HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-25; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 376; Parking In-Lieu Fee Agreement 2917 State St Commercial BuildingHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AB# 376
MTG. 10/25/05
TITLE: DEPT. HD
PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT FOR 2917 STATE STREET - STATE
STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEPT. H/RED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
APPROVING a Parking In-Lieu Fee Program Participation Agreement between the Commission and
Leor Lakritz & Ophira Lakritz, property owners, for the project known as the State Street Commercial
Building at 2917 State Street.
403 9
ITEM EXPLANATION
On June 8, 1999, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved Resolution No. 309 authorizing
implementation of the parking programs as set forth by staff in the Parking in the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area Report, including the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The fee of $1 1,240 per
parking space for participation in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program was established by the
Commission on June 8, 1999. With the Commission’s determination on June 8, 1999 that there is
adequate public parking to accommodate additional private development, and by setting the fee for the
program, the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program became fully effective as of June 8, 1999. Subsequently,
on August 17, 1999, the Commission took action to amend the participation requirements for the Parking
In-Lieu Fee Program to allow for greater participation for properties located immediately adjacent to a
public street where the centerline of the street is within the 600 foot radius of an existing public parking
facility.
On November 12, 2002, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved Major Redevelopment
Permit No. 01-04. The project approved by the subject redevelopment permit is known as the State Street
Commercial Building and represents a 6,172 square foot commercial (officehetail) building to be located at
2917 State Street in the Village Redevelopment Area. As part of the project approval, the Commission
approved participation in the Village Parking In-Lieu Fee Program to allow the project to meet its parking
requirement totaling twenty-one (21 ) parking spaces. Condition No. 18 of the approving resolution requires
the property owner to enter into a Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement with the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, and to pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for twenty-one (21 ) parking
spaces prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Project. The fee required to be paid is the sum
total of the fee per parking space in effect at the time of building permit issuance times the number of
parking spaces needed to satisfy the project‘s parking requirement. At this time, the fee is $11,240 per
parking space. With a requirement to pay the fee for twenty-one (21) spaces total, the property will be
obligated to pay a total of $236,040 at this time.
The attached Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement has been executed by the property owner and
is now presented for review and action by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approve the attached Parking
In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement which will allow the property owners at 2917 State Street to pay a fee
to satisfy a portion of the parking requirements for the previously approved 6,172 square foot commercial
(office/retail) building currently known as the State Street Commercial Building.
I
FISCAL IMPACT
The current Village Parking In-Lieu Fee is $1 1,240 per required parking space to be provided off-site. With
a requirement to pay for twenty-one (21) parking spaces, the total revenue to the Carlsbad Redevelopment
Agency Parking Fund will be $236,040.
EXHIBITS
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 403 , APPROVING a
Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement between the Commission and Leor Lakritz & Ophira
Lakritz, property owners at 291 7 State Street in the Village Redevelopment Area.
2. Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement between the Commission and Leor Lakritz & Ophira
Lakritz.
3. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Agenda Bill #352 describing the State Street Commercial
Building Project. (On file in the City Clerk's Office)
CONTACT: Cliff Jones (760) 434-2813, cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
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. 403
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION
AND LEOR LAKRITZ & OPHIRA LAKRITZ, PROPERTY
OWNERS, FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE STATE STREET
10, IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
APPLICANT: 291 7 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING
APPROVING A PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 2917 STATE STREET, APN: 203-293-
CASE NO: RP 01-04
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2002, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) for the
Eonstruction of a 6,172 square foot commercial (officehetail) building on property located at
2917 State Street, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 recommending to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01 -04) be
zpproved; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2002, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
zpproved a Major Redevelopment Permit (No. 01-04) to allow Leor Lakritz & Ophira Lakritz,
Property Owners, to construct a 6,172 square foot commercial (officehetail) building on property
located at 291 7 State Street (Assessor Parcel # 203-293-10) within the Village Redevelopment
kea of the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of Major Redevelopment Permit 01-04, the
2ommission and Property Owner/Developer agreed to enter into an agreement to allow the
?roperty Owners to participate in the Village Redevelopment Parking In-Lieu Fee Program
Zranting authorization to provide 100% of the project's required parking off-site; and
iRC RES0 NO.
'AGE 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
WHEREAS, the Property Owner/Developer has agreed, by acceptance of the project
conditions of approval, to pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for a total of twenty-one (21)
parking spaces to satisfy 100% of the on-site parking requirement for the approved subject project
located at 2917 State Street within the Village Redevelopment Area of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the subject property and project has qualified to
participate in the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency’s Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and
participation in the program will satisfy twenty-one (21) of the required on-site parking spaces for
the subject project on the noted property at 2917 State Street; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has previously determined that the proposed project is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has previously determined that there is adequate public
parking available within the Village Redevelopment Area to accommodate a portion of the
subject project’s parking demands; and
WHEREAS, the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is in full force and effect as of the date of
this Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Zommission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby approves the Village
Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement between the Commission, on behalf of
the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, and Leor Lakritz & Ophira Lakritz, property
owners of the project known as the State Street Commercial Building which is to be
iRC RES0 NO. ’AGE 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
r
constructed at 2917 State Street, in the Village Redevelopment Area of the City of
Carlsbad.
3. That the Chairperson of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is hereby
authorized to execute said Agreement, and the City Clerk is requested to forward the
executed Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation against the subject
property.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25 th
day of October ,2005 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CLAUDE A. EEWIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
'1%. .
RAYMb R. PATCHETT, SECRETARY
-1RC RES0 NO. 'AGE 3 5
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Carlsbad
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
Attn: City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
{Space above for Recorder's Use)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
THIS PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this dLYLday
of &?w ,2005, by and between the CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION, a body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), and Leor
Lakritz, property owner, (hereinafter referred to as the "Program Participant"), is made with reference to
the following:
RECITALS
A. Program Participant is the owner of certain real property located at 2917 State Street
(APN: 203-293-10) in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described in
"Attachment A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which is the
subject of a Major Redevelopment Permit (Rp 01-04), which provides conditional approval of a 6,172
square foot commercial (officehetail) building ("Project") on the subject property.
B. Condition No. 18 of approved Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 states that this
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program Participation Agreement shall be entered into between the Commission and
the Program Participant prior to the issuance of a building permit for the subject Project. Design Review
Board Resolution No. 289 provides that the Program Participant pay a Parking In-Lieu Fee for a total of
twenty-one (21) parking spaces which in effect purchases parking credits from the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency. The Program Participant shall pay the approved Parking In-Lieu Fee (per
parking space) in effect at the time of building permit issuance to satisfy a portion of the parking
requirement for the subject Project according to the requirements set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing Recitals and in consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. THE RECITALS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.
2/26/99
2. SATISFACTION OF ON-SITE PARKING REOUIREMENTS THROUGH THE
PAYMENT OF PARKING IN-LIEU FEE.
(a) Performance under this Agreement satisfies the Program Participant's obligation for
providing twenty-one (21) on-site parking spaces for the land covered by Major
Redevelopment Permit No. 01-04 by reason of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
approvals of Major Redevelopment Permit 01-04, including Condition No. listed in
Design Review Board Resolution No. 289.
(b) The Program Participant shall pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee for a total of twenty-one (21)
parking spaces as established by the Commission, and, as required by Condition No. B of
Design Review Board Resolution No. 289, the fee shall be paid prior to the Program
Participant receiving a building permit for the subject Project. The fee shall be the sum total
of the fee per parking spaces needed (21) to satisfy the Project's parking requirement.
(c) The Program Participant shall have no right to designated parking spaces within the public
parking lots located within the Village Redevelopment Area, or at any other location within
the City of Carlsbad, nor shall the Program Participant have exclusive use of any public
parking spaces. Through participation in the subject Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, the
Program Participant agrees to assist the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency in funding the
provision of existing, and/or the provision of new, off-street public parking spaces within the
Village Redevelopment Area of the City of Carlsbad. The Commission has approved Major
Redevelopment Permit 01-04 conditioned upon the Program Participant's payment of a
Parking In-Lieu Fee for a total of twenty-one (21) parking spaces.
3. REMEDIES
Failure by the Program Participant to perform in accordance with this Agreement will constitute
failure to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual, and Condition No. B of Design Review Board Resolution No. 289. Such
failure will allow the Commission and/or City to exercise any and all remedies available to it including
but not limited to withholding the issuance of building permits for the subject project and property.
4. HOLD HARMLESS
Program Participant will indemnify and hold harmless (without limit as to amount) Commission
and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents in their official capacity (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Indemnitees"), and any of them, from and against all loss, all risk of loss and all damage
(including expense) sustained or incurred because of or by reason of any and all claims, demands, suits,
or actions obtained, allegedly caused by, arising out of or relating in any manner to Program Participant's
actions or defaults pursuant to this Agreement, and shall protect and defend Indemnitees, and any of them
with respect thereto.
2/26/99 7
5. NOTICES
All notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal
delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the party to receive such notice at
the address set forth below:
TO THE CITY:
Housing and Redevelopment Commission
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Attn: Housing & Redevelopment Director
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, California 92008-2389
TO THE PROGRAM PARTICIPANT:
Leor Lakritz
P.O. Box 1029
Tustin, CA 9278 1
Any party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other parties of the
new address, in the manner set forth above.
6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and no modification hereof
shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto.
7. DURATION OF AGREEMENT
Except for the provisions of Paragraph 4, which shall survive the term of this Agreement, upon
payment of the parking in-lieu fee for the twenty-one (21) parking spaces for the subject Project, the
Program Participant shall have no further obligations under this Agreement.
8. SUCCESSORS
This Agreement shall benefit and bind the Program Participant and any successive owners of the
subject project as described in Attachment A to this Agreement.
9. JURISDICTION
Program Participant agrees and hereby stipulates that the proper venue and jurisdiction for any
resolution of disputes between the parties arising out of this Agreement is San Diego County, California.
2/26/99
10. SEVERABILITY
In the event any provision contained in this Agreement is to be held invalid, void or unenforceable by any cow
of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless, be and remain in full force an
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be signed as of the day and year
first above written.
PROGRAM PARTICIPANT COMMISSION
(Print Namenitle)
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Program Participant must be attached)
Chairman] president or vice-president and secretary] assistant secretary, CFO or assistant
treasurer must sign for corporations. Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution
certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer@)
signing to bind the corporation.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BA&,$ity Ajtorney
Ja e obaldi, Assistant City Attorney v
2/26/99 9
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address: 2917 State Street
Assessor Parcel No.: 203-293-10
The subject property is more specifically described as:
Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 13 in Block I of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888.
2/26/99
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
} SS. State of California
County of Bran6 e Id 02 before me, u- 1c 4-w- uufi 9
SIGNERW
'f v-1 2 mc! OU>h ( (DAW[ On
personally appeared
IJ personally known to me - OR - mproved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)
&/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that lm&e/they executed
the same in */their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his&us/their
signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
and official seal.
d'
OPTIONAL INFORMATION
The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl-
edgment to an unauthorized document.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL)
0 INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER
'I?TLE(S)
0 PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT 0 TRUSTEE(S) 0 GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR 0 OTHER:
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSONG) OR EMITY(1ES)
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
OTHER
B
si SIGNER g
.i RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF
VALLEY-SLERRA, 800-362-3369 APA 5/99
State of California
County of } ss.
0n&oberL31. a 09 , before me,&&k%-&;- .d
personally appeared
Name and Title of Officer (e g "Jan6 Doe, Notary alic") . Led5 9 Name@) of Signer@)
Date
personally known to me !? proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
Place Notary Seal Above
to be the person$) whose namefla law-
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me tha@sbMw+executed
the same in abed&e# ' authorized
capacity(&), and that by c6isHmftke)F.
signatureM on the instrument the person@), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person#
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. -
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
0 Individual
0 Corporate Officer - Title(s):
0 Partner - 0 Limited General
il Attorney in Fact
0 Trustee
IZ Guardian or Conservator
3 Other:
Signer Is Representing:
0 1997 National Notary Association 9350 De Soto Ave , PO Box 2402 Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 Prod No 5907 Reorder Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827
AB# - 352
MTG. 11-12-02
DEPT. WED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No / , APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01 -04) for a 6,172 square foot commercial (officdretail) building on
property located at 2917 State Street as recommended by the Design Review Board.
360
TVW DEFT. HD
CITY Am.@
CITY M&p
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING
RP 01-04
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On September 23,2002, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for a two-story commercial (officdretail) building in Land Use District 1
of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 3,750 square foot site is located OR the west side
of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive.
The site is bordered by a two-story commercial building to the north, a single-story restaurant to the
south, State Street to the east, and North County Transit District public parking to the west (across
alley). The remainder of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive includes a
mixture of one and two-story structures consisting of various commercial uses. A majority of the second story businesses on State Street are office uses.
Existing structures on-site include a 927 square foot retail structure fronting on State Street, a 1,212 square foot residential structure fronting on the alley, and a 440 square foot storage building located
between the two. The proposed development consists of the demolition of all three existing buildings
and the construction of a two-story commercial building with 3,296 square feet of retail space on the
first floor and 2,876 square feet of office space on the second floor. Access to the second floor of
the building is by stairway and elevator at the front entrance and a stairway at the rear entrance
adjacent to the alley. Also located along the rear of the building is a 6-foot wide landscape area and
enclosed dumpster.
At ihe public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (4-0, Lawson abstain)
to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant participation in the Parking
In-Lieu Fee Program for 100% of the required parking (21 parking spaces).
Somments provided by the Board members on the proposed project are provided in the attached jraft minutes of the June 23d meeting. The approving resolution afong with the Design Review 8oard 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
3uidelines 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 ias been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State
ZEQA 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. No comments were received on
:he environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is
ncluded in the attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission resolution.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 352
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project will have a positive fiscal impact in terms of increased property tax. The
current assessed value of the project site is $260,241. With the new construction, it is estimated that
the assessed value will increase to approximately $1,032,000. The increase in value will result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $7,718 per year. The retail component of the project will also generate additional sales tax revenues to the
City. Finally, it is anticipated that the project will sewe as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of an outdated and underutilized property within the area.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution approving RPOl-04 No. 360.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 dated September 23,2002 3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated September 23,2002, w/attachments
4. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated September 23,2002
2
Exhibit 1
HRC Resolution Approving
RPOI -04
13
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
Hi60.
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALFORNIA,
INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
COMMERCIAL (OFFICERETAIL) BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2917 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1
OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE I.
APPLICANT: 2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING
CASE NO: RP 01-04
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. Rpo1-04,
PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM, FOR A TWO-STORY,
WHEREAS, on September 23,2002, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) for a 6,172
square foot commercial (officdretail) building on property located at 2917 State Street, and
adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 recommending to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) 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 01-04);
and
WHEFtEAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting authorization to
provide 100% of the project's required parking off-site through participation in the Parking In-
Lieu Fee Program; and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to
be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents
pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a
HRC RES0 NO. 360
PAGE 1 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by
adequate facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HERE3Y RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 01-04) is APPROVED and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 289, on file
in the City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions
of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any
comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination
reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City
HRC RES0 NO. 360
PAM 2 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
78
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26,
27
28
of Carlsbad.
4. That this action is fin& the date this resolution is adoptec "y 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 refemd 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 hdshe 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 regular meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the mday of Novegber
2002 by the following vote to wit:
Am: Commissioners Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
HRC RES0 NO. 360
PAQE 3 I 0
Exhibit 2
DRB Resolution No. 289
dated Sept. 23, 2002
I7
1
* L
’1 -
4
5
6
7
a
9
ia
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 289
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMlT NUMBER RP 01-04, INCLUDING A REQUEST
FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LEU FEE PROGRAM, FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL
(OFFICWRETAIL) BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2917 STATE
STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME:
APN: 203-293-10
CASE NO: RP 01-04
2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BTJILDING
~~ ~
WHEREAS, Leor Lakritz, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Village
Drive Partnership, “Owner”, described as Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 13 in Block I of
Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of $an Diego, State of California according to
map thereof No. 535, fded in the offtce of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May
2,1888 (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-D” dated September 23,2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04”, as provided by Chapter
21.35080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23d day of September 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering dl testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
“2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04”.
...
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 2917 State Street Commercial
Building RP 01-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
true and comt.
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FIND INGS:
1.
2.
The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 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. 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.
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, is
in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated September 23,2002 including,
but not limited to the following:
a
b.
C.
The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
a commercial (retaiVoffice) use in an appropriate location within the Village.
The project provides greater shopping and employment opportunities, enhances
the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and
pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards and design
guidelines set forth for the area.
The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth
for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: 1) the project reinforces
the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail
space; 2) the project provides mutually supportive uses and the oflice space on
the second floor creates more employment opportunities in the Village and adds
to the customer base for retail, restaurants, and commercial services in the area;
and 3) the project serves to enhance State Street as a major focus of pedestrian
activity in the Village.
The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
DRB RES0 NO. 289
I
c .A
2
4
4
I
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d.
e,
Use District 1, the Village 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
publlc 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 wilf not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
the City’s Landscape Manual.
3. The Design Review Board finds that the DevelopedProperty owner qualifies to
participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will
satisfy the parking requirements for the project. Justification for participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is contained in the following findings:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual in that 1) the proposed project is highly
compatible with the surrounding area and contributes to establishing the Village
as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing additional
retail and office space to meet the needs of residents and visitors alike; 2) the
proposed project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian
activity by providing more ground floor retail space in an area of high retail
activity and the absence of on-site parking improves pedestrian and vehicular
circulation in the area by eliminating the need for additional curb cuts; 3) the
proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Village Center (District l), by providing
for an appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with surrounding
area; and 4) the project design optimizes use of the property while retaining the
village atmosphere and pedestrian scale.
b. The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is
located in that ground floor retail is a permitted use in Land Use District 1 and
strongly encouraged in the Village Master Plan as a mans of promoting retail
continuity. Business and professional office uses are classified as a provisional
use in District 1 and all required findings to permit this use on the second floor
can be made.
...
DRB RES0 NO. 289
1
, 1
.:
L
4
t
i
E
5
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's
parking demands in that the last utilization counts of the Village public parking
lots, conducted in February of 2002, indicate a 76% average utilization rate,
which is less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission.
d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water, drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLANmOLAN FINDING:
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they arc, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
1.
DRB RES0 NO. 289
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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 pennits; 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,
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building pennit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is detemined 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 DevelopedOperator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discktionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24“ x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
DRB RES0 NO. 289
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
9.
10.
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 pennits 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, ax! available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Landscape Conditions:
11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
12. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Noticing Conditions:
13. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and RedeveIopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permtt by Resolution No. 289 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
Qn-site Conditions:
14. Outdoor storage of material shall not 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.
15. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
DRB RES0 NO. 289
1
r 1
4
4 -
e
5
E
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16.
17.
IS.
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.
AI1 signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan
approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibits “A-C’. Any changes to the
sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
twenty-one (21) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking
space in effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of
parking spaces needed to satisfy the project’s parking requirement (21 spaces total).
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed redevelopment pennit, must be met prior to approval of a building or
grading permit whichever occurs first.
General:
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building pennit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
3. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or swt to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. The property owner and developer shall comply with recommended best management
practices and any other provisions of the “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for
New Commercial Building 2917 State Street, Carlsbad”, dated April 24,2002 and revised
July 23,2002, on file with the City.
Fees/Amments:
5. Developer shaIl cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property,
DRB RES0 NO. 289
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
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
Fw:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. DeveIoper shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fec as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3.
4.
5.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of final project approval.
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.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
DFU3 RES0 NO. 289
1
c 1
2
4
: -
c
7
a
S
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23d day of September, 2002 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
AITEST:
HOUSING AM) REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DIU3 RES0 NO. 289
Exhibit 3
DRB Staff Report
dated Sept. 23, 2002
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN RWIW BOARD
DATE: September 23,2002
SUBJECT RP 0144 - “2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING”: Request for a
Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2-story, 6,172 square foot
commercial (officehetail) building on property located at 2917 State Street in
Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Soard ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 289
recommending APPROVAL of’ RP 01 -04 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The property owner, Carlsbad Village Drive Partnership, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permlt for the construction of a 2-story, 6,172 square foot commercial (retaiVoffice) building on
property located at 2917 State Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area. The property is located on the west side of State Street between
Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. The site is bordered by a two-story commercial
building to the north that includes a restaurant (Caldo Pomodoro), bar (The Alley), hair salon
(De Stefano), ice cream shop (Cafe Dolce) with office uses on the second floor. Oiher
surrounding uses include a singlsstory restaurant (Vigilucci’s) to the south, State Street to the
east, and North County Transit District public parking to the west (across alley). The remainder
of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive includes a mixture of one
and two-story commercial structures consisting of retail businesses, hair salons, restaurants
with outdoor cafes, a pub, coffee shop, and shoe repair. A majority of the second story
businesses on State Street are off ice uses.
The subject property measures 3,750 square feet. Existing structures on-site include a 927
square foot retail structure fronting on State Street, a 1,212 square foot residential structure fronting on the alley, and a 440 square foot storage building located between the two. The
proposed development consists of the demolition of all three existing buildings and the
construction of a two-story commercial building with 3,296 square feet of retail space on the
first floor and 2,876 square feet of office space on the second floor. Access to the second floor
of the building is by stairway and elevator at the front entrance and a stairway at the rear
entrance adjacent to the alley. Also located along the rear of the building is a 6-foot wide
landscape area and enclosed dumpster.
.
2917 STATE SI'. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01.06 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 2
111. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which presewes,
enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic
and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City
which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate
in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3)
a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation
corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety
of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social
environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to Implement the
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project Is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a commercial (retailloffice) project in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides greater shopping and employment
opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character
and pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the area.
IV. CONStSTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND
0 B J ECTIVES
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 Catisbad Villaae as a Quality ShoDDina. Workina and Livina Environment.
The portion of State Street between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive is characterized by one and two-story structures with retail shops, commercial services, and restaurants on the
ground floor. The second floors include mainly office uses with some residential. The
proposed project is highly compatible with the surrounding area and contributes to establishing
the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing additional retail
and office space to meet the needs of residents and visitors alike.
Goal 2: ImDrove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaae Area. The proposed
project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian activity by providing more
ground floor retail space in an area of high retail activity. The absence of on-site parking
improves pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area by eliminating the need for additional
curb cuts.
Goal 3: Stimulate ProDertv ImDrovements and New DeveloDment in the Villam. 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 Village Center (District 1) by providing for an appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with surrounding area.
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCLAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 3
Goal 4: ImDrowe the Phvsical ADDeminCe of the Vi//aae Area. The project design optimizes
use of the property while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale.
V.
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, retail uses are classified as
permitted uses within Land Use District 1 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.
Office uses are classified as provisional uses and are permitted subject to discretionary
approval. They are approved based upon the findings that the use is consistent with the Village
vision and goats under specific.conditiins imposed by the permit. Uses in this category require
special scrutiny concerning location, size, and anticipated impact on adjacent uses.
Ground floor retail Is a permitted use within Land Use District 1 and strongly encouraged in the Village Master Plan as a means of promoting retail continuity. Business and professional off ice
uses are classified as a provisional use in District 1 and subject to the following findings:
1. The office development will be compatible in scale and character to the surrounding
Village development.
2. The development is not likely to negatively impact existing or planned retail continuity in
significant concentrations of commercial shops.
3. Sufficient on-&e parking will be available to serve employee parking needs.
4. The office development will not result in an undue reduction of livability for adjacent
residents.
The proposed office use on the second floor is a positive addition to this portion of State Street
as it will not negatively impact retail continuity in the area and the two story building is
compatible in scale and character to several of the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the use will not impact residential livability, as the site is located in the center of a
commercial district. Finally, public parking is available immediately west of the subject property
and participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee program may only be permitted if all the conditions for participation are satisfied. (The project’s satisfaction of these conditions will be discussed
later in this report.)
District 1 (Village Center) has traditionally functioned as the Central Business District of
Carlsbad. Although shopping centers and other development outside of the Village have drawn
some uses away from the area, the Village Center continues to function as a strong retail core serving city residents as well as tourists and regional visitors. The intent of land use standards for this district is to reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment, encourage mutually
supportive uses, and provide a major activity focus for Carlsbad Village and the City as a whole.
Staff believes that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the goals and
objectives set forth for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: 1) the project
reinforces the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail
space; 2) the project provides mutually supportive uses and the office space on the second
floor creates more employment opportunities in the Village and adds to the customer base for
retail, restaurants, and commercial services in the area; and 3) the project serves to enhance
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04
SEPTEMBIER 23,2002 PAGE 4
State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the Village.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 1 are as
follows:
Building Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 1, the front setback is 0-10
feet, however, there is no minimum or maximum setback requirement for the side and rear
yards. The proposed building is setback 4 feet from the front property line, which abuts an
11 .&foot wide sidewalk along State Street, The rear of the building is setback 6 feet from the
rear property line on the first floor and 5 feet on the second floor. A 20-foot wide alley lies immediately west of the rear property line. There is no setback from the side property lines,
which is consistent with the remainder of the buildings on State Street between Grand Avenue
and Carlsbad Village Drive.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the
minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a
reduction and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use
district in which the project is to be located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area.
These findings only apply to the proposed setback on the front of the building since there Is no
maximum or minimum setback on the sides and rear. The proposed 4-foot setback on the front
of the property falls within the established 0-10 foot setback standard. The proposed setback
will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties as a majority of the buildings on
State Street are either built to the front property line or are setback only a few feet. The
reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 1 in that the
proposed land use includes highly desirable ground floor retail space and complimentary
second story office space in the center of the Village's retail core. Finally, the reduced standard
will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces
the Village character of the area in that the proposed 4-foot setback provides adequate space
for landscape planters and decorative paving at the ground floor and a landscaped balcony on
the second floor creating an interesting and visually appealing front entrance and upper level
fapde while providing the retail space with needed pedestrian and vehicular visibility.
Based on these findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements set forth for Land Use District 1.
Bulldina Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for commercial
projects in Land Use District 1 is 80% to 100%. For the proposed project, the building coverage
is 88% which is within the established range. The bottom of the range is considered the
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING * RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,200t
PAGE 5
desired standard. However, an increase in the standard to the maximum, or anywhere within
the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such an increase and the following findings
are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission:
1. The increased standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The increased standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the village character of the area. The proposed building coverage is consistent with the building coverage for a majority of
buildings on State Street and will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The proposed
building coverage standard provides for the intensification of development desired for the area
and a building with a strong street presence, which assists in creating a project design that is
visually appealing and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 1. Therefore, staff
finds that the building coverage is consistent with the desired standard.
Bulldlna Helaht: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 35 feet with a minimum 512
roof pitch. The project proposes two separate hip roof elements on the front and rear of the
building. A hip roof design means the roof slopes up from all four sides with the peak of the roof located in the center of the building. The highest point of the hip roof is 32 feet on the front
of the building and 33 feet on the rear of the building. Both hip roof elements are designed with
the required 5:12 pitch. The proposed project meets the height requirements for Land Use
District 1.
Own 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 planters and decorative paving on the ground floor at the front and rear of the building, a landscaped balcony on the front of the building at the
second floor, a landscape planter on the rear of the building on the second floor, and an open
deck in the center of the building on the second floor. The project provides for a total of 976
square feet of open space, which represents 26% of the site and is consistent with the open
space requirement.
Parking: The parking requirement for office and retail space is 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor space. The requirement for a 6,172 square foot office building is 21
spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide all 21 spaces off-site through participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. The fees collected from the program will be deposited into an
earmarked, interest bearing fund to be used for construction of new, or maintenance of existing, public parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment Area. For the purposes of determining participation in the program, the Village has been divided into two parking zones -
Zone 1 and Zone 2. A property/business owner is eligible to participate in the in-lieu fee
program according to the parking zone in which a given property is located and its proximity to an existing or future public parking lot.
The subject property is located within Zone 1, In accordance with the standards set forth in the
Village Master Plan, developerdproperty owners within this zone may be allowed to make an
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 6
In-Lieu Fee payment for up to one hundred percent (100%) of the on-site parking requirement
for the proposed new development if the property is located within 600 feet of an existing public
parking facility. The subject property is located within 600 feet of all ten (10) existing public
parking lots located within the Village with a total of 710 parking spaces. (See attached Exhibit
D.) Therefore, the proposed project qualifies to make an in-lieu fee payment for up to one hundred percent (100%) of the on-site parking requirement. As a condition of project approval,
the applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement to pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee prior
to the issuance of building permits for the project. The current fee is $?1,240 per required
parking space to be provided off -site.
In order to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program the following findings must be made:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the land use district in which the property is located.
3. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's parking demands.
4. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Justification for the above referenced findings is as follows:
1. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for a
commercial (retaiVoffice) use In an appropriate location within the Village. The project
provides greater shopping and employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian
orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through
adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the area.
2. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual in
that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use
District 1 through the following actions: a) the project reinforces the pedestrian shopping
environment by providing additional ground floor retail space; b) the project provides
mutually supportive uses and the office space on the second floor creates more
employment opportunities in the Village and adds to the customer base for retail,
restaurants, and commercial services in the area; and c) the project serves to enhance
State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the Village.
3. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's parking
demands. The last utilization counts of the Village public parking lots, conducted in
February of 2002, indicate a 76% average utilization rale, whkh Is less than the 85%
threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
4. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 7 - .- __
Res tdential Densftv and Incluslonarv Housina Reauirements: There is no residential
component proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing
requirements are not applicable to this project.
VI. CONSlSTENCY 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
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. Development shall have an overall informal character.
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades. 7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The 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; two separate hip roof elements, multi-paned windows on the upper level front
elevation, expansive windows for retail display, recessed wood framed glass doors, decorative
trim around the windows, an ornate balcony, and columns. ?he development is small in scale
in that it maintains the two-story character of the street while still maximizing development of
the site by relying on off-site parking. The project has a strong relationship to the street in that
it is situated close enough to the street to provide for desirable pedestrian visibility at the ground
floor yet maintains an adequate setback to provide for recessed entryways and landscape planters. Landscaping plays an important role in the architectural design of the building as
landscape planters are proposed at the ground floor entrance, second story balcony on the
front elevation, and second story of the rear elevation. The parking is visually subordinate in
that it is located off-site behind the proposed building. Finally, signage is appropriate to the desired Village character in terms of size, scale, end type of sign as discussed in greater detail
in the next section. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an
exhibit to this report (Exhibit 8).
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
The total building frontage of the proposed buitding is 37.5 linear feet, which equates to 37.5
square feet of total sign area allowed. As indicated on the building elevations, the applicant is
proposing four wall signs; one 8 square foot sign on the rear of the building, one 15 square foot
sign on the front of the building above the retail space, one 8 square foot sign at the upper level
2917 STATE ST. COMMERClAL BUXLDING - RP 01-04 SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 8
of the front of the building, and one 4.5 square foot directory sign at the stainway entrance on
the front of the building. The total sign area of all four signs equates to 35.5 square feet and is less than the maximum allowed sign area for the project. The proposed signs are consistent
with the sign regulations set forth for the Village Redevelopment Area in terms of size, type and
location of the sign.
IX. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation which is greater than $15O,OOO.
The project requires a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Deslgn 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 request for participation in
the Parking ln-Lieu Fee Program.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore a Coastal Development
Permit is not required.
X. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION. SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONS~DERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following:
Traffic & Clrculatlon:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 20 ADT/lOOO sq ft x 2,876 off ice = 57 ADT
A Traffic study was not required because the amount of anticipated traffic is not significant enough to warrant the need for a traffic study. The land use and surrounding streets were designed to accommodate a project of this size.
40 ADT/lOOO sq ft x 3,296 retail = 132 ADT TOTAL = 189 ADT
Comment: All frontage and project related roadways are in place and no further upgrades to
the street and alley are needed.
Sewer: Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Sewer EDU's Required: 6,172 sq W1800 = 3.43 EDU's
Comment: Sewer facilities are already in place and the need for upgrades is not anticipated. - Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
GPD Required: 220 gpdedu x 3.43 edu's 3: 752 GPO
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 01-04
SEPTEMBER 23,2002 PAGE 9
Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project.
Gradlna:
Quantities: No grading is proposed.
Permit required: No
Off-site approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: IWA
Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: GeoSoils Inc.
Comment: There are no major 'grading issues associated with this project. Only minor
excavation for utilities and foundation will occur.
Drainaae and Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: A
Preliminary hydrology study performed by: N/A
Erosion Potential: Low
Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan was submitted addressing measures to reduce off-site sedimentation. Erosion control measures to be incorporated include gravel bags, plastic sheeting for stockpiles, excavating during forecasted dry weather.
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easement: None
Easements dedication required: None
Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes
Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project.
ImDrovements: Off-site improvements: None
Standard variance required: None
Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (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
2917 STATE ST. COMMERCIAL BUILDING - RP 0144 SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 10
the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of Jess 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.
XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot
will result in increased property taxes, This increase in property tax will further result in
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
XtII.
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings recommending participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. 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.
A. Design Review Board Resolution No. 289 recommending approval RP 01-04.
8. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
C. LocationMap
D. Map of Public Parking Lots E. Exhibits "A - D", dated Sepfember 23,2002, including reduced exhibits.
Exhibit A
“D raft’’
DRB Resolution No. 289
I
I
!
I(
1:
1:
1:
1L
l!
It
1;
11
IS
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESJGN REVIEW BOARD lZESOLUTION NO. 289
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDXNG APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMB= Rp 01-04, INCLUDING A REQUEST
FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LEU FEE PROGRAM, FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL
(OFFICE/RETAIL) BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2917 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VJILAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILlTIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME:
APN: 203-293- 10
CASE NO: RP 01-04
2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING
WHEREAS, Leor Lakritz, “Applicant”, has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Village
Drive Partnership, “Owner“, described as Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 13 in Block I of
Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California according to
map thereof No. 535, filed in the omce of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May
2,1888 (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
shown on Exhibits “A-D” dated September 23,2002, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, ‘9917 State Street Commercial Building Rp 01-04”, as provided by Chapter
21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23’‘ day of September 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
“2917 State Street Commercial Building RP 01-04”.
...
1
1
t
12
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
folIows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 2917 State Street Commercial
Building FW 01-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
&
1.
2.
The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment,
and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 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. In making this detennination, the
Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA
Guidelines do not apply to this project.
The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein to grant participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, is
in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated September 23,2002 including,
but not limited to the following:
a.
b.
c,
The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
a commercial (retaiVof'fice) use in an appropriate location within the Village.
The project provides greater shopping and employment opportunities, enhances
the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and
pedestrian scale through adherence to the development standards and design
guidelines set forth for the area.
The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth
for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: 1) the project reinforces
the pedestrian shopping environment by providing additional ground floor retail
space; 2) the project provides mutually supportive uses and the office space on
the second floor creates more employment opportunities in the Village and adds
to the customer base for retail, restaurants, and commercial services in'the area;
and 3) the project serves to enhance State Street as a major focus of pedestrian
activity in the Village.
The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
w DRB RES0 NO. 289
4
I
,
1
4
1(
1:
1:
1:
14
1:
It
li
18
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Use District 1, the Village Design Guidelines, and other applicable reguhtions
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
been designed in relationship to the iand 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 pro]ect. 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.
e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
the City’s Landscape Manual.
3. The Design Review Board finds that the DeveloperProperty owner quaIifies to
participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and participation in the program will
satisfy the parking requirements for the project, Justification for participation in the
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program‘is contained in the following findings:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual in tbat 1) the proposed project is highly
compatible with the surrounding area and contributes to establishing the Village
as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing additional
retail and offlce space to meet the needs of residents and visitors alike; 2) the
proposed project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian
activity by providing more ground floor retail space in an area of high retail
activity and the absence of on-site parking improves pedestrian and vehicular
circulation in the area by eliminating the need for additional curb cuts; 3) the
proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Village Center (District l), by providing
for an appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with surrounding
area; and 4) the project design optimizes use of the property while retaining the
village atmosphere and pedestrian scale.
b. The proposed use b consistent with the land use district in which the property is
located in that ground floor retail is a permitted use in Land Use District 1 and
strongly encouraged €n the Village Master Plan as a means of promoting retail
continuity. Business and professional of‘fice uses are classifled as a provisional
use in District 1 and all required findings to permit this use on the second floor
can be made.
...
41 DRB RES0 NO. 289
1
A
i
c 1
t
5
1c
11
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to: accommodate the project’s
parking demands in that the last utilization counts of the Village public parking
lots, conducted in February of 2002, indicate a 76% average utilization rate,
which is less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission.
d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City .public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facjlities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b. AI1 necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they m, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be SO
9% DFtB RES0 NO. 289
A
1
!
1(
11
1:
1:
14
I!
1c
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all comtions
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilitics, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is detennined 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- ~~loper/Operator-shall...anct-does herebyagree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney’s fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fieIds or other
energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Pedt reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any pcnnit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
prior to the issuance of a building pennit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
93 DRB RES0 NO. 289
1
r A
<
4
4 -
c
7
8
s
14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. 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.
10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Landscape Conditions:
11. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
12. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Inigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Noticing Conditions:
13. Prior to the issuance of the building permit,-Developer shall- submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 289 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing compIete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
On-site Conditions:
14. Outdoor storage of material shall not 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.
15. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
an exterior lighting plan including parking mas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
DRB RES0 NO. 289 Lt4
1
1
1
8
5
1(
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16.
17.
18.
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.
All signs proposed for this development shall be consistent with the sign plan
approved as part of this project as shown on Exhibits "A-C'. Any changes to the
sign plan shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall enter into a Parking In-
Lieu Fee Participation Agreement and pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for
twenty-one (21) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking
space in ef'fect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of
parking spaces needed to satisfy the project's parking requirement (21 spaces total).
ENGINEERING CONDJTJONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed redevelopment permit, must be met prior to approval of a building or
grading permit whichever occurs first.
1. Frior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or -hm any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
2. . Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
3. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. The property owner and developer shall comply with recommended best management
practices and any other provisions of the "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for
New Commercial Building 2917 State Street, Carlsbad", dated April 24,2002 and revised
July 23,2002, on file with the City.
5. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
...
DRB RES0 NO. 289 45
1
c1 L
7 .,
4
:
6
7
e
4
1a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to aI1 applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements. - FeeS:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #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
taxcdfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3.
4.
5.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of final project approval.
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.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
DRB RES0 NO. 289
I
I
!
1I
1:
1:
1:
14
l!
1t
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, feview, 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 &o 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 23d day of September, 2002 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SARAH MARQUEZ, VICE CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
~~ DEBBIE FO~AIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 289 47
Exhibit 6
Design Guidelines
C heck1 ist
.. . . . . . . . . . -. -. . . . . . ..
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages. I
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
Avoid drive-through senrice uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
Treat structures as individual buildings sat within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
I Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
I Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
Project: 2917 State St. Commercial Building
The following features provide a variety c
setbacks on the front and rear of the project: Thc
project maintains a 4' setback from State Streel
which provides room for a landscape planter anc
recessed entry on the ground level an(
landscaped balcony on the upper level. On thc
ground floor facing the alley a 6' setback i!
maintained, which includes a 6' wide tandscapc
area. There is a 5' setback from the alley on tht
upper level with a landscape planter extending 2.5
into the setback area.
A low wall for the landscape planter is providet
along State Street. Street benches are locatec
within the public right-of-way along the entire
street.
The proposed project provides ground floor retai
space maintaining the retail continuity of State
Street.
The project does not include a drive-thru. -~ ~ ~
There are no residential uses located to either side
of the proposed project.
The nature of the use does not warrant off-streel
courtyards for pedestrian use.
Landscaped areas along the front and rear of the
building will provide for an informal setting.
The project fronts on State Street, therefore, this
standard does not apply. Landscaping is provided
along the front and rear of the bullding at the first
and second levels to enhance the appearance of
the building as viewed from the public street and
alley.
No on-site parking is proposed as pari of this
Droject.
h)o on-site parking is proposed as pari of this woject.
Vo on-site parking is proposed as part of this
I woiect,
a I Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or clrculation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this
project.
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this
project.
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this
project.
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this
project.
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this
project.
~ ~____
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces. I
~ ~
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this
project.
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this
project.
No on-site parking is proposed as part of this I project.
~
Break large buildings into smaller units.
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mere copies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
~~ ~ ~ ~
Two hip roof features, separated by an open
balcony on the second floor, help to break up the
larger building into smaller units.
The proposed building has been designed
specifically for this location in accordance with the
Village Design Manual and is not a generic copy of
other buildings.
The second story is stepped back 4 feet from
State Street and 5 feet from the alley.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. The projeci design does not lend itself to the use
of dormers.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces. I The height of the building is consistent with other two story buildings on the street, including the
building immediately north of the subject property. - ..
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and “look at me‘
design solutions are strongly discouraged. - I I is not trendv or “look at me” in desian.
I Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12 Hip roof features with the minimum 512 pitch I or greater. 1 have been provided on the proposed project.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are
acceptable. 1
Avoid Flat Roofs
I Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
I Avoidmansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercjal I storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses. I
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
~ ~~ ~
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Synthetic roof tiles are proposed, which are
consistent with the architectural design intendec
for the area.
There are no flat roofs proposed as part of this
woiect.
This will be a requirement of the project.
The project does not utilize mansard roof forms.
By providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is ve4 visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into the front and rear building facades,
thereby creating visual interest in the building. The
project makes good use of multi-panted windows
on the upper level, recessed word framed glass
entry doors, decorative trim around the windows,
an ornate balcony, and columns.
Small multi-paned windows are proposed for the
umer level of the street facade.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections that will create shadows and contrast
along all sides.
____
The upper level includes a landscaped balcony
with decorative railing along the street elevation
and a window box planter along the upper level of
the elevation facing the alley.
Wood framed glass door are provided along the
front building elevation leading to an elevator and
staircase to the second floor. A smaller door along the rear building elevation leads to a second
staircase. Both entries seem to be appropriate for
their specific locations.
~~ ~~
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
front and rear sides of the building which include;
decorative trim around the windows, columns,
ceramic tile along the planters, and a decorative
railina.
The materials and colors proposed for the building will not conflict with adjacent developments.
- Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
The exterior walls utilize a stucco finish.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
Utilize small paned windows.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
At this time, none of the noted materials have
been indicated for use.
The windows are clear glass.
floor retail space.
been determined.
Dutch doors are not proposed.
Small divided paned windows are proposed along
the upper level of the street elevation.
Display lighting has not yet
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
Wood or vinyl coated doors and window frames
will be utilized.
No metal awnings and canopies are proposed.
Utilize light and neutral base colors. I project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less surface colors)
The project incorporates 1 primary base color, two
primary accent colors (slightly darker shades of
the base color), and two trim colors (used
sparingly around windows and doors). Given the
small size of the structure, the mix of colors used
on the front and rear facades give depth to the
building and provide greater visual interest without appearing overwhelming.
Provide significant storefront glazing. Significant storefront glazing is provided along the
ground floor.
Avoid large blank walls. The only blank walls are along the sides of the
building and will abut an existing two-story
structure to the north and a single story structure
to the south, both of which are built to the property
lines. ft is anticipated that the single story
structure to the south will eventually be replaced
by a two-story structure built to the property lines.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants. I Project does not include a restaurant use.
I Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
No fabric awnings are proposed over the
storefront windows and entries. Overhangs from
the level above or extended eaves are provided in
place of awnings.
..
Provide frequent entries.
Develop a total design concept.
t
~
Emphasize 'cottage' form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls.
-
Limit the extent of entry openings to about 30% of
storefront width or 8 feet, whichever is larger, to preserve
display windows . I
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate fences and walls into the building design.
I Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and I orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simle color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller I components.
All facade design elements are unified.The appli-
cant was able to develop a total design concept
which is functional and visually interesting.
Two entries are proposed along State Street
providing access to ground floor retail and second
floor office. A single rear door is provided along
the alley providing access to the first and second
stories.
There are two entry openings on the front of the
building. Together they equate to less than 30%
of the total storefront, which allows adequate
display window space.
The project does not include pull down shutters,
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontage.
Both the front entrance to the ground fluor retail
space and second story office space is
emphasized along State Street.
Fences and walls are not proposed as part of this
Droiect.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not amticable.
Not applicable.
~
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
53
Exhibit C
Location Map
STATE STREET MIXED USE PROJECT
RP 01-04
Exhibit D
Map of Public Parking Lots
57
Exhibit E
Exhibits “A-Dyy
Dated Sept. 23, 2002
1:
LOT AREA = 3750 6F
NFW COMMERClAL BUILDING
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE PAKTNER5HIP EXHIBIT A QTATE STREET
54
_.
/-'
-7 .- .- ..
1 .. .. *- . . j . .. . '..
a.
NEW COMMERGLAL WILDING
NEW COMMERCIAL BUfLDlNG
CARLSBAD VlLLAGE DRIVE PARTNERSHIP EX H I B ITL NUTTO 93LE
~ r,\
WEST ELEVATION
A
A
A
EAST ELEVATION
NOT 70 SCALE
NEwcoM~BuoDlNG
CARLSBAD VlUAGE DRIVE PARTNEEHIP .
2917 STATE 5TREET EXH I BIT??
13- -
!
..
4
63
'. !I
I
: ,?%+
Exhibit 4
Draft DRB Minutes
dated Sept. 23, 2002
DRAFT
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of meeting: Place of Meeting:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
6:OO P.M.
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
C!TY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairperson Marquez called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked Board Member Baker to lead in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Vice Chairperson Marquez proceeded with the roll call of Board Members.
Present: Commissioners: Tony Lawson
Julie Baker
Larry Paulsen Courtney Heineman
Vice Chairperson: Sarah Marquez
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Management Analyst: Lori Rosenstein
Project Engineer: David Rick Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Paulsen, and duty seconded by Board Member Heineman to accept the Minutes of June 24, 2002, as written.
VOTE: 3-0-0 AYES: Heineman, Paulsen and Baker NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Marquez and Lawson
Vice Chairperson Marquez reviewed the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
There were no comments from the audience.
NEW BUSINESS
Vice Chairperson Marquez proceeded with Agenda Item No. 1, RP 01-04 ‘2917 State Street Commercial
Building” - Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a P-story, 6,172 square foot
commercial (officehetail) building on property located at 2917 State Street in land use district 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
Board Member Lawson stated that because of a possible conflict of interest with the item, he must abstain from the meeting.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked the applicant if he wanted to proceed with the meeting with four
members remaining.
The applicant, Mr. Lakritz, said he would like to proceed with four Board Members. Ms. Rosenstein reported the following to the remaining Board Members:
bb
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 2 of 10 DRAFT
The project is located at 2917 State Street: the west side of State Street between Grand and Carlsbad
Village Drive. The property is 37% feet wide and a 100 feet deep for a total of 3,750 square feet. The
slide depicted the front of the existing property on State Street. It currently houses a collectibles trading card shop and a hair salon in a retail space that is approximately 927 square feet. There are also existing
street trees and angled parking located on State Street. She pointed out that at the rear of the property is
an existing residential structure that fronts on the alley. The building is 1,212 square feet. Between the
retail space on the front and the residential unit on the back is a 400 square foot storage building; none of
the buildings are connected.
Ms. Rosenstein continued the proposed development consists of the demolition of all three structures on this site. Immediately north of the subject property at the corner of Grand Avenue and State Street is a building which houses Caldo Pomodoro Restaurant with outdoor dining, the Alley Bar is located in the back along the alley, DeStefano’s Hair Salon is also located on the first floor, Cafe Dolce Ice Cream Shop, and on the second floor there is an array of various office uses. To the south of the subject property is
Vigilucci’s Restaurant, which is a single story restaurant with outdoor dining as well. Immediately west of
the subject properly exists public parking owned by North County Transit District.
The remainder of State Street, between Grand and Carlsbad Village Drive, includes a mixture of both one and two story structures with a majority of the second stories being devoted to office uses. On the first
floor along State Street there are numerous retail businesses including; hair salons, restaurants with
outdoor cafes, a pub, a coffee shop and shoe repair. The proposed project consists of the construction of
a two-story commercial building with retail on the first floor and office space above. The first floor consists
of 3,296 square feet of retail space. Some of the first floor is also devoted to access to the second story.
State Street is on the front with the building stepped back, access to the second story is by way of an
elevator and staircase on the front and a staircase on the back. Also in the back is an enclosed trash
dumpster that is fully integrated into the proposed building.
The second floor consists of 2,876 square feet of office space. The office space is broken up into two
individual office suites; one fronting on State Street and one in the back on the alley. Separating the two
office suites is an open outdoor patio area, open to the sky in the middle, and a common restroom facility with the stairs leading to the lower level. Staff sees the proposed office use on the second floor as a
positive addition to this portion of State Street as it does not negatively impact retail continuity in the area
and the two story building is compatible both in scale and character to several of the existing buildings in
the immediate vicinity. The proposed project meets the development standards for land use district one in
terms of building setback, open space, lot coverage and building height. The height limit for land use
district one is 35 feet with a minimum 5 and I2 roof pitch. The proposed project includes two separate hip
roof elements; one in the front and one in the rear of the building. The highest point of the hip roof on the
front is 32 feet and the peak of the hip roof on the rear of the building is 33 feet. Both hip roof elements
include a 5 and 12 roof pitch as required for this area.
Ms. Rosenstein continued that the proposed project is also consistent with the design guidelines outlined
in the Village Design Manual. The project incorporates several design elements to achieve the desired
village character including the two separate hip roof elements described, multi-paned windows on the
upper level front elevation, expansive windows for retail display on the ground floor, recessed wood frame glass doors at the entry, decorative trim around the windows and an ornate balcony on the second story with columns incorporated. The development is small in scale in that it maintains a two-story character, which is common to this street while still maximizing development of the site by relying on off-site parking.
The project has a strong relationship to the street in that it is situated close enough to the street to provide
for desirable pedestrian visibility at the ground floor, yet it maintains an adequate setback to provide for
recessed entryways and landscaped planters. Landscaping plays an important roll in the architectural
design of the building as landscape planters are proposed at the ground floor front entrance, the second
story balcony on the front elevation, and the second story of the rear elevation.
b?
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 3 of 10 DRAFT
The parking is visually subordinate in that it is not located on the site at all. It is located offsite. The
closest public parking lot is immediately west of the subject property across the alley.
Finally, signage is appropriate to the desired village character in terms of scale, size and type of signage
proposed I
Ms. Rosenstein continued with the slides showing two slides of the side elevations. Essentially this project
goes property line to property line on both the north and the south sides of the property, which is common
on this portion of State Street. The north elevation also includes a cross section showing the open
outdoor patio area between the two office spaces on the second floor. In order to meet the parking
requirement for the project, the applicant is proposing participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
The parking requirement for both office and retail is one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross
floor area. For a building that totals 6,172 square feet, 21 parking spaces are required. The applicant is
proposing to provide all 21 spaces offsite through participation in the program, which requires a payment
of $1 1,240 per parking space. The fees collected from the program are then deposited into an earmarked
interest bearing fund to be used for the construction of new or the maintenance of existing public parking facilities within the Village Redevelopment Area. As a condition of project approval, the applicant would
be required to enter into an agreement to pay the Parking In-Lieu Fee prior to the issuance of building
permits for the subject project. In order to participate in the Parking In-Lieu fee Program, four findings must be made:
First, the proposed project must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual. In staff’s review, the project was found to be consistent with the Design
Manual and Master Plan because it provides for a commercial use in an appropriate location in
the village. The project also provides greater shopping and employment opportunities and
enhances pedestrian orientation of the area and retains the village character and pedestrian scale
through adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth for the village.
The second finding is the proposed use must be consistent with the land use district in which the
property is located. The property is located in land use district one and meets the objectives of
district one in the following ways: the project reinforces the pedestrian shopping environment by
providing additional ground floor retail space in the area; the project provides a mutually supported
office use on the second floor which creates more emptoyment opportunities in the village and
adds to the customer base for retail, restaurants and commercial services in the area; and the
project enhances State Street as a major focus of pedestrian activity in the village.
The third finding is that adequate parking is available within the village to accommodate the
project’s parking demands. In order to participate in our parking program for the village, the
utilization rates for the village parking lots must be below 85%. The last utilization counts for the
village public parking lots, which was conducted in February of 2002, indicated a 76% average
utilization rate, which is less then the 85% threshold required for participation in this program.
The last finding is that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has not terminated or suspended the program. As of yet, the program is still in effect and hopefully we will have the opportunity to provide some more public parking opportunities in the village.
The Planning Department has conducted the environmental review for the project and the project was found to be exempt from State CEQA guidelines as an infill development on a site of less then five acres
in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate local facilities. The necessary
finding for this environmental determination is in the Design Review Board resolution included in the Board’s packet.
0
0
0
0
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. As with most of our redevelopment projects, the redevelopment of 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. Secondly, it is anticipated that this project will serve as a catalyst for other
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 4 of 10 DRAFT
improvements in the area; either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings through the
substantial upgrade of an existing property.
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Program. Staff believes development of this site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the
Redevelopment Agency and will assist in futfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment
Master Plan.
Before concluding, Ms. Rosensteln pointed out a packet that was distributed to the Board Members before
the meeting. The packed includes correspondence from Mr. Tom Betz, the property owner to the north.
He owns the building that Caldo Pomodoro is located in. Currently the drainage from the roof of Mr. Betz'
building drains onto the subject property, which raised a concern when development of the site was
proposed. If the property is developed as is currently planned, what will happen to that drainage? Both
property owners got together and worked out a resolution to that problem and David Rick from the
Engineering Department is present tonight to respond to that. Mr. Betz was unable to attend this meeting and wanted to make the issue was known to the Design Review Board and make sure that it was read into
the record. Essentially, it looks like the drainage from the building to the north will be diverted through a
drainage line between the buildings and then carried out to the alley and David Rick can go into that further. Also, hanging on the wall are plans of the proposed project. Ms. Rosenstein distributed the color and materials board for the project and concluded the staff presentation.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if any Board Members have questlons of the staff at this point.
Board Member Paulsen inquired about the roof drainage. Are the roofs going to drain into a common .
line? He noticed on the elevations that one roof slopes down and dumps onto the subject property.
Mr. Rick from the Engineering Department answered that the proposed drainage line is four inches wide
and will run between the buildings at the property line.
Board Member Paulsen inquired that in the event of demolition, is the other building still going to be
served by the roof drainage or storm drainage?
Mr. Rick answered if one is demolished, they should both be served.
Board Member Heineman asked Mr. Rick if a four-inch line is sufficient?
Mr. Rick answered that it should be sufficient. The area that it is actually collecting is a small area.
Board Member Heineman thanked Mr. Rick.
Vice Chairperson Marquer opened the public hearing. She invited the applicant to step forward and make
his presentation.
Mr. Leor Lakritz, the applicant, said he did not prepare a presentation. Mr. Lakritz's address is: 1272
Peacock Hill, Tustin, California. He did not feel a need to prepare a presentation as Ms. Rosenstein did a
good job. The project would be a nice addition in value for the redevelopment of the Carlsbad Village. He spent a lot of time to come up with a beautiful building. It will add some more rental space and office
space, which is in short supply in the Village. He asked the Board Members if they had any questions.
8oard Member Baker asked Mr. Lakritz if he had any idea to whom the retail space will be rented.
Mr. Lakritz said he did not have any idea. He did add that he owns quite a bit of space in the Vitlage and
he does not have any vacancy. He has a waiting list in case there is a vacancy.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 5 of 10 DRAFT
Board Member Paulsen asked about the 85% maximum parking utilization. He asked if it applies to
certain areas or all parking areas within the minimum distance of the proposed project.
Ms. Rosenstein answered that a couple of years ago staff developed a comprehensive parking program
for the Village Redevelopment Area and part of that parking program was determining the amount of the
Parking Inlieu Fee and how the City was going to charge for it. The utilization rate comes from an
assessment of all public parking lots. One of the exhibits in the Board Members packets depicts the
various public parking lots in the Village, which have a total of 710 parking spaces. Staff looks at the
overall utilization rates during different periods of time of all of our existing public parking lots.
Board Member Paulsen said he talked to one of the merchants in the Village and the merchant thought
there isn't enough parking close to his store. Is this a valid complaint?
Ms. Rosenstein responded that staff looks at the total public parking. For instance, there are a couple of parking lots located on Roosevelt Street, just one block away from the subject property, there are a couple
public parking lots located just south of Carlsbad Village Drive behind Fish House Vera Cruz on both sides
of the railroad tracks. All of which are looked at in assessing the total utilization rate. Staff also hears
complaints regarding the lack of available parking right in front of a business. We look at the public
parking lots in their entirety and try to encourage people to park and walk to do numerous errands in the
downtown area.
Vice Chairperson Marquez said she understands that the applicant does not have this building preleased. She asked if he was going to start construction without having the building preleased?
Mr. Lakritz answered in the affirmative.
Vice Chairperson Marquez continued that different uses for the commercial retail space, i.8. if it was to be
a full-service restaurant, would probably require additional parking.
Mr. Lakritz answered that whenever a tenant is applying for rental space, he sends them to the
Redevelopment Agency to ask questions and get information from Ms. Rosenstein or another staff
members to make sure that they understand what they have to do in order to qualify for this space.
Vice Chairperson Marquez continued that the Board does not want a parking situation in the Village.
Board Member Baker asked the applicant when he anticipates starting the demolition and when will this project begin?
Mr. Lakritz answered as soon as he gets the permit. He has been trying for the last two and a half years
now to arrive at this stage. He said possibly another two years.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked if staff wishes to respond to any of the Board's concerns or any
questions?
Ms. Rosenstein responded to the question of the restaurant use. At the present time, what is being
proposed is strictly retail, which is one parking space for every 300 square feet and office space on the
second floor also proposed at one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area, and that is
what we are going to be taking forward with the positive recommendation from the Design Review Board to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. There could be no changes to that unless they amend their redevelopment permit. If a restaurant use were proposed, we would have to look at an amendment to their Major Redevelopment Permit and return to the Design Review Board for a recommendation on parking participation before returning to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 6 of 10 DRAFT
Board Member Heineman asked Ms. Rosenstein based on the provisions she talked about, how many
parking spaces would be required.
Ms. Rosenstein asked for a restaurant use?
Board Member Heinernan said no, for the use that was outlined which would be retail on the first floor and
offices on the second.
Ms. Rosenstein answered there would be 21 parking spaces total.
Board Member Heineman asked if staff felt it could be handled in the present downtown parking situation?
Ms. Rosenstein answered in the affirmative.
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked fellow Board Members if they wished to discuss this among themselves or if the Board was ready to make a recommendation.
Board Member Heineman suggested that they start with Board Member Baker and then go down the line.
Board Member Baker said she is in favor of this project. She hopes that some interesting kind of retail will
go into this space beyond what currently seems to be arriving downtown to encourage more people to
shop in the area. Either an upscale clothing store or art gallery or just something beyond an antique store
or a used bookshop. She continued that this looks like a nice project and would attract some interesting
retail opportunities. She is in favor of the project.
Board Member Paulsen said he spent a part of an afternoon investigating the neighborhood downtown
and this looks like it would be a definite improvement and he feels favorable towards it.
Board Member Heineman added that he thinks it is a remarkably attractive building. He feels the
attractiveness is particularly important in that location. He sees no drawbacks and is very much in favor of
it.
Vice Chairperson Marquez said she feels it is a very attractive building and certainly an'upgrade,
considering what is there presently, and will be warmly received by the community. When looking at
redevelopment, these infill projects can be charming and bring character to our village as opposed to a
homogenous block development. I think that this is a nice, unique way to preserve our village character.
ACTION: Motion by Vice Chairperson Marquez, and duly seconded by Board Member
Baker, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 289, recommending approval of RP 01-04 to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
VOTE: 4-0-0
AYES:
NOES: None ABSTAIN : Lawson ABSENT: None
Baker, Paulsen, Heineman and Marquez
Board Member Lawson returned to join the Design Review Board.
STAFF PRESENTATION: Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, gave a presentation regarding the status
of redevelopment efforts from 1981 to present.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 7 of 10 DRAFT
Board Member Lawson thanked Ms. Fountain for her presentation. He commented on one item that was
not mentioned was the old theatre. He inquired as to whether or not anything was happening with that.
Ms. Fountain said over the years that staff has tried to encourage the theatre to do more regular
programming at that location where people could depend on every weekend. The current owner has
made the decision that it would be used as a rental property. Staff is still trying to encourage some more
regular programming. We are starting to see more activities there that are open to the general public.
One of the events we are holding in November is to have a movie week the week of Thanksgiving where
we’ll show movies every day, both matinee type movies and evening movies, and they will be with the
holiday theme. We are hoping this will show the current property owners that there is a demand for
regular shows and they will want to do a little bit more with the theatre. The property owners have done quite a bit of rehabilitation on the inside of the facility. They’ve added a movie screen and they have a little
stage, but it is still more used as a rental property.
Board Member Lawson commented he has been meaning to go inside of the theatre. He said he is a very
visual type of a person and staff speaks of a vision. He tries to draw an actual picture in his mind. Does
the City do that to determine what might be successful when looking at other cities for their successes or
failures. Some that come to mind are Santa Barbara, Capistrano, Laguna Beach, and on the flip side is Oceanside which has struggled for years and has invested a lot of money into the area including the theatre area, and I think it is questionable as to the success of that. Do you feel the Cdy of Carlsbad in the Village has a unique opportunity to be able to exploit these other ideas7 Maybe we don’t want to be like Laguna Beach or Santa Barbara, but those places have a remarkable viability. How do you draw a
comparison between Carlsbad and other cities, and are there some things that are unique that we can do
to mirror what might have been done in other cities?
Ms. Fountain answered that one of the things the staff did when working with the Advisory Committee was
ask that question. The response we received was that Carlsbad doesn‘t want to be like anyone else,
another specific City. We just want to be oursetves. We asked if Carlsbad would like to be like Carmel or
Santa Barbara or Monterey but we were told Carlsbad should be unique. We just want to be the Village.
One thing we tried to do through the Design Guidelines is to inquire as to the features wanted such as: do
you like the pedestrian orientation, do you want to make it a nice place to walk around, and do you want
interesting buildings? The guidelines depict the desired Village character at the time the Master Plan was
developed.
Board Member Lawson said the fawdes don’t have to look like Santa Barbara or Carmel, but there is a
formula associated with those cities, such as the types of businesses and the orientation to either the ease
of parking or the ratios of different types of uses. He doesn’t mean demolishing everything and starting
over for it to actually look like something else. He said he is in the Village about every day of the week
because he works there. There is a lot of uniqueness to it, but there is also a lot of sameness that
contributes to the under-utilization. Does the land use factor get influenced into the encouragement from
the development agency?
Ms. Fountain answered because we have the nine land use districts downtown, there is an effort to
provide a wide variety of mix of land uses. Everyday we struggle with trying to encourage the property
owners to not open another antique store or another coffee shop when we may already have, from some people’s opinion, too many. We actually do work with the property owners quite a bit in trying to
encourage them. Ultimately, who they decide to lease their property to, we can’t do much about as long
as it is consistent with the land use plan. Fortunately, we are starting to get some property owners that
have an interest in putting more exciting, interesting uses and we are starting to see that happen like with
Madison’s on State Street and Ohana’s the Hawaiian store. Staff has also been trying to help people to
understand the need for national chain type of businesses in the Village. Our goal is to try and provide a
good mix of businesses. We have started to team up with the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has
actually formed a subcommittee to try and work with property Owners in the downtown area to encourage
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 8 of 10 DRAFT
economic development and a better mix of businesses in the Village. We are trying to partner with the
Chamber of Commerce, which is positive. Though it may seem slow, good things are happening.
Board Member Baker commented she feek strongly that we need to strive for businesses that don‘t just
serve tourists. There aren’t many businesses in the Village that people who live in Carlsbad actually go
there for other then to eat. I would like to see us continue to strive for retail opportunities that people in
this community would go downtown for. She realizes there isn’t much staff can do about this. That is
what makes Santa Barbara unique. Not what it looks like, it is the variety of shopping and lots of activities
that makes you want to shop. She questioned about the assessed value. Is redevelopment different then
residential where the property tax doesn’t change unless the property has sold, or has the property sold
enough in this area or been upgraded enough that it would have triggered a reassessment by the county?
Ms. Fountain answered we are going to see an increase in tax increment if there is a resale because there
are not otherwise increases unless there is some substantial rehabilitation that would trigger a
reassessment. For a while, we saw property owners holding their property, not selling, and we weren’t
seeing increases in the tax increment, except through rehabilitation projects or new construction only. We
are starting to see more sales of property now and more interest coming in to actually develop properties.
These are developers we haven’t seen before, coming from the outside. Commercial property and residential property are going to be the same in the way taxes are assessed. We are starting to see a little more turnover in property, which helps with increases in property taxes.
Board Member Paulson inquired as to what is happening north of Chestnut.
Ms. Fountain asked if he was talking about Roosevelt, almost near Walnut.
Board Member Baker asked if he meant Madison.
Board Member Paulson agreed that it is Madison.
Board Member Baker said it is Pine School. The maintenance yard was moved.
Ms. Fountain agreed that it is the Pine School site the City purchased and it will be a park in the future.
Board Member Heineman said there will be a community center on that site also.
Ms. fountain agreed that yes it will probably be a park and commundy center. The City is going through the Master Planning process right now. That property is not in the redevelopment area.
Board Member Heineman said that three or four years ago at the League of California Cities Annual
Planning session, there were two very interesting sessions regarding the upgrading of downtown areas,
similar to ours. One of the things that they mentioned was that they were stealing retailers from the local
mall. Are we faced with that same problem? For instance, if we get a Gap, there probably won’t be a Gap
at the mall. The many stores that go into malls would help our downtown area a great deal. Do we ignore
them if they are in the mall?
Ms. Fountain answered that we don’t ignore them, but most businesses like that will have certain
demographics and they don’t have stores too close to each other. We have started to see more stores,
not necessarily in our redevelopment area, but in redevelopment in general moving out of shopping malls
into downtown areas. We haven’t seen that happen yet, because I don’t think our demographics are
showing that there are enough customers in the area for their type of product, but there may be in the
future. As we add residentiat we start to create a customer base that we are hoping will attract more of
those types of businesses into the downtown area.
Board Member Heineman stated that Starbucks is about the only one.
73
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 9 of 10 DRAFT
Ms. Fountain agreed, and said we had to encourage Starbucks to come to our downtown. Those are
things that are challenges. As the city continues to develop with other shopping areas that will continue to
be a challenge as businesses pick where they want to go and what customers they are serving.
Board Member Lawson responded that he had heard that some of the major retailers are developing a
different division of their own self that is tailored for a smaller shop into some of these places in
redevelopment areas. He asked if staff is aware of some of those.
Ms. Fountain agreed and said they are changing. They are not requiring as big of an establishment and
they are going into village type areas, such as La Jolla. We haven‘t seen that in the Village yet for several
reasons, but we hope it might happen in the future.
Board Member Lawson asked if there is any marriage counselors available of some sori that would direct
our owners to some of those sources?
Ms. Fountain said we do try to encourage that, but one of the areas in which we’re going to step up our
efforts is related to the economic development component to seek those types of businesses a little more
aggressively. We will work with the property owners that have space available.
Board Member Lawson asked if that was a campaign that is put on by the City similar to when the City of
San Diego tries to get the Super Bowl, that you put on a dog and pony show?
Ms. Fountain agreed and said we actually need to give the business owners the demographics for the area because a lot of them don’t know about new projects that are coming into town. They may not realize that there is a market that maybe they are not paying attention to. We are going to try and step up
our efforts to inform and encourage desired businesses. We have done it to a certain degree already where we sent out letters to some of those types of desirable businesses and encourage them to come in,
but it will take a lot more proactive effort to actually get them in.
Vice Chairperson Marquez inquired about the Parking-ln-Lieu Fee, the program’s boundaries. Since our parking lots are currently under-utilized. do you see any chance those boundaries could be extended? At one time there was a project, the Escrow Building that was built downtown, that just barely made it in and was able to participate in the program. There are so many infill properties in the downtown area that aren’t able to be improved because they are so narrow and small. Do you foresee any of that? Do you foresee any new public art projects? We lost the controversial sculpture park. Do you see anything in the
way of public art coming to our downtown? Also, the concerts at Heritage Park seem to be very successful. She asked if there was going to be any further implementation of major public improvement
projects such as a pier or any kind of lagoon enhancement for the lagoon to the north, the Buena Vista Lagoon that is an entryway into our downtown. Ray Patchett mentioned something about the railroad
bridge being retrofitted. Any further streetscape programs in the Village that are going to happen? Maybe
even repaving in the Village due to the sewer line improvement that has just gone on and it has trashed
our streets.
Ms. Fountain said one thing she‘d like to share before answering those questions is we have a situation right now where the current redevelopment plan for the Village Area expires in 2006. We have until 2004
to incur any new debt so we only have a couple of years before we can no longer incur debt. We have a
team right now looking at whether or not we can extend the Redevelopment Plan or not. There are certain
findings that you have to make to be able to extend. The honest answer is there are no big projects in the works right now because of the question regarding financing for them. We wouldn’t be able to issue bonds, which is some of what we had done to get the streetscape project. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t other little projects in the works, for example the sewer lines that they are putting in right now; they
do plan to go back and repave the streets. Some of those types of things are in the works and will
continue to be in the works.
74
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23,2002
PAGE 10 of 10
Ms. Fountain continued, in terms of art projects, there isn’t anything on the horizon right now and probably
from a political standpoint, there isn’t going to be any big type of project. There may be some small
projects that might be implemented. We do have a new Arts Manager, and I don’t know what all of his
goals are for different areas. I think the concerts in the parks will probably continue. There might be other
activities that will be encouraged in the Village area, on a small scale. In terms of streetscape, most has
already been done. There may be other efforts made like on Grand Avenue. We are looking at ways to
increase on-street parking so we might look at diagonal parking on Grand, which might result in some
other streetscape, but those will be incremental rather then one comprehensive streetscape project. We are at a point of winding down on redevelopment projects, not on private projects. If the plan is extended,
that might bring on some new projects. We are definitely trying to look at additional public parking in the downtown area so that is more likely what you will see in terms of public projects. We are trying to work
with North County Transit District on a parking structure on their property and maybe in another location as well. From a financing standpoint, that will probably be one of our biggest projects that will be in the works in the next couple of years.
Vice Chairperson Marquez thanked Ms. Fountain.
NEW BUSINESS
Vice Chairperson Marquez asked the Board Members if they’d like to nominate a new Chairperson to the
Board.
Board Member Lawson nominated Sarah Marquez to operate as the Chair during the upcoming session.
Board Member Heineman said it is only a one-year term and he seconded Sarah Marquez to Chair.
The nomination for Chairperson was closed. Sarah Marquez was approved as the new Chair.
Vice Chairperson Marquez opened the nomination for Vice Chair for the Board.
Board Member Baker nominated Courtney Heineman.
Vice Chairperson Marquez seconded Courtney Heineman’s nomination. All Board Members are in favor
and Courtney Heineman was approved as the new Vice-Chair.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of September 23,2002 was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENT1
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FlLE UNTlL THE WRlTTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
NOVEMBER 7,2002
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment
291 7 State St. Commercial Building - Letter Received
The Housing and Redevefopment Department received the attached letter from
Mr. Harry Guzelimian in response to the public hearing notice for the above
referenced project. The project is scheduled to be heard by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission on November 12, 2002. This information is being
forwarded to you for review and distribution to the Commission.
If you have any questions, please contact me at x2813. I will also be available
for C- briefings as scheduled for Tuesday, November 12*.
LORI H. ROSENSTEIN
Management Analyst
Harry L. Guzelimian Managing Partner of
Elm Avenue Commercial
A Tenancy-In-Common Partnership P. 0. Box 206
Solana Beach, CA 92075-0206
October 22, 2002
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CITY OF CARLSBAD 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Major Redevelopment Permit CASE FILE NO. "RP 01-04" 2917 State Street Commercial Building
'I'TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN"
Dear Sir or Madam:
RECEIVED
The City of Carlsbad has acquired several parcels, throughout Carls-
bad Village area, to provide Public Parking for the benefit of the
existing Commercial Properties which had been developed years ago when Onsite Parking had not been given much consideration and St- reet Parking had been felt to be adequate, when population was ra- ther sparse!
I strongly believeland I am sure many other existing Property and Business Owners feel the same way (except that most people are me- ek and do not come out to speak their mind openly: they only com- plain within themselves, unfortunately), that the existing Public Parking Sites are to serve the existing Commercial Facilities and
Businesses. As New Developments are added without the provision of adequate onsite Parking, it defeats the main purpose for which the existing Public Parking Sites were provided and will overload them rendering them inadequate, specially with the, evergrowing population because of Carlsbad's Reputation as a very desirable Coastal North San Diego County Community "VILLAGE BY-THE-SEA"I
In fact, allowing new development without onsite parking is just
as shortsighted as the forebearers who thought only street par- king was adequate; they did not foresee the impending population
growth that took place!
So, speaking on behalf of the Property Owner Group I represent, plus all of the other meek and silent Property and Business Ow- ners, I strongly oppose the City's Permitting New Developments without Adequate Onsite Parking Availability1 BIG MISTAKElll
I do not know how pactically applicable is the "Parking In-Lieu Fee Program"? By the City lulling itself and believing that the "Parking In-Lieu Fee" solves the problem is, at best, very naive, because overloading a specific Business Area's Public ParkingLot will render it inadequate affecting that Area's Businesses adver- sely and the provision of a new parking lot, with the In-Lieu Fees collected, in an area unrelated to the affected Business Ar- ea will not help the adversely affected Businesses! ENOUGH SAID!
If the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is wiser than their Forebearers, it will give this point strong cosideration and act accordingly in a Farsighted Manner! GOOD LUCK!!!
Respectfully submitted,
B Commercial Property Owner and Represen- tative of Elm Avenue Commercial, a Te- nancy-In-Common Partnership, Commercial
Property Owner.
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
(he 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
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Re4wed //-/z92
North County Times Proof of Publication of
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times- Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at , California
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
STATESTREET Oct*d1s, Fnids
MIXED USE PROJECT 2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, November 12,2002 to consider approval of a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RPO1-04) for the construction of a 2-story, 6,172 square foot
commercial building consisting of 3,296 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 2,876
square feet of office space on the second floor on property located at 29 17 State Street. The
proposed project also includes the demolition of three existing buildings (927 square feet of
retail, 440 square feet of storage, and a 1,2 12 square foot residential unit). No on-site parking is
being proposed; the applicant is requesting participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program to
satisfy the parking requirement for the project.
The proposed project is located on the west side of State Street between Carlsbad Village Drive
and Grand Avenue in Land Use District No. 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
(Assessor Parcel Number 203-293-10).
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staffreport, please contact Lori
Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-28 13. You may also
provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965
Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA)
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Department
has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents 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 Housing and Redevelopment Commission will be
considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence defivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 at, or prior to, the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 01 -04
CASE NAME: 2917 STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18,2002
STATESTREET MIXED USE PROJECT
RP 01-04
Anastasi Development Co L L C 1200 Aviation Blvd Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Anastasi Development Corp 1200 Aviation Blvd 203 Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Luvik & Veronica Grigoras 2802 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92008
Catheryn T Christiansen 2601 Airport Dr 300 Torrance, CA 90505
Catheryn T Christiansen 2601 Airport Dr 300 Torrance, CA 90505
Ralph F Burnette
390 Grand Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mezrahi
110 E 9Th St C871 Los Angeles, CA 90079
Llc I Catalyst 3252 Holiday Ct 225 La Jolla, CA 92037
Tlf Investments Partnership 3130 Wilshire Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90403
Ted T Tanaka
11307 Hindry Ave Los Angeles, CA 90045
Anastasi Development Corp
1200 Aviation Blvd 100 Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Anastasi Development Corp 1200 Aviation Blvd 100 Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Ralph F & Lana Burnette 390 Grand Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ralphf T & Lana Burnette 2601 Airport Dr 300 Torrance, CA 90505
Gericos Ptnshp 850 Tamarack Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ralphf T & Lana Burnette 2601 Airport Dr 300 Torrance, CA 90505
Mezrahi 110 E 9Th St C871 Los Angeles, CA 90079
Llc I Catalyst
3252 Holiday Ct 225 La Jolla, CA 92037
Tlf Investments Partnership 3130 Wilshire Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90403
David R Thompson 580 Beech Ave C Carlsbad, CA 92008
Daniel C Wiehle 2148 S Pearl Dr Camp Verde, AZ 86322
Dewhurst Family 3425 Seacrest Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dunham 4028 Park Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008
Marital T Howard-Jones
2785 Roosevelt St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tr Ward 32 Marigold Irvine, CA 92614
Roosevelt Tamarack Investment
6 Venture 215 Irvine, CA 92618
Ester Ahronee 4440 Cather Ave San Diego, CA 92122
Village Corner L L C
2998 State St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Abel C Garcia 2960 State St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Douglas M Avis 234 3Rd St Encinitas, CA 92024
Daniel C Wiehle
2148 S Pearl Dr Camp Verde, A2 86322
Dewhurst Family 3425 Seacrest Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dewhurs t
3425 Seacrest Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008
Frances L Smith PO Box 864 Carlsbad, CA 92018
Ostrie PO Box 8 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Bieri-Avis Vi Ltd 5055 Avenida Encinas 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Macdonald Properties L P & Ma 2016 Sheridan Rd Encinitas, CA 92024
Carlsbad Inn Ltd 1438 Lemon St Oceanside, CA 92054
Leo & Dianna Pacheco
2100 Chestnut Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mission Square Shopping Cente
1691 Caminito Aliviado La Jolla, CA 92037
Harold V & Catherine Clarke 824 Caminito Del Reposo Carlsbad, CA 92009
2921 Roosevelt Ltd *M* 365 Sunset Dr Encinitas, CA 92024
Boyer Nancy L
602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054
Boyer Nancy L 602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054
Boyer Nancy L 602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054
Leor & Ophira Lakritz PO Box 1029 Tustin, CA 92781
Leor & Ophira Lakritz PO Box 1029 Tustin, CA 92781
Leor & Ophira Lakritz PO Box 1029 Tustin, CA 92781
Baumgartner PO Box 1333 Newport, Beach, CA 92659
Bill F & Laura1 Ryburn 2019 Estero St Oceanside, CA 92054
Marvin S & Idella Humphreys 140 Acacia Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008
Clark R & Shelley Knapp 215 W Palm St San Diego, CA 92103
Boyer Nancy L 602 S Pacific St Oceanside, CA 92054
Gunter PO Box 749 San Pedro, CA 90733
Tr Betz 3240 Donna Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008
Leor & Ophira Lakritz PO Box 1029 Tustin, CA 92781
Leor & Ophira Lakritz PO Box 1029 Tustin, CA 92781
Sat terly 1349 Melrose Way Vista, CA 92083
Butler Properties
1229 Linda Vista Dr San Marcos, CA 92069
George R & Jackye Willis 2050 Laurie Cir Carlsbad, CA 92008
Harry L & Alice Guzellimian PO Box 206 Solana Beach, CA 92075
Rosalie T Kopp PO Box 764 Oceanside, CA 92049
Jerry Peters PO Box 1091 Cardiff By T, CA 92007
*** 63 Printed ***
Michael K & Howard Murphy 400 N La Costa Dr Carlsbad, CA 92009
City Of Carlsbad Redevelopmen Public Agency Carlsbad, CA 92008
Great Western Bank PO Box 7788 Newport Beach, CA 92658
Great Western Bank PO Box 7788 Newport Beach, CA 92658
Walker-Gilbert Tr 4350 Highland Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tr Sims 2820 Wilson St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sara C Teran 305 Date Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008
Vermilyea Gsd 11620 Kismet Rd San Diego, CA 92128
John M & Nina Gordon PO Box 130065 Carlsbad, CA 92013
Great Western Bank PO Box 7788 Newport Beach, CA 92658
City Of Carlsbad Redevelopmen Public Agency Carlsbad, CA 92018
Bank Of America Nt&Sa 750 B St 1500 San Diego, CA 92101
Carlsbad Village Partners
872 Chelsea Ln Encinitas, CA 92024
Carlsbad Village Partners 872 Chelsea Ln Encinitas, CA 92024
*** 14 Printed ***
Peacock 2763 State St Caxlsbad, CA 92008
Ralph F & Lan Burnette 390 Grand Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008
Marital T Howard-Jones
2785 Roosevelt St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad Equity Properties 2965 Roosevelt St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Pal ens car 2739 State St Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert L Nielsen 355 Carlsbad Villagedr Carlsbad, CA 92008
Village Corner L L C 2998 State St Carlsbad, CA 92008
*** 7 Printed ***
sb
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to noticev
BUILDING (RP 01-04) 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 *Housing and
Redevelopment Commission meeting on 2002. +cia\
Thank you.
c 10 Is Io2 -
HOUSING 81 REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE
537
z 0 C CD 3
1
N
Y
0 S
v)
CQ
ga n CD Q
0
(D
0 0
CD
0
9)
U
v) I
I CD
v) -L
3 I
E
I
P 0 N 9A . < I. D n, S
v) CD 3; CD CD 3
9) S CL
a 773' cu CD U
U a - 3 I
~
9) r+ CD 1 0 . P) 0
v) CD n,
CD S nl 0 0 30 CDl 0 - CQ 3 x
-W 3 n CD CD
S 3 0
v) CD
v)
-. tQ 0 z
Q
9)
CD . 3 S 0 0 CD 9) r U 9) < 3
v)
v)
- r+ 3- CD -0 =0 a3 (D l 3 S CD
K a 9) W U
I- a 3 . 'tl tD tD
nl
v) CD 773' CD 0 . Y 3 0 r
v,
ZT CD W CD
(D 3
9) 9) - 11 7 CD 3 LT
9)
9)
3
U
a a
3 3
c. 0
CD7 sa