution.
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-OWCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 8
Parkinq: The parking requirements set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance
are more restrictive than the Village Master Plan standards. Staff used the more restrictive
standards to evaluate the project. The parking requirement for the project is 2 full-sized
covered spaces per unit and guest parking at a rate of .5 spaces per unit up to 10 and .25
spaces per unit in excess of 10. The parking requirement for a 21-unit condominium project
equates to 42 covered parking spaces and 8 guest parking spaces. The applicant is proposing
to provide 42 covered parking spaces and 8 guest parking spaces, three of which are covered.
Resident parking spaces will not be visible from the public street and guest parking spaces will
the Planned Development Ordinance and the Village Master Plan.
be screened from public view. The proposed project satisfies the parking requirements of both
Buildina Coveraqe. Heiqht and Setbacks: These standards are established
individually according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area.
The Universal Standards section of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides
information on variances and criteria to be used in setting the standards for individual projects
when a range is set forth for the subject standard. The details of these development standards
are described below.
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Universal Development Standards set forth specifically for new development within Land Use
District 4 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 4, the front yard setback is 0-
10 feet and the side and rear yard setbacks are 5-10 feet. The project has been designed with
front, rear and side yard setbacks that are at or above the high end of the setback range.
Furthermore, the building has been designed to meet the required 20-foot front yard setback
from Laguna Drive as required by the development standards of the Planned Development
Ordinance. The only portion of the structure that is less than 10 feet from the side and rear
property lines is a portion of a second story deck on the State Street side of the building. Even
in this case, the deck is no closer than 8 feet to the property line along State Street, which is
above the minimum setback standard of 5 feet. On all sides of the property the upper levels
are stepped back from the levels below them, helping to reduce the overall mass of the
building. .,
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the
minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a
reduction and the following findings are made by the Design Review Board and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use
district in which the project is located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village Character of the area.
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-08/CT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 9
The findings noted above for allowing a reduction of the street side yard setback (from State
Street) to the minimum or anywhere in the range for a portion of a second story deck are
justified as follows: 1) The portion of the deck that is proposed to be setback 8 feet from the
street side yard fronts on a pubic street and is setback significantly from adjacent properties
and therefore, will not impact light, air or privacy of surrounding properties; 2) The reduced
standard will serve to create adequate deck space for the multi-family residential use which aids
the project in meeting the planned development standards required for for-sale multi-family
projects, therefore assisting in the provision of a much desired residential type in Land Use
District 4; 3) The reduced standard will assist in creating greater architectural articulation
adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and
more appealing, which is a primary goal of the Village Design Guidelines in reinforcing the
Village character.
In addition to the above findings to allow for the reduced street side yard setback that is within
the established range, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission
will also be required to make appropriate findings to grant a variance to allow front, side and
rear yard setbacks which exceed the maximum range. At the present time, staff sees the
requirement for granting a variance to allow setbacks which exceed the maximum range as a
technicality. It is common planning practice to only require variances for setbacks which are
below the minimum standard. Staff will be returning at a later date with a Master Plan
Amendment to remove the variance requirement for setbacks that are greater than the
established standard. However until then, the following criteria and variance findings still apply.
A variance for a setback standard which exceeds the top of the range shall only be considered
if the projects meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area.
2. The project is in a location that is in a transition area to residential development and where
increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential
development or would protect the livability of the residential development.
3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space
subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to
the subject project.)
The first two criteria noted above for allowing front, side, and rear yard setbacks which exceed
the maximum standard (range) are justified as follows: 1) The subject project is in a location
which has varying setbacks. The property to the south, fronting on State Street, is setback
further from the street than the proposed project. The property to the south, fronting on
Roosevelt Street, provides surface parking to a mixed-use commercial project on State Street,
thus the building is setback a considerable distance from Roosevelt Street. Across Laguna
Drive there is an existing park and what were previously residential units which have since been
converted to office space, all of which maintain greater setbacks than that which are proposed
for the subject project. The varied setbacks of the project along all street frontages and the
stepping back of the upper levels of the building allows for greater architectural articulation,
which is strongly encouraged in the Village Design Guidelines as a way to maintain and
reinforce the Village character. 2) It is anticipated that the proposed project may serve as a
43
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-0WCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 10
catalyst for the future redevelopment of nearby properties as similar residential uses or mixed
uses. The increased setbacks on all sides of the building create a greater separation between
the proposed project and that which may be developed on adjoining lots. This increased
separation would help protect the livability of the proposed residential development and that
which may be developed in the area by creating more privacy for the residents through
increased setbacks. Therefore, staff believes that the increased setback is consistent with the
area and will reinforce the Village character.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for setback standards that
exceed the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings to grant the variance. In order to approve the requested variances to exceed the
maximum setbacks on the front, sides, and rear of the property, the Design Review Board and
Housing and Redevelopment Commission must be able to make the following findings:
1. The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code Chapter 21.351 will
result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development
inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan;
2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed
development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments which have
the same standards, restrictions, and controls;
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; and
4. The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
In addition to the justifications provided above, staff offers the following additional support for
granting the requested variances:
Variance Findino #i: Strict adherence to the established setback standards on the second and
third floors of the building would create a practical difficulty in the development of the subject
property, because it would preclude the construction of open decks on each of the units, which
is a planned development standard required for all multi-family projects. Given the
configuration of the property, the only reasonable location for the decks is along the perimeter
of the building. Stepping back of the upper floors of the building affords necessary light and air
to enter the units from the decks.
Variance Findina #2 The subject property is located at a highly visible corner (intersection of
State Street and Laguna Drive) that serves as the “gateway” into the Village from the north.
Furthermore, the subject property slopes up from the street corner and the building pad is at a
higher elevation than the adjacent streets. These unique conditions do not generally apply to
other properties in the area and warrant the stepping back of the upper levels of the building to
reduce the mass and height of the building as viewed from the adjacent streets and pedestrian
areas.
Variance Findino #3 The granting of the variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental
to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the area. The increased setback
standards reduce adverse impacts to surrounding properties. The setbacks above the
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-0WCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 11
maximum range improve the amount of light, air, and privacy enjoyed by the residents of the
subject property, as well as, neighboring properties. Additionally, the increased setbacks along
the street frontages assists in the effort to create a more visually appealing building as viewed
from the public right-of-way.
Variance findino #4: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, because those standards were intended to be
somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of development. The Village
Design Guidelines encourage the stepping back of the upper levels of buildings to allow the
maintenance of a small-scale character near the street level. The proposed project has been
designed with strict adherence to the Village Design Guidelines, including the stepping back of
the upper floors. Therefore, those portions of the project that exceed the established setback
range are consistent with the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual
and do not create a situation which contradicts the intent of the pian.
ODen Soace: 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 drive aisles are permitted in the open space. The project, as
proposed, provides for a total of 18,081 square feet of open spaceAandscape area, which
represents 36% of the site; this exceeds the 20% requirement.
Buildina Coveraae: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for residential
projects in Land Use District 4 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage
is 49%. The bottom of the range is considered the desired standard. However unlike the
setback requirements above, a decrease in the standard to below the minimum does not
require a variance. Therefore, the building coverage is determined to be consistent with the
desired standard.
Buildina Heiaht: The standard height limit for Land Use District 4 is 35 feet with a
minimum 5:12 roof pitch. The maximum height may be increased to 45 feet for any size project
where residential or commercial space is located over a parking structure. The additional 10
feet was added to the building height standard in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in
some districts to provide an incentive to developers to incur the additional costs of building over
a parking structure. The project proposes a maximum roof height of 35 feet with an
architectural tower measuring 42 feet high at the northwest corner of the building. The purpose
of the tower element is to increase the visual interest of the building as viewed from the corner
of State Street and Laguna Drive (the northern most gateway to the Village). Although the
project qualifies for a maximum height standard of 45 feet because the residential use is
constructed over a fully enclosed parking structure, the proposed building does not exceed the
maximum building height of 35 feet allowed for standard projects (Le. those that are not built
over parking) in order to be sensitive to existing development in the area. Even under the more
restrictive scenario, the additional height for the tower element is permitted under Section
21.46.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Architectural elements such as towers may 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 facade of the building. The tower does not include any usable floor area.
The building has varying rooflines throughout the project with pitched roof features (5:12) at the
front, rear and sides of the building. Some dormer elements and the architectural tower have
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-08KT 01-13 FEBRUARY 25.2002
PAGE 12
more severe 7:12 roof pitches. The building height and roof pitches are determined to be
consistent with the desired standards permitted by the Village Master Plan.
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 must be satisfied that the applicant has made an
honest effort to conform to ten (IO) basic design principles. These design principles are:
1. Development shall have an overall informal character.
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades. 7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project design
provides for an overall informal character, yet maintains a tasteful and pleasing architectural
style conducive to the Village character. The architectural design provides for variety and
diversity through varying roof features, open decks, building articulation on all elevations, and
varied building setbacks at all levels. The landscaping along all street frontages and the ability
for each of the tenants to add flower boxes and landscaped planters on their individual
balconies also adds to the variety and diversity of the design. The building has a very strong
relationship to the street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk
area and enhances pedestrian-orientation by providing an enhanced landscape area at the
corner of State Street and Laguna Drive. The “Santa Barbara Mission-style’’ architecture of the
building is aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the Village character desired for the area.
The building provides for a variety of architectural features and details including; stucco siding,
barrel tile roof, arched windows, wrought iron fencing, wood trellises, French doors, dormers,
and metal cylindrical chimney flues. The parking is visually subordinate in that is located within
a fully enclosed parking structure or screened from public view. Architectural details in the form
of ornamental wrought iron fencing, wood trellises and clay tile screens were added to the
enclosed parking structure on the first floor of the building to enhance the pedestrian-orientation
at the street level. To further break-up the faqade of the first floor of the building, a low
retaining wall was added along all street frontages between the building and the sidewalk with
extensive landscaping on both sides of the wall. The concrete block retaining wall will be
covered with stucco to match the building and measures from one to four feet tall. A summary
of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (Exhibit 6).
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
As indicated on the site plan, the applicant is proposing one wall sign at the primary entrance
on Laguna Drive identifying the name of the project as “Laguna Point”. The entry sign meets
the requirements of the Village Sign Guidelines and is consistent with the overall scale of the
building. A condition has been added to Design Review Board Resolution No. 281 requiring
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-0WCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 13
that the sign be externally illuminated and consistent with the sign shown on the approved
plans.
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 greater than $150,000.
Additionally, the project requires the approval of a tentative tract map because it involves
separate ownership of the residential units. In accordance with redevelopment permit
procedures, the two permits are being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design
Review Board and final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is being asked to hold a public hearing on the permits requested,
consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the project
and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the requested setback
variances.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is not required for the subject project.
X. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION, SEWER. WATER. RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following:
Traffic: The total projected average daily traffic (ADT) for the project is 168 ADT (21units X 8
ADT/unit), based on the most recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations. A Traffic study
was not required because of the insignificant amount of projected traffic and because the
existing street system is adequate to handle said traffic. All frontage related roadway widening
addition, the project's sole driveway is located such that safe site distance for drivers is
is conditioned to be designed and constructed concurrent with development of this project. In
provided in accordance with intersection site distance standards established by the California
Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual.
The total number of sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) required for the project is
21 (1 EDU/dwelling x 21 dwellings). The Carlsbad Municipal Water District will provide sewer
service to the project. Sewer facilities exist in State Street and Laguna Drive. A 6-inch lateral
pipe on State Street currently serves the property. The 21 units will connect to this existing six-
size will be evaluated in detail when construction plans are submitted to the City for plan check.
inch lateral line. The line may need to be upgraded to a larger diameter size. The required line
proposed water usage for the project equates to 4,620 gallons per day (GPD) (220 gpdJedu x
Water The Carlsbad Municipal Water District will provide water service to the site. The
21 edu's). No major water issues are associated with this proposed project. Water mains are
available for service connections on State Street and Laguna Drive. The applicant is proposing
separate one-inch service lines with separate meters on Laguna Drive for each unit. In
addition, a separate service line and meter will be provided for common landscaping as well as
building sprinkler fire protection lines.
Soils and Grading: There are no major grading issues associated with this project. The northwest corner of the lot will be graded to improve the intersection line of site between
-
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-OWCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 14
Laguna Drive and State Street. Based on previous soils reports on the property, staff
anticipates some remedial grading (soil removal, treatment, and recompaction) do to
undocumented fill on the property. Grading for the project will involve 1,600 cubic yards of cut
and 250 cubic yards of fill with 1,350 cubic yards of material being exported. There is no
proposed import of materials. A grading permit will be required for the proposed grading.
Drainaae and Erosion Control: A preliminary hydrology study was performed by Andrew Kann,
most of the property is level. The property begins to descend at the northwest corner of the lot.
P.E. of Partners Planning and Engineering. The erosion potential was determined to be low as
The highest potential for erosion will occur from rain during grading operations. Proper erosion
control measures will be required and design of the erosion control will be implemented through
the grading plan check process and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. There are no
major drainage issues associated with this project. Most on site drainage will be collected by a series of inlets and pipes that will connect directly with the public storm drain inlet on State
Street.
lmwovements: The applicant is proposing to install street improvements on State Street,
Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street. All three streets will receive standard street improvements per the adopted "City of Carlsbad Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee Repott". This Report
determines which unimproved streets will receive standard improvements and which streets
require a special or "alternative" design. Sidewalk, curb and gutter will be replaced on State
Street and installed on Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street. Additional street pavement and a
streetlight will be added on Laguna Drive. The street signs prohibiting on-street parking on
Laguna Drive will be removed since adequate street width will be provided for street parking.
Pedestrian ramps will be installed at each street corner. No improvements beyond the frontage improvements mentioned are required.
Land Title: Ten (IO) feet of public street and utility right-of-way dedication is required along the
triangular portion of property must be dedicated for the same purpose on Roosevelt Street. No Laguna Drive frontage to bring the half street right-of-way width to 30 feet. In addition, a
additional dedication is required on State Street.
The applicant is proposing that some excess public right-of-way at the corner of Roosevelt
Street and Laguna Drive be vacated. Staff is supportive of this road vacation, because it will
create a 90-degree angle at the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Laguna Drive. The road
vacation will require separate action by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission at a later
Village Redevelopment Plan in conformance with the City's General Plan. The Village
date. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1569, approved on November 28, 1979, found the
Redevelopment Plan allows the Housing & Redevelopment Commission to vacate property for
redevelopment purposes.
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 MElR 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 MElR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. However, although the 4@
LAGUNA POINT - RP 01-OWCT 01-13
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 15
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
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 MElR 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 staffs review, a Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the
Planning Director on January 8,2002 and made available for public review. No comments were
received on the environmental document. Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No.
280 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. Staff anticipates that
this project will have a very strong influence on the future redevelopment of properties along
State Street and Roosevelt Street north of Grand Avenue.
XIII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant the variances for the front,
side, and rear yard setbacks that exceed the maximum range. The project will have a positive
fiscal impact on the redevelopment area and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of
the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
EXHIBITS
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 280, recommending approval of the Negative
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 281, recommending approval of RP 01-08.
3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 282, recommending approval of CT 01-13.
4. Location Map
5. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines.
6. Exhibits “A-I”, dated February 25, 2002, including reduced exhibits.
Declaration.
47
Exhibit 1
DRB Resolution No. 280
Recommending Approval
of Negative Declaration
I
<
1
1
t
I
5
1(
11
1:
1:
1r
1:
It
1;
1I
15
2(
21
2:
2:
24
2:
2c
21
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 280
A RESOLUTION OT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP01-09 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER CT01-13 FOR A TWENTY-
ONE (21) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 539 LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 4
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
CASE NO.: RP 01-08/CT 01 -1 3
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25th day of February 2002,
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
according to Exhibit “ND dated January 8, 2002, and “PII” dated January 8,
Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
2002 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Flndinqs:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
C.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for Laguna
project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
Point (RP 01-08/CTO1-13) the environmental impacts therein identified for this
the project; and
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
it reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad; and
1
L
‘
f
5
1(
I1
1;
1:
14
12
16
15
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. based on the EIA 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
to handle traffic generated by the proposed project and there are no sensitive
significant impact on the environment. The adjacent streets are adequate in size
as to be significantly impacted by this project.
resources located onsite or located in close proximity to the subject property so
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 25th day of February,
2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RES0 NO. 280 -2-
Exhibit "ND"
" ." City of Carlsbad
NEGATlYE DECLARATION
Project AddressRocation: 539 Laguna Drivc (South side of Laguna Drive bctween State
Street and Roosevelt Street), City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego.
Project Description: Major Redevelopment Permit and Tcntativc Tract Map for a 21-
unit condominium project on a currently vacant lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental rcview of thc above descrihed projcct
pursuant to the Guidelincs for Implemcntation of the California Environmcntal Quality ACI and the Environmcntal Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Ncgative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environmcnt) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Doclantion with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Dcpanment, 1635 Faraday Avenuo. Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invitcd, Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Departmcnr within 20 drys of daw
ol: issuance. If you have any qucstions, pleasc call Michael Grim in the Planning Dcpanment at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED: JANUARY 8,2002
CASE NO: RP 01-08/ CT01-13
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 8,2002
Planning Dircctor
-.
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 920087314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 * wwW.ci.cal'lsbad.ca.(16
3-3
Exhibit “PII”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 01-08/CT 01-13 DATE: Januarv 4,2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Laeuna Point
2. APPLICANT: Wave Crest Resorts II, LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1530 W. Lewis St. San Dieeo. CA
92103 619-299-9111
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED. November 20.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Maior Redeveloument Permit and Tentative Tract Mau for a 21 unit
multifamily condominium uroiect with associated parking and landscauine on a vacant. in-fill lot generallv located at the southeast comer of Laeuna Drive and State Street.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities Service systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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.
Date
zfl tS-0"
Planning Director's Signature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A ‘No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EM-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ELR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Ovemding 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 E& Rev. 03/28/96
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 I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures’ appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
populationprojections? (#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 infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides ormudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
5.1-1 -5.1.15)
5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils?(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
N. WATER Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
17
0
0
Significant Impact
LessThan No
Impact
17H
OIXI
OIXI
OB
OB
0 OB
0 OB
0 0 IXI
0 OB 0 OIXI 17 OB
0 OB
0 OB 0 OB
0 OB 0 OB 0 DIXI
0 OIXI
0 OB
0 OB
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
Significant Impact
LessThan No
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l: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)
r) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, 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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
0
0
0
om om o[xI
0
0
0
0 om
OIXI om 0
0
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-
1 - 5.3-12)
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)
on €4 0
0 om om om
0
0 0
0 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCXJLATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs proposal result in:
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
curves or dangerous intersections) or 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 barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
r) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air imffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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)
€4 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
om om om om
0
VII.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
(including but not lited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 0
0 om
0 om
6 Rev. 03\28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? proposal?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
1 - 5.13-9)
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, hut not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fne hazard in areas with flammable brush,
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
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)
W.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
0
0
0
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
€3
0 om
0 0 om
0 0 om
0 om
0 0 om
0 0 0.
0 om
0 0 om
0 0 om
0 0 om
Rev. 03/28/96 bo 7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 0
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or diskibution 0
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#1:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) n
0 0
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 0
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
..
0
0
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 0
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which 0
would affect uniaue ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
10)
10)
0
0
.- 1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existine relieious or sacred uses within the n potential impac;area?(#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) U
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
Impact NO
[XI
[XI [XI
[XI [XI [XI IXI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
[XI [XI
[XI
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 0 0 om
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
.. 0 0 o[XI
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fsh or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
0 0 0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially LessThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitieation
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0
(“Cumulatively considerable” -means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
XW. EARLIER ANALYSES.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
s
The project involves the subdivision and construction of a 21-unit multifamily condominium
project on a vacant graded lot. The subject property is located at the south side of Laguna Drive,
between State Street and Roosevelt Street in the City’s Village Redevelopment Area. The site is
relatively flat with an elevation change of approximately four feet over 330 feet. The site has
been previously cleared of vegetation, with the exception of several eucalyptus trees and small
brush areas. There are no sensitive species or habitats on the project site. The site does not
contain any historical, archeological, or paloentological resources no are there any unusual soils
conditions on the property. The currently vacant site is located in District 4 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan which allows residential, retail and some office uses.
The proposed project would develop the site with 21 multifamily condominium units in one,
three-story building. Also included in the building are internal automobile and recreational
vehicle parking and circulation, storage, landscaping and recreation areas. The proposed
structure and development conforms to all applicable rules and regulations, including but not
limited to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City’s
Growth Management Program.
AIR OUALITY
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
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects
10 Rev. 03/28/96 f23
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
traffk; 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-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Ovemding 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 MER 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 MER 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.
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. L4
11 Rev. 03/28/96
1. Final Master Environmental ImDact Re~ort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12
b5- Rev. 03128196
Exhibit 2
DRB Resolution No. 281
Recommending Approval
of RPOl-08
1
L
6
c
i
E
s
IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 281
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
ONE (21) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, INCLUDING VARIANCES
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 01-08 FOR A TWENTY-
FOR FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE PROPERTY, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 539 LAGUNA DRIVE
IN LAND USE DISTRICT 4 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
APN: 203-203-30,203-101-32 & 203-1 01 -33
CASE NO: RP 01 -08
THE RH DENSITY RANGE (15-23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR
WHEREAS, Wave Crest Resorts II, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Carlsbad regarding property it owns, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-101-
30, 203-101-32 and 203-101-33 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the
property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit,
including variances for front, rear and side yard setbacks to exceed the maximum range
and the establishment of the RH density range (15-23 dwelling units per acre) for the
property, as shown on Exhibits “A-I”, dated February 25, 2002, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, “Laguna Point RP 01-08”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25* day of February, 2002, 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
“Laguna Point RP 01-08”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
(
I
I
1(
1:
1:
1:
1L
1:
1f
1;
15
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Laguna Point RP 01-08, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL PLAN 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 variances and the establishment of the RH
density designation for the project, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's
General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village
Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff reports dated
February 25,2002 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the
Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-
family residential use in an appropriate location within the Village. This in
turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential
neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in
the Village. By providing more residential opportunities, the project helps
to create a lively, interesting social environment by encouraging more of a
24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary customer base to
attract complementary commercial uses. The project design serves to
reinforce the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by
providing much needed street improvements along Laguna Drive and
Roosevelt Street. Furthermore, the building itself has a strong street
presence with extensive outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent
streets and fully enclosed parking. Finally, the project assists in the effort
to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area that contains a wide
variety of uses by providing a residential product (multi-family for sale)
that has not been built in the area since prior to the 1980's.
b. The project is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Plan in that; 1) it
establishes the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living
environment by providing for a multi-family for-sale product which serves
to increase the type of housing options available to people seeking to
reside in the downtown area, 2) it improves the pedestrian and vehicular
circulation in the Village Area by minimizing pedestriadvehicular conflicts
along State Street and Roosevelt Street by limiting vehicular access to the
site from Laguna Drive only and improves the pedestrian environment by
providing for addition sidewalks along all sides of the property, 3) it
stimulates property improvements and new development in the Village
through the development of a highly visible site which may serve as a
catalyst for future redevelopment in the area, and 4) it improves the
physical appearance of the Village Area by replacing a currently vacant site
with an aesthetically pleasing building and site improvements to enhance
the corner of State Street and Laguna Drive which serves as a gateway to
the north end of the Village.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -2-
1
4
c -
t
7
8
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
The project as designed is consistent with the land use plan, developmenl
standards for Land Use District 4, design guidelines, and other applicable
regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation
have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking.
Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building
design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been
conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management
practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into
andlor are transported within storm drainage facilities.
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot
which has appropriate zoning for a multi-family residential use. The project
is also consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development
within the Village Redevelopment Area and the City’s Landscape Manual.
The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project
meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards.
The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan, the City’s lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the
Redevelopment Agency’s lnclusionary Housing Requirement, as the
Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing
Agreement to provide and deed restrict three (3) dwelling units as
affordable to low income households.
The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set
forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the
Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the project Is
comprehensive and incorporates a building that takes advantage of the
unique topographical constraints and unusual lot lay-out of the site. The
buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all conform to the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which serves as the
adopted land use plan for the area. The overall plan for the project
provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, off-street parking,
recreational facilities and other pertinent amenities. The parking is well
integrated into the building and oriented to the topographic features of the
site. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not
negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. Common areas and
recreational facilities are located so that they are readily accessible to the
occupants of the dwelling units. The overall architecture is compatible
with the surrounding area and consistent with the Village character as set
forth in the Village Design Manual.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -3-
2.
1
!
1(
11
1:
1:
14
12
It
1;
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front, side, 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 strict adherence to the established setback standards on the second and
third floors of the building would create a practical difficulty in the
development of the subject property, because it would preclude the
construction of open decks on each of the units, which is a planned
development standard required for all multi-family projects. Given the
configuration of the property, the only reasonable location for the decks is
along the perimeter of the building. Stepping back of the upper floors of the
building affords necessary light and air to enter the units from the decks.
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
subject property is located at a highly visible corner (intersection of State
Street and Laguna Drive) that serves as the “gateway” into the Village from the
north. Furthermore, the subject property slopes up from the street corner and
the building pad is at a higher elevation than the adjacent streets. These
unique conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the area and
warrant the stepping back of the upper levels of the building to reduce the
mass and height of the building as viewed from the adjacent streets and
pedestrian areas.
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
increased setback standards reduce adverse impacts to surrounding
properties. The setbacks above the maximum range improve the amount of
light, air, and privacy enjoyed by the residents of the subject property, as well
as, neighboring properties. Additionally, the increased setbacks along the
street frontages assists in the effort to create a more visually appealing
building as viewed from the public 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 those standards were intended to
be somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of
development. The Village Design Guidelines encourage the stepping back of
the upper levels of buildings to allow the maintenance of a small-scale
character near the street level. The proposed project has been designed with
strict adherence to the Village Design Guidelines, including the stepping back
of the upper floors. Therefore, those portions of the project that exceed the
established setback range are consistent with the standards set forth in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and do not create a situation which
contradicts the intent of the plan.
e. The subject project is in a location that has varying setbacks. Both properties
to the south fronting on State Street and Roosevelt Street have greater
setbacks from the adjacent streets than the proposed project. The same is
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -4-
I
(
I(
11
1:
1:
1L
1:
1C
1;
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
true for the properties on the north side of Laguna Drive. The project's varied
setbacks along all street frontages and the stepping back of the upper levels
of the building allows for greater architectural articulation, which is strongly
encouraged in the Village Design Guidelines as a way to maintain and
reinforce the Village character.
f. It is anticipated that the proposed project may serve as a catalyst for the
future redevelopment of nearby properties as similar residential uses or
mixed-uses. The increased setbacks on all sides of the building create a
greater separation between the proposed project and that which may be
developed on adjoining lots. This increased separation would help protect the
livability of the proposed residential development and that which may be
developed in the area by creating more privacy for the residents through
increased setbacks.
3. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for a reduced street side yard
setback (from State Street), for a portion of a second story deck, to a number
within the acceptable range:
a. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties in
that the portion of the deck that is proposed to be setback 8 feet from the
street side yard fronts on a pubic street and is setback significantly' from
adjacent properties and therefore, will not Impact light, air or privacy of
surrounding properties.
b. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of
the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land
use district in which the project is to be located, in that the reduced standard will
serve to create adequate deck space for the multi-family residential use which
aids the project in meeting the planned development standards required for
for-sale multi-family projects, therefore assisting in the provision of a much
desired residential type in Land Use District 4.
c. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area, in that the
reduced standard will assist in creating greater architectural articulation
adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to make the building visually
interesting and more appealing, which is a primary goal of the Village Design
Guidelines in reinforcing the Village character.
4. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the
project is RH (15-23 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control
Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RH General Plan
density designation is as follows:
a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area whlch contains a
variety of uses such as residential, commercial office, retail, and light
industrial. Residential uses in the area range from single family residential
to high-density multi-family residential. Immediately northwest of the
subject property (across Laguna Drive) and outside the redevelopment
area, the General Plan designation is High Residential (HR 15-23 dwelling
11 DFU3 RES0 NO. 281 -5-
1
t
I
(
1(
11
1;
1:
14
1!
1C
17
1E
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
units per acre) and Medium High ResidentiallOffice (RMWO 8-15 dwelling
units per acre). Application of the RH General Plan designation on the
subject property allows for the construction of a project that is compatible
with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall
density.
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality,
diversity, and affordability of housing units within the Village. The higher
density designation makes it financially feasible to construct for-sale multi-
family units in today's economy. The Village Redevelopment Area has an
abundance of residential rental units, but no condominiums have been
developed in the area since prior to the inception of the redevelopment
plan in 1981.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of
Land Use District 4 by increasing the number of residential units in close
proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Village Coaster
Station). Higher residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas
with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing
balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion
and improved air quality.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
5. 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
collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer
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.
c. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
d. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -6-
I
!
1(
11
1:
1:
14
1:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will bt
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
6. The project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the Issuancf of building permits.
General
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be sc
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates 01
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute anc
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages fol
their 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 to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on
the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits.
Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to
this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and
all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have
been concluded and continues even if the Agency’s approval is not validated.
DIU3 RES0 NO. 281 -7-
1
t
:
1(
11
1:
1:
14
1:
1C
1;
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
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.
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. CT 01-13
and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 282
for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
Housing
12. Prior to the approval of the final map for this project, the Developer shall enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement with the CitylAgency to provide and deed restrict 3
dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling
units, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted
to the Housing and Redevelopment Director no later than 60 days prior to the request
to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all
future owners and successors in interest.
13. The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project's market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the
City/Agency and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an
alternate schedule for development.
Landscape
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing and Redevelopment 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
trash, and debris.
Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds,
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -8-
I
I
1(
1.
1:
1:
lr
I!
1(
1:
1f
15
2(
21
22
22
24
25
26
21
28
15. 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.
Miscellaneous
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance
of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment
Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the
Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a
minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
a. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor
of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the
right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to
City within 30 days for the official record.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
requirement.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
5.09.030, and CFD #I special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
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 are not paid,
this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
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.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
21. 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's Redevelopment Agency has issued
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -9-
1
I
5
1(
11
1:
1:
14
12
1C
1;
1s
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit, and Tract Map by Housing
and Redevelopment Commission Resolution(s) No. 280, 281, and 282 on the
property. 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.
Onsite Conditions - Specific
22.
23.
21.
22.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the
site plan (Exhibit “A”) with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.1 05. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter
comply with the approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 42 resident parking spaces
in the enclosed parking structure and 3 covered and 5 uncovered guest parking
spaces, as shown on Exhibits “A” and “B”.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building
or grading permit whichever occurs first.
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. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs or/and other
recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: driveways, walkways, storm drain facilities and storm water
pollution elimination devices located therein and to distribute the costs of such
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -10-
I
!
1(
1:
1:
1:
1'
1:
It
1;
1t
15
2c
21
22
22
24
25
2c
27
28
4.
5.
6.
maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the
subdivision.
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.
There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following
Developer shall install sight distance corridors (see below for types) at all street
statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R's).
"No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the
street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the street corners area
identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-
Design Criteria, Section 8.8.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this
condition."
FJpeJ
"No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object shall be placed or
permitted on the subject property along or north of the line designated as the
sight line extending between the project entrance and the west end of Laguna
Drive. No obstructions shall impede nor conflict with the line-of-sight which is
established per City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.1. The
sight line is depicted on the tentative map. The underlying property owner shall
maintain this condition."
The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any
improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this
development.
7. 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.
8. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
9. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, 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.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DedicationshmDrovements
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City
and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the
tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map and/or separate
recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be
rededicated.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide
or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or
concurrent with any grading or building permit.
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement
improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including,
but not limited to street paving, base, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, driveway, curbs
and gutters, grading, sewer laterals and water services, a street light, and street
striping and signs to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the
provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. 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 filter said
pollutants.
3) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to resident 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) Determine the appropriate size of treatment structuredfacilities to adequately
treat runoff volumes or flow prior to discharge into the public storm drain or
receiving water body.
Developer shall cause Owner to vacate a portion of public right-of-way at the
corner of Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street as shown on the tentative map. The
public easement shall be vacated by a certificate on the final map andlor separate
recorded document. Regardless of how the easement is vacated, a separate
application for a street vacation shall be submitted to the City Engineering
Department for processing and shall be subject to the street vacation procedures.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -12-
1
L
L
c
1
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
15. Prior to work in the City right-of-way, the Developer shall obtain an Encroachment
Permit and Right-of-way Permit for the installation of the private storm drain
connecting to the public storm drain inlet on State Street. This new storm
drainpipe shall be a private improvement and shall be maintained in perpetuity by
the current and future owners of this property.
Final Map Notes
16. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
17. Note@) to the following effect@) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data:
A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of the following:
1. Curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting State Street, Laguna Drive and Roosevelt
2. Street pavement and base on Laguna Drive and State Street.
3. Pedestrian ramps at the corner of State Street and Roosevelt Street and the
4. Street signs and street striping.
5. Water lines, water meters, and sewer laterals within the public right-of-way.
6. Proposed streetlight fronting Laguna Street.
Street.
corner of Laguna Street and State Street.
B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CONDITIONS
1. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire
Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
2. 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.
3. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by
the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
4. 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.
5. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned
unit.
6. 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. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data.
11 DRB RES0 NO. 281 -13-
I
I
1(
1.
1:
1:
IC
11
1t
1:
It
15
2(
21
22
23
24
25
20
27
28
7. Prior to Final Map approval, Developer shall install a total of 21 water meters for the
project. Developer shall install 21 potable water meter(s) for residential use and 1 to 2
irrigation meter(@ to irrigate the common areas (Homeowner’s Association).
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The walls separating the U-occupancies (storage closets) from the parking garage shall
be masonry construction. All cells shall be fully grouted.
Entry doors to the storage closets shall be metal frame, metal-door, listed 1% hour
assemblies that have an integral window for viewing inside the storage closets.
The entry doors to the closets shall be master keyed so that the HOA has access to
these areas for routine inspections. There shall be no electrical outlets within the
storage closets. There may be general lighting within the closet installed in conformance
with the National Electric Code.
Signage shall be installed at each closet door noting that storage of flammable liquids or
gasses is prohibited.
Fire extinguishers shall be installed at a minimum 100 feet travel distance throughout
the parking garage and storage closet areas.
Automatic fire protection in storage units shall be upgraded to quick response heads
and the fire sprinkler head for each closet shall be separated from the storage closet
with a chain .link ceiling assembly which will prohibit storage above the ceiling level and
allow full operation of the sprinkler head and access to the light fixture for maintenance.
The storage closets shall be owned by and managed by the HOA. The HOA shall have
the responsibility and duty to ensure that all closets uses are limited to storage of
ordinary household goods, which are consistent with the operation of a dwelling unit.
There shall be no storage of flammable liquids or gases of any type in any type of
container.
There shall be gravity ventilation to the exterior from each individual storage closet.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
Fees
1. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
-
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
...
...
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -14-
I
1(
1:
1:
1:
1'
1:
1t
1;
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
General
3.
4.
5.
6.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
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.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and
approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such
signs.
The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
DRB RES0 NO. 281 -15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25th day of February, 2002 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
11 DRB RES0 NO. 281 -16-
Attachment “A”
PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-101-30]
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF ROOSEVELT STREET, FORMERLY SECOND STREET.
PARCEL 2: (APN: 203-1 01 -32)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL
WITH AND 215.39 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SECOND STREET (NOW ROOSEVELT STREET), AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP
AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 78 FEET THEREOF.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP ADJOINING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND TO THE WEST,
AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED COPY OF SAID
RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3 (APN: 203-1 01 -33)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SECOND STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND LYING
NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP ADJACENT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND ON THE
WEST, AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE, BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED
COPY OF SAID RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
Exhibit 3
DRB Resolution No. 282
Recommending Approval
Of CTO1-13
I
!
1(
1:
1:
1:
1L
15
1t
1;
1E
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 282
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 01-13 TO
SUBDIVIDE 1.153 ACRES INTO TWENTY-ONE (21)
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 539
LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 4 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
CASE NO.: CT01-13
WHEREAS, Wave Crest Resorts II, LLC, "Developer", has filed a verified
application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
property it owns, known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-101-30, 203-101-32 and 203-101-
33 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) A-I dated February 25, 2002, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department as "Laguna Point RP 01-OBICT 01-13", as provided by Chapter
21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 25th day of February, 2002,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Laguna Point CT 01-13, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinas:
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, the
Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Titles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will
not cause serious public health problems, in that
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are located within Land Use District 4 of the Village
Redevelopment Area and the intent of the Village Master Plan is to provide for a
gradual transition in this district to a mix of higher quality commercial and
residential uses.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed, in that the development is consistent with the RH density
designation which has been assigned to the property based on the following
findings:
a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area which contains a
variety of uses such as residential, commercial office, retail, and light
industrial. Residential uses in the area range from single family residential
to high density multi-family residential. The RH General Plan density
designation allows for the construction of a project that is compatible with
the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size and scale.
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality,
diversity, and affordability of housing units within the Village.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of
Land Use District 4 by increasing the number of residential units in close
proximity to shops, restaurants, and the Village Coaster Station.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the property has frontage on Laguna Drive, State Street, and Roosevelt Street
and there are no easements granting access through the property to others.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
That the Design Review Board has considered, in connection with the housing
proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those
housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. Based on
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -2-
11
1
1:
1:
1s
1:
11
1’
1:
l!
21
2
2:
2:
21
2:
2(
21
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
1
5
5
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds that there is
no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project is
conditioned to comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutanl
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Village Redevelopmenl
Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated February 25, 2002 including, but not limited to the following: the
project will provide for a permitted use (multi-family residential) in an appropriate
location within Land Use District 4 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
the Carlsbad Unified School District.
c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and paymeni
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part 01
the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a
final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -3-
I
e 1
,. -
4
c -
f
7
E
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be sc
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency/City
shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or furthel
condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative
Tract Map.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all
corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any
proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and
all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) Agency’s approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with
the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of
the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising
from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or
emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Agency a reproducible 24” x 36, mylar copy of the
(Tentative Map/Site Plan) reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -4-
1
1
r -
4
< -
c - I
E
5
1c
11
12
I?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
9.
10.
Building permits will not be issued for this ‘project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at
the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
Approval of CTO1-13 is granted subject to the approval of RP01-08.
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 protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
You have 90 days from [insert date of approval] to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
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 otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25‘h day of February, 2002 by the
following vote to’ wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 282 -5-
Attachment “A”
PARCEL 1: /APN: 203-101-30)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF ROOSEVELT STREET, FORMERLY SECOND STREET.
PARCEL 2: (APN: 203-101-32)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL
WITH AND 215.39 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SECOND STREET (NOW ROOSEVELT STREET), AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP
AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 78 FEET THEREOF.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SAID MAP ADJOINING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND TO THE WEST,
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED COPY OF SAID
RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3: (APN: 203-101-33)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 OF SEASIDE LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1722, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 28, 1921, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE
WESTERLY LINE OF SECOND STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND LYING
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 215.39 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 120 FEET DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 OF SAID SEASIDE
LANDS.
ALSO: THAT PORTION OF FIRST STREET OR STATE STREET, AS SHOWN ON
WEST, AS CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE, BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
SAID MAP ADJACENT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND ON THE
SUPERVISORS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1931, A CERTIFIED
COPY OF SAID RESOLUTION WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 69, PAGE 23 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
Exhibit 4
Location Map
LAGUNA POINT
RP 01 -08/CT 01-1 3
Exhibit 5
Village Master Plan
Design Guidelines
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontaaes.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street.
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
Dossible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
3evote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
larking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
4void Darkina in front setback areas.
Proiect: Laguna Point
There are a variety of setbacks along State Street,
Roosevelt Street and Laguna Drive. The
proposed project has varying setbacks along all
street frontages. The adjacent residential and
commercial properties also provide for varying
setbacks alona all streets.
A low retaining wall (1-4 feet) is provided along all
street frontages.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The project minimizes the loss of privacy for the
adjacent residential use to the south by providing
the maximum building setback at the ground floor
and stepping back both the second and third
levels of the structure. The trash enclosure is
located on the southeast corner of the building,
away from adjacent residential uses.
Not applicable.
Landscaped areas along all sides of the building
will provide for an informal characterketting.
Project provides for an abundance of landscaping
at the corner of State St. and Laguna Dr. and
provides an attractive entrance to the Village.
Landscaping will be provided along all sides of the
building.
Surface parking is minimal and surrounded by
landscape strips.
The property does not abut an alley.
Tenant parking is located within a fully enclosed
parking structure. Guest parking is located off the
Laguna Drive access and fully screened by low
walls and landscaping.
All areas not required for parking spaces and
drivewav aisles have been landscaped.
No parking is provided in the front setback area.
Design Guidelines - Laguna Point
Page 2
I Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
1 Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parkin!
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other pavec
pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of thei
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residentia
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces.
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building shoulc
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenanl
and should be designed especially for their sites and noi
mere copies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
Break large buildings into smaller units.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me"
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
There will be one curb cut along Laguna Dr.
All parking is screened or hidden from public view.
A majority of the parking is completely screenec
from public view by being integrated into the
building. Guest parking spaces are located OR
Laguna Drive and are screened by low walls and
landscaping.
Although much of the parking is located at ground
level with the building above, architectural details
such as ornamental wrought iron, painted louvers,
and clay tile screens have been added to enhance
the pedestrian-orientation along the ground level.
A low retaining wall along the street frontages with
landscaping on both sides also serves to breakup
the building faGade along the first floor. Fully
enclosed parking structures are an important
design concept in the Village. Ground level
parking structures work better for residential
projects, because they do not affect retail
continuity.
The applicant found it to be financially infeasible to
provide parking below grade.
Enhanced paving is provided at the street
entrance off Laguna Drive and within the guest
parking area leading to the garage entrances.
The building has been designed specifically for the
unique layout of the property and topography. The
building design provides for articulation on all
sides, varying setbacks, and other architectural
features which provide for a unique character.
On each side of the building the upper level is
stepped back more than the level below it.
The building, while one contiguous structure, has
been broken up into two main components
adjoined by a central lobby and entrance. This
serves to break up the mass of the building along
the extensive Laguna Drive frontage.
The height of the building is consistent with the
neight of commercial office buildings across State
Street and Roosevelt Street.
The building has been designed with simple lines
snd forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
s not trendy or "look at me" in design.
ueslgn uuloennes -Laguna rom
Page 3
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 5:12 o
greater.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with thc
exception that in the Land Use District 5 clay tile roof:
are acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical eauiDment from Dublic view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Buildins
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.
Jtilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
2lements for visual interest and scale.
Gable-type roofs and roof elements with pitches
ranging from 512 to 7:12 have been providec
within the project.
Dormers have been incorporated into the gable
roofs.
The project provides a mission-style clay tile roof
which is consistent with the architectural design
intended for the project as well as other projects in
the area.
There are some flat roof elements in the center of
the building near State St. & Laguna Drive to
house mechanical equipment. These elements
cannot be seen from adjacent streets.
This will be a requirement of the project.
A mansard roof is not designed into project.
By providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all building facades, thereby
enhancing the visual interest. The project makes
good use varying rooflines, balconies, and
landscaping.
The proposed project provides for windows that
are appropriate to a residential project and
consistent with the Village character.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create shadows and
contrast.
Not applicable.
The upper levels of this building will be accessed
through internal stairways. Therefore, no special
treatment of upper level use entries is necessary.
Wrought iron fencing, clay tile screens, and
painted louvers have been incorporated at the first
floor level. The upper levels utilize French doors,
decorative iron (on the tower), stucco window sills
and corbels under the balconies, wood trellises,
and rafter tails.
Design Guidelines -Laguna Point
Page 4
Respect the materials and character of adjacent The materials and colors proposed for the buildins
development. will not conflict with adjacent developments.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood The exterior walls utilize a textured stucco finish o
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and neutral color and exposed wood fascias, bean
stucco. rafter tails, and exposed wood trellises.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials: indoor/outdoor At this time, none of the noted materials have
carpeting; distressed wood of any type been indicated for use.
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
The windows are clear glass.
White vinyl clad windows and doors are proposec
to offset the darker stucco and wood trim. II Avoid metal awnings and canopies. The applicant has proposed no awnings 01
canopies. I Utilize light and neutral base colors. The project utilizes a light and neutral colo~
scheme.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
buildina (3 or less colors)
The project incorporates 3 main colors.
11 Provide sianificant storefront olazino. I Not aDDliCable. I Avoid large blank walls. I Not applicable.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
1 Emphasize display windows with special lighting. Not applicable.
Encouraae the use of dutch doors. Not applicable. 11 Utilize small paned windows I Not applicable. 1 Develop a total design concept. 1 Not applicable.
Provide frequent entries. Not applicable.
Limit the extent of entrv oDeninas. Not aDDliCable.
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed Not applicable.
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
EmDhasize storefront entries.
1 lntearate fences and walls into the building desian. I ~ot aDDlicable.
~~~~
Encourage front entry gardens Landscaping is proposed along all street frontages
to contribute to the overall visual quality of the
neighborhood. Ample room is available on the
balconies for residents to incorporate flower boxes
and landscape planters on the upper levels.
Design Guidelines - Laguna Point
Page 5
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
n'sual importance to the house itself.
'rovide quality designed fences and walls.
Jisually separate multi-family developments into smaller
:omponents.
The main building entrance is setback from thc
street in order to reduce the mass of the building
frontage along Laguna Drive. However, all of thc
residential units have balconies overlooking the
adjacent streets.
The project design does not lend itself to fronl
entry porches.
Windows and balconies look out onto all adjaceni
streets.
A neutral base color (stucco) with a darker colo~
trim (wood fascias, rafter tails, trellises) is utilized.
Wrought iron fencing, clay tile screens, and
painted louvers have been incorporated at the firsi
floor level. The upper levels utilize French doors,
decorative iron (on the tower), stucco window sills
and corbels under the balconies, wood trellises,
and rafter tails.
Street facades have balconies, gabled roofs, and
architectural details to enhance the Village
character.
An abundance of landscaping is provided along all
street frontages and at the highly visible northwest
corner of the property.
There is one access drive to the project off
Laguna Drive maximizing the amount of
landscaping adjacent to State Street and
Roosevelt Street.
Not applicable.
Low stucco walls matching the facade of the
building are incorporated along the frontage of the
project to breakup the ground floor and screen
guest parking.
The design of the project serves to visually
separate the building into two smaller elements.
Exhibit 6
Reduced Exhibits A-I
c"
..
. ,..
i
-
4
d v
T
” t
c
I
k
Exhibit D
Draft DRB Minutes
February 25, 2002
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of meeting: FEBRUARY 25,2002
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairperson Marquez called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:Ol p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked Board Member Heineman to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Vice Chairperson Marquez publicly thanked the past Vice Chairperson of the Board, Mr. Bill
Compas, and Ms. Harriet Marois for their years of service on the Board.
Present: Board Members: Larry Paulsen Tony Lawson
Courtney Heineman Vice Chairperson: Sarah Marquez
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein
Project Engineer: David Rick
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 25,2002 Minutes:
Board Member Lawson shared on page 10 Mr. Heineman was referred to as Chairperson rather than correctly as Board Member.
Jane Mobaldi said on page 12 of 14 at the very end of the third paragraph to add the word “old” to read as follows: I’. . . precluded because it is more than five years M.”
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Lawson, and duly seconded by Board Member
Heineman to accept the Minutes of February 25, 2002 with the above noted corrections.
VOTE:
AYES:
2-0-2
Lawson and Heineman NOES: ABSTAIN: None
Marquez and Paulsen
Vice Chairperson Marquez 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
Vice Chairperson Marquez proceeded with Agenda Item No. 1, a request for a Major
condominium project on the property located at 539 Laguna Drive in Land Use District 4 of the
Redevelopment Permit and Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a twenty-one (21) unit
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 2 of 13
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. She introduced Management Analyst Lori Rosenstein to
present the staff report.
Ms. Rosenstein shared the following information with the Board, Wave Crest Resorts is
twenty-one (21) unit condominium project on property located at 539 Laguna Drive. The property requesting a Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative Tract Map for the construction of a
is bordered by State Street to the west, Roosevelt Street to the east with entire frontage on Laguna Drive. To the south of the subject property is a four-unit apartment project that fronts on
State Street. Ms. Rosenstein pointed out its location on the site plan and stated that further south is a mixed-use commercial retail and office building fronting on State Street with parking in the
of years and the last known use was located on the corner of State Street and Laguna Drive,
back along Roosevelt Street. She stated that the subject property has been vacant for a number
which was the old Hawthorne/Equipment Rental site.
Ms. Rosenstein went on to point out that the proposed project consists of two levels of residential
components, each with its own garage, connected by a central lobby. She pointed out on the site units over a fully enclosed garage. The three-story building is broken up into two separate
plan that Building A is located on the west side of the property, at the corner of State Street and
Laguna Drive and consists of 18 enclosed parking spaces on the first floor with 10 storage units
and 236 square feet of recreational vehicle (RV) parking. There are a total of 10 units in Building
A; 6 single level units are located on the second floor and 4 single level units are located on the
third floor. Building B is located on the east side of the property at the corner of Roosevelt Street
and Laguna Drive. Building B consists of 24 enclosed parking spaces on the first floor with 11
storage units and 258 square feet of RV parking. There are a total of 9 two level units in Building
B. The two buildings are joined by a centralized entryway, enclosed lobby, office, and elevator at the ground floor. There are 2 two-level units above the front lobby area, which are setback
approximately 64 feet from Laguna Drive. In front of the central lobby are eight guest parking spaces, three of which are covered by the building with the five being open but screened by a low
retaining wall.
She stated that the project contains a wide range of units. There are 4 one-bedroom units, 8 two-
bedroom units, and 9 three-bedroom units. The one-bedroom units range in size from 829 to
units are 1,527 to 2,106 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a private deck. The project also
1,022 square feet, the two-bedroom units are 1,442 to 1,657 square feet, and the three-bedroom
facilities include; a pool and jacuzzi on the south side of the property, men’s and women’s
includes extensive landscaping and decorative walls along all street frontages. Recreational
bathrooms, and an indoor recreational room.
She stated that vehicular access to the site is off Laguna Drive and is located approximately equal
distance between State Street and Roosevelt Street. The driveway and front entry sidewalk consist of enhanced landscaping. The trash bins are located on the east side of the building and
are fully enclosed within the building with trash service access off of Roosevelt Street. Ms.
Rosenstein pointed out that the applicant is proposing to install street improvements on State
Street, Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street. Sidewalk, curb and gutter will be replaced on State
Street and installed on Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street. Additional street pavement and a
streetlight will be added on Laguna Drive. The street signs prohibiting on-street parking on Laguna
Drive will be removed since adequate street width will be provided for street parking. Pedestrian ramps will be installed at each of the street corners.
She shared that the discretionary review process involves a determination by the Design Review
design are consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan, the Village Redevelopment Master Plan,
Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the proposed land use and project
and the Village Redevelopment Plan. The required findings necessary to recommend approval of
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
PAGE 3 of 13
FEBRUARY 25,2M)2
this project are set forth in Design Review Board Resolutions No. 281 and 282. Ms. Rosenstein
stated that she would like to give the Board an overview of the rationale behind the findings that staff made in both of these resolutions. She stated that she would like to start with the project's
consistency with the Village Land Use Plan.
Ms. Rosenstein went on to say that the proposed project is located within Land Use District 4 of
the Village Redevelopment Area. A multi-family residential use is a permitted use within this
district. District 4 has in the past been a commercial service and light industrial area featuring
automotive repair, building services and other uses characterized by low levels of investment in
buildings, large exterior service and storage areas, and a significant amount of visual deterioration
to a mix of higher quality commercial and residential uses which will provide positive support for
over time. The intent of current land use policy is to provide for a gradual transition in this district
the Village Center and reinforce the area north of Beech Street as a quality residential neighborhood.
She stated that staff believes that the proposed project provides for a highly desirable residential
use which promotes the area north of Beech Street as a quality residential neighborhood and
supports the Village character for the area. Development of the subject property will serve as a
catalyst for future residential projects and residential serving commercial uses along North State
environment by encouraging more of a 24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary
Street and Roosevelt Street. In addition, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social
the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by providing more needed street
customer base to attract complementary commercial uses. The project design serves to reinforce
strong street presence with extensive outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent streets and fully improvements along Laguna Drive and Roosevelt Street. Furthermore, the building itself has a
enclosed parking. Finally, the project assists in the effort to create a distinct identity for the Village
as an area that contains a wide variety of uses providing a residential product that has not been
built in the area since prior to the 1980's.
She pointed out that other findings that must be made to approve the project are the project's
conformance with the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan. These development standards include: density, inclusionary housing, building setbacks, open space, lot
coverage, building height and various aspects of the Planned Development Ordinance.
Ms. Rosenstein stated she would start with residential density because it is a very unique aspect
of this project. She said in the Village Redevelopment Area that the Village Master Plan does not
establish residential densities. Instead it states that the Design Review Board and the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission on final approval will establish a density that currently exists under the Carlsbad General Plan and is based on compatibility findings with the surrounding area.
Staff found that the High Residential (RH) general plan designation established a density that was compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses such as residential,
commercial office, retail, and light industrial. Residential uses in the area range from single family
residential to high-density multi-family residential. Immediately northwest of the subject property
(across Laguna Drive) and outside the redevelopment area, the General Plan designation is High
Residential (RH 15-23 dwelling units per acre) and Medium High ResidentiaVOffice (RMH/O 8-15 dwelling units per acre). Application of the RH General Plan designation on the subject property
allows for the construction of a project that is compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in
terms of size, scale, and overall density.
Ms. Rosenstein explained that once a density range is established on a project, the Village Master Plan and the Carlsbad Growth Plan would not allow the project to exceed the Growth
the subject property it results in a density range of 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre. She stated that Management Control Point. She said if the High Residential density designation is established to
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 4 of 13 DRAFT
the middle of that range is 19 dwelling units per acre. The project therefore may not exceed 19
dwelling units per acre without going through a density bonus or a density increase. Ms. Rosenstein said that with 21 units proposed the project ends up with a density of 18.2 dwelling
units per acre, which is under the Growth Management Control Point.
She stated that staff also looked at the project's proximity to mass transportation, namely the
commuter rail and transit station, and the proximity to the commercial district. She stated that
higher densities make sense in the Village because it helps create more of a jobihousing balance
transportation and air quality issues.
and encourages higher reliability on mass transportation, thus helping to resolve regional
She pointed out that the second unique aspect of this project is the lnclusionary Housing
requirement, which applies to all residential projects throughout the City of Carlsbad. The
be set aside as affordable housing. Ms. Rosenstein stated that the developer agrees to provide lnclusionary Housing requirement states that 15 percent of the newly created residential units will
three of the 21 units on site as affordable housing. The designated units will be set-aside for 45
years if the Redevelopment Agency provides financial assistance to the project or a minimum of
30 years without financial assistance.
Ms. Rosenstein shared that the third development standard has to do with building setbacks. The
then a variance must be granted. She said that the required setbacks for this property are 20 feet Village Master Plan states that if a building exceeds the established setback range for an area
said that the proposed project has portions of the first floor that are 20 feet from the front property
in the front off of Laguna Drive, five to ten feet on the sides, and five to ten feet in the rear. She
of the ground floor of the building is setback ten feet from property lines, but the upper stories of
line, but most of the building is set back even further. On the sides and rear of the building some
the building are setback even more.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that this project would require a variance so that the second and third
stories can be setback even further than the established setback range. Staff supports the granting of the variance because of the unusual lot configuration and unit layout. She pointed out that the project is required to provide decks and in order to get light and air to the decks the
building needs to be stepped back even further on the upper levels. She stated that the design
guidelines strongly encourage the stepping back of the upper levels of multi-story buildings, which is proposed this case.
fronting on State Street and Laguna Drive. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission denied Ms. Rosenstein said that a few years back a project was proposed for the portion of the property
the project without prejudice suggesting to the applicant that the bulk, scale and mass of the
building be reduced because the property is a primary focal point in the Village and serves as a gateway to people entering the Village from the north. In responding to the direction of the
Commission, the current applicant is attempting to reduce the bulk, scale and mass of the building
enhancing the landscaping on that corner.
by creating a larger setback from the street, stepping back the upper levels of the building, and
space and the proposed project has 36% open space, which exceeds the City's standard. She
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out that all properties are required to maintain 20% of the site as open
said that required lot coverage is between 60% and 80% and this project is coming in at 49%,
which meets the City's standard. She said the maximum building height is 35 feet above the
lower the existing or finished grades. She stated that the Village Master Plan allows for portions of buildings to be as high as 45 feet if the building is built over parking, which this project has. The
architects for the proposed project have done what they can to keep the building height to no
higher than 35 feet across the entire site except for a 42-foot architectural tower at the corner of
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25.2002
PAGE 5 of 13
the Carlsbad Municipal Code as an architectural feature as long as it does not add square footage
State Street and Laguna Drive. The tower is permitted without the granting of a variance under
to the project. She stated that the building has varying rooflines throughout the project with
the architectural tower have slopes of 7 and 12, which is highly desirable as emphasized in the
pitched roof features at five and twelve slopes or greater. Some dormer elements and the roof on
Village Design Guideline.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the Village Master Plan requires that all for-sale multi-family residential
of Carlsbad. She said that these Plan Development Standards set forth specific development
projects in the Redevelopment Area must adhere to the Plan Development Standards for the City
standards for building setbacks, parking, recreational space, lighting, utilities, recreational vehicle
storage, tenant storage space, refuse areas and antennas. She stated that details of each of
these standards are contained in the staff report and that the proposed project meets each of the
established standards. She pointed out that the recreational vehicle storage area is a small area
in each of the garages for motorcycles, wave runners, kayaks etc.
Ms. Rosenstein went on the say that in addition to the land use plan and the development
standards of the Village Master Plan, in order for the project to be approved it must be found consistent with the design principles outlined in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The
project design provides for an overall informal character, yet maintains a tasteful and pleasing
architectural style conducive to the Village character. The architectural design provides for variety
varied building setbacks at all levels. The landscaping along all street frontages and the ability for
and diversity through varying roof features, open decks, building articulation on all elevations, and
each of the tenants to add flower boxes and landscaped planters on their individual balconies also
adds to the variety and diversity of the design. The building has a very strong relationship to the
street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk area and enhances
pedestrian-orientation by providing an enhanced landscape area at the corner of State Street and Laguna Drive. The ‘Santa Barbara Mission-style’’ architecture of the building is aesthetically
pleasing and consistent with the Village character desired for the area. The building provides for a variety of architectural features and details including; stucco siding, barrel tile roof, arched
windows, wrought iron fencing, wood trellises, French doors, dormers, and metal cylindrical chimney flues. The parking is visually subordinate in that is located within a fully enclosed parking
structure or screened from public view in the case of the guest parking. Architectural details in the
form of ornamental wrought iron fencing, wood trellises and clay tile screens were added to the
enclosed parking structure on the first floor of the faGade in order to break up the first floor of the
varies from 1-3 feet in height. The concrete block retaining wall will be covered with stucco to building. She stated that there is also a low retaining wall located along all street frontages that
these out on the site plan.
match the building and there will be landscaping on both sides of the retaining wall. She pointed
must go through environmental review. The Planning Department has conducted an
Ms. Rosenstein continued that, as required by State Law, all discretionary review applications
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. As
a result of staff‘s review, a Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning
Director on January 8, 2002. No comments were received on the environmental document. Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No. 280 will recommend approval of the Negative
Declaration for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission if the Board is in support of the environmental review that has been conducted.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the 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
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 6 of 13
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Secondly, the project is expected to serve
as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of
existing property. Staff anticipates that this project will have a very strong influence on the future
redevelopment of properties on State Street and Roosevelt Street, particularly north of Grand
Avenue.
Ms. Rosenstein went on to state that the proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit value greater than
$150,000. Additionally, the project requires the approval of a tentative tract map because it
involves separate ownership or subdivision of the residentiaWcondominium units. Ms. Rosenstein
stated that the two permits are being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review
Board and final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant the variances for the front, side, and rear yard setbacks that exceed the maximum range and the
establishment of the High Residential density designation on the subject property. The project will
have a positive fiscal impact on the redevelopment area and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if there were any questions of staff.
Board Member Paulsen asked if they intend to put any washers and dryers in these units. He
recommended that when the dryers are located, the fans have a capacity to run about 8 feet with
one elbow. He has seen projects where the architect had to shuffle his space around to get the
dryers near an outside wall. He stated that the vents could be a problem.
and dryers. She pointed out that the applicant would be doing the presentation and answer this
Ms. Rosenstein stated that on the floor plans each of the units has room for side-by-side washers
question.
Board Member Lawson asked, with respect to the tower element on the corner, if staff reviewed
any alternative that may constitute different interpretations of the gateway. He also pointed out
that on the long elevation of Laguna Drive there appears to be less articulation on Building B than on Building A and asked why.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that at the beginning of this process they looked at several alternatives to
the Board this evening is the one proposed by the applicant as the best alternative for the corner. the design of the building the corner of State Street and Laguna Drive. The design that is before
She asked that the second question be directed to the applicant.
Board Member Heineman asked if there is going to be a condominium organization running the
sometimes used for laundry and many other things and it will take a Condominium Organization to
building? He stated that balconies could be a source of great irritation because they are
police this.
Ms. Rosenstein agreed with Board Member Heineman's perspective. She stated that all condominium projects have a series of conditions that require the formation of CC&R's which are
governed by a Homeowners Association and stated those conditions have been incorporated into DRB Resolution No. 281. She added that the CC&R's will include basic restrictions, but the Design Review Board or Housing & Redevelopment Commission could put limitations on the
project as to what can be placed on the balconies through the addition of a specific condition.
I IS
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 7 of 13
Board Member Heineman stated he did not think a specific condition was needed as long as a
Homeowners Association would be in place.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if there are a certain number of units that were going to be
considered for moderate to low-income housing and if there are any guidelines as to the square
footage of those units or are they the smaller units. She also asked if these units are left to the
discretion of the Director or the applicant. Vice Chairperson Marquez wanted to know if any two bedroom units had been considered in-lieu-of all one-bedroom units to encourage families to
locate downtown.
Ms. Rosenstein pointed out the location of the affordable units on the site plan and stated they are
the one bedroom units because the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance says that the units will be
conducive in size and detail as the other units and there is another one bedroom market rate unit
affordable units on-site that there is a considerable financial impact in doing so and the applicant proposed in the project. She further pointed out that because the applicant is providing the
will possibly be requesting financial assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. She stated that the applicant proposes the selected units and staff has to agree to it and the final decision comes
in the Affordable Housing Agreement, which the applicant would be required to enter into with the City. Ms. Rosenstein said larger affordable units are being included in larger size affordable
housing projects which have more on-site amenities for larger families with children of all ages. She stated that the smaller affordable units make more sense for higher density projects on the
smaller lots in the downtown area.
Ms. Fountain added that typically staff looks at each project individually and decides what is most
appropriate in terms of size and number of bedrooms. She stated that with the affordable housing units, the larger number of bedrooms tend to occur more in the rental projects, because it is
difficult to finance the for-sale projects. She said the smaller units are acceptable for sale if they
are on-site but the Redevelopment Agency would ask for larger units if the affordable units were
off-site. She pointed out that the smaller units are more preferable for seniors as well.
Board Member Heineman asked if the inclusionary units are the ones that are going to have the balconies sitting right under the windows of the apartments to the south, which would be the least
desirable units.
Ms. Rosenstein replied that is correct.
Vice Chairperson Marquez, seeing there were no further questions of staff opened the public
hearing.
Bill Canepa, 13366 Keegan Place, San Diego, CA 92130. As applicant, he stated he was
some of his projects he has developed in the area during the past several years and some of his
impressed with the staff report by the detail and all the work that went into it. He talked about
conclusions and opinions of the area. He stated, concerning the project at hand, that it was a great challenge to fit in three affordable units which are required to be sold for substantially less
than half of what market value is.
He added that he has developed two time share projects in his life, the Wave Crest Inn in Del Mar
and the Tamarack Beach Resort in Carlsbad and he knows how important it is to have a very
good set of CC&Fi's which will hold up over the years. He pointed out that they would be sure
rules were established regarding items on the decks as this is going to be a luxury project which
needs to be well run and well managed with a good set of CC&R's throughout the project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 8 of 13
Mr. Canepa pointed out that after the previous project was turned down he realized there was a desire on the part of staff to merge the two properties together. This would also afford him more
room to build. He stated after talking to Judd Pittam, the owner of the neighboring property on the corner, he decided to buy Mr. Pittam’s property. He shared that about a year ago he came to the
Council with some conceptual drawings and reviewed these with each of the Council Members individually and came up with the present project.
He stated he likes to develop projects that have a character, which reminds people of the past to
some degree, thus choosing the Santa Barbara architecture style which would fit in with the
character of the Village. He pointed out that one of the concerns expressed to him by a couple of
the members of the Council had to do with the corner that Board Member Lawson was talking
about. He stated they thought of putting a fountain on the corner, but the people who might
with that corner is the existing retaining wall which sits up quite a bit from the street level. He
manage the property brought up the liability issue. Mr. Canepa shared that one of the problems
shared that they decided to step the building back 32.5 feet from the property line, which is 52 feet
back from the corner.
He said the Engineering Department expressed some concerns about site line at the corner, therefore he decided to step the building back quite a bit and add the tower element and extensive
staff was very insistent that the rendering be accurate with the landscaping as to what it will be.
landscaping to provide some architectural interest to the building on that corner. He stated that
Mr. Canepa stated that they have exceeded the requirements that the City had on storage units, lot coverage, open space, passive space and recreational space. He stated that their primary
are near their 50s with grown children. He stated that they have a mix of floor plans, having some market would probably be “empty nesters” who want to be in the beach and Village areas and who
units that are flats and others that are townhouse units.
Board Member Heineman asked what these units would sell for or an idea of what the range
might be.
Mr. Canepa responded that he did not know how much it would cost to build them. He stated that
square foot unit selling for $575,000 and these prices were higher than what he anticipated for his
he compared them somewhat to “Little Italy“, but their prices started at $290,000 with a 1,450
development. He shared his concern that his development costs may be higher than what he originally anticipated because they do not have working drawings yet. He stated he had some
concerns about the affordable housing units of which he may need help from the Redevelopment
Agency. He stated that the units may run $50,000 less than those at “Little Italy” with the one
The two bedroom units may be in the $400,000 range and the larger units with the better views
bedroom units selling around $235,000 and those with a better view would sell for a little more.
may be in the $600,000 range.
Board Member Lawson asked, with respect to the tower element and the issue of the State and Laguna corner serving as a gateway to the Village, how he could get some level of commitment
from the applicant to enhance the details in the tower. He pointed out that the project has three
sides that are very exposed.
Mr. Canepa reiterated that this building was originally designed without the tower, which was
added to increase architectural interest. He shared that his concern was to make this project
attractive even to the people living there.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if the applicant intends to retain any of units as rentals.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 9 of 13 F
Mr. Canepa stated that the development would not work as rental properly as the cost involved
would be too great.
Melvin Magee, Partner of Magee Behun Architects, 1530 West Lewis Street, San Diego, CA
92103. Mr. Magee stated they were trying to go beyond the design guidelines and create an
interesting and compelling building and an interesting place to live. He added that they are going
to great links to make the building feel more like the character of the neighborhood and break up
the massing not only in the rhythm of the street, but also vertically by setting back portions of the building at great structural expense. He pointed out the varying roof lines and window types, with deep recess, varying building setbacks, and pedestrian-oriented detailing with wrought iron and
clay tiles makes the building neither repetitious nor boring. He also pointed out the hidden parking, arched openings, and storage areas create a well-crafted, high quality residential development.
clarified that there are two tower elements, the one on the corner, which staff had encouraged,
He shared that some of the dryers in the smaller units are stacked washer-dryers. He also
and the other being the elevator tower, which also reaches the 42-fOOt height limit.
Board Member Heineman asked what provision has been made for security on the parking level
to keep people from accessing it from the streets. He also asked if the fireplaces are working fireplaces.
exception of the guest parking. He added that the fireplaces are working fireplaces.
Mr. Magee stated the parking area is gated, completely secure and under the building with the
ventilation to preclude the need for carbon monoxide sensors or exhaust fans.
Board Member Paulsen asked, regarding the enclosed parking, if there is enough natural
consideration as they get into the working drawings and will involve other consultants.
Mr. Magee replied that they have not made that calculation as of yet, but this will be a primary
a minimum of nine feet. He also had current knowledge that the washer-dryer stacked units have
Mr. Canepa added that it was a concern to him that they have good size parking spaces, limited to
become very good quality.
Board Member Lawson pointed out, regarding the materials and elevations on sheet A-6, that it
appears that the Building B elevations do not show any of the exposed rafter tails and asked why
it does not. He also asked, with respect to the tower element, if it is an additional clear story within
the master bedroom of that corner unit and if there was any way possible to exaggerate the tower
or the canopy itself. He pointed out that the eave overhang tends to be more historically a little
stronger with heavier rafters than what is in the rendering.
Mr. Magee replied that the intent is to be consistent and the design in the rafter tails should be the
same throughout the project and it was a drafting error, an omission. He stated that the tower
element is an additional clearstory within the master bedroom of the corner unit. He pointed out that they have made openings to see the relief against the sky, exaggerated the eaves, recessed
the windows and added articulation with wrought iron for the doors that are 12 inches above the floor, but are actually windows.
that they would be putting a little larger roof overhang on the tower. Mr. Canepa agreed with Board Member Lawson’s point regarding the rafter overhang and shared
Board Member Lawson asked that the Board work with staff to have it put into the record appropriately. He also asked the applicant if the door on the State Street elevations is a resident
access to the garage. He suggested from a security standpoint that the door be made less direct
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 10 of 13
by moving the stairs leading up it so they are off center creating less of a public attraction to
people who are walking by.
Mr. Magee replied that he agreed with Board Member Lawson.
Mr. Canepa asked if the changes were made, that staff would be sure to note that these were recommendations by the Board and thus the Council would not send the applicant back to the
Board to the get approval.
Board Member Heineman asked if one elevator is sufficient.
center of the complex. Mr. Magee stated it was sufficient for 21 units and also that it is strategically located near the
access to the trash containers.
Board Member Lawson asked if the roll up doors on the Roosevelt Street elevation were for
Mr. Magee replied that the rollup doors are the access for the trash collectors.
Board Member Lawson pointed out that the applicant desired to put in nice mature vegetation and
asked if provisions would be included to keep it from becoming an obstacle to a resident. He
stated his concerns were that the trees be coordinated with a precise location so the trees would
not obstruct the views of future residents.
Mr. Canepa responded that he pointed out that the vegetation was more mature in the rendering
than what would be initially planted. He stated that Larry Black looked over the landscaping very carefully and he asked for that particular tree located left of the tower. He stated he would be sure
it is precise in location and type so as not to be a conflict with future residents.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked how much grading is expected on the site and if the lot would
garage. be graded down from its current height. She asked if they expect to sink down the parking
Mr. Magee replied that it would not be graded down hardly at all, which is why they put the
retaining wall on the corner.
grading would be on the corner, which will be knocked down in elevation. He said it would be
Mr. Canepa stated that the lot is rather flat in the back and hardly needs any grading. He said the
The existing retaining wall is approximately six feet high. The property will gradually slope up to
nearly flat from the sidewalk back to the retaining wall, which is only three feet high at the corner.
the retaining wall and then slope back to the building. He stated that they would not be sinking
down the parking garage, but that it would be at grade level.
Ms. Rosenstein reminded Vice Chairperson Marquez that David Rick, City Engineer on the
project, is present to answer any specifics regarding drainage, grading or public improvements.
Vice Chairperson Marquez also pointed out that she is unclear about the door and the room
adjacent to the door in Building A. She asked what that room was designated for. She asked if
one would be able to look into the parking area from the street. She pointed out that the trash is
at one end of the property, which would cause tenants to walk all the way over to dump their
garbage. She asked if two trash bins would be adequate for this number of units and if there is a
specific standard.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 11 of 13
Mr. Magee stated that the concerned area is not a room, but it is empty space, which provides access to the storage closet for one of the units. He stated that you could look through the
landscaping and the wrought iron fence approximately seven feet into the parking area and the
openness is intended to allow for ventilation. He confirmed that the tenants would need to walk to
dump their garbage, as they were limited to where they could locate trash for pickup. He stated
there is not a standard for the number of trash bins per unit.
Mr. Canepa added that they would get trash pick up more frequently if needed,
Vice Chairperson Marquez, seeing there were no further questions, opened public testimony. She
pointed out that there was a letter from Thelma and Thomas Hayes in support of the project.
Seeing there were no further comments she closed public testimony.
Ms. Rosenstein asked if the Board was going to add any conditions that they be stated as specific
as possible.
Board Member Lawson did not know if there needed to be specific conditions or simply just noted in the record. He used the added articulation on Building B as an example.
was a drafting error, but any specific changes to the project design, such as the extension of the Ms. Rosenstein stated the added articulation on Building B could be noted in the record because it
eaves on the tower, should be added as a condition.
element be extended one foot to increase architectural articulation. Board Member Lawson stated that he would like some assurance that the eaves on the tower
Ms. Rosenstein stated that unless these suggestions are incorporated as project conditions, the
Housing & Redevelopment Commission would not know what the Boards recommendation was.
conditions.
Ms. Fountain suggested using approximate rather than exact figures in establishing the
Ms. Mobaldi recommended the wording as follows: “That the tower roof overhang be enhanced beyond the rendering presented at the public hearing subject to the approval of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission and Director.”
Board Member Lawson continued with the pedestrian access door on the State Street elevation
and suggested a less conspicuous path to that door be pursued.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked clarification as to whether the reason was just to hide the door or just so it does not look like a public access.
Board Member Lawson replied the latter.
Ms. Mobaldi recommended the following wording: “That the State Street access door be made to
way the applicant and the architect can determine how they are going to make it less
be less conspicuous subject to the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director“. That
conspicuous. She clarified that the intent was to make it not look like the front door of the building and having people accessing it.
Board Member Lawson confirmed that it was to make it less inviting to someone that is trying to
visit someone in the building. He also pointed out that the landscape plan makes reference to the size of palm trees by box size. He wanted to make sure that the Board established a minimum for
I20
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 12 of 13
the height for those palms as it normally goes by the size of the tree itself, not the size of the
container. He wanted to be sure the proposed palm trees have a minimum 12-foot trunk height,
since what is being proposed could be something smaller than that.
Ms. Rosenstein stated there are King Palms, Queen Palms and Kentia Palms proposed. She
asked if the 12-foot trunk height would apply to all of these.
Board Member Heineman asked if 12 feet would be enough and is 15 feet too high.
Board Member Lawson stated that for a project of this nature and this location he would love to
see it be more than 12 feet.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that 15 feet would not be too high, but pointed out that the higher the tree the greater the cost involved.
Board Member Lawson pointed out that it would depend upon the variety of palm and that a 24-
the rendering.
inch box could be an eight-foot palm which could take quite a while to reach the height shown on
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if they were going with 12 or 15 feet.
Board Member Heineman stated that they both preferred to go with 15 feet if that is within reason.
Ms. Mobaldi suggested that they first ask the applicant his reaction to each of these three
proposed amendments, the Board make a main motion with a second, and then get into the
amendments individually which she will reiterate the language as the Board goes through them.
Mr. Canepa suggested that it might be more attractive to have a variety of palm heights with an
average of 15 feet.
Board Members Heineman and Lawson agreed that it sounded reasonable.
DISCUSSION Board Member Lawson commented that he was very impressed both with the applicant and the
way staff has worked this project and all the design components associated with it. He stated it was a very nice project, it works well for this location and he supports it whole-heartedly,
especially with the conditions added.
Board Member Heineman agreed with Board Member Lawson and stated it is an exciting project
and he looks forward to seeing it constructed.
Board Member Paulsen had nothing to add.
Vice Chairperson Marquez thanked the developer for his beautiful plans which were very pleasing. She added that in retrospect, looking at what was proposed for the site before and what has been
there for a number of years, this is going to be a great improvement to that beautiful corner on
Laguna and State Street which is a gateway into our Village.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded by Board
Member Lawson that the Design Review Board adopt Design Review
Board Resolution No. 280 recommending approval of a Negative
Declaration, adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 281 recommending approval of RP 01-08, and adopt Design Review Board
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25,2002
PAGE 13 of 13
Resolution No. 282 recommending approval of CT 01-13 to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein and subject to the amendments which
have been agreed upon by this Board and which Ms. Mobaldi stated will
enhanced beyond the rendering presented at the public hearing subject
be of the following three conditions: 1) that the tower roof overhang be
to the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, 2) that the
access to the State Street door be altered so as to be less conspicuous
to the public, and 3) that the approved landscape plan specify an average
15-foot minimum trunk height for the palm trees which are to be of
vatying heights.
VOTE 4-0-0 AYES:
NOES:
Marquez, Lawson, Heineman and Paulsen
None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if there was any idea when the next meeting would be.
Ms. Rosenstein stated there is a possibility that there will be a meeting on March 25th for the
KFCnaco Bell Rebuild.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of February 25,2002 was adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
Respeclfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
JUDY KLINE Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
Exhibit E
Public Comment Letters
\ 23
THW I WYES PE 01 I
Attn: Lori Rosenstein
Design Review Board
Housiny and Redevelopment Dept. City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92008
2965 Roosevelt St.
Re: Public Ilcaring February 25, 2002
Case No. R 01-08/CT 01-13
Case Name: Laguna Point
FEB 2 7 2002
We wish to express support of this Major Redevelopment proposal
affordable housing units. for the attractive condominium project, including the much needed
designation will make this possible. The establishment of the Nigh Rcsidential (HP) General Plan
It is wi.thin walking distance of public transportation, including
the Coaster, and all the services the Village offers as well as
the recreational opportunities provided by the beach and lagoon.
'Tis truly a wonderEul place to live, as we have experienced.
provide, it would be advantageous for the city to consider safe
To fully complete the pedestrian circulation the project will
provision for walkers continuing east on the south side of 1.aguna.
Sincprely yours,
, Thclma qd&,. 'r I. Hayes iXy.&*
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(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 Proof of Publication of
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers
adjudicated newspapers of general circ
the Superior Court of the County of S
State of California, for the County of S
that the notice of which the annexed is
copy (set in type not smaller than nonr
been published in each regular and enti]
said newspaper and not in any supplemc
on the following dates, to-wit:
March 29, 2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty of p
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos
of
March, 2002
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
m iz2ou1
CITY OF
CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAGUNA POINT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
3f 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. onTuesday, April 3, 2002, to consider approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-08) and
Tentative Tract Map (CT 01-13) to allow the construction of a twenty-one (21) unit condominium project on property located at 539 Laguna Drive. The
proposed project includes variance requests for front, rear, and side yard building setbacks that exceed the maximum range, resulting in a greater building setback from the adjacent street6 and properly lines. In addition, the proposed project includes a request for the establishment of the High Residential (HR) General Plan designation to set the density for the site at 15-23 dwelling units
per acre. The density of the proposed project is 18.2 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project is located on the south side of Laguna Drive between State Street and Roosevelt Street in Land Use District No. 4 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area (Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-101-30, 203-101- 32, and 203-101-33).
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 wntact Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at (760) 434-2813. You may also provide your wmments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2065 Roosevelt Street, Suite 6, 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 January 8. 2002. 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
tract map in court, you may be Redevelopment Permit or tentative
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, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NC4: RP 01-08/CT 01- 13 CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
HOUSING AND
COMMISSION REDEVELOPMENT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAGUNA POINT
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 pm on Tuesday, April 9, 2002, to consider
approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP01-08) and Tentative Tract Map (CT 01-
13) to allow the construction of a twenty-one (21) unit condominium project on property
located at 539 Laguna Drive. The proposed project includes variance requests for front,
rear, and side yard building setbacks that exceed the maximum range, resulting in a
greater building setback from the adjacent streets and property lines. In addition, the
proposed project includes a request for the establishment of the High Residential (HR)
General Plan designation to set the density for the site at 15-23 dwelling units per acre.
The density of the proposed project is 18.2 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project is located on the south side of Laguna Drive between State Street
and Roosevelt Street in Land Use District No. 4 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area (Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-101-30, 203-101-32, and 203-101-33).
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 January 8, 2002.
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, Attn: City Clerk, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 01-08/CT 01-13
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, MARCH 29,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAGUNA POINT
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 pm on Tuesday, April 9, 2002, to consider
approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP01-08) and Tentative Tract Map (CT 01-
13) to allow the construction of a twenty-one (21) unit condominium project on property
located at 539 Laguna Drive. The proposed project includes variance requests for front,
rear, and side yard building setbacks that exceed the maximum range, resulting in a areater building setback from the adjacent streets and property lines. In addition, the
proposed project includes a request for the establishment of the High Residential (HR)
General Plan designation to set the density for the site at 15-23 dwelling units per acre.
The density of the proposed project is 18.2 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project is located on the south side of Laguna Drive between State Street
and Roosevelt Street in Land Use District No. 4 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area (Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-101-30, 203-101-32, and 203-101-33).
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 January 8, 2002.
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 corresDondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad~at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 01-08/CT 01-13
CASE NAME: LAGUNA POINT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B - Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 - (760) 434-2810/281 l - FAX (760) 720-2037 @
..
LAGUNA POINT
RP 01 -08/CT 01 -1 3
. Smooth Feed Sheetsm
Chen, Teddy & Bungert, Eileen
2401 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Cook, Richard A & Shirley A Trs
2409 Buena Vista Circ.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
McElroy, Richard & Madeline
2440 Buena Vista Circ.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Distinctive Impressions LLC
1775 Hancock St., #160
San Diego, CA 921 10
McCall November 9 2001 Family
624 Laguna Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Soto Soledad
2615 Madison St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Apodaca, Joe & Frances
2647 Madison St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Pinamonti, Carl R Living Trust
2244 S. Santa Fe Ave. #B2
Vista, CA 92084
Lindebrekke, Kristofer & Kristy
605 Laguna Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Chamberlain, Michael & Kimberly
4579 Blackwell Rd.
Oceanside, CA 92056
aAl/ERYB Address Labels
Laguna Carlsbad L L C
23619 Calabasas Rd. #386
Calabasas, CA 91302
Carlsbad Cove Apartments ILLC
C/o Lome Polger
530 B St, #2100
San Diego, CA 92101
Speelman, Patricia N.
2430 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Walsh, Scott & Hilary
2410 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Moreno, Jose & Mary
2605 Madison St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ryan, Vincent & Anne
Metro Group Mgmt of CA
4617 Ruffner St.
San Diego, CA 921 11-2209
Hiner Ada Bell Family Trust
C/o Dile L. Brower
650 S. Rancho Santa Fe Rd #219
San Marcos, CA 92069
Ergin H S
P.O. Box 218
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Huston Family Trust
2631 Roosevelt St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Soto Vera A. Trust
985 Oak St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Use template for 5160@
Stalder Revocable Living Trust
2407 Buena Vista Circ.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Kairath, John E. & Andra A.
2450 Buena Vista Circ.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Norman, Joli TRS et al.
899 Laguna Dr., #8
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1840
Strother 1996 Trust
381 1 Margaret Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Stromberg, William & Elaine
658 Laguna Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Lancer Industries Inc. et al.
1547 Avenida La Posta
Encinitas, CA 92024
Nemeth Family Trust
1132 Saxony Rd.
Leucadia, CA 92024
Heald Otis P Tr
P.O. Box 1707
Fallbrook, CA 92088
S D C Properties L L c
2155 Ramona Ln.
Vista, CA 92084
Trejo, Henry
P.O. Box 281
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Laser 5160@
' Smobth Feed SheetsTM
Harrison, James E. et al.
P.O. Box 9501
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Aguina, Frank & Ana
2646 State St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
A&D Cassara Family Partners
2244 S. Santa Fe Ave., #B2
Vista, CA 92084
ERE Properties LLC
2232 Via Tiempo
Cardiff, CA 92007
Wave Crest Resorts I1 LLC
829 2nd St., #A
Encinitas, CA 92024
Vigne, Thomas & Lucinda
3880 Hibiscus Circ.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Army & Navy Academy of So. CA
P.O. Box 3000
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Hayes, Thomas H. Tr et al.
P.O. Box 1366
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Deyoung, John
241 1 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Penman Family Trust
2431 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
aAVERY@ Address Labels
Smith, Edmund & Edith Family Tr.
3271 Westwood Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Nemeth, Alexander & Irene
1132 Saxony Rd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Edwards JKSG Family Trust
3980 Adams St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sierra Padre Mill Co. LLC
555 N. Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Kornberg Family Trust et al.
10880 Wilshire Blvd, #1900
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Artukovic Family Trust
1815 Ivy Rd.
Oceanside, CA 92054
Speert Ellen Family Trust
2633 State St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Yonce, John & Darlene Trs
2501 State St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Fikes Family Living Trust
2421 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Lowry, Patricia A Revocable Trust
2441 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Use template for 5160@
Rojas, Roberto & Sara Living Tr
2650 Roosevelt St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jones, Richard & Janet
Family Trust
2608 State St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Richardson, Howard Test. Trust
C/o William J. Freed, Esq.
815 Civic Center Dr.
Oceanside, CA 92054
Per1 Family Trust et al.
51 1 N. Maple Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
RPR Holdings Ltd. Partnership
2531 State St., #E
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Cantabrana, Ruben & Mary
3570 Donna Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gallagher, Joseph A. I11 Trust
550 Laguna Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1607
McMahan Furniture Co.
P.O. Box 8000
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Penman, Richard & Jo Ellen
243 1 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Memel, Ronn & Dianne
2451 Buena Vista Cir.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed Sheets" Use template For 5160@
Kumer, Dons M. Knowles, Jeffrey W. Living Trust North San Diego County Transit
2461 Buena Vista Cir. P.O. Box 368 Development Board
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92018-0368 Public Agency
State of California
Public Agency
City of Carlsbad
Public Agency
David R. Veit & Lisa Skelly
1591 Avenida La Posta
Encinitas, CA 92024
Plaza Flores
David R. Veit
1591 Avenida La Postas
Encinitas, CA 92024
Carlsbad Sanitation District
Public Agency
@AERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@'
March 19. 2002
TO: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessaty for you to notice LAGUNA POINT (RP 01-08/CT
01-13) 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 regular Housing and Redevelopment
Commission meeting on April 9, 2002.
Thank you.
40, DAKH'~ &Lin . 'i I\S 102-
HOUSING 81 REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE