HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-11; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 369; Roosevelt Street ApartmentsAB# 369
MTG. 01/11/05 1 CITY MGR DEPT. H/RED I
TITLE: DEPT.HDm $’ & ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - CITY ATTY. RP 04-04
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 390, APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-04) for an eleven (1 1) unit affordable housing development
known as the Roosevelt Street Apartments as recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Gene rat Backs rou nd
On October 25, 2004, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for an eleven (1 1) unit affordable housing development to be located in
Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 56 acre site is located at
2578 Roosevelt Street. The site is bordered by a two-story commercial office building to the north, a
two-story apartment complex to the south, and two one-story single family dwellings to the east. To
the west of the site, there is a two-story office complex and a trailer park.
The proposed development consists of two buildings of apartment units. Building 1 provides a total of
5 units and Building 2 provides a total of 6 units. There will be 8 one bedroom units (674 square feet)
and 3 two bedroom units (894 - 900 square feet). The proposed project meets the required parking
by providing 18 tenant spaces and 6 guest parking spaces on site. The project has been designed to
meet the standards of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual with the exception that
modifications are required to the front and side setback standards to permit approval of the
development. The modifications are described in further detail below.
Affordable/lnclusionarv Housing
The proposed development will provide eleven affordable rental units for households at 50% or
below the San Diego County Median. The developer (Wakeland Housing) will be required to enter
into appropriate agreements which will restrict the rent on the units for a minimum of 55 years. The
units will assist the Redevelopment Agency in meeting its obligation to provide housing affordable to
very low income households within the Village Redevelopment Area. The Design Review Board is
recommending that the proposed project also serve as a combined inclusionary housing project for
the Village Area, which will allow other housing developers in the Northwest Quadrant to purchase
credits within the development to satisfy inclusionary housing obligations.
Desiqn Review Board Recommendation
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (5-0) to
recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following:
1. Establishment of the High Residential (RH) density designation for the subject property with a
corresponding density of 15-23 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control Point
(GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre;
2. A density increase to exceed the growth management control point (1 9 du/ac) by .5 unit;
I
PAGE 2 OFAGENDA BILL NO. 369
3. Modifications to the front and side setbacks to provide for the affordable units:
a. Increased front yard setback for a portion of the front building to 19 feet from front property
line to allow for greater articulation of all sides of the residential building and enhanced
landscaping;
b. Reduced Side Yard Setback (south side) from 10’8’’ to a range of 4’ to 9’1 0” in order to allow
a drive aisle which is large enough to accommodate a fire truck turn-around while at the same
time providing the required parking and enhanced landscaping; and
4. Rear setback to be set at the lower end (7 feet) of the approved range (5 - 15 feet) to allow a
drive aisle which is large enough to accommodate a fire truck turn-around.
Comments provided by the Board members on the proposed project are provided in the attached
draft minutes of the October 25, 2004. Also attached are comments received from the office building
owner to the north of the project. The approving resolutions along with the Design Review Board
staff report are also attached for the Commission’s review.
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, the project has been
found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site less than five acres in an urbanized area
that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. The necessary finding for this
environmental determination is included in the attached Design Review Board resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In March of 2003, the subject property was purchased by the Redevelopment Agency through the
use of Community Development Block Grant funds, HOME funds, and Redevelopment
Low/Moderate Income funds. The total purchase price including fees was $695,000. The purpose of
the acquisition was to provide property for the development of a small affordable housing complex
within the Village Redevelopment Area. After acquiring the property, the City selected Wakeland
Housing to develop the property. Wakeland Housing will construct, own and operate the affordable
housing complex. The total development cost (including land) is anticipated to be approximately
$3,000,000 ($272,87O/unit). The development will require financial assistance from the
City/Redevelopment Agency to ensure its affordability to very low income households. The financial
assistance request will be processed under a separate agenda bill. No general fund monies will be
used to finance the proposed development. It is anticipated that redevelopment low/moderate
income funds will be used to provide a loan to the developer for construction of the subject
development.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution’approving RP04-04.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 294 dated October 25, 2004.
3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated October 25, 2004, w/attachments. 4. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated October 25, 2004.
No. 390
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Debbie Fountain, (760) 434-281 5, dfoun Bci.carlsbad.ca.us
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 390
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
AN 11 UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT
2578 ROOSEVELT STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 8 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT:
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP04-04 FOR
WAKELAND HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT CORP
CASE NO: RP 04-04
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2004, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-04) for an 11 unit affordable
apartment project on property located at 2578 Roosevelt Street, and adopted Design Review Board
Resolutions No. 294 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major
Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-04) 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 04-04); 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, the recommended approval includes findings granting a density increase to
exceed the Growth Management Control Point (19) by .5 unit to provide 11 total units which shall be
restricted and affordable to low income households; and
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting modifications to the front
and side yard setbacks to allow for the development of said affordable units; 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 determination has been made that the
project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines
and the necessary finding for this environmental determination is set forth herein.
HRC RES0 NO. 390
PAGE 1 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 04-04) is APPROVED and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 294, 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
found that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the
State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site less than five acres in an
urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities.
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
HRC RES0 NO. 390
PAGE 2 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
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time
Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions hereafter
collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of 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 hidher attorney of record, if hehhe
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the
City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 11 th day of JANUARTI!
2005 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Hall, Kulchin, Packard, and Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lewis
ABSTAIN: None
CLAUDE A(JEwIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
HRC RES0 NO. 390
PAGE 3 5
EXHIBIT 2
DRB RESOLUTION
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. 294
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2758 ROOSEVELT STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 8 OF THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-04 FOR AN 11-UNIT
CASE NAME: ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS
APN: 203-1 02-33
CASE NO: RP 04-04
~~
WHEREAS, Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation, LLC, a California
Nonprofit Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency, and known as Assessor Parcel Number 203-1 02-33 (“the property”);
and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, to
allow an eleven (11) unit affordable apartment complex, as shown on Exhibits “A-E”, dated
October 25, 2004, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, “Roosevelt Street
Apartments RP 04-04”, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has found the project to be exempt from
environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill
development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat
value and is served by adequate facilities.
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25th day of October, 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
“Roosevelt Street Apartments RP 04-04”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section
15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of
less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by
adequate facilities.
C. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Roosevelt Street Apartments RP 04-04,
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 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 October 25, 2004
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 street improvements along Roosevelt Street.
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 apartment product which
serves to increase the type of housing options available to people seeking
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
to reside in the downtown area, 2) it improves the pedestrian and vehicular
circulation in the Village Area by providing for sidewalks along the front 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
underdeveloped site with an aesthetically pleasing set of buildings,
landscaping, and other site improvements.
The project as designed is consistent with the land use plan, development
standards for Land Use District 8, with the exception of three appropriate
modifications of the setback requirements, 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
and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot
which has appropriate zoning for a multi-family project. 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 eleven (11) dwelling units as
affordable to low income households.
The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set
forth in Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual
with the exception of the three justifiable standards modifications outlined
in the report to the Design Review Board dated October 25, 2004 as
permitted by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.120. The buildings,
landscaping, and on-site amenities all conform to the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which serves as the
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 project. 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.
2. 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 proposed project density is compatible with the surrounding area
which contains a variety of uses such as residential, commercial office and
a trailer park. Residential uses in the area range from single family
residential to multi-family residential. 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 multi-family
apartment units in today’s economy. This will be the first deed restricted
affordable housing development in the Village Redevelopment Area.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of
Land Use District 8 by increasing the number of residential units in close
proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Village Transit
Station and Bus Stops). 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.
3. The Design Review Board finds that the proposed project will exceed the growth
management control point. Justification for the project exceeding the growth
management control point is as follows:
a. The project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public
facilities plans will not be adversely impacted; and
b. There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities
below the control point to cover the units in the project above the control point
so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limits; and
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -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
c. All necessary public facilities required by Chapter 21.90 will be constructed
concurrently with the need for them created by this development and in
compliance with adopted City standards.
4. The project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual.
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,
related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent
with need. Specifically,
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
6.
7.
8.
The project has been conditioned to ensure that
building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District
Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot
occur within the project unless sewer service remains available and the
District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer
service for this project.
All necessary public improvements have been
provided or are required as conditions of approval.
The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the
Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for
school facilities.
Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
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.
The project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility
plans will not be adversely impacted, in that all necessary public
improvements to accommodate the proposed development have been
provided or are required as conditions of project approval.
There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities
below the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so
that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
All necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will
be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need
for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards,
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in that all required public facilities necessary to accommodate the
proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions
of project approval.
9. That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of
projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a
significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt
from the requirement for the‘ preparation of environmental documents pursuant
to Section 15322, as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five
acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate
of the state CEQA Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning
Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state
CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
10. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions
are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the
extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by
the project.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance
of building permits.
General
1. If any of the following conditions fail to
occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any
of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms,
the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted;
deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further
condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein
granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions
or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a
successor in interest by the City’dAgency’s approval of this Major Redevelopment
Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or
require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Major
Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent
and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all
applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any
public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by
this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
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.
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.
Developer shall include, as part of the plans
submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced legible version of all approving
resolution(s) in a 24” x 36 blueline drawing format (including any applicable Coastal
Commission approvals).
This project shall comply with all conditions
and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this
project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project
provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities,
respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building
permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until
the time of occupancy.
Housing
11. Prior to the approval of the first building permit for this project, the Developer shall
enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City/Agency to provide and deed
restrict 11 dwelling units as affordable to low-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
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -7- I3
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
12.
be submitted to the Housing and Redevelopment Director no later than 60 days prior
to the request to issue the first building permit. The recorded Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
This project is being identified as a Combined lnclusionary Housing Project per
Section 21.85.80 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Future market rate developers
will be able to purchase affordable housing credits in the subject project in order
to satisfy their own inclusionary housing requirement, subject to the review and
approval of the City Council.All agreements between parties to form a combined
inclusionary housing project shall be made a part of the affordable housing
agreement required for the site(s), which affordable housing agreement(s) shall be
approved by Council.
Landscape
13. 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.
14. 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
15. 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.
1 6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
17. 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
18. 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
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad’s Redevelopment Agency has found
that the project is Exempt from Environmental Review and has issued a Major
Redevelopment Permit by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
Resolution(s) No. 294 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
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the
site plan 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 18 resident parking spaces,
6 guest parking spaces.
Approval is granted for Redevelopment Permit RP 04-04 as shown on Exhibits A - E,
dated October 25, 2004, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department and
incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
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. The area designated for vehicular back up shall be clearly delineated with signage
and/or pavement graphics to preclude unauthorized parking.
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fees/An reemen t s
3. 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 site into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting
and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an
additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
4. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for
the project.
Dedications/lmprovements
5. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water
Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable
level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be
submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include
but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
6. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the
San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City
of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact
or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for
the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall:
a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern;
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that
could be impacted by this project;
recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this
project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum
extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way;
establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
considerations and effort shall be applied to (RESIDENT/EMPLOYEE) education on
the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants;
ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and
identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent
p ract ica b I e.
7. Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, whichever occurs first, developer
shall have design, apply for and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural
section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards
due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than
500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with
required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the
building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities, Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall install (potable water and/or recycled water services) and meters at
a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
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.
9.
10.
11.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. Accessible parking shall be a van accessible space.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. The Fire Department shall require that each of the two buildings have installed an
approved automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standard 13 R.
2. Each of these buildings shall be required to provide for an accessible closet for
the A/S Riser. This closet shall be designed with a minimally dimensioned full
height man door of 24 x 78 inches.
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -1 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
3. This closet shall also be accessible to fire department personnel from an exterior
path without intervening rooms or private spaces.
4. The addressing of each building shall be visible from the street to which they are
addressed, with numbering to meet current City of Carlsbad regulations.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
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.
1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.1 6 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
2.
General
3. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
4. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
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. This approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this major
redevelopment permit approval becomes final.
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -12-
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
“f ees/exact ions .”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions.
If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code
Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager
for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified 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 October, 2004 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY HEINAMAN, CHAIR
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 294 -13-
EXHIBIT 3
DRB STAFF REPORT
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
Application Complete Date:
3/9/04
Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption
I Staff: Debbie Fountain
David Rick
I I
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: October 25,2004
SUBJECT: RP 04-04 - ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS: Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2-story, 11 unit affordable
apartment complex on property located at 2578 Roosevelt Street in Land Use
District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 294
recommending APPROVAL of RP 04-04 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In March of 2003, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency purchased the property located at 2578
Roosevelt Street. The purpose of the acquisition was to ultimately develop an affordable
apartment complex on the site. After acquiring the property, the Agency retained Wakeland
Housing and Development Corporation (Wakeland) to develop the property. Wakeland is the
applicant for the proposed project.
Wakeland has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2-story, 11 -
unit apartment complex on property located at 2578 Roosevelt Street in Land Use District 8 of
the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Multi-family buildings are a permitted land use in
District 8. The subject property measures approximately 110 feet wide by 230 feet deep. The
24,548 square foot lot is currently vacant. The property is located on the east side of Roosevelt
Street between Laguna Drive and Grand Avenue. The site is bordered by a two-story
commercial office building to the north (Brittany Court), a two-story apartment complex to the
south, two single-story single-family homes to the east, and a two-story office building and a
trailer park across Roosevelt Street to the west. The remainder of the block is comprised of a
mixture of uses of various sizes including; apartment buildings, single-family homes, office
buildings and commercial and retail businesses. The block is also broken up into three different
land use districts: District 1, 4 and 8.
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - Rp 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 2
111. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves,
enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic
and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City
which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate
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 apartment building in an
appropriate location within the Village. The project provides greater affordable residential
opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character
and pedestrian scale through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set
forth for the area.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1 : Establish Carlsbad Villaqe as a Quality Shoppinq. Workinq and Livinq Environment.
The proposed project will result in development of a new apartment building that will have a
positive visual impact on the area. The site was previously used for storage of construction
materials. The positive visual appeal assists in the effort to create a quality shopping, working
and living environment. In addition, the project will increase the number of new residential units
in the area which will improve the overall living, working and shopping environment.
Goal 2: lmprove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaae Area. The proposed
project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian activity by providing
sidewalks and enhanced landscaping along Roosevelt Street.
Goal 3: Stimulate Propertv Improvements and New Development in the Villaqe. The Master
Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or
improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
new development. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development
within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Residential Support District (District 8) by providing for
an appropriate intensity of residential development that is compatible with surrounding area.
Goal 4: lmprove the Phvsical Appearance of the Villaqe Area. The proposed project converts
an underutilized, blighted site into a physically attractive project. The proposed project
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - RP 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 3
promotes the following objectives:
It creates a sense of design unity and character while also encouraging design
diversity ;
It establishes a residential apartment building whose scale and character are
compatible with surrounding neighborhood;
It results in a design which is sensitive to surrounding development within the area.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, apartment uses are classified as
permitted uses within Land Use District 8 of the Village Redevelopment Area. 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.
The overall vision for the development of District 8 (Residential Support) is to accommodate a
relatively dense urban residential neighborhood with a Village scale and character. The
development standards promote individual buildings set back from the street and surrounded by
landscaping intended to provide a quality living environment within easy and pleasant walking
distance to shops and restaurants. Permitted land uses in District 8 include single and multi-
family residential uses and provisional uses are primarily office related.
Staff believes that the proposed project provides for a highly desirable residential use which
promotes the north end of Roosevelt Beech Street as a quality residential neighborhood.
Additionally, development of the subject property will serve as a catalyst for future residential
projects Roosevelt Street.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Universal Development Standards address 1 ) the issues of General & Redevelopment Plan
Consistency, Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing; and 2) special instructions regarding
the application of individual standards related to parking, building coverage, building height and
setbacks. The following information is provided to indicate how the proposed project meets the
“Universal Standards”.
General and Redevelopment Plan: The General Plan includes the following goals for
the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living,
working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere
and pedestrian scale; 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging
activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices,
restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a City which encourages new economic development in the
Village and near transportation corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a
City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and
create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The General
Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village
Master Plan and Design Manual.
23
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - RP 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 4
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 Roosevelt Street. 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 (affordable multi-family) that has not been previously
built in the area.
In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is
located in close proximity to mass transit, parks, the beach, retail, and commercial services.
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
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 8, 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. 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
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 the multi-family units in today’s economy. The Village Redevelopment Area
has an abundance of residential rental units, but deed restricted affordable units have never
been previously developed in the area.
3. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - RP 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 5
District 8 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops,
restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & 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 .56 acres (24,548.21 square feet), which will accommodate 10.71 dwelling
units per the GMCP. As discussed below, the project applicant is requesting a density increase
to accommodate a total of 11 dwelling units, all of which are proposed to qualify as affordable to
low income families. With 11 dwelling units proposed, the project results in a density of 19.5
dwelling units per acre, which is slightly above the GMCP of the RH density range (15-23
dwelling units per acre). Therefore, a density increase of .5 dwelling units per acre is
recommended by staff. The findings to approve this density increase are set forth in DRB
Resolution No. 294.
Per Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the development of affordable housing shall
be subject to the development standards of the zone in which the development is located
and/or any applicable specific or master plan except for affordable housing projects as
expressly modified by the site development plan. The governing master plan for this project is
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. In the redevelopment area, the redevelopment
permit serves as the site development plan. The redevelopment permit for an affordable
housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the
underlying zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in conformity with the general plan
and adopted policies and goals of the city and it would have no detrimental effect on public
health, safety and welfare.
In accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance specific findings regarding the
availability of public facilities must be made in order to approve a density above the GMCP.
The proposed project complies with these findings because all necessary public improvements
and facilities to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required
as conditions of project approval. In addition, there have been sufficient developments
approved in the northwest quadrant at densities below the control point to offset the units in the
project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
Justification for meeting the findings of the Growth Management Ordinance to allow a density
that exceeds the GMCP has been incorporated into the attached DRB Resolution No. 294.
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, as well as 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 newly constructed units in the redevelopment area) must
be affordable to very low income households. Per City Ordinance, 15% of the total housing
units constructed must be affordable to low income households. The applicant has agreed to
enter into an affordable housing agreement to deed restrict all eleven (11) units within the
project for purposes of providing housing which is affordable to low income households for a
period of fifty-five (55) years
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - Rp 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 6
Attached DRB Resolution No. 294 includes a condition requiring the developer to enter in an
affordable housing agreement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project in
accordance with the requirements for inclusionary units as outlined in Section 21.85.020(E) of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. With the provision of eleven (11) affordable housing units and
the execution of the required affordable housing agreement the project will satisfy its
inclusionary housing requirement.
This project is also being identified as a Combined lnclusionary Housing Project. Section
21.85.040(E) defines a Combined lnclusionary Housing Project as separate residential
development sites which are linked by a contractual relationship such that some or all of the
inclusionary units which are associated with one development site are produced and operated
at a separate development site or sites. As was done previously with the Villa Loma project,
future market rate developers will be able to purchase affordable housing credits in the subject
project in order to satisfy their own inclusionary housing requirement, subject to the review and
approval of the City Council. The purchase of credits will be paid to the City of Carlsbad in
order to recoup a portion of its financial investment in the project.
Standards Modifications: The project was found to comply with each of the
development standards and design criteria of Village Master Plan and Design Manual with the
exception of three requested standards modifications. Per the CMC 21 53.1 20(c), “the site
development plan for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development
standards than specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in
conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, and have no
detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project is an affordable
housing project and the redevelopment permit serves as the site development plan. The
Housing and Redevelopment Commission, with a recommendation from the Design Review
Board, may approve the standards modifications noted below to assist in the development of
this affordable housing project.
Outlined below are the three development standards to be modified per approval of the
redevelopment permit for the proposed project:
1. Front Yard Setback: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 8, the front yard
setback is set forth as a range of 5-15 feet. All setbacks are measured from property
lines. The top of the range is considered to be the desired setback standard. The front
yard setback of the proposed building ranges from 15 to 19 feet from front property line.
Justification for Standards Modification: The proposed project is consistent with the
design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area. The increased setbacks will
provide greater articulation on all sides of the building, and make the project design
more interesting and visually appealing. The increased setback will also allow for more
enhanced landscaping at the pedestrian level. The project is adjacent to commercial
and apartments buildings which have varying setbacks. Therefore, this increased
setback with not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - RP 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 7
2. Side Yard Setbacks: The side yard setback is to be 10% of the width of the property, or
10’ 8”. On the south side of the property, the setbacks range from 4’ to 9’ 10”. Along
the north property line, the set back is 9’ 10”.
Justification for Standards Modification: The subject property is over 230 feet long. For
a lot of this depth, it is necessary to provide a fire truck turn-around. The reduced
setback standard is necessary in order to provide the appropriate turn-around as
required by City’s Fire and Engineering Departments while at the same time providing
the required on-site parking, landscaping and other amenities to make the project a
more livable community. The noted setbacks will still allow for adequate building
separation and privacy between various adjacent land uses. The property along the
south property line contains an apartment building which is set back approximately 45’
from the property line. Directly adjacent to the subject property is the drive aisle and
parking spaces. The placement of the subject building 4’ to 9’ 10” from the property line
will have no adverse impacts to the adjacent residents. Adjacent to the north property
line is the rear portion of a commercial office building. The rear yard of the office
building receives little use or activity. Therefore, the placement of an apartment building
9’ 10’ from the property line will not have an adverse impact on the existing office
building.
3. Rear Yard Setback: Similar to the front yard setback, the rear yard setback is set forth
in a range of 5-15 feet. The set back for the proposed building 7’.
Justification for Standards Modification: As stated above, the top of the set back range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. While the proposed rear yard set back
is within the set back range, findings must be made that the reduced setback is
appropriate for the site. Therefore, this standard has been included within this request
for modifications. The reduced rear setback standard is necessary in order to provide
the appropriate turn-around as required by City’s Fire and Engineering Departments
while at the same time providing parking, landscaping and other amenities to make the
project a more livable community. Also, the rear building elevations has been design to
locate windows in appropriate locations so that there will be limited visual impacts into
the rear yards of the adjacent single family residences.
Staff has reviewed the requested standards modifications and justification and supports the
request. Approval of the major redevelopment permit, which also serves as the site
development plan for the affordable housing units, will approve the standards modifications as
noted above.
Parkinq: The parking requirement for the project is 1.5 spaces for each 1-bedroom
unit, 2 spaces for each 2-bedroom 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 an 11-unit
condominium project equates to 18 parking spaces and 6 guest parking spaces. The applicant
is proposing to provide 18 parking spaces and 6 guest parking spaces, which satisfies the
parking requirements of the Village Master Plan.
Building Coverage, Height and Setbacks: These standards are established
individually according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area.
The Universal Standards section of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - Rp 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 8
information on 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
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 8 are as
follows:
Buildinq Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 8, the front yard setback is 5-
15 feet, side yard setbacks are 10% of the lot width, and rear yard set backs are 5-10 feet. All
setbacks are measured from property lines. The front yard setback of the proposed building
ranges from 15 to 19 feet from front property line. On the south side of the building, the
setback varies from 4 feet to 9 feet 10 inches feet from side property line. On the north side of
the building, the setback is 9 feet 10 inches from the side property line. The rear of the building
is located 7 feet from the rear property line. As stated above, in exchange for providing the
additional affordable housing units, the developer is requesting standards modifications from
the required building set backs.
Buildinn Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects
in Land Use District 8 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 22.5%,
which is below the established range. While the bottom of the range is considered the desired
standard, unlike the setback requirements, a variance is not required for building coverage that
is below the standard range. Therefore, the building coverage is in compliance with the
established standard.
Buildinn Heinht: The height limit for Land Use District 8 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. As defined in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, building height is measured from the
lower of existing or finished grade. Based on this definition, the maximum height of the
proposed project is 26’ as measured from finished grade and is consistent with the building
height requirement.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters,
open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating
areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the open space. Qualified open space for
the proposed project includes: landscape and hardscape on the ground floor of the front, rear,
and sides of the building, first floor patios and open decks on the second floor units. The project
provides for a total of 9,229 square feet of open space, which represents 37% of the site and is
consistent with the open space requirement.
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. In accordance with the design
review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - RP 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 9
appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten
(1 0) basic design principles. These design principles are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Development shall have an overall informal character.
Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
Development shall be small in scale.
Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The applicant has
incorporated several desirable design elements to achieve the desired Village character. The
project has provided for an overall informal character in design. The architectural design
provides for variety and diversity through the incorporation of several architectural features and
details including; multiple roof pitches with the required 5:l 2 roof pitch and wood trussed gabled
ends, various sized windows with decorative trim, window shutters, open rail balconies/decks.
The project has a strong relationship to the street in that it is situated in close proximity to the
street and incorporates an entry monument sign. Landscaping plays an important role in the
architectural design of the building as landscape areas account for over 30% of the project site.
VIII. 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 that is greater than $150,000. The
project requires a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested, consider
the public testimony and staff’s recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then
take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the following requests:
1) Density increase to exceed the Growth Management Control Point by .5 unit, and
2) Standards Modifications to the various front, side and rear yard set backs.
The major redevelopment permit serves also as the site development plan. The proposed
project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore a Coastal Development Permit is not
required.
IX. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City’s requirements for the following:
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - RP 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 10
Traffic 81 Circulation:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 66 ADT
Due to the size of this project, this project does not trigger the need for a traffic study. This project
is served by Roosevelt Street and has direct access to public streets. The streets in the area
have been designed to handle the traffic volumes generated by this project.
Sewer:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Sewer EDU’s required: 11 EDU’s
Sewer lines for this project will gravity flow, via a proposed private sewer lateral that connects to
an existing public sewer main in Roosevelt Street.
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District -
GPD required: 220 GPD/EDU x 11 EDU’s = 2,420 GPD
Water service to the project will be provided via an upgraded water lateral that connects to an
existing water main in Roosevelt Street.
Gradinq:
The grading activities will involve approximately two thousand cubic yards of fill and import dirtland
will require a grading permit. The preliminary geotechnical report indicates that there are no major
grading or soils related issues with the proposed project.
Drainage and Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: Buena Vista Watershed
Run off potential: High
Existing surface storm runoff currently drains in SOL hernly and easterly direction. This project
proposes to collect and convey storm water by surface drainage, which discharges via a proposed
curb outlet on Roosevelt Street.
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easements: No
Public easement dedication required: No
Site boundary coincides with Land Title:
The right-of-way widths Roosevelt Street conform to City standards and no additional right-of-way
dedications are required.
Yes
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS - RP 04-04
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 11
Improvements:
Off site improvements: No
Standard Waivers required: No
No public improvements are required as part of this development.
Storm Water Quality:
The applicant is conditioned to submit a detailed storm water management plan (SWMP) that
identifies pollutants of concern as it relates to the project. The applicant is also required to
implement Best Management Practices (BMP) measures, to the maximum extent practical, to
ensure that no additional pollutants-of-concern are contributed to the watershed. The SWMP
must ensure storm water quality is not impacted as a result of the project.
X. 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 (CEQA) and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of
the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in
an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. The
necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Design
Review Board resolution.
XI. 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.
XII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for the following:
1. Density increase to exceed the Growth Management Control Point by .5 unit, and
2. Standards Modifications to the various front, side and rear yard set backs.
Development of the site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the
Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan.
EXHIBITS:
A. Design Review Board Resolution No. 294 recommending approval RP 04-04.
B. Location Map
C. Exhibits “A - E”, dated October 25, 2004, including reduced exhibits.
2578 R(>OS€V€LT STR€€T
i av~-~j~-kJi-~~ ~
.. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -_____E- . . -. . . -. . - . . .- . . - . . - . . - . . __ . . .- . . __
P
.M-------- ..-+--------$I.,
35
4 .,-a ! ! .L."
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . - . . -. . - . . - . . - . . - . . - . . -. . - . . - . __ -
31
EXHIBIT 4
DRB DRAFT MINUTES
Roosevelt Street apartments
Roosevelt is a unique project in that is a much smaller in fill project. I
personally welcome the development in that the previous owner was using
the land as a construction storage and an apparent waste dump site.
With the additional low or moderate income based families. We will
My concerns are simple:
see an increase in foot & auto traffic and pet & people noise . In our office
building next door are (4) Marriage and Family Therapists offices, a Hearing
Aid Center, a Day Spa and other consultive type companies. The current
front facing position of the project presents the potential for excessive noise
during the day and evening effecting the solitude of our tenants. Some of
whom have been in the building for over 7 years. This location is there
lively hood as a small businesses.
size limits and non-allowance of pets. Or focus on an elderly tenant mix for
this project?
generated by the two adjoining apartment complexes which will be
exacerbated if stronger controls are not implemented. These carts are from
Albertson which is over Y2 mile away.
The tenants in my building have been ravaged by recent development
in the area. Laguna point across the street is in full swing, the 12 Laguna
homes were recently completed with the second phase kicking in soon and
now right next door we are going to get hammered. Not a week goes by
when we have to excuse our selves from a phone conversation because the
nose of hammer guns, cement trucks or the noise from radios and
construction banter between the workers. (you know how loud they can get)
We are really taking a beating at our comer.
Finally, since all of this new construction is going on why are you not
completing the undergrouding of utilities on Roosevelt. No more than 11
poles need to be dropped. I would have thought that to complete the
underground services from Beech to Laguna would be a no brainier since so
much development revenue is being generated within 1\4 mile.
win, win, win-for the city, the new tenants and the existing neighbors
Can you implement controls over the tenant mix in terms of family
Secondly, we already have an abandoned shopping cart problem
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I hope this project will be a
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of Meeting: OCTOBER 25,2004
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Heineman called the Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Heineman asked Board Member Lawson to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Heineman proceeded with the roll call of Board Members.
Present: Commissioners: Tony Lawson
Julie Baker
Sarah Marquez
Larry Paulsen
Chairperson: Courtney Heineman
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Assistant Engineer: David Rick
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Lawson, and duly seconded by Board Member Paulsen to
accept the Minutes of June 21,2004, as written.
VOTE: 5-0-0
AYES: NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Baker, Lawson, Marquez, Heineman, and Paulsen.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
There were no comments from the audience.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Heineman reviewed the procedures to be followed with the Design Review Board's Public
Hearings. The Public Hearing will be open, staff will makes its presentation, the Design Review Board
may ask questions on the staff presentation, the applicant will make their presentation and respond to
questions from the board members. The public testimony period will be opened, a time limit of five minutes is allotted to each speaker. The applicant is given an opportunity to respond to issues or
questions raised. The public testimony period will be closed, the board members will discuss the item, the board members will vote, and the public hearing will be closed. Certain Design Review Board decisions
are final, but may be appealed to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. An appeal may be filed
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 2 of 15
with the City Clerk at City Hall within ten calendar days of the decision. The cost for filing such an appeal
is $51 0 for all matters. If anyone wishes to question the Design Review Board decision, they may contact
the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street between the hours of 7:30 and
330 Monday through Thursday and 8:OO to 500 on Friday. You will find this and additional information on
Design Review Board procedures on the back of tonight‘s agenda. The agenda is also posted on the
City’s website, the address of which is shown on the top of the first page of the agenda. It is noteworthy
that the board has already spent many hours reviewing staff reports, going over plans and blueprints for
projects before us tonight. In some cases, board members have also reviewed letters and gone to project
sites to get the lay of the land. As tonight‘s hearing proceeds, please keep in mind that board members
already have extensive background on each agenda item.
Before we begin the items on tonight‘s agenda, we reserve some time for comments from the audience on
items not listed on the agenda. The board sets aside 15 minutes to accept such comments. Mr.
Heineman asked if anyone had filed a public comment slip and the answer was no. Chairperson
Heineman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who has not filed a public comment slip, but
would like to address the board on an item not on the agenda? Seeing no one, we will proceed with the
meeting.
Debbie Fountain, Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Department, gave a presentation. This is a
request for a major redevelopment permit for the construction of a two-story, 11 unit affordable housing
project on Roosevelt Street. This project is located at 2578 Roosevelt Street; it is a little over a % an acre
site. Currently, the project consists of two, two-story buildings, with eleven units total. Eight of the units
will be one-bedroom units, about 674 square feet; three of the units will be two-bedrooms with between
894 to 900 square feet. It is in land use district 8 of the Village Redevelopment Area, which does allow
residential and other types of mixed uses in the area.
Ms. Fountain presented the site plan for the project. She oriented everyone to the plans of the project. To
the north of the site is a two-story office building, Brittany Court. Behind building 2, off of Madison, there
are two one-story single-family dwellings. On the south side of the project is a two-story apartment
building. In the area there is a mix use of offices, and across the street is the new Laguna Point project in
construction. In the Village Redevelopment Area, none of the properties have a residential designation for
density purposes. At the time of project review and bringing it forward for recommendation, we make a
recommendation to you and then to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the residential
designation to give to this site. Basically, all properties in the village area are zoned Village
Redevelopment “VR.”
In this particular case, we are proposing a residential high density, which is RH designation. The reason
for this is because we believe it is compatible with the area. There are other high-density residential
areas, to the south is an apartment complex and across the street is the new condominium project. The
residential is desirable in this area, and the affordable housing will provide diversity into the area. The RH
designation gives a density of between 15 to 23 dwelling units an acre with the growth management
control point of 19 dwelling units to the acre. The project site is 56 acres. When applying this growth
management control point to that acreage, it would allow 10.71 dwelling units. The project proposes 11
units, which results in 19.5 dwelling units to an acre. It exceeds the growth management control point by
.5. You have to make findings to go over the growth management control point, and we have included
those findings in the resolution of approval if you choose to do that. Those findings relate to the fact that
there needs to be adequate public facilities available to allow for the density above the growth
management control point, and we need to make a finding that it won’t exceed the quadrant cap, housing
unit cap in the area. This means other developments have been built at less then the density that they
were allowed. This means it takes units out of the bank.
It this particular case, it is only .5 of a unit. In terms of the inclusionary housing for the project, the project
will be 100% low-income affordable so it will satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements. The applicant
will enter into the appropriate agreements to restrict the units, which will include an affordable housing
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 3 of 15
agreement as well as regulatory agreements. Also recommended in the report is as a combined project,
which means other developers in the northwest quadrant can actually buy in to this project to satisfy their
requirements if they needed to do that, and if it is approved by the City Council.
In terms of the standards’ compliance on the project, the project does meet most of the standards. I will
go over the ones that need to be modified slightly to allow approval. It does meet the parking
requirements; it provides eighteen parking spaces for the tenants, with six guest parking spaces. The
building coverage is 22.5%, which meets the requirement because it does not exceed 60 or 80% of
coverage. The maximum height of the building is 26 feet and provides the minimum five and twelve roof
pitch. The maximum height in this area is 35 feet. The project has 37% open space, which exceeds the
20% requirement per the Master Plan, and the project meets the Design Guidelines for the Village.
There are three standards’ modifications that are required, and we are supporting these because it is an
affordable housing project. The first modification is that the front yard setback exceeds the range that we have in the Master Plan. It indicates that the range is between five to fifteen feet. The setback in the front
yard for this project will be between fifteen and nineteen. This is to insure that we have adequate spacing
for the different types of amenities on site; the parking, the driveway, and the entry into the area. We have
reduced side yard setbacks to below the minimum, which the minimum for those side setbacks is ten feet,
eight inches; they range for this project from four feet to nine feet, ten inches. We are also recommending
a reduced rear yard setback to the lower end of the range, It is not actually outside of the range, but
typically the range requirement is five to fifteen feet in this area. Typically the high end of the range is
what we are looking for, but we do allow it to go to the low end of the range for various reasons, such as
design. So this is within the range, it is just at the lower end so it requires a finding to go to the lower end
of the range. These three standards’ modifications would need to be approved for the project to receive
approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
In terms of project impacts, the traffic is calculated at 66 ADTs. It is anticipated that the existing street
was designed to accommodate that ADT so that is not a concern in terms of traffic impacts. From a
sewer standpoint, it is calculated at 11 EDU’s. It does result in a gravity flow and there is a proposed
private sewer lateral to address that. Adequate facilities for water is being provided.
There are a couple of errors in language in the report, and one is on the grading. In the report on page 10
under “Grading,” there is an error that said 50 cubic yards and there is actually 2,000 cubic yards of fill and
import related to the grading. Also, it will require a grading permit and that section said it did not require a
grading permit. David Rick from our Engineering Department is here in case you have any questions on
the grading.
Another error was under the “Drainage” section and under the narrative. It says the runoff currently drains
in a westerly direction, but it actually drains in a southerly and easterly direction as shown on the slide.
Surface drainage will address that issue. The errors do not change any of the conditions that are required
within the resolution because we did require a grading permit as one of the conditions, but it was written up wrong in the report.
From an environmental review standpoint, the proposed project is an infill development and exempt from
environmental review according to our Planning Department. We received no comments on that
determination. The adoption of DRB Resolution No. 294 will recommend approval of the exemption from
that environmental review. Staff is recommending approval of DRB Resolution No. 294 to recommend
approval of RP 04-04 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. With that, Staffs presentation is
complete.
Chairperson Heineman thanked Ms. Fountain. He asked if the Commissioners had any questions for
staff.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 4 of 15
Board Member Lawson thanked Ms. Fountain. In the first part of the staff report, it is mentioned that in
March of 2003 the Redevelopment Agency purchased the property. Could you express what the
expectations of that acquisitions were at that time.
Ms. Fountain answered that when the property was purchased, it was intended to be a site for an
affordable housing project. The reason for this is that redevelopment areas have requirements to produce
affordable housing and a percentage of that is supposed to be in low-income housing and very low-
income housing. We have the citywide inclusionary housing program that requires all developers to
provide 15% in their projects, but even if we didn’t have that requirement, the redevelopment area has its
own requirement. What we intended by purchasing this property was to help the area meet a portion of its
requirement and that is because some housing has been built in the redevelopment area since 1981 that
did not have an inclusionary requirement because we didn’t implement the citywide inclusionary until 1993.
The intent always was that the Redevelopment Agency would either require that in a development or
would produce that housing. This housing will help us to meet those requirements as we get closer to the
end of the redevelopment plan.
Board Member Lawson asked if this plan as presented here is consistent with those goals and
expectations that you had a year and a half ago?
Ms. Fountain answered yes, it is consistent. When the property was purchased, staff intended that we
would have a private developer, hopefully an affordable housing developer, that would build the project.
We never intended to be the developer of the project. We put out a Request For Proposals, and
Wakeland Housing was selected as the developer for the site. Wakeland will actually build, own and operate the units. It was always intended to be an affordable housing site. We purchased it with
Community Development Block Grant monies and HOME monies, which was specifically the intent to
building an affordable housing project.
Chairperson Heineman asked if any other Board Members had questions for Ms. Fountain.
Board Member Baker asked Ms. Fountain if there was ever any consideration to making this a denser
project then the 11 units. It is understood about parking constraints, but I see that there was an
opportunity to create even more affordable housing units on the site.
Ms. Fountain said that staff had actually hoped originally that it would accommodate more units, but as
you just mentioned, parking standards and to meet all the development standards this is actually as much
as we could get on the site, without having to waive those standards. Those three modifications are the
only thing that would be required to be able to approve this project.
Board Member Baker asked about doing something like podium apartments in a three-story, were those
considered?
Ms. Fountain said denser projects were considered, but we can’t meet the parking requirements and the
Master Plan actually requires if you do residential, it has to be on-site so you don’t have the option of doing
the parking in-lieu fee program. Unless we bought additional property to be able to provide the parking
somewhere around there, we just didn’t have a way to do a larger project and meet those parking req u iremen ts.
Board Member Baker asked if it would have been too expensive to do underground parking or podium
parking?
Ms. Fountain answered that it does get expensive. This is already an expensive project, but there just
isn’t enough land there to go underground. Staff did look at purchasing other properties, but nothing was
available .
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 5 of 15
Board Member Paulsen asked if there anyone who keeps tabs on the additional water demand for all
these various dwelling units in the Ciy? When does the city run out of capacity?
Ms. Fountain answered that as part of the city review process, the water requirements are looked at and
ensuring that we have adequate capacity within the system to accommodate that. We are saying that by
recommending approval, it is. Maybe David Rick could elaborate on that.
David Rick, Assistant Engineer, said the water is monitored. One of the things we do check is to see how
much demand each project requires. Even through our Growth Management Plan, we have to make sure
that all utilities are provided before a new project is developed.
Board Member Paulsen asked what the future looks like?
Mr. Rick said the number of dwelling units throughout the whole city has more or less been established
through all the general plan designations and densities established on the properties, which is a reflection
of all the abilities we have to meet the infrastructure, water or any other facilities. I do not have the exact
numbers right now.
Board Member Paulsen commented that he didn’t mean to be specific. He just wanted to make sure
someone is keeping tabs on that.
Chairperson Heineman commented that he assumed if the desalination plant would come into effect, it
would have a huge affect on the availability of water and the number of units that are planned.
Mr. Rick said it certainly would increase the available supply, but he wasn’t sure whether it would change
the number of units.
Board Member Lawson said he had some site-specific questions regarding the overall project. The
clarification on a couple of the issues regarding the drainage and grading clarified some of that. In
particular, this project identifies 37% open space, but how does that address the recreational component
requirement that exists with most residential developments. Just because you have open space, doesn’t
necessarily mean that you are fulfilling the recreational component. Isn’t there a requirement for a certain
amount of useable open space in some capacity?
Ms. Fountain answered that the planned development ordinance requires for-sale product to have
recreational amenities requirements, but not in an apartment project. If amenities are put into an
apartment project, it is because that developer is deciding that is appropriate for that facility. With this
being a smaller project, there just wasn’t the ability to include a lot of recreational amenities, but it also is
not actually a requirement.
Board Member Lawson commented that he understood that. However, would it be appropriate then to ask
the applicant? I’ve seen other apartment projects with people hanging out. They need some place to be
other then out in the parking lot area. This plan has exceeded the requirement for open space greatly,
almost twice the amount required, but it doesn’t look as if it is planned to be useable. Would it be
appropriate to ask them for opportunities to do that?
Ms. Fountain answered that he could ask the applicant. A lot of the time when we look at the residential
projects downtown, we are not pushing as much for the amenities that we look for in other places just
because they are within walking distance of the beach and some parks in the area. I’m sure the applicant
can address your issue.
Board Member Lawson asked for the site plan to be put back on the screen. It appears as if the
pedestrian access from Roosevelt would only be walking through the driveway and then have to come in
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 6 of 15
through the vehicular area to get all the way through either of the buildings, or is their a safe pedestrian
passageway from the sidewalk on Roosevelt that gets to either of the front doors?
Ms. Fountain said the driveway is the access into the area. If someone parked out on Roosevelt, they
would walk in through the driveway. There are no walkways that go through the project.
Board Member Lawson said he just wanted a clarification on that. He is not putting a judgment on it.
Board Member Marquez asked Ms. Fountain if there will be an on-site manager from Wakeland?
Ms. Fountain said because of its size, there won’t be an on-site manager, but Wakeland will own and
manage the project. They will make site visits.
Board Member Marquez asked if Housing and Redevelopment will do the screening for the tenants or
does Wakeland do the screening?
Ms. Fountain answered that Wakeland will do the screening for the tenants and the qualifications. We
give Wakeland the information on the income levels and their rent that we want them to be affordable to,
but they will actually do the screening and the managing of that process.
Barry Geitzel, Senior Project Manager with Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation. Our offices
are at 625 Broadway in downtown San Diego. I am here with Rebecca Davis of our staff and Wayne
Davis of the Davis Group, the Architect for the project. Wakeland is a non-profit affordable housing
developer. All we do is affordable housing. Sometimes it is acquisition rehabilitation in conjunction with
partners. Sometimes it is new construction, such as this one, by ourselves. We have over 3,100 units
that we are the owner or managing general partner of. Our previous experience in the City of Carlsbad
was with the Vista Las Flores Project on Aviara Parkway and Golden Bush, which is a small 28-unit
project. We think it turned out very well.
We were very happy to be invited to propose on this project, and went through the RFP process. It is a
small project, but we think it was an interesting one because it is an infill project and we like doing infill
kinds of projects. We are currently working on starting construction shortly on a project in San Ysidro and
one in a few weeks in downtown San Diego that are infill projects. The architect, Wayne Davis, can speak
to some of the aesthetics and how the open spaces work. We saw this project as being a small family or a singles project for lower income people so we didn’t see this as a family project where we would put tot
lots and a great deal of amenities. This one we saw as being more of a passive kind of outdoor amenity
and it is near the beach and other recreation areas. It is a restrained site, so there wasn’t a lot we can do.
We think the outdoor spaces do work very well for passive recreation.
Wayne Davis, Davis Group Architects, San Diego, 343 4‘h Avenue. There are turf areas throughout the
project. Mr. Geitzel has indicated that we were going to provide some seating areas, if possible, and
some areas for barbeques for the residents to use. There are 8 one-bedrooms, and 3 two-bedroom units so the whole design theory was not to have large families to be residents here. There is even an open
green space in the back, which will be landscaping. There will be adequate outdoor that has turf area for
people to sit and relax.
Board Member Baker commented to Mr. Davis that one of the design standards’ variances required the
front setback being greater then what we typically like to see in the village. Why not move that building
closer to the street?
Mr. Geitzel said we wanted to have a residential appearance from the street as you drive down the street.
If you drive down Roosevelt and look in at it from the front, it has a residential nature to it
Board Member Baker asked if two units share a laundry facility?
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 7 of 15
Mr. Geitzel said each building has a laundry facility on the first floor
Board Member Lawson asked relative to the landscaping and especially with the office building along the
north edge, is staff satisfied with the amount of screening? Typically on a project with different land uses,
such as this project, with offices next to a residential use, there is a push to have more screening for the
anticipated greater protection of those residents’ privacy from those office buildings. Could we get a little
bit more screening along that north edge? Was that reviewed with the applicant?
Ms. Fountain said staff was satisfied with the screening, but the architect could come back and explain a
little more about what is anticipated.
Mr. Davis came back to the podium. Though I am not a landscape architect, I know a little about plant
material.
Board Member Lawson said there is appropriate attention to the size of the plant material, so I commend
you and your landscape architect for not starting off with just 15-gallon trees. There are sizeable material,
which is greatly appreciated. One of the things I questioned was whether or not there is enough in the
right spot to properly screen. I am trying to imagine where that building is, where the windows might be
from that office building as well.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Geitzel to explain the landscape architecture in relation to the adjacent building.
Mr. Geitzel said the adjacent building is a Tudor style office building, more towards the front of the lot, and
most of the trees are towards the front. So there is quite a great deal of screening at that level. There is
also fencing. The trees alone create a barrier between the property and the office building. The office
building is also set back a little bit. There is also parking in between the property line, which is the
northern edge of the property line and the office building.
Board Member Lawson expressed that his concern was in a total of 230 some feet along the depth of that
property line there is six or seven trees along there. He wanted to make sure we are properly addressing
that screening. Residents want to be comfortable and to be able to live there appropriately when dealing
with an adjacent different land use.
Mr. Geitzel said there are thirteen trees.
Board Member Lawson asked if that was the north boundary line?
Mr. Geitzel said yes. Six or seven of the trees are the queen palms. The rest of them are the southern
magnolias. They are all thirty-six inch box trees. They are fairly good size to start with, and they are all
quality plants, which should mature in a good fashion to do screening. Plus if you look at where the
building starts, you have the width of the driveway, a landscape element, and then you have the width of
the driveway on the other side before you get to the office building. I’m not sure the exact number of feet
that is from building to building, but it is fairly sizeable.
Board Member Lawson continued as this goes on through the plan check documents, I am assuming that
will be looked at and evaluated a little closer. I appreciate that the project does not start out with small,
little spindly trees.
Ms. Fountain shared this is just a preliminary landscape plan so we can share with the landscape architect
on staff to see if he has any suggestions.
Board Member Lawson said he didn’t spend enough time to be able to confirm where that existing depth
of the lot, where those buildings might be.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 8 of 15
Chairperson Heineman commented that the double width of a driveway is a significant factor also.
Board Member Lawson agreed it creates a setback.
Board Member Paulsen commented that he visited the site, and he wasn’t thinking about the topic at
hand. It seems like there weren’t many windows in that office building that faced towards the south. How
many units are there windows in the north wall?
Ms. Fountain said there are quite a few windows on the north-facing wall of building one, because that
whole building faces north.
Board Member Paulsen asked if that was the building that runs north and south or east and west?
Chairperson Heineman answered it is running east and west, building one.
Ms. Fountain said building one is facing the office complex and building two is facing the parking area and
Roosevelt Street.
Board Member Paulsen asked if that was still building one.
Ms. Fountain pointed out where building one is. Explaining the building would be facing north. She then
pointed out the front and back of each building.
Board Member Paulsen understood.
Board Member Marquez asked if there would be exterior lighting for the parking area?
Mr. Davis said the majority of the building for security lighting and for the residents will be on the building.
There will probably be some pole light parking lot lighting that is out into the parking lot area just for the
safety and security of the parking area. Generally, most of the lighting will be on the buildings.
Board Member Marquez commented she doesn’t see any kind of security gate to enter the project site.
What kind of barrier is there going to be between the property lines?
Mr. Davis said the only thing around the perimeter would be some fencing.
Board Member Marquez asked if that is going to be wood fencing?
Mr. Davis said that has not been determined yet.
Mr. Geitzel said it has not been determined at this point. There is a wood fence now on the south end,
which is in fairly good shape. Depending on how that is analyzed with the landscaping and how it looks
aesthetically, that may remain or we may work with the property owner in the south about replacing it.
There is a block wall on the backside of the property so that would remain. On the north side it hasn’t
been decided yet.
Board Member Marquez asked if the Board is being asked to approve this without that final decision?
Ms. Fountain said it should be a block wall on the north side.
Board Member Marquez said yes for separation of residential and commercial.
Mr. Geitzel said whatever the requirement is, we would obviously follow the rules.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 25,2004
PAGE 9 of 15
Ms. Fountain said it is currently a six-foot block wall.
Chairperson Heineman asked if it was along the north side?
Ms. Fountain agreed.
Chairperson Heineman asked if it was between this one and the existing building?
Ms. Fountain answered between the office building and the property. She pointed out where the block
walls would be and the wood fence would be. It is surrounded by fencing or walls. We do not support
putting security gates on any projects in the downtown area. We want them to be open and pedestrian
friendly. So we wouldn’t even support a gate if they had requested one.
Chairperson Heineman reiterated that it is not a requirement.
Ms. Fountain agreed it is not a requirement, and we wouldn’t have supported it if they had requested one.
Mr. Geitzel said one of the major concerns in designing the whole project was how this appeared for a
pedestrian walking on the street. We wanted it to look more like an open garden type atmosphere. We
were trying to screen the parking as much as possible so you didn’t look inside and see a sea of parking.
I think aesthetically it is going to look very nice from the sidewalk as you walk by.
Board Member Lawson asked about the meter locations that are on the south edge of both building one
and building two, there will be a conflict. This is a note to the architect in coordination with the landscape
architect because access to those meter locations needs to be provided for the utility companies. I don’t
think they will permit you to go through the landscape areas.
Ms. Fountain reiterated that the comment is just that the landscaping will need to be kept open. Is that
what your point is?
Board Member Lawson agreed. So the amount of landscaping along those edges will have to be
adjusted, but I am not looking for any change at this point.
Ms. Fountain said right, the meters are in a good location. You just have to make sure it is open to be
checked.
Board Member Lawson said correct.
Socorro Rodriguez Anderson, business owner at 3222 Roosevelt Street in Carlsbad, said she is constantly
dealing with evictions and over crowding of families in Carlsbad so she commends Housing and
Redevelopment on this wonderful project. She is really pleased to see it. Is this always going to remain
an affordable housing building or is it at some point going to turn over to be something other then that?
Ms. Fountain said for 55 years this will be an affordable housing project. That is typically what our
standard is on any of these types of projects. That is what we have determined is the life of a project.
Chairperson Heineman closed the Public Hearing and proceeded with discussion by the Board.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson,
to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 294, approving RP 04-04 requesting a major
redevelopment permit for the construction of a two-story, 11 unit affordable apartment complex on
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a public hearinq at the Ruby G. Schulman Auditorium located at the Dove Library, 1775 Dove
Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at 6:OO PM on Tuesday, January 11, 2005, to consider recommending
approval of a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP04-04) to allow for the construction of a
two-story 11 unit affordable apartment project on property located at 2578 Roosevelt Street. The
property is located within Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and more
thoroughly described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-1 02-33.
The proposed project also includes the following requests:
1. The establishment of the Residential High (RH) General Plan designation to set the
density for the site at 15-23 dwelling units per acre, with a growth management control
point of 19 dwelling units per acre;
2. A density increase of .5 dwelling unit in exchange for providing all 11 units affordable to
low income households at 70% or less of the area median income; and
3. Modifications to three of the building setback standards as follows:
a. Increase the front yard setback from the required 5 to 15 feet to 15 to 19 feet to allow
for greater project articulation; and
b. Decrease the side yard setbacks to less than the required 10 feet, 8 inches. The
south side yard setbacks range from 4 feet 9 inches to 9 feet 10 inches. The north
side yard setbacks is 9 feet 10 inches; and
c. Set the rear yard setback at 7 feet, which is at the lower end of the required setback
of 5 to 15 feet.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing.
Copies of the staff report will be available on Friday, January 7, 2005. If you have any questions or
would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at (760) 434-2815. You may also provide your comments in writing to: City Clerk, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Department has determined
that the subject project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State
CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area
that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-04
CASE NAME: ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
December 31Sf, 2004
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 3 lSf Day of December, 2004
~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Signature
Jane Olson
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
1.The establishment of the Residentia! Hi h RH) Gen- eral Plan designation to set the density ?or \he site a 15-23 dwelling units $r acre,, with a growth manage I The proposed project also includes the followin requests:
ment control point of 9 dwelling units per acre;
increase of .5 dwellin unit in exchange fo 11 units affordable t% I0.w income house or less of the area median income; and
3,Modifications to three of the building setback Stan dards as follows: I
hearing.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a public hearing at the Ruby G. Schulman Auditorium located at the Dove Library, 1775 Dove
Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at 6:OO PM on Tuesday, January 11, 2005, to consider recommending
approval of a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP04-04) to allow for the construction of a
two-story 11 unit affordable apartment project on property located at 2578 Roosevelt Street. The
property is located within Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and more
thoroughly described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-1 02-33.
The proposed project also includes the following requests:
1. The establishment of the Residential High (RH) General Plan designation to set the
density for the site at 15-23 dwelling units per acre, with a growth management control
point of 19 dwelling units per acre;
2. A density increase of .5 dwelling unit in exchange for providing all 11 units affordable to
low income households at 70% or less of the area median income; and
3. Modifications to three of the building setback standards as follows:
a. Increase the front yard setback from the required 5 to 15 feet to 15 to 19 feet to allow
for greater project articulation; and
b. Decrease the side yard setbacks to less than the required 10 feet, 8 inches. The
south side yard setbacks range from 4 feet 9 inches to 9 feet 10 inches. The north
side yard setbacks is 9 feet 10 inches; and
c. Set the rear yard setback at 7 feet, which is at the lower end of the required setback
of 5 to 15 feet.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing.
Copies of the staff report will be available on Friday, January 7, 2005. If you have any questions or
would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at (760) 434-2815. You may also provide your comments in writing to: City Clerk, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Department has determined
that the subject project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State
CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area
that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-04
CASE NAME: ROOSEVELT STREET APARTMENTS
,
OCCUPANT
676 LAGUNA DR CARLSBAD
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
690 LAGUNA DR CARLSBAD 686 LAGUNA DR CARLSBAD
OCCUPANT
2663 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2647 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
2639 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2627 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2615 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2589 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2577 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2551 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2541 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2677 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2659 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2676 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2685 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2680 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2695 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2715 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2730 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2147 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2698 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2700 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2667 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2656 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2586 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2653 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2621 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR BALLERINI
4161 RHODES WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
E R E PROPERTIES L L C
1054 LA SOMBRA DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PERL
511 N MAPLE DR
BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210
THOMAS D L LUCINDA VIGNE
3880 HIBISCUS CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT D
PUBLIC AGENCY
EDMUND & EDITH SMITH
3271 WESTWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT & LINDA ENRIGHT
31499 LAKE VISTA CIR
BONSALL CA 92003
TR BLACKBURN
PO BOX 240
OCEANSIDE CA 92049
TR BLACKBURN
PO BOX 240
OCEANSIDE CA 92049
RALPH STRAESSER
1518 AVOCADO RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
DONALD DEWHURST
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR SWANSON
24 BLUFF VW
IRVINE CA 92612
PAUL J WEBER
580 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR BLACKBURN
PO BOX 240
OCEANSIDE CA 92049
TR EISLER
6631 LITTLER DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92119
HENRY TREJO
PO BOX 281
CARLSBAD CA 92018
FRANK G & ANA AGUINA
2646 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EDMUND L EDITH SMITH
3271 WESTWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHAEL A & KIMBERLY CHAMBERLAIN
4579 BLACKWELL RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
TR HUSTON
2631 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OTIS HEALD
PO BOX 1707
FALLBROOK CA 92088
RICHARD L & JANET JONES
2608 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LANCER INDUSTRIES INC
1547 AVENIDA LA POSTA
ENCINITAS CA 92024
FRANCESCO DORIGO
1609 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TR LEWIS
2569 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHARLES & LORRAINE WULLENJOHN
1462's 33RD DR
YUMA A2 85364
TR PATERSON
2121 ROOSEVELT ST A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR TREJO
2687 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR DUFF
2690 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TAMARACK PARK L L C
PO BOX 27781
SAN DIEGO CA 92198
VIRGINIA L & GARY JACKSON
2718 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES E & KEITH HARRISON
PO BOX 9501
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
SOLEDAD SOT0
2615 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
H S ERGIN
PO BOX 218
CARLSBAD CA 92018
ROBERTO F 6 SARA ROJAS
2650 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARC R & JOSEPHINE PENA
2712 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LISA A BENTSON
2644 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUDY C & CHERYL ZAVALANI
735 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HYSPAN PRECISION PRODUCTS INC EM
PO BOX 636
VISTA CA 92085
TR NEMETH
1132 SAXONY RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
JOE P h FRANCES APODACA
2647 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR MORENO
2605 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
S D C PROPERTIES L L C
2155 RAMONA LN
VISTA CA 92084
RAJENDRA G & PRATIMA DESAI
2266 CHANNEL RD
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661
SETH HOENIG
PO BOX 232401
ENCINITAS CA 92023
TR STROTHER
3811 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUDY C & CHERYL ZAVALANI
735 LAGUNA DR
CA 92008
ROGELIO & MERCEDES ALBA
PO BOX 2711
CARLSBAD CA 92018
TR NEMETH
1132 SAXONY RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
RYANNE APARTMENTS LLC
1540 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CARLSBAD
2578 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KERRY & KIMBERLY ROSSALI
605 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR WILSON
2710 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VICTOR & ANGELA BALAKER
3811 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARSHALL T MACK
3542 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SONDRA CURTIN
3499 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
First Owner Full Name CARLSBAD LAGUNA L L C
COMPANY UNIT 710
Mailing Address 414 N ORLEANS ST
Mailing Address City/State Mailing Ad CHICAGO IL 60610
KELLY DUNN
UNIT B
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WALTER R KLEPADLO
UNIT F
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MORGAN B & DOROTHY GLINSKI
UNIT J
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHARON A PAOLOZZI
UNIT 0
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
A&D CASSARA PARTNERS L P HILL MA
SUITE 82
2244 S SANTA FE AVE
VISTA CA 92084
WAVE CREST RESORTS I1 L L C
SUITE A
829 2ND ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARL PINAMONTI
UNIT 82
2244 S SANTA FE AVE
VISTA CA 92084
GLENN D & MARCIA CASTENS
UNIT A
2381 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOUGLAS P MCKEAND
UNIT C
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KATHERINE OCCHIOGROSSO
UNIT G
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAVID L & MARIA SHAY
UNIT K
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CASA LAGUNA I1 LLC
SUITE 202
2171 S EL CAMINO REAL
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
ANA M CAB0
UNIT 302
1485 LYCOMING ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92154
WAVE CREST RESORTS I1 L L C
SUITE A
829 2ND ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024
TR JOHNSON
UNIT 12
4513 COVE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFFERSON PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
UNIT 200
2755 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DENYCE A MILLEN
UNIT A
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VINCENT J SWEENEY
UNIT D
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TIMOTHY E, AMY REDAL
UNIT I
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TR YEARLEY
UNIT L
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KORNBERG
SUITE 1900
108 8 0 WILSHIRE BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
WAVE CREST RESORTS I1 L L C
SUITE A
829 2ND ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024
TR PATERSON
UNIT A
2727 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VIRGINIA L 6 GARY JACKSON
UNIT F
2718 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
First Owner Full Name OCCUPANT
Site Address 2690 KREMEYER CIR
Site Address CityIState Site Addre CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2680 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2670 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2650 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2625 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2655 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2645 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2600 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
KREMEYER CT
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2695 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
762 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
774 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2685 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
28677 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2665 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2657 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2665 KREMEYER CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
700 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
570 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
590 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2430 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2400 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
658 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
668 LAGUNA DR
OCCUPANT
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2568 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2548 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2571 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2737 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
O'CCUPANT
2669 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2635 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2646 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2745 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2564 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2725 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2720 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2620 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
655 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2137 JEFFERSON AJ ST AJ
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2642 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2725 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
539 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2715 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA
OCCUPANT
2645 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2558 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2114 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
755 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
2736 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
37
NAME
COMPANY
ADDRESS
CITY, ST 2 I P
OCCUPANT
SUITE M
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
SUITE E
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
SUITE H
2525 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3
October 29,2004
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice ROOSEVELT STREET
APARTMENTS (RP 04-04) for a public hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, The attached public hearing notice must be published, posted and mailed
at least 10 days before the hearing. Please notice the item for a special Housing and
Redevelopment Commission meeting on , or the appropriate
meeting as determined by the City Manager's Office. s~,~~fi~~ \\,
Thank you.
/4/2.i/d 7 v
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE
Roosevelt Street ApartmentsHousing and Redevelopment Commission PresentationJanuary 11, 2005
2578 Roosevelt Street.56 acre site
Project FeaturesTwo Buildings; Two-story11 units total8 -1 bedroom units; 674 sf3 –2 bedroom units; 894 –900 sfLand Use District 8 of Village Redevelopment Area
Site PlanBuilding 1: 5 unitsBuilding 2: 6 units
Surrounding Land Uses2-story office building2-story apartment building1-story SFD1-story SFD1 –story office building
Residential DensityResidential High Density (RH) Designation recommended; 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre.Density is compatible with surrounding uses.Residential desirable in the area; affordable housing provides diversity.
RH Density DesignationRH Density: 15 to 23 du/ac with a GMCP of 19 du/ac .Project site area is .56 acres; GMCP will allow 10.71 dwelling units.11 units proposed which results in 19.5 du/ac; exceeds GMCP by .5.Public facilities available to allow for density above GMCP; will not exceed quadrant housing unit cap.
Inclusionary HousingProject is proposed to be 100% low income affordable; 50% of AMI & below.If approved, applicant will enter into appropriate agreements to restrict the units.Project is proposed to serve as a combined project; will allow other developers to buy credits in the project.
Standards ComplianceParking meets requirements; 18 tenant spaces with 6 guest parking spaces.Building coverage is 22.5%; meets requirement for no more than 60-80%.Maximum height of building is 26’ and provides minimum 5:12 roof pitch.Project has 37% open space, which exceeds the 20% requirement.Project meets the design guidelines for the Village.
Standards ModificationsProject requires 3 modifications in development setback standards:Exceed the front yard setback; 19’ (for 44% of front) rather than 5’ to 15’; remainder is at 15ft & meets standard.Reduced Side Yard Setbacks to below minimum; 4’ to 9’-10” rather than 10’8”.Reduced Rear Yard Setback to lower end of range; 7’ within a 5’ to 15’ range.
Project ImpactsTraffic: 66 ADT projected; existing street designed to accommodate.Sewer: 11 EDUs; gravity flow; proposed private sewer lateral.Water: 2,420 GPD; upgraded water lateral.Grading: 2000 cubic yards fill and import; grading permit required.Drainage: storm runoff drains in southerly & easterly direction; surface drainage.
Environmental ReviewProposed project is an in-fill development and exempt from environmental review.No comments received.DRB recommended approval of exemption from environmental review.
DRB RecommendationDRB has recommended approval of the redevelopment permit for the Roosevelt Street Apartments with the modifications in setback standards noted within report.With approval of HRC Resolution No. 390, the Commission will approve RP 04-04.