HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-25; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 386; Salmen Insurance Commercial Office BuildingHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILI
Qai
OocQL
V)
OO
AB# 386
MTG. 4/25/06
DEPT. HIRED
TITLE:
SALMEN INSURANCE
RP 04-26
DEPT. HD.<&(^X^
f3*p>
CITYATTY. ^&-~-~
CITYMGR ^M&J*
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 416 . APPROVING a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26) for the construction of a 2-story, 3,326 square foot
commercial office building on property located at 955 Grand Avenue as recommended by the Design
Review Board, and ADOPT Resolution No. 417 APPROVING a Parking In-Lieu Fee Agreement
for said project.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On February 27, 2006, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit for a two-story, 3,326 square foot commercial office building in Land
Use District 3 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 6,188 square foot site is located on
the south side of Grand Avenue just east of Hope Avenue.
The site is bordered by a Motel 6 to the east, a vacant property to the south, a one-story and two-
story apartment building to the west, and a residential use across Grand Avenue to the north. The
remainder of the block is comprised of a mixture of uses of various sizes including; office buildings,
apartment projects, and single-family homes.
The subject property measures 56.3 feet wide by 110 feet deep, totaling 6,188 square feet. The lot
currently contains a residential use that has been converted into an office use for Salmen Insurance.
The proposed development consists of the construction of a two-story commercial office building
comprised of two levels of office space and surface level parking. The ground floor includes one 134
square foot commercial office suite, nine parking spaces, an elevator, an elevator machine room,
and a trash enclosure. The second floor of the building consists of five office suites with a combined
total of 2,768 square feet of leasable office space, three balconies, an open terrace area, and
common restroom facilities. The property owner intends for his insurance company to lease the
majority of the building.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend
approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following:
1. Participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of two parking spaces.
The approving resolution along with the Design Review Board staff report and the draft minutes of
the February 27th meeting are attached for the Commission's review. In addition, the necessary
resolution and corresponding Parking In-Lieu Participation Agreement, enabling the property owners
to participate in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, are attached for the Commission's review and
approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the
State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an
PAGE 2
urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments were
received on the environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental
determination is included in the attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission resolution.
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 $403,147. With the new construction, it is estimated that
the assessed value will increase to approximately $1.5 million. The increase in value will result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $10,969
per year. Finally, it is anticipated that the project will 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.
The current Village Parking In-Lieu Fee is $11,240 per required parking space to be provided off-site.
With a requirement to pay for two (2) parking spaces, the total revenue to the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency Parking Fund will be $22,480.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 416 . APPROVING RP04-26.
2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 417 . APPROVING a Parking In-Lieu
Fee Participation Agreement between the Commission and Leslie Ann Salvagio, property owner
at 955 Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Area.
3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 306, dated February 27, 2006.
4. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated February 27, 2006 w/attachments.
5. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated February 27, 2006.
6. Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement between the Commission and Leslie Ann Salvagio.
Contact: Cliff Jones, Housing & Redevelopment Department, (760) 434-2813,
cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 416
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
3 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP 04-26,
4 INCLUDING PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE
PROGRAM FOR A MAXIMUM OF TWO PARKING SPACES, FOR THE
5 CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,326 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE
6 BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 955 GRAND AVENUE IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 3 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
7 REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
8 APPLICANT: BART SMITH
CASE NO: RP 04-26
9
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a
11 duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26) for the
12
construction of a 3,326 square foot commercial office building on property located at 955 Grand
13
Avenue, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 306 recommending to the Housing
1, and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26) be approved;
16 md
17 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on
18 the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and
1" heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26); and
20 WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting participation in the
21 Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of two parking spaces; and
22
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted
23
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
26 categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant
27 to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less
28 than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities.
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
4 2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26) is APPROVED and that the findings
5
and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 306, on file in the City
6
Clerk's Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission with the addition of one condition to read as follows:
o
9 a. The developer is required to install a garage door at the entrance of the proposed
I o office building as depicted in Design Review Board Exhibit No. E dated February 27, 2006 and
I1 that the door shall remain open during business hours.
12 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
14 comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that:
15
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
16
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
17
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than
18
five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses;
19
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
20
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
21
noise, air quality, or water quality; and
22
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
23
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination reflects the
24
independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
25
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and26
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
28
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
"Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which
has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16.
Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not
later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended
to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of record, if he/she has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008."
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25thday of April ,
2006 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTE
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, SECRETAR \ 1970 j" ° '• f
5
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 417
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
8 M
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
9
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26) for the construction
of a 3,326 square foot commercial office building on property located at 955 Grand Avenue, and11
12
13
14
15
23
24
25
26
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND LESLIE ANN
SALVAGIO, PROPERTY OWNER, FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
SALMEN INSURANCE AT 955 GRAND AVENUE, APN: 203-320-02, IN
THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
APPLICANT: BART SMITH
CASE NO: RP 04-26
adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 306 recommending to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26) be approved; and
WHEREAS, on 4/25/06 , the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a
Major Redevelopment Permit (No. 04-26) to allow Leslie Ann Salvagio, Property Owner, to
construct a 3,326 square foot commercial office building on property located at 955 Grand
17 Avenue (Assessor Parcel # 203-320-02) within the Village Redevelopment Area of the City of
18 Carlsbad; and
19
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of Major Redevelopment Permit 04-26, the
20
Commission and Property Owner agreed to enter into an agreement to allow the Property Owner
21
to participate in the Village Redevelopment Parking In-Lieu Fee Program to satisfy a portion of
the on-site parking requirement for the subject project; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners has agreed, by acceptance of the project conditions of
approval, to pay the established Parking In-Lieu Fee for a total of two (2) parking spaces to
satisfy a portion of the on-site parking requirement for the approved office project located at 955
HRC RESO
PAGE 1
28
1 Grand Avenue within the Village Redevelopment Area of the City; and
2 WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the subject property and project has qualified to
3 participate in the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency's Parking In-Lieu Fee Program and
participation in the program will satisfy a maximum of two (2) of the required parking spaces for
the subject office project on the noted property at 955 Grand Avenue; and
6
WHEREAS, the Commission has previously determined that the proposed project is
7
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual; and
8
WHEREAS, the Commission has previously determined that there is adequate public
parking available within the Village Redevelopment Area to accommodate a portion of the
I j subject project's parking demands; and
12 WHEREAS, the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program is in full force and effect as of the date of
13 this Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement.
14
15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
17
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
18
19 2. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby approves the Village
20 Parking In-Lieu Fee Participation Agreement between the Commission, on behalf of
21 the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, and Leslie Ann Salvagio, property owner of the
22 project known as the Salmen Insurance which is to be constructed at 955 Grand
23 Avenue, in the Village Redevelopment Area of the City of Carlsbad.
24 3. That the Chairperson of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is hereby
25 authorized to execute said Agreement, and the City Clerk is requested to forward the
26
HRC RESO
PAGE 2
28
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
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 25th
day of April , 2006 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
0\UI Hit,
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, SECRETARY = 5j :g= %\ 1970 Jj.
"''**'•" "o*s^
HRC RESO
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT 3
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 306
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 306
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-26, INCLUDING
4 PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR A
MAXIMUM OF TWO PARKING SPACES, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
3,326 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
6 LOCATED AT 955 GRAND AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 3 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
7 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: SALMEN ISURANCE BUILDING
8 APN: 203-320-02
9 CASE NO: RP 04-26
10 WHEREAS, Bart M. Smith, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Phil and Leslie
12
Salvagio, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-320-02, and more thoroughly
13
described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); an^14
15 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
16 shown on Exhibits "A-J" dated February 27, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17 Department, "Salmen Insurance Building RP 04-26", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
18 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
19 ,hWHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 27 day of February 2006, hold a duly
20
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
23 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
24 "Salmen Insurance Building RP 04-26".
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
26
follows:
27
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.28
)0
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Salmen Insurance Building RP 04-26,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
4
e- 1. The Housing & Redevelopment 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
6 the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
7 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, hi making
this determination, the Housing & Redevelopment Director has found that the exceptions
9 listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
10 2. 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
j2 Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated February 27,2006 including, but
13 not limited to the following:
14 a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
. as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a commercial office
project in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides
16 greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the
area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence
17 to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
18 b. The project is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
in Design Manual in that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the
goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 3 through the following
20 actions: 1) the project provides permitted professional office use in a new
structure; 2) the building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby
21 residential uses by incorporating many of a same architectural elements found in
~~ residential projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back
from the street and surrounded by landscaping.
23
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
24 Use District 3, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
26 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
27 improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian
2° circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design,
DRB RESO NO. 306 -2-
landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to
2 serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and
implement a program of "best management practices" for the elimination and
3 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
5 requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
the City's Landscape Manual.
7
3. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances.
n 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;
10 drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
11 serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
12 a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
13 issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
14 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.
16
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
17 conditions of approval.
I o10 c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
j n be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
20
4. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
21 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.
23 5. The Design Review Board finds that the Developer/Property owner qualifies to participate in
24 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
25 Program is contained in the following findings:
^f\a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
27 a commercial office use in an appropriate location within the Village. The
project provides greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian
28 orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale
DRB RESO NO. 306 -3-\cl
through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for
2 the area.
3 b. 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
4 for Land Use District 3 through the following actions: 1) the project provides
g. permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2) the building is
designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating
5 many of a same architectural elements found in residential projects; and 3) the
project consists of an individual building set back from the street and
7 surrounded by an abundance of landscaping.
o c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's
9 parking demands. Based on the most recent parking study completed in August
of 2005, the average occupancy for all public parking lots is 83%. This
10 utilization ratio allows for continued implementation of the parking in-lieu fee
program because it is less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set
11 by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
12 d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing
13 and Redevelopment Commission.
14 GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
16 building permits.
17 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
1 ° implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
i n 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
20 building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
21 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Major Redevelopment
23 Permit.
24 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
2£ Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
27
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
2° and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
DRB RESO NO. 306 -4-
1
2 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
3 challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
- without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
6 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
7 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
9 approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
10 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
12 energy waves or emissions.
13 6. 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.
7. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
16 reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
format.
17
8. 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.
20 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.
22 10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
23 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
24 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.
26 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS;
27 14. 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
DRBRESONO. 306 -5-
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
4 15. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
r 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
6 Directors of Community Development and/or Housing and Redevelopment.
7 NOTICING CONDITIONS:
o
16. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
9 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
10 successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 306 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
12 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
13 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.
15 ON-SITE CONDITIONS:
16
17. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site
17 plan (Exhibit "B") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
19 materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment
Director.
20 18. 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
22 comply with the approved plan.
23 19. 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.
25 20. Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 9 parking spaces, as shown on
26 Exhibit "B".
21. 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
two (2) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space in
DRB RESO NO. 306 -6-
effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of parking spaces
2 needed to satisfy the project's parking requirement (2 spaces total).
3 22. Solid masonry walls shall be installed along all common lot lines that adjoin an
existing residential use.
4 "
<- 23. Design & installation of a garage door/gate at the entrance to the proposed office
building will be reviewed and considered by City and Redevelopment Agency staff
5 to enhance the architecture of the building. If deemed appropriate from an
operational and design standpoint the Housing & Redevelopment Director may
7 approve final installation of said garage door or gate.
8 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS;
9 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
10 the following code requirements.
11 Fees
12 23. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
14 24. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
15
25. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
I 7 with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
18
General
19
26. 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 the time of
2j building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
22 27. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
23
29. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village
25 Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and approval
of the Housing & Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs.
26
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
27
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed redevelopment, must be met prior to approval of a building or
DRB RESO NO. 306 -7- I (A
grading permit whichever occurs first.
2 General;
28. 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.
29. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
6 the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
7
Fees/Agreements8
30. 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
I o drainage across the adjacent property.
II 31. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
13 Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
14 Grading
15 32. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
17 unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued for offsite grading activity. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain
18 an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City
Engineer and Planning Director.
20 33. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
21 Site Plan and preliminary grading plan, a grading permit for this project is required.
Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to
22 issuance of a building permit for the project.
34. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", photo mylar of the
site plan and preliminary grading plan reflecting the conditions as approved by the final
decision making body (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals). The
25 reproducible shall be submitted to the City Engineer, reviewed and, if acceptable, signed
by the City's project engineer and project planner prior to submittal of the building plans,
26 final map, improvement or grading plans, whichever occurs first.
27 35. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or
2g other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the site plan.
DRBRESONO. 306 -8- '
The offer shall be made by a separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be
2 offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already
public are not required to be rededicated.
3
36. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
- with any grading or building permit.
6 37. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
7 improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including, but not
limited to: Paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading,
clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire
hydrants, street lights, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
improvements are:
10
a) Half Street improvements to Grand Avenue including of/site transitions and
11 drainage improvements.
b) Removal and undergrounding of existing power pole and utilities as shown on
12 the site plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
14 development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
15 38. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
17 "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas or City right-of-way.
18 Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and
19 tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established
disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste
products.
22 B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
23 solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be
discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
24 conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
25 requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
26 C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when
planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 306 -9-
39. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
2 Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Manangement Plan (SWMP)".
The SWMP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established
3 by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and
City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWMP shall address measures to reduce, to the
4 maximum extent practicable, storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and post-
- construction stages of the project. The SWMP shall:
/- a) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
b) Recommend source control and structural Best Management Practices to filter said
7 pollutants.
c) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations
8 and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling
clean up and disposal of pollutants.
9 d) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
10
Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
13
40. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
14 prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 306 -10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 27th day of February 2006 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Heineman, Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
NONE
Marquez
N/A
'ERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 306 -11-
EXHIBIT 4
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
DATED FEBRUARY 27,2006
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
Application Complete Date: Staff: Cliff Jones
12/10/2004 Clyde Wickham
Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: February 27, 2006
SUBJECT: RP 04-26 - "SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING": Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a 2-story, 3,326 square foot
commercial office building on the property located at 955 Grand Avenue in Land
Use District 3 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 306
recommending APPROVAL of RP 04-26 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation which is greater than $150,000.
The project requires a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested, consider
the public testimony and staff's recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then
take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the following request:
1) participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of two parking
spaces.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore a Coastal Development
Permit is not required.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The property owners, Phil and Leslie Salvagio, have requested a Major Redevelopment Permit
for the construction of a 2-story, 3,326 square foot commercial office building on property
located at 955 Grand Avenue in Land Use District 3 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area. The property is located on the south side of Grand Avenue just east of Hope Avenue.
The site is bordered by a Motel 6 to the east, a vacant property to the south, a one-story and a
two-story apartment building to the west, and single-family residences across Grand Avenue to
eta
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 2
the north. The remainder of the block is comprised of a mixture of uses of various sizes
including apartment buildings, single-family homes, motels, and office uses.
The subject property measures 56.3 feet wide by 110 feet deep, totaling 6,188 square feet.
Salmen Insurance currently occupies the existing single-family residence that was converted
into an office use. The proposed development consists of the construction of a two-story
commercial office building comprised of two levels of office space and surface level parking.
The ground floor includes one 134 square foot commercial office suite, nine parking spaces, an
elevator, and a trash enclosure. The second floor of the building consists of five office suites
totaling 2,768 square feet, three private balconies, an open terrace area, and restroom facilities.
IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves,
enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic
and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City
which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate
in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3)
a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation
corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety
of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social
environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a commercial office building in an appropriate
location within the Village. The project provides greater employment opportunities, enhances
the pedestrian orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale
through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping. Working and Living Environment.
The proposed project will result in development of a new office facility, which will have a positive
visual impact on the area. The positive visual appeal assists in the effort to create a quality
shopping, working and living environment. In addition, the project will increase the amount of
new office space in the area, which will improve the overall working environment.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The proposed
project has a strong street presence and promotes greater pedestrian activity by providing
enhanced landscaping and design along Grand Avenue.
Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the Village. 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
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 3
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 District 3 by providing for an appropriate intensity of
development that is compatible with the surrounding area.
Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The proposed project converts
an underutilized, blighted site into a physically attractive project. The proposed project
promotes the following objectives:
• It creates a sense of design unity and character while also encouraging design
diversity;
• It establishes a commercial building whose scale, character, and architectural design
are compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods;
• It minimizes the land area required to accommodate additional parking in the Village
by participating in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program; and
• It results in a design which is sensitive to surrounding development within the area.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, office uses are classified as
permitted uses within Land Use District 3 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses
are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are considered to be
consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although, these land uses may
be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review Process and compliance
with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still required.
The overall vision for the development of District 3 is to accommodate traveler services
normally associated with freeway interchanges as well as those services that meet the needs of
the broader Carlsbad community. However, since the project is located off Grand Avenue at an
inconvenient location for travelers and residents passing along Interstate 5, an office project
better suits the project site and is compatible with the office support area directly to the west.
The office support area to the west encourages small office structures designed to reinforce a
Village scale and character. The development standards promote individual buildings set back
from the street and surrounded by landscaping intended to provide a quality office environment
within close proximity to shops, restaurants and other services provided in the Village.
Permitted land uses in District 3 include all office uses, certain commercial services such as
barber and beauty shops, dry cleaners, laundromats, nail salons, travel agencies, and all retail
businesses. Provisional uses include the following: multi-family dwelling units, churches,
entertainment and recreation uses such as bowling alleys, night clubs, performing arts centers
and some commercial services, such as automobile related services, hotels, motels, and self
improvement services such as dance and music schools. The land use standards encourage
the phasing out of existing single-family residential uses over time. The development standards
for District 3 also encourage any new non-residential development to be designed in a manner
that respects the area's residential character.
Staff believes that the proposed commercial office project assists in satisfying the goals and
objectives set forth for Land Use District 3 through the following actions: 1) the project provides
permitted professional office use in a new structure; 2) the building is designed in a manner that
compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating many of a same architectural elements
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 4
found in residential projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back from
the street and surrounded by landscaping.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 3 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 3, the front yard setback is 5-
20 feet, the side yard setbacks are 5 feet minimum and the rear yard setbacks is 5-10 feet. All
setbacks are measured from property lines. In addition to these setback standards, parking is
not permitted in either the front or the rear yard setback areas. The front yard setback of the
proposed building is 5 feet from front property line. On the south side of the building, the
setback is 5 feet from side property line. On the north side of the building, the setback is 5 feet
from side property line. The rear yard setback of the proposed building is 5 feet from the rear
property line. A majority of the ground floor is devoted to required parking, however, there is no
parking located within the required front, side, or rear yard setbacks.
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 apply to those portions of the building on the front, sides, and rear that fall within
the established setback range. The findings noted above for allowing a reduction of the front,
rear, and side yard setbacks to the minimum of the range are justified as follows: 1) The
proposed project is in a location which has varying setbacks and will, therefore, not have an
adverse impact on surrounding properties. The reduced standard will minimize visual and noise
impacts to surrounding properties by allowing the parking to be contained within the structure.
The subject property is only 56.3 feet wide, therefore the reduced setback standards are
necessary in order to allow the applicant to provide as much on-site parking as possible with
adequate screening from public view. Second, the reduced standard will assist in developing a
project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the land
use objectives in that the project will replace a single-family residence with a visually appealing
project with a scale and character that will improve the appearance and condition of the
neighborhood, helping to stimulate property improvements and further new development in the
Village. Further, the proposed office use will further enhance Carlsbad Village as a quality,
working environment. Lastly, the reduced standard will assist in creating a project design that is
interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through
setbacks that provide adequate space for landscape planters and decorative paving at the
ground floor, and allows building recesses and relief along the various building planes. The
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27,2006
PAGES
reduced standard will assist in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the street
and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more appealing which is
a primary goal of the Village Design guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Based on
these findings, it is staff's position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements
set forth for Land Use District 3.
Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects
in Land Use District 3 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 72%,
which is near the middle of the established range. Therefore, the building coverage is in
compliance with the established standard.
Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 3 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. However, per the Village Master Plan, the maximum height may be increased to 45
feet for any size project where residential or commercial is located over a parking structure. As
defined in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, building height is measured from the lower of
existing or finished grade. Based on this definition, the maximum building height of the
proposed project is 34 feet as measured from existing grade and therefore meets the building
height requirements. The proposed roof pitch is 5:12 and therefore meets the minimum
required roof pitch.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Per the Village Master Plan, open space may be
dedicated to landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens,
balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the
open space. Qualified open space for the proposed project includes: landscape and
hardscape on the ground floor of the front, rear, and sides of the building, three (3) balconies
and an open terrace on the second floor. The amount of open space for the proposed project
accounts for 26.7% of the site, which is consistent with the open space requirement.
Parking: The parking requirement for office space is 1 parking space per 300 square
feet of gross floor space. The parking standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual also permit a maximum of 40% of the total number of parking spaces provided
on-site to be constructed to meet the requirements of a small or compact vehicle. The parking
requirement for the 3,326 square feet of leasable office space is 11 spaces. The applicant is
proposing to provide 9 spaces on-site and 2 spaces off-site through participation in the Parking
In-Lieu Fee Program. The on-site parking spaces include 5 standard (9' x 19') parking stalls, 1
disabled accessible stall, and 3 compact (8' x 15') spaces. The number of proposed compact
spaces equates to 33% of the total number of parking spaces provided on-site and is consistent
with the permitted standard of a maximum of 40%.
The fees collected from the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program are 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.
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 6
The subject property is located within Zone 2. In accordance with the standards set forth in the
Village Master Plan, developers/property owners within this zone may be allowed to make an
In-Lieu Fee payment for up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the on-site parking requirement for
the proposed new development. The applicant is requesting participation in the Program for
two (2) parking spaces or 18% of the total required parking for the project. 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 $11,240
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
by the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission:
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 office use in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides
greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the area, and
retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence to the land use
regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
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 3 through the following actions: 1) the project provides permitted professional
office space in a new structure; 2) the building is designed in a manner that compliments
nearby residential uses by incorporating many of a same architectural elements found in
residential projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back from
the street and surrounded by an abundance of landscaping.
3. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's parking
demands. Based on the most recent parking study completed in August of 2005, the
average occupancy for all public parking lots is 83%. This utilization ratio allows for
continued implementation of the parking in-lieu fee program because it 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.
"dl
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE?
Based on these findings, it is staff's position that the proposed project warrants granting
participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of two (2) parking spaces. If
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission grants participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee
Program the project will satisfy its parking requirement as set forth in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan.
Residential Density and Inclusionarv Housing Requirements: There is no residential
component proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing
requirements are not applicable to this project.
VIM. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design
a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. In accordance with the design
review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as
appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten
(10) basic design principles. These design principles are:
1. 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; exposed rafters, the use of a variety of materials, flat concrete tile roofing with
the required 5:12 roof pitch, various sized multi-paned windows with decorative trim, slate tile
window boxes, stone columns, balconies on the second story of the front and south side of the
building, decorative stone veneer on all building elevations, and galvanized steel lattices
attached to the side of the building on ground floor levels. The project has a strong relationship
to the street in that it is situated in close proximity to the street and incorporates various
architectural elements. Landscaping plays an important role in the architectural design of the
building providing visual interest to all sides of the building working in conjunction with the
multiple building colors, accent windows, balconies, and decorative stone veneer to break up
what would otherwise be blank walls. Landscaping between adjacent uses is not only visually
appealing but acts as a buffer providing additional visual relief to the sides of the building. The
parking is visually subordinate in that it is located on the first floor and is screened by the
buildings walls. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an
exhibit to this report (See attached Exhibit A).
'ctt
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGES
IX. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION. SEWER. WATER. RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following:
Traffic & Circulation:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 70 ADT
Due to the size of this project, this project does not trigger the need for a traffic study. This project
has direct access to Grand Avenue. The streets in the area have been designed to handle the
traffic volumes generated by this project.
Sewer:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Sewer EDU's required: 2 EDU's
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
GPD required: 220 GPD/EDU x 2 EDU's = 440 GPD
Grading:
Quantities: Cut: 10 cy Fill: 220 cy Import: 210 cy Remedial: +/- 500 cy
Permit required: Yes
Offsite approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: n/a
The geotechnical report indicates that no major grading or soils related issues are anticipated with
the proposed project.
Drainage and Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: Buena Vista Watershed
Runoff potential: Low
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easements: No
Public easement dedication required: No
Site boundary coincides with Land Title: Yes
The right-of-way widths on Grand Avenue are substandard. Therefore, additional right-of-way
dedication of 15-feet is required.
,"••-. s-for]
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 9
Improvements:
Offsite improvements: No
Standard Waivers required: No
Public improvements are required as part of this development. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk
are proposed along the project frontage.
Storm Water Quality:
The project must comply with the Standard Requirements described under the Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of
said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less
than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate
facilities. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached
Design Review Board resolution.
XI. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot
will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in
increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
XII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for the following:
1) Participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of two parking spaces.
Development of the site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the
Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan.
EXHIBITS:
A. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines.
B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 306 recommending approval of RP 04-26.
C. Location Map.
D. Map of Public Parking Resources.
E. Attachments "A - J", dated February 27, 2006, including reduced exhibits.
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Site Planning:
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
Parking and Access: •- "" •;.;>.•$•'' ^.^ -'':"'• ,
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Project: Salmen Insurance Building
The front setback of the proposed project is 5 feet
along Grand Avenue. A variety of setbacks exist
along Grand Avenue. The adjacent Motel 6 and
residential properties effectuate a variety of
setbacks.
The project does not incorporate benches or low
walls but provides enhanced landscaping along
Grand Avenue.
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity.
The project does not include a drive-thru.
Adequate setbacks are provided along the sides of
the property and the landscaping as well as the 6-
foot decorative walls provided along the sides and
the rear of the property minimizes privacy loss for
adjacent residential uses.
The nature of the use does not warrant off-street
courtyards for pedestrian use.
Landscaped areas along the front, sides, and rear
of the building will provide for an informal setting.
Landscaping will be provided along all sides of the
building.
No surface lots are proposed.
The subject property does not abut an alley.
Parking is located at the rear of the lot and
underneath the building and at the rear of the lot.
All parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation are devoted to
landscaping.
No parking is provided in the front setback area.
One minimum width curb cut is provided on Grand
Avenue.
Site is not located on a corner.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
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 to divide parking lot paving
into smaller segments.
• :;'«y . , *• x,; • ' .
Building Forms:
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.
Break large buildings into smaller units.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me"
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
,/••.-> , , - _ j ."it,!- „,"-•
Roof Forms: , ' , • _ \,--f ••''••"'"""'.
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
A majority of the parking is completely screened
from public view by being integrated into the
building.
Although much of the parking is located at ground
level with the building above, the project is
designed with the entrance of the garage being
accessed off Grand Avenue with the parking area
located behind the front of the buildings first floor
wall. The ground level parking is fully integrated
into the building design and plays a more
subordinate role by being fully screened.
The width, depth, and smaller size of the lot
makes below grade parking difficult. The applicant
has chosen to participate in the Parking In-Lieu
Fee Program by providing a portion of the required
parking off-site, which helps reduce the amount of
parking on-site.
There is a minimal amount of surface parking
visible to the public to warrant the use of enhanced
paving.
The proposed building has been designed
specifically for this location in accordance with the
Village Design Guidelines and is not a generic
copy of other buildings.
Surface ornamentation, a sloped roofline, and
balconies at the second story serve to provide
sufficient articulation on the upper levels.
The size of the lot does not warrant breaking the
building up into smaller units. However, varying
roof peaks and various architectural features serve
to break up the mass of the building.
The height of the building is consistent with the
height of the Motel 6 and is consistent with the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
is not trendy or "look at me" in design.
Hip roofs and roof features with the minimum
required pitch of 5:12 have been provided within
the project.
The project design does not lend itself to the use
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are
acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Building Facades;
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
of dormers.
The project provides a concrete tile roof, which is
consistent with the architectural design intended
for the project as well as other projects in the area.
The building does not incorporate flat roofs.
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 very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
various architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all four building facades, thereby
creating visual interest in the building. The project
makes good use of various sized multi-paned
windows with decorative trim, stone columns,
galvanized steel lattices, and decorative stone
veneer on all building elevations.
Multi-paned windows with decorative trim and slate
tile window boxes are provided for the windows.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections on all sides of the building as well as
different building color shades, which will create
shadows and contrast.
The upper levels of this commercial building
provide for balconies, exposed rafters, and
attractive window features that reflect special
attention in design.
The upper levels of this building will be accessed
through stairways having little visibility from the
street. Special treatment on the ground floor level
entrance includes decorative stone columns,
landscaping, and decorative doors and windows
along Grand Avenue.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
building, which include; decorative trim and slate
tile window boxes around the windows, decorative
stone veneer on all building elevations, stone
columns, and galvanized steel lattices.
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.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
Utilize light and neutral base colors.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less surface colors)
Commercial Storefronts: 1
Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid large blank walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of Dutch doors.
Utilize small paned windows.
Develop a total design concept.
Provide frequent entries.
The exterior walls utilize cement plaster, fiber
cement siding, and stone veneer for all building
elevations.
None of the noted materials have been indicated
for use.
The windows are clear glass.
Solid wood doors and window framing will be
utilized.
No metal awnings and canopies are proposed.
The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
The project incorporates one primary color, two
complimentary colors, and a complimentary trim
color around the windows and front entrance.
The proposed office use does not lend itself to the
use of display windows, however, see through
paned windows and doors are part of the front
elevation.
The project design does not include large blank
walls.
Project does not include a restaurant use.
No fabric awnings to be used; not a retail or
storefront operation.
The office use and proposed tenant does not have
a need for display windows.
The project design does not lend itself to the use
of Dutch doors.
Windows of various sizes and shapes are included
throughout the project.
All facade design elements are unified. The
applicant was able to develop a total design
concept, which is also functional and visually
interesting.
The project incorporates a single primary entry
along Grand Avenue, which is appropriate to the
use.
Limit the extent of entry openings to about 30% of
storefront width or 8 feet, whichever is larger, to preserve
display windows.
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.
Residential:
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller
components.
The extent of the entry opening has been limited
through the design of the building.
The project does not include pull down shutters,
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontage.
The project does not include and commercial
storefronts.
Walls have been incorporated into the building
design.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 306
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-26, INCLUDING
4 PARTICIPATION IN THE PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR A
MAXIMUM OF TWO PARKING SPACES, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
3,326 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
6 LOCATED AT 955 GRAND AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 3 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
7 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: SALMENISURANCE BUILDING
8 APN: 203-320-02
9 CASE NO: RP 04-26
10 WHEREAS, Bart M. Smith, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Phil and Leslie
12 Salvagio, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-320-02, and more thoroughly
13
described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and
14 "
1 ^ WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
16 shown on Exhibits "A-J" dated February 27, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17 Department, "Salmen Insurance Building RP 04-26", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
18 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
19 «,WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 27 day of February 2006, hold a duly
20
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
23 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to
24 "Salmen Insurance Building RP 04-26".
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
26
follows:
27
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.28
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Salmen Insurance Building RP 04-26,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS;
4
, 1. The Housing & Redevelopment 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
5 the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
7 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 Housing & Redevelopment Director has found that the exceptions
9 listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
10 2. 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
1 * in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area
12 Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated February 27,2006 including, but
13 not limited to the following:
14 a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a commercial office
project in an appropriate location within the Village. The project provides
15 greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian orientation of the
area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale through adherence
17 to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for the area.
1 8 b. The project is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
19 Design Manual in that the proposed commercial project assists in satisfying the
goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 3 through the following
20 actions: 1) the project provides permitted professional office use in a new
structure; 2) the building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby
H residential uses by incorporating many of a same architectural elements found in
residential projects; and 3) the project consists of an individual building set back
from the street and surrounded by landscaping.
23
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
24 Use District 3, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
25 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
27 improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian
28 circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design,
DRB RESO NO. 306 -2- 3 1
landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to
2 serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and
implement a program of "best management practices" for the elimination and
3 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
5 requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
the City's Landscape Manual.
7
3. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances.
o 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;
10 drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
11 serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
12 a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
13 issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
14 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.
16
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
17 conditions of approval.
1° c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
1 o be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
20 4. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
21 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.
23 5. The Design Review Board finds that the Developer/Property owner qualifies to participate in
24 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
25 Program is contained in the following findings:
9fi a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan because it provides for
27 a commercial office use in an appropriate location within the Village. The
project provides greater employment opportunities, enhances the pedestrian
28 orientation of the area, and retains the Village character and pedestrian scale
DRB RESO NO. 306 -3- '4f:
through adherence to the land use regulations and design guidelines set forth for
2 the area.
3 b. 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
4 for Land Use District 3 through the following actions: 1) the project provides
. permitted professional office space in a new structure; 2) the building is
designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating
5 many of a same architectural elements found in residential projects; and 3) the
project consists of an individual building set back from the street and
7 surrounded by an abundance of landscaping.
o c. Adequate parking is available within the Village to accommodate the project's
9 parking demands. Based on the most recent parking study completed in August
of 2005, the average occupancy for all public parking lots is 83%. This
10 utilization ratio allows for continued implementation of the parking in-lieu fee
program because it is less than the 85% threshold for maximum utilization set
11 by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
12 d. The In-Lieu Fee Program has not been suspended or terminated by the Housing
13 and Redevelopment Commission.
14 GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
15 building permits.
17 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
1 ° implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
, q 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
20 building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
21 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Major Redevelopment
23 Permit.
24 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
2/: Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
27
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
28 and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
DRB RESO NO. 306 -4- -' !
1
2 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
, without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
6 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
7 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
9 approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
10 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
12 energy waves or emissions.
13 6. 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.
7. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
16 reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
format.
17
8. 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.
20 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.
22 10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
23 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
24 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.25
26 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:
27 14. 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
DRB RESO NO. 306 -5-
I Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
2 Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
15. 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/or Housing and Redevelopment.
NOTICING CONDITIONS:
16. 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. 306 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.
9
10
11
12
13
15 ON-SITE CONDITIONS;
16
17. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site
17
18
19
20 I,
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
22"
23
24
20. Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 9 parking spaces, as shown on
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
25
26
27
28
plan (Exhibit "B") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment
Director.
18. Outdoor storage of material shall not occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
comply with the approved plan.
19. 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
Exhibit "B".
21. 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
two (2) parking spaces. The fee shall be the sum total of the fee per parking space in
DRB RESO NO. 306 -6- U \
effect at the time of the building permit issuance times the number of parking spaces
2 needed to satisfy the project's parking requirement (2 spaces total).
3 22. Solid masonry walls shall be installed along all common lot lines that adjoin an
existing residential use.
4
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
7
Fees
8
23. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
10 24. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
11 20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
25. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
1. prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
14 of the City Engineer.
15 General
26. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
1 _ Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
18 27. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
19 Code Section 18.04.320.
20 29. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
_- with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and approval
22 of the Housing & Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs.
23 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
25 approval of this proposed redevelopment, must be met prior to approval of a building or
grading permit whichever occurs first.
26
General:
27
28
DRB RESO NO. 306 -7-
28. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
2 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
3
29. 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.
Fees/Agreements
30. 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.
9
31. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
10 cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
11 Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
12 Grading
32. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless
14 Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or
slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is
15 unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be
issued for offsite grading activity. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain
an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City
Engineer and Planning Director.
18
33. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
19 site Plan and preliminary grading plan, a grading permit for this project is required.
Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project.
21 34. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", photo mylar of the
22 site plan and preliminary grading plan reflecting the conditions as approved by the final
decision making body (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals). The
reproducible shall be submitted to the City Engineer, reviewed and, if acceptable, signed
by the City's project engineer and project planner prior to submittal of the building plans,
final map, improvement or grading plans, whichever occurs first.
25
35. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or
26 other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the site plan.
The offer shall be made by a separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be
offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already
2g public are not required to be rededicated.
DRB RESO NO. 306 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
37. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including, but not
limited to: Paving, base, signing & striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading,
clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire
hydrants, street lights, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
improvements are:
a) Half Street improvements to Grand Avenue including offsite transitions and
drainage improvements.
b) Removal and undergrounding of existing power pole and utilities as shown on
the site plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
38. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas or City right-of-way.
Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and
tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established
disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste
products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be
discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City
requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when
planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
39. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Manangement Plan (SWMP)".
The SWMP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established
by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and
DRB RESO NO. 306 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWMP shall address measures to reduce, to the
maximum extent practicable, storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and post-
construction stages of the project. The SWMP shall:
a) Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
b) Recommend source control and structural Best Management Practices to filter said
pollutants.
c) Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations
and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling
clean up and disposal of pollutants.
d) Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
40. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
DRBRESONO. 306 -10-ijl cr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 11 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Please take NOTICE that approval
reservations, or other exactions
"fees/exactions."
NOTICE
of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow
66020(a), and file the protest and
the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
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
annul their imposition.
subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to
expired.
which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 27th day of February 2006 by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 306 -11- U(0
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
described as follows:
ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACT 117 OF CARLSBAD LANDS, IN THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1661, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 1, 1915, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF ELM AVENUE, WHICH IS ALSO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
TRACT 117, WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 119 OF SAID
CARLSBAD LANDS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 1661; THENCE SOUTH 55
DEGREES 27' WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT
NO. 117, A DISTANCE OF 1380.91 FEET TO A POINT ;THENCE NORTH
34DEG 33' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 450.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO
AUGUSTA ASMUS, A DISTANCE OF 56.26 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 55DEG 27' WEST ALONG SAID
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ASMUS LAND 56.25 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 34DEG 33' EAST 140 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55DEG 27' EAST, 56.25
FEET TO INTERSECTION WITH A LINE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 34DEG 33'
EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 34DEG 33' WEST
140 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 203-320-02-00
Map created byCarbtad GIS Qepartmen
SITE
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
RP 04-26
I1
&
*« txfrO""
£ ^
oo&o
I
8
C/3
< M
o\
U
I
ON
'%
03
fa
ON
a
K "-"
8t
MiiUi S3:|5S i
a
1C t
A l\l , I ! * 1 ! , :
ffilE! I i 81 di ikf !! k:•••-*— •••*• *$---.-> .s.s.-... .»t»..,«, *,s.a,..j!)j.s .
col
I
s
3aCL
MI'»««BI i i> ! t> I ^*
%- b -5 9 i3 I | S *• ?! S « f n rfb crtrrrrk. i r.-rrrt r. r rrtr *i! J fcif• Ml! if 1! ^ h I' M ii >| ?"rll! *"'-??! "I Is P" !i I? M • ?!'
n ! has , ., srasjin n hi n h i ! H' f"P ««'«II!
~^-+
§'Ii
sss
J35
o.a:8
§col
:?H||:o2-So
£ol
<
* ,I 111 I iia Hi SB si if?E:n
ooo
UJo
o
'!
z
O
UJ
O
00)
"to
CO
<UJ
s
o
CO
d
UJ
O
<a.to O
iiii §SiiiihSSn i
EXHIBIT 5
DRAFT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DATED FEBRUARY 27,2006
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: FEBRUARY 27, 2006
Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Heineman called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Heineman asked Board Member Schumacher to lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Heineman proceeded with the roll call of Board Members.
Present: Board Members: Julie Baker
Tony Lawson
Michael Schumacher
Chairperson: Courtney Heineman
Absent: Sarah Marquez
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Assistant Planner: Cliff Jones
Engineer: David Rick
Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the January 23, 2005 meeting.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
There were no comments from the audience.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Heineman asked Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, to present
the item on the agenda tonight.
Ms. Fountain stated the first item on the agenda is a Major Redevelopment Permit for an office building in
the village area. The presentation will be made by Cliff Jones, the Redevelopment Planner, assisted by
Dave Rick from Engineering.
Cliff Jones said the applicant, Bart Smith, on behalf of the property owner, Phil Salvagio, is requesting a
Major Redevelopment Permit for the construction of a two-story, 3,326 square foot commercial office
building on property located at 955 Grand Avenue in Land Use District 3 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Area. The proposed project requires a Major Redevelopment Permit because it involves
new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation that is greater than $150,000. In
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 2 of 12 DRAFT
accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the Major Redevelopment Permit is being brought
forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
The subject property is located along the south side of Grand Avenue east of Hope Avenue. The subject
property totals 6,188 square feet with building frontage along Grand Avenue and is currently occupied by a
single family structure that is being used as an office use. The property is bordered by a Motel 6 to the
east, single-family residences exist across Grand Avenue to the north, two apartment buildings to the
west, and there is a vacant property to the south or to the rear of the subject property.
The proposed development is for a two-story office project with six office suites. The ground floor includes
a 134 square foot office suite, an elevator, two stairways, an area for refuse, and an elevator machine
room. Also on the ground floor within the footprint of the building are nine parking spaces. The second
floor of the building consists of five office suites with a combined total of 2,768 square feet of leasable
office space. Three private balconies also exist on the second floor; an open landscape terrace area, a
storage room, and a common restroom facility are also on the second floor. Access to the office project is
to be provided off of Grand Avenue.
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the
Village. The proposed project is within Land Use District 3 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Office is a
permitted use within Land Use District 3. The overall vision for the development of District 3 is to
accommodate traveler services as well as those services that meet the needs of the broader Carlsbad
community such as office uses and other commercial development. The development standards promote
individual buildings setback from the street and surrounded by landscaping intended to provide a quality
commercial and office environment within close proximity to shops, restaurants and other services
provided in the village. The land use standards encourage the phasing out of existing single family
residences over time.
Staff believes that the proposed office use assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land
Use District 3 through the following actions:
• The project provides for a desirable office use in a new structure;
• It may serve as a catalyst for future development;
• It is compatible with the surrounding area;
• It increases the number, quality, and diversity of office space within the village.
The proposed project meets all the required development standards outlined within the Village Master
Plan:
• The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping;
• The project provides adequate building coverage;
• The building height of the project is in compliance with the established standards set just below
the maximum height at 34 feet;
• The project meets the parking requirements of the Village Master Plan if the Design Review Board
makes the appropriate findings for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.
The required amount of parking for this office project equates to 11 spaces. The spaces that are provided
is 9 spaces. The required justification for participation in the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program for the two
remaining parking spaces is contained within the Design Review Board Resolution.
In Land Use District 3, the front yard setback is 5 to 20 feet, the side yard setbacks are 5 feet, and the rear
yard setback is 5 to 10 feet. The proposed project falls within the required setback ranges set at the
minimum setback range of 5 feet for the front, rear and side yard setbacks.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 3 of 12 DRAFT
The proposed project is also consistent with the design principles outlined in the Village Design Manual.
The project provides for an overall informal character in design. The project incorporates several design
features to achieve the desired village character, including multi-paned windows of various sizes with
decorative trim, multiple roof elements with a 5 and 12 roof pitch, decorative stone veneer columns are
provided along the lower level of the building facade, and decorative stone veneer is provided along all
elevations. Galvanized steel lattices are attached to the lower levels of the sides and the rear of the
building, the second floor fa?ade incorporates slate tile window boxes and varied stucco colors are
provided. The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of
the building. Parking is visually subordinate contained within the building itself.
The Housing and Redevelopment Department has conducted an Environmental Review of the project
pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has
been found to be exempt from the environmental review pursuant to section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary finding for this environment determination is
included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution.
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive economic impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was a previously underutilized lot will result in
increased property taxes, and 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.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for participation in the Parking
In-Lieu Fee Program for a maximum of two parking spaces. 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.
Board Member Baker asked Mr. Jones about the property to the south which he mentioned was vacant.
Is this true?
Mr. Jones answered yes.
Board Member Baker asked where access is to that property.
Mr. Jones said the access to the property to the south is actually off of Carlsbad Village Drive. It is a flag
lot so it has access to the east of the Carl's Jr. and then comes to that vacant lot.
Board Member Lawson wanted clarification on the northern boundary which is along Grand; that is the
edge of the Redevelopment District is that not? So the homes directly across the street are not within the
village technically, is that correct?
Mr. Jones answered that is correct. They are not within the VR zoning.
Board Member Lawson continued by asking if there are any special provisions that we have as it relates to
compatibility when you would go down a street such as this where you have one zone, which I believe is
residential to the north, and then you have this area on the south side of the street. Most people wouldn't
know the difference and you would be looking for some aspect of compatibility.
Mr. Jones said within the Design Guidelines Manual there is a requirement to have the project be
compatible with surrounding properties. Typically it is done when there is a conflict of adjacent land use; it
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 4 of 12 :AFT
is done through architectural design. So the applicant tried to incorporate architectural design that is
similar to residential properties within the area.
Board Member Lawson commented that is exactly what he was wondering about. First reaction in looking
at the elevations was that it looked too residential in nature. Then when I recognized the setting, I wanted
to verify if indeed there may have been discussion or a suggestion by either you or by the applicant to try
to give it a little more of that character, which I can appreciate.
Mr. Jones said it was a joint effort.
Chairperson Heineman asked what the large grey area is that looks like a big concrete wall.
Mr. Jones said it is not a concrete wall. It is actually the entrance to the parking area. There should have
been something that said that area was open.
Chairperson Heineman asked if that is really an open space.
Mr. Jones said yes, that is just shading.
Chairperson Heineman commented that was better because it looked like a large wall there.
Board Member Baker asked if we would be hearing from the project architect this evening. The reason I
ask that question is because Mr. Heineman brought up what looked like a large wall. We have been doing
these projects all over Carlsbad in the redevelopment area where we have the parking underneath the
building and have these large gaping holes, and looking at them I am not sure they are achieving what we
want them to achieve. Even though they are hiding the parking, you still have the cars in there and there
is a big, empty black hole. I am curious if there are other options to soften the impact of that gaping hole.
Mr. Jones said the architect is present and will be making a presentation and may be able to address that
as well.
Board Member Baker said she is also wondering if we would allow a zero setback in this example to
maybe allow access to the garage on the side rather then in the front of the building. In other words, you
would go down a driveway on the west side of the building and enter the parking garage that way. We
would slide it over five feet.
Mr. Jones said he would have to talk to the architect, but it would probably take a complete redesign at
this point.
Board Member Lawson said there are implications of fencing going in along the sides, but I don't see
anything on the plans that call for it. Is there new fencing that is being proposed? I didn't find it in any of
the actual drawings listed as such.
Mr. Jones said they are proposing a wall there along that elevation. Currently there is a wall there where
Motel 6 is. They are also proposing a wall along that elevation that you are referring to, to the west.
Board Member Lawson said he couldn't find a note as to whether or not it was to save an existing,
preserve one, or build a new one, or what it might be.
Bart Smith, the project architect, his office is at 682 Second Street in Encinitas. Cliff did a great job on his
presentation of the project. I would be available for any questions you have. Otherwise, he covered the
square footage and the number of stories and the look of the building.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006 f\ IJ A C T
PAGE 5 of 12 L/l\/-\r I
Board Member Baker said she appreciates his design. It fits in with the surrounding residences, but I am
noticing we have been doing these first floor parking with either office or housing above them. I'm not
sure we are getting the desired look that we want. Can you think of any options that would soften that
darkness or to see the cars inside there?
Mr. Smith said one of the options utilized on this project was we put an office on the ground floor that
faces the street so that's the area on the left side of the building. The Engineering Department has certain
requirements for the driveway and the opening into there, and I think they have actually let me go a little
below that to about 20 feet from 24 feet. So we have done everything we can to squeeze it. The problem
is that the lot is narrow; it is only 55 feet wide, so in order to do a driveway on the side area, you might end
up with the same effect because the building is still going to want to go over the top of that.
Board Member Baker asked if as an architect, he has any ideas on something that can soften that. I think
we all know of many examples all over the village and all over the City of Carlsbad where they just don't
quite look right. I appreciate your building, it looks great, but it could be a little better if there wasn't that
big hole right there.
Mr. Smith said the problem is that cars need a big hole. On the side of the building there is a large
opening where you can turn around, and that will also bring light into that area so our parking garage won't
be dark inside during the day. It won't be like Escrow Transfers building where it just has an opening on
either end. This will actually have multiple areas of light coming in. One of the issues is with working with
the Building Department, the lot is so narrow, and our building needs to be somewhat wide to make the
parking work, is that we end up too close to the property line and so we have to put walls all the way
around in order to meet the fire resistant standards.
Board Member Baker said she is sympathetic to his dilemma. I just want to make sure that we can get
the best possible design for the building that we can possibly get. Was there any thought given to a
motion sensor door that would go up so that people could access the parking?
Mr. Smith answered that would be an easy answer to that and we'd be willing to put the door on without
any problem. I really don't think it changes the overall design of the building. You would probably want it
to be solid so when it was closed you couldn't see in.
Board Member Baker expressed she would like something that would soften the black hole. Whether it
would be a gate, a solid door, etc.
Board Member Schumacher said since they've gone for the residential look, you might as well complete
the thought and make it a residential looking door. A gate wouldn't look like a residence.
Chairperson Heineman said it seems to him that a door would make sense.
Mr. Smith said it is only a 20 foot opening so they could do a residential style garage door, high quality
one. I think the owner would actually prefer that as an option because it provides more security for his
parking area. We have to work with the fire department to make sure it has the proper knox box and all of
that. The one door just to the left of the windows in the ground floor is our fire room for our fire equipment
so they wouldn't have to actually go into the garage area through our door to get to there.
Board Member Schumacher asked if there was visitor parking underneath or is it all reserved parking for
the office use.
Mr. Smith answered there is no designation in Carlsbad whether it is visitor or office use so it is use for the
building.
, -
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 6 of 12
Board Member Baker said her only worry would be for your tenants that their clients wouldn't understand
or know that they could park there. That would be the only downside to a door.
Mr. Smith agreed and said he couldn't guarantee that the door would be closed all day long. It will
probably be open during business hours and then closed weekends and nights.
Ms. Fountain said that if this is something that the Board wants to look at, you might want to instruct staff
to look into it because we may have some Engineering and Fire and Building code issues that might
prevent gates and doors from going in. I wouldn't want to see us add that condition right now without it
being looked at a little bit closer by all the appropriate departments. A lot of times we don't have doors
and gates exactly for that reason because we either have Engineering issues or some other issues. It
would be okay for you to give us direction to look at that and see if it is possible.
Chairperson Heineman said the Board could amend the motion to include that.
Ms. Fountain agreed and said we would want to make sure that we look at it closely from all of those
different angles. The issue that you raised about making sure that it still accommodates the parking for
the customers coming to the site, we wouldn't want to prevent customers from parking because then they
end up on the street or somewhere else and we are already granting two parking spaces to be done in our
Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. So we just want to be careful that we're not doing something that would
prevent that from being used.
Mr. Smith said maybe there could be a sensor in the driveway that the door opening automatically during
the day when people drove up to it and then it could be disconnected at night so it would stay down.
Chairperson Heineman said instead of trying to reach a decision now, why don't we just include that as a
provision of the motion.
Board Member Lawson said he was appreciative of the design and it will be a little bit more responsive to
the residential aspects of that street. On some projects sometimes it is suggested but it is not anywhere
in the plans and stated as such. Is there an intent to redo fencing or walls along the property lines?
Mr. Smith said yes there is. He thinks there is a detail of it in the lower left-hand corner.
Mr. Jones said yes it is on the cover sheet at the lower left-hand corner. It is an odd place for it.
Mr. Smith said it is noted on the site plan where that occurs.
Board Member Lawson said he overlooked it. Also, I noticed for office use you have laid out all the
individual offices. Is there a specific user that is intended and anticipated to be here because often you
will find it left for later demising depending upon tenant needs.
Mr. Smith said Mr. Salmen has an insurance company and at the time that we started designing this, he
thought the two suites to the south on the second floor were going to be the ones he needed, but it sounds
like, after speaking with him, that he might be using the entire building for his insurance company. There
was originally two or three small executive suites, but it may be that those get incorporated into his
business.
Board Member Lawson directed his next question to staff. He as a business owner in the village, one of
the great things about being down there is that you can head out to lunch and go to different places. I find
a five foot wide sidewalk right up against the curb is really not always real accommodating for a group of
people who take off to lunch together. While we don't have much in the way of setbacks, they are pretty
tight, is there a possibility we could allow more sidewalk in front of this? It would obviously consume a little
bit of the landscape. That is one of the things I find personally and professionally while down in the village
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY27, 2006
PAGE7ofl2
that we need plenty of that urban space. If that is possible, is that something we can ask the applicant to
consider?
Mr. David Rick, Assistant Engineer, said the sidewalk design at five feet is per our standards. One of the
concerns we might have is if we are widening the sidewalk on one property, but it's not widened on the
other, you are going to have an inconsistent pattern for the sidewalk and down the street. If we were to
address that issue of making the sidewalks wider, we would probably want to look at it more on our
regional standard basis then just looking at it with individual projects. That is not to say that it couldn't be
done. Perhaps there could be a widening that doesn't have the same type of a concrete so it is obvious it
is more of a part of the project and becomes more of a private improvement that is maintained by them.
That might be the only type of variation we would look favorable on at this point.
Board Member Lawson said the reason he brings this up is out of pure experience and he's down in the
village a lot and knows staff is there as well. I'd like to see how we can make this work its way into
stronger consideration if possible. It does make a difference, in my opinion, as an observer. Am I to
interpret staff's comment that it might be a good idea, but we can't do it here?
Ms. Fountain said the Board could say they want a wider sidewalk on this project. What staff was saying
is that it is not a consistent policy right now so we'd have to make a consistent policy throughout the village
area and that may be something we would want to take to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
as a suggestion, maybe separate, from this project at this time and ask them if they want to generally
require wider sidewalks in the Village area and what would that be.
Chairperson Heineman said that would have to be a separate project.
Ms. Fountain said Engineering is feeling uncomfortable with applying it to one specific project when it is
not a general policy for the whole village area. Maybe we need to take that as a separate motion from the
Design Review Board. If that is subsequently approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission,
then it could be added to the project at that level.
Chairperson Heineman added it should be divorced from this particular project then.
Ms. Fountain agreed.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson,
to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 306, recommending approval of RP 04-26 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Board Member Schumacher said it would be interesting to see what could be done about a possible
garage door, though Ms. Fountain said that may not be possible given the other dynamics within the city.
Other then that, I like it.
Board Member Baker said she thinks it is a great project. She does have a problem with the driveway,
and if we could look for some solutions subject to the approval of the Redevelopment Director, that would
be fine. I would just like to say overall, I would like us in future projects to start thinking of ways we might
solve the "empty hole in the middle of the building" problem. Like the Escrow Transfer building, there is
that office building on the corner of Jefferson and Grand, the medical office building, there are several of
them around town, and I just don't think we have achieved what we were hoping to with the building over
the parking. I don't know what the answer is, but maybe we could start thinking about other kinds of
buildings to solve that problem. I would just as soon see the landscaping out in front then more concrete
as a remark to Board Member Lawson's comments.
Board Member Lawson said he can support the project. I think they have done a nice job. My reason for
the paving isn't necessarily to eliminate landscape, but landscape comes in all forms. You can have
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 8 of 12
enhancement to an area that isn't necessarily made up of a planting bed. What we are sometimes
forgetting is that we are somewhat trying to create a little bit of an urban environment and part of that
urban environment is to introduce more of those pedestrian spaces. A planting bed doesn't necessarily
create a pedestrian space and that is why I bring that up and that is something I think I'd like to have some
consideration for in the future. Otherwise, I am supportive of this project.
Chairperson Heineman said he is in support of the project.
VOTE: 4-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Marquez
Ms. Fountain presented the next item which is another Major Redevelopment Permit to allow construction
of a two-unit residential project. Again, Cliff Jones, our Redevelopment Planner, and Dave Rick, our
Engineer, will present the project.
Mr. Cliff Jones said the applicant, Eduardo Posada, is requesting a Major Redevelopment Permit for the
construction of a 6,811 square foot, two-story, two-unit apartment project located at 786 Grand Avenue in
Land Use District 2 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The proposed project requires a Major
Redevelopment Permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit
valuation that is greater then $150,000. In accordance with the redevelopment permit procedures, the
Major Redevelopment Permit is being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board
and for final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The subject property is located at the corner of Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street. The subject property
totals 9,000 square feet with building frontage along Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street and is currently
occupied by a 956 square foot single-family residence. The project is bordered by a residential use to the
north, to the west of the proposed project is a one-story medical office, a two-story office building sits on
the property across Grand Avenue to the south, and the property across Jefferson Street to the east of the
proposed project contains a single family structure, which was converted into a photography office use.
As mentioned previously, the application is for a proposed two-story, two-unit apartment project totaling
6,811 square feet. The units are significantly setback from the street in order to reduce the massing of the
building along Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street and to provide an abundance of landscaped open
space for recreational purposes. To provide additional private recreational opportunities, each unit is
equipped with a private roof deck. Access to the two units is to be provided off of Grand Avenue and
parking is to be provided within the subterranean garage. The overall vision for the development of
District 2 is to provide a continuation of Land Use District 1 through building scale and character while
maintaining a pedestrian oriented environment. Staff believes that the proposed residential units assists
in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 2 through the following actions:
• The project provides a desirable use that will improve the physical appearance of the area;
• It will serve as a catalyst for future development;
• The project is compatible with the surrounding area;
• It increases the number, quality and diversity of housing types.
The proposed project meets all of the required development standards outlined within the Village Master
Plan excluding setbacks, which I will address shortly.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES _ _ _ __
FEBRUARY 27, 2006 D S? A F T
T> A /nr; n ~f 11 ••*' • » • »I •
• The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping through reduced building
coverage and setbacks;
• The building height of the project is in compliance with the established standard set at the
maximum of 35 feet;
• Required parking of five spaces is provided through the use of a subterranean garage.
In Land Use District 2, the front yard setback is 5 to 15 feet, the west side yard setback is 5 to 10 feet, and
the east street yard setback is 10 feet. The rear yard setback is 5 to 10 feet. The proposed project falls
within the required setback ranges except for the front and west side yard setback. The Design Review
Board will be required to make appropriate findings for granting variances for the front and west side yard
setback to exceed the maximum range of 15 feet in front and 10 feet on the side. It is noteworthy that
staff is currently working on an amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan subject to
final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to allow for commercial and residential
projects to exceed the maximum of the setback standard range with no variance requirement. It is also
noteworthy that the Design Review Board has set prior precedence for granting variances to allow projects
to exceed the maximum of the setback standard range. The necessary findings for the requested
variances are included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution. Staff offers the following
justification for granting the requested variances to exceed the front and side yard setback standards:
• For variance finding number one, the justification is due to the location of the property being next
to a commercial use and at a busy street corner; additional setback is required in order to protect
the livability of the residence. The increased setback will be devoted to landscaping to help buffer
the edge of the property and protect the livability for future residents. Providing the increased
setbacks helps to increase the livability of the residential units and helps to make the project more
compatible with the adjacent commercial office use.
• Variance finding two's justification is by allowing the proposed setbacks, the subject property will
more closely match the setbacks of the surrounding residential properties and adjacent office use.
The granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges as a precedent has
been previously set within the village redevelopment zoning for allowing residential projects to
exceed the maximum of the standard range.
• The justification for variance finding number three is that the variance does not authorize a use or
activity which is not expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property as
a multifamily use is a permitted use within Land Use District 2 within the Village Redevelopment
zoning. Additionally, the increased setbacks are similar to the setbacks enjoyed by the
surrounding properties under the same zoning designation.
• The justification for variance finding number four is as follows. The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible, in order to
encourage diversity and a variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The placement of
the building is setback similar to the surrounding properties allowing for increased landscape
buffering, which is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual's goal of
establishing Carlsbad Village as a quality living environment. The project is also consistent with
the general purpose of the General Plan and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
As I mentioned previously, these findings are contained within the attached Design Review Board
Resolution. The proposed project is also consistent with the design principles outlined in the Village
Design Manual. The project provides for an overall informal character in design. The project's
architectural design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project incorporates several
design features to achieve the desired village character including various sized windows with decorative
trim, varied roof heights with slate composite shingles and a 5 and 12 roof pitch, wood trim, and decorative
wood like siding is provided on the sides of the building. The project provides wood railings around the
balconies, and the project provides complimentary stucco colors.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 10 of 12
The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the
residence and provides low decorative stone veneer walls. Parking is visually subordinate contained
within a subterranean garage.
The Housing and Redevelopment 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 the said review, the project has
been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is
included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution. The proposed project is anticipated to have a
positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First the redevelopment of what was
a previously underutilized lot will result in increased property taxes, and this increase in property tax will
further result in increased increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, it is anticipated that the
project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or
rehabilitation of existing buildings through the construction of a quality, multifamily residential project.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with findings for variances for the front and
west side yard setback to exceed the standard range. 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.
Board Member Baker asked about the six-foot high wall that would be on the Jefferson Street side. Do we
have any examples anywhere in the village where we have a wall that high? I appreciate the need for the
wall, but I am a little concerned there aren't walls anywhere else. How does that blend in with the
consistency of the area?
Mr. Jones said the wall was required for sound attenuation purposes. Staff spoke with the applicant and
tried to figure out if there was an alternative to the wall and that was the best alternative they could find.
We did request they provide windows so you could actually see through the wall and to try and make that
wall as visually pleasing as possible.
Board Member Baker added then that staff had the same concerns as well.
Mr. Jones agreed that it was a concern of staff. We did our best to try and find a wall that was pleasing
architecturally.
Board Member Baker asked if that was a City of Carlsbad noise abatement rule or the village or where
does that wall requirement come from?
Ms. Fountain said they are actually required to do a noise study because they are in the area that requires
that. Then there has to be recommendations on how to deal with the attenuation of noise there. They are
on a busy corner, which is part of their problem. Staff did have a concern about walls. Typically we don't
like to encourage walls around residential properties, and we usually do most anything we can to try to
discourage them. If we don't have another good solution to that from the noise impact standpoint, then we
have to require them and try to get the best design we can on them to try not to enclose properties. There
is a requirement in the Master Plan for most areas, that if you are building commercial property next to
residential property, you have to put in a six-foot wall. We had that issue come up on the last project.
There is an office project that was recently constructed that is just to the north of this. There is a
residential property and then that commercial property that does have the six-foot walls. It is one that
causes us more concern on residential, but there wasn't another good solution to deal with that noise
situation.
Board Member Baker commented that those walls generally seem different because they are property line
walls. The reason why this one caused concern for me is because it is along a sidewalk and it is along the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006 T\W^ A f~T
PAGE 11 of 12 UK At" I
busy thoroughfare as opposed to being walls that are running between property lines that aren't quite so
noticeable.
Ms. Fountain agreed that it is just an issue with it being a corner property that causes the concern.
Board Member Lawson said he noticed on all of the elevations there appeared to be a good implication of
abundance of planting. In looking at the plans, I notice that on the third floor there is reference to a
planter, but actually on the second floor for all of the strip planning that is out front, I don't see any
reference to that. I like the elevations and what they convey, but I am questioning if there is a strong
enough commitment that those are going to be actual planters that are there. If you go to the second floor
plans, there is no specific statement as to those being planter strips. That would be on plan sheet A2.3
where there is implication that there are planters there. There is no reference yet, but if you go to A2.4
where there is a roof deck, they do call it out as a planter box. I just want to make sure that those really
will be there and are intended to be there. I am sure that they intended, but I'd like to make sure that they
don't get overlooked down the road.
Mr. Jones said correct, that is something staff did notice as well. They do call out the plant material in the
landscape plan itself, but they didn't put a small pop out showing where it is on the landscape plan. The
Board can add a condition of approval requiring those areas to be landscaped as depicted on the floor
plans.
Board Member Lawson said he is sensitive too because he knows it does require some special
consideration on how those are built, waterproofed and all of that. If they are not as such stated on the
building plans, then a lot of times the building doesn't bid it and then it ends up being left out and they are
asking for a hard luck situation, certain drainage lines were not anticipated, therefore aren't there, etc.
Eventually, they put in some plastic plants that look terrible. If you could just make sure that is included I
would be appreciative of that.
Mr. Jones said sure.
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson,
to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 307, recommending approval of RP 05-01 to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Board Member Schumacher said he likes the project.
Board Member Baker said she likes the project. She is not as crazy about the wall around the side, but
staff has convinced her it has to be.
Board Member Lawson supports the project. He finds the architectural design very interesting. He hopes
it has as much flair as it appears graphically because it is a nice addition to the village.
Chairperson Heineman supports the project.
VOTE: 4-0-0
AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Marquez
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No report by the Director of Housing and Redevelopment.
Oi
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
PAGE 12 of 12
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Special Meeting of February 27, 2006, was adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENTI
Minutes Clerk
EXHIBIT 6
PARKING IN-LIEU FEE
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
thApril 15 ,2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 17th Day of April, 2006
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Proof of Publication of
of the envlron-
nt Peftnit Inonly those te-at the public
public!
CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-26
HOUSING ft REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NCT1926654 •04/15/06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 6:00 PM on Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, to consider
approval of a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-26), to allow the
construction of a 2-story, 3,326 square foot commercial office building on the property
located at 955 Grand Avenue (APN: 203-320-02) in Land Use District 3 of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Area.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact
Cliff Jones in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You may
also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Housing
& Redevelopment 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 infill development project. The Design Review
Board will be considering recommending approval of the environmental determination
during the public hearing.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office, 1200
Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-26
PUBLISH: April 15, 2006
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SITE
SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING
RP 04-26
RICHARD K & VERA B MATSUI
TRUST
1005LAGUNADR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THOMAS & KELLY MATYN
3795 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAVID & DIANE LAD WIG
PO BOX 150
WASHOUGAL WA 98671
LEE HOFF TRUST
1035LAGUNADR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VOORDECRERS FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUST
1045 LAGUNA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHAEL A ADAMS
586 FAIRWAY DR
EL PASO IL 61738
JOHN & MARIA L ROSSBACH
964 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALLAN S & TANYA K PHILLIPS
974 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JULLIE LISS
984 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHAEFFER FAMILY TRUST
994 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHAEL J LOUGH
1010 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DALE C CALABRESE
1012 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PATRICK DAILEY
1011 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD & DONNA LEIVONEN
965 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EXTENDED STAY CA INC
ATTN: TAX 8831
100 DUNBAR ST
SPARTANBURG SC 29306
YUELING CHEN
1022 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RODRIGUEZ FAMILY TRUST
1010 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JACK MILLS
PO BOX 991
CARLSBAD CA 92018
STEVEN DAVIS & GARY
MYRON
PO BOX 838
CARDIFF CA 92007
WILLIAM DONOVAN
PO BOX 877
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LINDA DELFRANCIA &
THOMAS BEVILACQUA TRUST
2886 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD DUQUETTE
2860 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LOIS BLACKSTONE
2854 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT & DIXIE SHOWALTER
5687 YERBA ANITA DR
S AN DIEGO C A 92115
ANDREA WHITE
PO BOX 2185
OCEANSIDECA 92051
STEPHANIE BROTZMAN
5242 SAPPHIRE ST
ALTALOMACA91701
JUDITH M DOWNING
38905 PASEO CORTA
MURIETA CA 92563
ALEX & GLORIA BANUELOS
3262 PINOT BLANC WAY
SAN JOSE C A 99135
DAVID & SHARON DAFFERN
GERALD & MARY MOELLER
2535 12TH AVE
FOREST GROVE OR 97116
GILBERT & VIRGINIA PRANGE
2820 HOPE AVE
#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RICHARD ASHTON
2820 HOPE AVE
#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCFATE FAMILY TRUST
620 ROUNSAVILLE RD
ROSWELL GA 30076
CAMPBELL & AUTREY
2820 HOPE AVE #G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHAEL WHEELER
2820 HOPE AVEm
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PGI CARLSBAD LLC
PO BOX 13247
KANSAS CITY MO 64199
AVIS VIBIERI
C/0 BENCHMARK PACIFIC
550LAGUNADR
#8
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DANIEL & IRENE LOPEZ
928 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALVIN & MELINDA PERKETT
FAMILY TRUST
812 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LINDRUM FAMILY TRUST
4230 CLEARVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JUNE WOOD
PO BOX 232134
ENCINITAS CA 92023
GLENN GOLDMAN TRUST
PO BOX 7245
SAN DIEGO C A 92167
THAD & BARBARA HOYER
BRUCE MORTLAND
PO BOX 1600
CARLSBAD CA 92018
JOHN GIROUX & HILARY
HOGAN
PO BOX 1065
CARLSBAD CA 92018
EMILIO & MARY ELLEN ADAN
880 HOME AVE
#8
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM L ANPHEAR
REVOCABLE TRUST
PO BOX 817
CARLSBAD CA 92018
CONSTANCE MARTIN
880 HOME AVE
#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFF & DONNA DILL
880 HOME AVE
#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM & GARY RUNDLE
1754 BLACKBIRD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KIMBERLY YORK
880 HOME AVE
#G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EDMOND SHEHAB TRUST
SANDRA SHEHAB
6321 ESPLANADE
PLAYA DEL RAY CA 90293
MICHAEL JONES
882 HOME AVE
#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TOMKINSON FAMILY TRUST
3181 FALCON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MR&MRSDOLAN
REVOCABLE TRUST
MR&MRSBENDIX
903 SPRINGWOOD LN
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SOOHOO FAMILY TRUST
82 LAKESIDE DR
BUENA PARK CA 90621
DANIEL & ERNESTINE CERDA
1743 LOTUS AVE
EL CENTRO CA 92243
PGP CARLSBAD SENIORS LTD
E
CAPITAL GROWTH PROP
1120 SILVERADO ST
LA JOLLACA 92037
SWSY CORP TURNER TRUST
SUNRISE PROPERTY MGMT
8787 COMPLEX DR
#100
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LESLIE SALVAGIO
955 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EDMOND SHEHAB TRUST
6321 ESPLANADE
PLAYA DEL RAY CA 90293
MOTEL 6 OPERATING LP
JOHN GRANT RES TRUST
ACCOR N AMERICA TAX DEPT
PO BOX 117508
CARROLLTON TX 75011
CALIFORNIA BADGER CO LLC
C/O FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
PO BOX 786
DEL MAR CA 92014
STANLEY & GLORIA CARROLL
C/O EW DAWSON CORP
PO BOX 555
INGLEWOOD CA 90307
ALLAHYARI FAMILY TRUST
19TIERRAVISTA
LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653
THATCHER REV TRUST
ROBERT SONNEMAN
PMB154
PO BOX 5000
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
GOOD SHEPHARD ASSEMBLY
OF GOD
PO BOX 1035
CARLSBAD CA 92018
DENNYS INC (LF) GRANT
HOLDINGS LLC
C/O MARY GRANT
7173 OBELISCO CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FITZPATRICK FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUST
31338 LAKE VISTA CIR
BONSALL CA 92003
GREGORY LOSA
PO BOX 96
CARLSBADCA92018
CITY OF CARLSBAD
JACK IN THE BOX INC (LF)
MIRA MESA SQUARE
C/O EPROPERTY TAX DEPT 401
PO BOX 4900
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261
PHYLLIS NORMAN TRUST
PO BOX 1395
CARLSBAD CA 92018
MERKLE & DAVIES TRUSTS
C/O GOLDEN KEY
2727 ROOSEVELT ST
#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCANLON FAMILY TRUST
7306 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LINDA MEISSNER TRUST
1275 HOOVER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES & LANA BESAW
PO BOX 3928
DANA POINT CA 92629
THATCHER REV TRUST
ROBERT SONNEMAN
CONOCO PHILLIPS
PO BOX 1539
PASO ROBLES CA 93447
JERRY JACKSON & ARCARIA
JACKSON RODELL
2504 MANCHESTER AVE
CARDIFF CA 92007
HOPPER FAMILY REV TRUST
GRANT HOLDINGS LLC
2945 HARDING ST
#111
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NEAL & CAROL BAKER
JANET WALEK
JANICE TALLEY
1875 BUSINESS CENTER DR
SAN BERNADINO CA 92408
DOROTHY METROS &
MARILYN CARRUTHERS
919 PECK AVE
MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266
W & K THOMPSON LIVING
TRUST
600 KALORAMA DR
VENTURA CA 93001
Salmen Insurance BuildingHousing & Redevelopment CommissionApril 25, 2006
Location MapSI T E
Subject Property
Motel 6 to the East
Apartment Buildings to the West
Single-Family Homes Across Grand Ave. to the North
Vacant Property to the South (Rear)
Proposed DevelopmentTwo-Story 3,326 sq. ft. Office Project6 Office Suitesz1 office suite ground floor totaling 134 sq.ft. z5 office suites 2ndfloor totaling 2,768 sq.ft. Frontage along Grand Avenue. Access off of Grand Avenue
Building CoverageRequired: 60%-80%Proposed: 72%HeightRequired: 45’ w/ min 5:12 roof pitchProposed: 34’ w// 5:12 roof pitchOpen Space Required: 20%Proposed: 26.7%ParkingRequired: 11 spaces (1 space/ 300 square feet)Proposed: 9 spaces (2 In-Lieu Fee Program spaces)Standards ComplianceSetbacks Proposed:Front: 5 feet*S. Side: 5 feet N. Side: 5 feetRear: 5 feet* Building is 15 feet back from edge of curb.
Project DesignWESTNORTH
Project DesignEASTSOUTH
Proposed Project:Provides desirable useCompatible with surrounding area.Serve as catalyst for future developmentIncreases number, quality, and diversity of office space within the Village.Goals & Objectives of Land Use Plan
Environmental ReviewProposed project is an in-fill development project and Exempt from CEQA.No comments received.DRB recommended approval of environmental determination.
DRB RecommendationDRB voted 4-0 (Marquez absent) to recommend approval of the project.Project will have positive financial impact and assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Master Plan.