HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-05; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 392; Homelife Village RealtorsHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL 1
392
11/7/06
H/RED
HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
RP 06-08
DEPT.
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 430 , DENYING the
appeal of the Design Review Board decision to uphold the Housing & Redevelopment Director's
decision denying Administrative Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-08) to convert an existing retail space
to an office use at 2898 State Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On September 25, 2006, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing on the
applicant's appeal of the Housing & Redevelopment Director's decision denying an Administrative
Redevelopment Permit for an office use to locate at 2898 State Street. At the September 25th
meeting the Design Review Board voted unanimously (5-0) to uphold the Director's decision. The
decision of the Design Review Board has been appealed by the applicant and is now being brought
forward to the Housing & Redevelopment Commission for final action.
The subject property is located within District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area which is known
as the Village Center and intended to provide a lively mix of shops, restaurants, entertainment
uses, visitor accommodations and related commercial services. Within the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual, a real estate office is defined as a "business/professional office" and may
locate within District 1 if it is replacing an existing office use (where the use has been
grandfathered in) or if the office use is locating on the second story of a structure where the
negative impact to pedestrian activities are minimized and retail continuity is maintained or
enhanced. Real estate offices often desire to locate on State Street and Grand Avenue due to its
high visibility and pedestrian traffic. However, the Village Master Plan discourages the location of
offices within this area where they would be located on the ground floor and have a negative
impact on retail continuity. Existing office uses that do exist within District 1 at ground floor
locations, such as Homelife Village Realtors at its current location on Grand Avenue, are
"grandfathered" uses under the Village Master Plan. The Village Master Plan allows them to
remain at their current location without any required abatement period. However, to relocate they
must identify a location which is appropriate for an office use. The applicant selected a new
location which is a key retail location and not appropriate for an office use according to the Village
Master Plan and the vision for the area.
The Design Review Board has upheld the determination that an office use at the subject property will
negatively impact existing and future retail continuity in the area as the site is located within a
significant concentration of retail shops and at a prominent pedestrian oriented location. The location
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Cliff Jones 760-434-2813 cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVED D
DENIED D
CONTINUED D
WITHDRAWN D
AMENDED D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER - SEE MINUTES
Cniinr,i1 rpfprrpH Thp m.q 11 erfatih
na
r.i ty At iv ey
for preparation of documents approving the appeal.
Page 2
has a high level of pedestrian activity where a synergy exists between retail shops and needs to be
maintained as a retail use. Adjacent uses along State Street and Grand Avenue are primarily retail or
restaurant which add to the retail continuity of the Village and reinforce the pedestrian shopping
environment in the Village. The Design Review Board determined that an office use at the proposed
location will break up the retail continuity on State Street and Grand Avenue.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the appeal
and uphold the Housing & Redevelopment Director's decision. The applicant has appealed the
decision of the Design Review Board, and in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the
appeal of the Design Review Board's decision is being forwarded to the Housing & Redevelopment
Commission for final action.
Per Chapter 21.54.150(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Commission shall hold a public hearing
on the appeal request, consider the public testimony, staff recommendation, the Design Review
Board's decision on the appeal and all other relevant documentation, and then take action to affirm
modify or reverse the action of the Design Review Board. The action of the Commission should be
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate.
A resolution denying said appeal along with the Design Review Board staff report and the draft
minutes of the September 25th Board meeting are attached for the Commission's review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff time involved in processing this appeal request is a direct cost to the city. No other fiscal impact
determined at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
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 15270 of
the State CEQA Guidelines as a project which is disapproved. If the decision of the Design
Review Board is overturned by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission, the project is exempt
from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 as the conversion from one use to
another that will not have a significant impact on the environment.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 430 . DENYING the appeal of the Design
Review Boards decision regarding RP06-08.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 313 dated September 25, 2006.
3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated September 25, 2006, w/attachments.
4. Design Review Board Minutes, dated September 25, 2006.
5. Appeal Form for the Design Review Board decision.
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 430
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO
UPHOLD THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S
DECISION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
RP 06-08 TO CONVERT AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE TO OFFICE
SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2898 STATE STREET IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT:
CASE NO:
GARY NESSIM
RP 06-08
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider an appealof the Housing A/Redevelopment Director's denial of
Administrative Redevelopment Permit RINJ6-08 H^ME LZFE VILLAGE REALTORS and adopted
Design Review Board Resolutions ^fos^l 3 upholding/the decision of the Director and denying the
appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Housing^uid Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the date
of this resolution held a di4y\noticed\pubHfc hearing to consider the decision of the Design Review
Board upholding the fiousing <ST Redevelopment Director's decision to deny Administrative
Redevelopment PermiftRE^OJ^N^ ^nd heard all persons interested in or opposed to said appeal; and
WHEREAS, as a resulyof an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant
to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to be categorically
exempt from the reqprement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15270
of the State CEQVGuidelines as a project which is disapproved.
NOW/THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the appeal of Administrative Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-08) is DENIED and the
HRC RESO NO.
PAGEl
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
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 313, on file in the
City Clerk's Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
*- ,
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time
Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
NOTICE TO APPLIO
"The time within which judicial review of this decision mdst 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 ajrfpropriate 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 no/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 theoreparatfon of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the
City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200^arjfeba€ Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008."
HRC RESO NO.
PAGE 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of.
2006 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, CHAIRMAN
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, SECRETARY
o
HRC RESO NO.
PAGE 3
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 313
DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 313
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION DENYING
4 ADMINISTRATIVE REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT RP 06-08 TO CONVERT
AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE TO OFFICE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2898 STATE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE
6 CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 .
7 CASE NAME: HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
APN: 203-291-03
8 CASE NO: RP 06-08
9
10 WHEREAS, Gary Nessim, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by MacDonald
12
Properties L.P., "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-291-03, and more
13
thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and14
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Administrative Redevelopment
16 Permit, as shown on Attachment "E" dated May 24, 2006, on file in the Housing and
17 Redevelopment Department, "HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS RP 06-08", as provided
10
by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
19
WHEREAS, the Housing & Redevelopment Director denied Administrative
20
Redevelopment Permit RP 06-08 HOME LIFE VILLAGE REALTORS on July 6, 2006;
22
23 WHEREAS, the applicant has filed an appeal of the Housing & Redevelopment
24 Director's denial of Administrative Redevelopment Permit RP 06-08 HOME LIFE
25 VILLAGE REALTORS to the Design Review Board; and
26
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 25th day of September, 2006, hold a
27
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and2.O
1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
2 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to
3
"HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS RP 06-08."
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
6 follows:
7 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
o B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
g Board DENIES the appeal of the decision made by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director regarding HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS RP
10 06-08, based on the following findings:
11 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS;
12 1. The Design Review Board finds that the project is not in conformance with the Elements of
13 the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth in the
14 staff report dated September 25, 2006 including, but not limited to the following:
a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
16 as outlined within the General Plan, because the proposed office use will break
up retail continuity along State Street and Grand Avenue and eliminate a very
17 key retail location from the Village inventory, which does not help to preserve,
enhance or maintain the shopping experience within the Village but rather
* detracts from it. Additionally, the pedestrian activity within the Village may be
19 reduced through the elimination of retail space at a very key location and the
break in retail continuity potentially creating a less profitable business setting
20 for the retail oriented Village Center.
21 b. The project is inconsistent with the Village Master Plan in that the proposed
project does not assist in satisfying the goals and objectives in that: 1) an office
use at the proposed location will detract from the retail shopping experience
23 within the Village, 2) the proposed office use will upset the retail continuity
along State Street and Grand Avenue. The proposed office use will not provide
24 improvements to the pedestrian circulation within the Village Area, 3) any new
improvements associated with the proposed project will be negligible and
predominantly interior improvements therefore, the project will not help in
9g stimulating property improvements or new development in the Village, 4) the
proposed office use will not improve the physical appearance of the Village
27 Redevelopment Area.
28
DRBRESONO. 313 -2-
c. The project is inconsistent with Land Use District 1 of the Village
2 Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and does not satisfy the
findings that the use is consistent with the Village vision and goals because an
3 office use at the subject property will negatively impact existing and future retail
continuity in the area as the site is located within a significant concentration of
retail shops and at a prominent pedestrian oriented location within the Village
Center where retail activity is encouraged. Adjacent uses along State Street and
Grand Avenue are primarily retail or restaurant which add to the retail
5 continuity of the Village and reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment in
the Village. An office use at the proposed location will break up the retail
7 continuity not only on State Street but Grand Avenue as well. Furthermore, the
subject property is at a prominent location within the Village center at the
intersection of two main pedestrian oriented arteries (State Street and Grand
Avenue) where many people converge to meet at the water fountain (across the
street from the site) and engage in pedestrian oriented shopping. An office use
10 at the subject property will hurt the pedestrian shopping experience by breaking
up the existing and future retail continuity in the area.
2. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found to be a statutory exemption from the requirement for
13 the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15270-Projects Which Are
Disapproved, of the state CEQA Guidelines.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRBRESONO. 313 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 25th day of September, 2006 by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
SCHUMACHER
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAKER, HAMILTON, HEINEMAN, LAWSON AND
NONE
NONE
NONE
CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRBRESONO. 313 -4-
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN 203-291-03
The land referred to is situated in the County of San Diego, City of Carlsbad, State of
California, and is described as follows:
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Block 35 of CARLSBAD TOWNSITE, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 535, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888.
\\
&chibit3
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
Appeal Date: Staff: Cliff Jones
7/12/06
Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJECT: RP 06-08 - "HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS": Appeal of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director's decision denying an Administrative Redevelopment
Permit (RP 06-08) to convert an existing retail space to an office use at 2898
State Street in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board DENY the appeal of the Housing and Redevelopment Director's
decision.
II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires approval of an Administrative Redevelopment Permit because
an office use is considered a provisional use within District 1. Since the request was denied by
the Housing and Redevelopment Director, the applicant chose to appeal the decision to the
Design Review Board. In accordance with redevelopment procedures of the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the appeal is being brought forward for a
decision by the Design Review Board. The action of the Design Review Board is final unless
appealed to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board must hold a public hearing on the applicants appeal of the decision
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, consider the applicant's ground for appeal and
any public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, and then take action to
approve or deny the request.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore a Coastal Development
Permit is not required.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
-1'1!
The applicant, Gary Nessim, representing Homelife Village Realtors, has appealed the Housing
and Redevelopment Director's decision to deny a request for an Administrative Redevelopment
Permit for an office use to locate in Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Area. The property is located at 2898 State Street on the northeast corner of State Street and
Grand Avenue, a prominent retail corner in the Carlsbad Village. Nearby businesses include
retail shops, restaurants, and commercial serving business such as beauty salons. The 1,200
square foot space that the applicant is requesting to relocate in is currently being leased to a
HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
PAGE 2
mattress retailer. The office of Homelife Village Realtors is currently located in a 1,600 square
foot space at 530 Grand Avenue and is a "grandfathered" use under the Village Master Plan
adopted in 1995. It is allowed to remain at its current location but relocation or expansion is
subject to compliance review by the Redevelopment Agency.
The applicant's proposed real estate office use is classified as a provisional use within Land
Use District 1. This means that the use is subject to discretionary approval based on findings
that the use is consistent with the Village vision and goals and the Land Use standards for the
district. Staff has determined that an office use at the subject property is inconsistent with the
Village vision and goals for the downtown as the use will disrupt the retail continuity of the
Village area and hurt the pedestrian shopping environment of the Village. Both the applicant
and the property owner have received letters explaining staff's decision which are attached for
review.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The subject property is located within Land Use District 1 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. District 1, also known as the Village Center,
is a pedestrian-oriented center of retail activity in the Village. The Village Center has and
continues to function as a strong retailing center, serving city residents as well as tourists and
regional visitors. The overall vision and intent of the Land Use Standards for District 1 is to
reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment, encourage mutually supportive uses, and
provide a major activity focus for Carlsbad Village and the City as a whole. Permitted land uses
in District 1 include retail sales, certain commercial uses, and restaurants as they are the
preferred uses in the areas of high pedestrian activity. Provisional land uses in District 1
include office, multi-family housing if not part of a mixed-use project, churches, self
improvement services such as dance and music schools, and automobile related services.
These land uses often break up retail continuity within the Village Center and require special
scrutiny concerning location, size, and impacts on adjacent uses.
As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, a real estate office use is classified
as a provisional use within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Provisional
uses are subject to discretionary approval based on findings that the use is consistent with the
Village vision and goals and Land Use Standards. As set forth in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual "Location and Development Criteria" for Business/Professional Offices, ground
floor office uses should not be located along commercial shopping streets where they would
disrupt retail continuity, however office uses are generally appropriate on the upper floors where
they do not impact retail continuity. Since the subject property has frontage along both State
Street and Grand Avenue, which are streets of high pedestrian activity, and the property is at a
prominent retailing corner of the Village Center staff believes the subject property is an
inappropriate location for an office use as it would break up retail continuity along those streets.
Staff has consistently determined that an office use may only locate within the Village Center if
it is replacing an existing office use (where the use has been grandfathered in) or if the office
use is locating on the second story of a structure where the impact to pedestrian activities are
minimized. Staff has received frequent requests to locate offices, specifically real estate
offices, on State Street and Grand Avenue due to its high visibility and pedestrian traffic. Staff
has been consistent in denying these requests where they are proposed to locate on the
ground floor. Office uses that do exist within District 1 at ground floor locations are
"grandfathered" uses under the Village Master Plan.
HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
SEPTEMBER 25,2006
PAGES
In order to further access the impact a particular provisional land use may have on adjacent
land uses and the Village as a whole the Village Master Plan contains findings that must be
made to allow a provisional use within a Land Use District. Findings that must be made to
assess the appropriateness of this particular provisional use within District 1 are: 1) The office
development will be compatible in scale and character to the surrounding Village Development.
2) The development is not likely to negatively impact existing or planned retail continuity in
significant concentrations of commercial shops. 3) Sufficient on-site parking will be available to
serve employee parking needs. 4) The office development will not result in an undue reduction
of livability for adjacent residents. Staff concludes that the proposed provisional office use does
not satisfy the applicable findings that must be made to allow an office use within District 1.
First, the request does not involve any new construction therefore the first finding is not
applicable. Second, staff believes finding number two cannot be made because an office use
at the subject property will negatively impact existing and future retail continuity in the area as
the site is located within a significant concentration of retail shops and at a prominent
pedestrian oriented location within the Village Center where retail activity is encouraged.
Adjacent uses along State Street and Grand Avenue are primarily retail or restaurant which add
to the retail continuity of the Village and reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment in the
Village. An office use at the proposed location will break up the retail continuity not only on
State Street but Grand Avenue as well. Furthermore, the subject property is at a prominent
location within the Village center at the intersection of two main pedestrian oriented arteries
(State Street and Grand Avenue) where many people converge to meet at the water fountain
(across the street from the site) and engage in pedestrian oriented shopping. An office use at
the subject property will hurt the pedestrian shopping experience by breaking up the existing
and future retail continuity in the area. The third finding does not apply to the project as there
will not be a need for any additional parking as the parking requirements for an office use is
equal to that of a retail use (1 space/300 square feet). Finally, the fourth finding does not apply
to the project as the adjacent uses are retail and not residential.
The value of a retail core and the importance of retail continuity within the retail core is
recognized by planning and land use development organizations such as the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) and the Community Land Use (CLUE) group. ULI, a well known organization
throughout the land use and development community, stated in a recent (2003) publication
aimed at rebuilding retail districts that if office uses are "self-enclosed fortresses or if they
disrupt the retail continuity, they will detract rather than add to the street." The notion that office
uses are "self-enclosed fortresses" due to their inward oriented operations is often what
detracts from the retail continuity along a street and in retail centers. The CLUE Group who is
an expert in analyzing retail activities in downtown areas suggests downtowns should have an
articulation of specific zones for retail activities. This often includes the clustering of retail
activities and mutually supportive uses which generate a high degree of pedestrian activity in
specific zones in order to promote greater retail and pedestrian activities within a downtown.
Within the Village, District 1 is zoned for most all retail uses and mutually supportive uses (i.e.
restaurants, art galleries, beauty salons) and serves as the retail center serving city residents
as well as tourists and regional visitors. The importance of zoning for retail in downtown areas
to maintain retail continuity has long been acknowledged by ULI. In a 1989 ULI publication
regarding zoning for retail uses it was stated that "Uninterrupted commercial activity makes for
a synergy between the individual retail uses, which in turn generates pedestrian activity and
attracts shoppers. Thus, continuity is deemed essential to the viability of any retail core." Retail
continuity is essential to the viability of any retail core and zoning to assure that retail continuity
is not interrupted helps to maintain synergy between shops attracting shoppers, maintaining
HOMELIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
SEPTEMBER 25,2006
PAGE 4
economic viability, and preserving the pedestrian character of retail districts such as the Village
Center (District 1).
Lastly, the amount of office space at the subject building is purportedly being reduced from
1600 square feet to 1220 square feet, however, the minimal gain of retail space in the building
does not offset the loss of a retail use at a prominent retailing corner within the Village Center
and the loss of retail continuity along State Street and Grand Avenue.
V. 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 (change from retail to office land use) is inconsistent with the goals and
objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan. The proposed office use will
break up retail continuity along State Street and Grand Avenue and eliminate a very key retail
location from the Village inventory, which does not help to preserve, enhance or maintain the
shopping experience within the Village but rather detracts from it. Additionally, the pedestrian
activity within the Village may be reduced through the elimination of retail space at a key
location and the break in retail continuity potentially creating a less profitable business setting
for the retail oriented Village Center.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
All proposed projects should be aimed at addressing a variety of objectives as outlined within
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad VillaQe as a Quality Shopping, Working and Living Environment.
The proposed office use will provide employment opportunities in the Village. However, an
alternate location is more appropriate for a real estate office. An office use at the proposed
location will detract from the retail shopping experience within the Village.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The proposed
office use will not provide improvements to the pedestrian circulation within the Village Area
because it will upset the retail continuity along State Street and Grand Avenue.
Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the Village. Any new
improvements associated with the proposed project will be negligible and predominantly interior
improvements therefore, the project will not help in stimulating property improvements or new
development in the Village.
HOMELBFE VILLAGE REALTORS
SEPTEMBER 25,2006
PAGES
Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The proposed office use will not
improve the physical appearance of the Village Redevelopment Area.
VII. 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 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines as a project which is disapproved. If the decision
of the Housing & Redevelopment Director is overturned by the Design Review Board, the
project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 as the
conversion from one use to another that will not have a significant impact on the environment.
VIII. STAFF RECOMENDATION
The Village Center has and continues to function as a strong retailing center, serving city
residents as well as tourists and regional visitors. Staff has consistently determined that office
uses may only locate within the Village Center (District 1) if they are replacing an existing office
use (where the use has been grandfathered in) or if the office use is locating on the second
story of a structure where the impact to pedestrian activities are minimized. Staff believes that
the proposed office use would not assist in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land
Use District 1 because an office use will disrupt the retail continuity along State Street and
Grand Avenue hurting retail activities in the Village Center. Since the subject property has
frontage along both State Street and Grand Avenue, which are streets of high pedestrian
activity, and the property is at a prominent retailing comer of the Village Center staff believes
the subject property is an inappropriate location for an office use of any type.
Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request to overturn the Housing &
redevelopment Director's decision to deny the administrative redevelopment permit to allow
conversion of a prime retail location to an office use.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Design Review Board Resolution No. 312 recommending denial of the appeal of RP 06-08
B. Location Map.
C. Appeal Form dated July 12, 2006.
D. Appeal Process Letter dated July 11, 2006.
E. Denial Letter to Applicant dated July 6, 2006.
F. RP 06-08 Application dated May 24, 2006
G. Business License Denial Letter dated May 9, 2006.
H. Letter to Property Owner dated May 4, 2006.
SITE
HOMELIFE VILLAGE
REALTORS
RP 06-08
tw APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Director to the
Design Review Board:
Date of Decision you are appealing:M Q>
Subject of Appeal:
BE SPECIFIC. Examples: If a project has multiple elements, (such as a Negative
Declaration, Sign Permit, Variance, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal
a part of the whole action, please state so below.
IK
J60Q
ra- H^ W( 1
o*u h &tte is&$tte
Signature: / _ _ Date: "7f/Name: (Please Print):
Address: Street Name& Number:6<A»vcS
Citv: O^v state: C/\ _ zip
Phone No.: "76O
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
July. 11,2006
ATTN: GARY NESSIM
HOME LIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
530 GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Re: Redevelopment Permit 06-08 Appeal
Dear Mr. Nessim:
As you know from prior correspondence, dated July 6, 2006, your application for an
Administrative Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-08) to operate a real estate office at property
located at 2898 State Street was denied. The reasons for the denial were stated in prior
letter correspondence and prior meetings with staff. The purpose of this correspondence is
to remind you that you have ten (10) calendar days from the denial letter sent to you on July
6, 2006 to appeal the decision made by the Housing & Redevelopment Director. As we
discussed in our meeting today, the fee for the appeal is $560.00 and must be accompanied
by the appeal application, which I handed to you today. In case you may have misplaced
the appeal application I have enclosed one for your convenience. As a courtesy to you, we
will give you until 5:00pm Monday (July, 17, 2006) to submit the appeal application and fee.
Once the application is received staff will begin preparing the necessary documents for the
appeal hearing. If you do wish to appeal the decision of the Housing & Redevelopment
Director please submit your application as soon as possible.
If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter, please contact
my office at (760) 434-2813.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
c: Housing and Redevelopment Director
File
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
July 6, 2006
ATTN: GARY NESS1M
HOME LIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
530 GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Re: Redevelopment Permit 06-08
Dear Mr. Nessim:
On July 6, 2006 the Housing and Redevelopment Director denied Administrative
Redevelopment Permit No. RP 06-08 to operate a real estate office at property located at 2898
State Street. As we have discussed, the land use regulations set forth for the subject property in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual do not encourage the operations of your business at
the proposed location. Your business is classified as an office use, which is a provisional use
within Land Use District 1. This means that the use is subject to discretionary approval based
on findings that the use is consistent with the Village vision and goals. Additionally,
consideration of the use requires special scrutiny concerning location, size, and anticipated
impact on adjacent uses and the Village as a whole. Office uses are allowed within District 1
only if an office use is replacing an existing office use at the same location, or if the office use is
determined not to have an impact on surrounding uses and does not break up the retail
continuity. The intent of the land use standards for District 1, also known as the Village Center,
is to reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment, encourage mutually supportive uses, and
provide a major activity focus for Carlsbad Village and the City as a whole. The Village Center
has and continues to function as a strong retailing center, serving City residents as well as
tourists and regional visitors. "Permitted" land uses in District 1 include retail sales, certain
commercial uses, and restaurants as they are the preferred uses in the areas of highest
pedestrian activity. Since the subject property has frontage along both State Street and Grand
Avenue (streets of high pedestrian activity) staff cannot support an office use at the proposed
location as an office use has been determined to break up retail continuity along both blocks.
Therefore, the Housing and Redevelopment Director has denied your application (RP 06-08)
The decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Director is subject to a ten (10) day appeal
period to the Design Review Board. If you wish to appeal the decision of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director, you must file a written appeal to the Housing and Redevelopment
Department within ten (10) calendar days of this decision. The cost for an appeal of the
Director's decision is $735 ($560 for appeal + $175 for noticing) plus postage for the noticing.
For more information regarding the appeal process, please contact the Housing and
Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2810.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact my office at (760) 434-
2812.
AUSTIN SILVA
Planning Technician
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037
JKLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENC^
^ PERMIT APPLICATION
PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY:
|J7| ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT
1 j New construction of building(s) or
addition(s) to the building footprint which
have a building permit valuation which is
equal to or less than $60,000.
II Interior or exterior improvements to existing
structures which result in an intensity of
/- use.
\A Provisional land uses, where a minor or
C
C
n co
D g
r
major redevelopment permit is not
required.
J Changes in permitted land uses which
result in site changes, increased ADT,
increased parking requirements, or result in
compatibility issues/problems.
Signs for existing businesses or facilities.
Repair or maintenance activities which are
not exempt from obtaining a permit.
ASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
JOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
New construction of building (s) or
addition(s) to the building footprint which
have a building permit valuation which is
greater than $150,000.
Variances for projects within this category.
|~] MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
| | New construction of building(s) or
addition(s) to the building footprint which
have a building permit valuation which is
greater than $60,000 but less than
$150,000.
Variances for projects within this category.
Variances for projects which would
otherwise be exempt or be eligible for an
administrative permit.
PI MISCELLANEOUS REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
A-Frame Sign
Sign Permit
Sign Program
Sidewalk Tables/Chairs
Outdoor Displays
Other
—
PROJECT TITLE: N^loCa'HoK OT |2.«t^ B^K. O^fliC- CiHcO KeTSn ^JQpL?^ffe Q ix»(/<^lM
Brief description of project: HoA<f^£s* ^'l^foc- ^-^o fo*5" t?<J0#tW"? "T^^vv 63O (bj(Qf\$ ^
jtytnljc. iCtOQ^P- <h? 'dV'F? Sijzwci- SiV^-i • ^<^»v. |3<?9 ^*f u*"^- *^^ » •
Property Location: ,
APN(s): O°^? ~ crl f -L?3~ <^O Street Address J^fa^ ^-HtxW T^'^T'TC.T
Owner's Name yiA<E^V^9H(d(K rf^Dt^r^t^ /-43
Address *5<D\(o <^^trr<d&ih 'v2ooU
EncimW? (/jQt Q3CM
Telephone Number Ca\^\ ^Q5 ^feO^_j-
Applicant's Name GrCx^Y AJ-fSS//n
Address j3O CTTf^h^ >\(rm(r£
CL.C4 t^Y}oC C*J} ^/SOOS^
Telephone Number ~76O ~7^ 9 ?^?s2 I1
THE AREA BELOW IS TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY STAFF
FEES FOR APPLICATION PROCESSING:
(List type of fee and amount)
RECEIPT OF APPLICATION
Date Application Received ^/5-M /Of,
Application Received bv <£jt~ff 3o«*5
Permit Number Assigned rJr Q(Q " CsO
TARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGEJ
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION & DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
1. APPLICATION APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES)
D New Construction of building(s) or addition(s) to the building footprint which have a building permit
valuation which is equal to or less than $60,000.
D Interior or Exterior Improvements to existing structures which result in an intensity of use.
•G^ Provisional Land Uses, where a minor or major redevelopment permit is not required.
D Changes in permitted land uses which result in site changes, increased ADT, increased parking
requirements, or result in compatibility issues/problems.
O Signs for existing businesses or facilities.
D Repair or Maintenance Activities which are not exempt from obtaining a permit.
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Address:
BorderinNorth:treets:
south:
East:
West:
Q03Assessor Parcel No.:
Legal Description: /-OT^ /
QO
35 T^1 775
Within Coastal Zone:
Within Appealable Area of Coastal Zone:
Land Use District within Village:
D
D
Yes
Yes
1
D 4
D 7
D
D
D
D
D
2
5
8
No
No
a
Da
3
6
9
3.
_ 1LSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGEW
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION & DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Project Name:_
Please provide a complete description of the project proposed for approval under this application. Provide
any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may
attach additional pages to this application if necessary to explain the project:
4. AUTHORIZATION TO INSPECT PROPERTY
In the process of reviewing this application it may be necessary for members of City Staff, Design Review
Board Members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the subject of this
application. I/we consent to entry onto the subject property for this purpose.
Date:
Signature-Applicant ^fiC or Owner D
^RLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT AGEHBr
ADMINISTRATE PERMIT APPLICATION & DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
5. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION
Name:
Mailing Address:,
Daytime Telephone No.:_
List the Names and Addresses of all persons having an ownershimnterest in the property involved:
If any person identified above is a corporation ocpartnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals
owning more than 10% of the shares in the corcjpration or owning any partnership interest in the partnership:
If any person identified above is a noivprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any
person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust:
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City Staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees, and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes D No
If yes, please indicate t/erson(s):_
Certification Statement
I Certify that I am the Legal Owner of the subject property for this application and that all of the above
information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This application is submitted with my consent
and I agree to accept and abide by any conditions placed on the subject property, including use of buildings,
as a result oraTpproval of this application.
Signature Date:
ARLSBAD REDEVELUPMtri i MUCHM
ADMINISTRATlWPERMIT APPLICATION & DISCLOSTWE STATEMENT
6. APPLICANT INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION
Name- M HV J^ltt^ JliC- ~ ^ rV_
Mailing Address: 6^Q (^^V^hc) A IK H Hi
Q
Daytime Telephone No.: ~76Q
List the Names and Addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application:
If any person identified above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals
owning more than 1 0% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership:
\fo*
If any person identified above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any
person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust:
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City Staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees, and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes ^) No
If yes, please indicate person(s):
Certification Statement.
I Certify that I am the Legal Owner's representative and that all of the above information is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge. I have been authorized by the legal owner of the subject property to submit this
application and I agree to accept and abide by any conditions placed on the subject property, including use
of buildings, as a result of approval of this application.
Signature /" yj-- Date:u
- __ -. .. . ^^ADMINISTRATE PERMIT APPLICATION & DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The remainder of this application shall be completed by City Staff:
7. RECEIPT OF APPLICATION
Date Application Received:
Application Received by:
Permit No. Assigned:
8. FEES FOR APPLICATION PROCESSING
The following fees shall apply to this application; list type of fee and amount:
335.00_- Administrative Redevelopment Permit
Total Fee(s) required for this application:
Date Fee(s) collected by City Staff:,
Receipt No.:
9. ACTION ON THE APPLICATION
The following action has been taken by the Housing and Redevelopment Director on this application:
D Approved subject to conformance with plans submitted as part of application, dated .
D Approved, with conditions. See conditions noted below.
D Denied. Reason
Housing and Redevelopment Director Signature: CD Director Initials: Date:
10. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (IF APPLICABLE)
g^tWt
tRLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION & DISCLOEORE STATEMENT
5. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION
Name:_
Mailing Address: £
Daytime Telephone No.: 7 6 0 -
List the Names and Addresses of all persons having an ownership interest in the property involved
$ U HtfUsilfi M/HLy»Mfo £ ?/ Q'?AAM& &T tflfrf 6A"7#AA/&-X<r0
7) en/iti? li&iC0//tof&T?ff4A3> J/?.
If any person identified above is a corporation or pjirtnership.Jjst the names and addresses of all individuals
owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership:
If any person identified above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any
person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust:
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City Staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees, and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes JSTNo
If yes, please indicate person(s):
Certification Statement
I Certify that I am the Legal Owner of the subject property for this application and that all of the above
information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This application is submitted with my consent
and I agree to accept and abide-by-any conditions placed on the subject property, including use of buildings,
as a resdtfofapproval of this/applicatibn.
Signature \TfriJ^ /I .jYl^iAJo^i/J^ Date:
WMM
il^
http://realist2.firstamres.com/gpl/map.jsp?serverid=5/24/2006
nalsbad
May 9, 2006
ATTN: GARY NESSIM
HOME LIFE VILLAGE REALTORS
530 GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Re: Business License # 856400
Dear Mr. Nessim:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your request for a business license to operate
a real estate office at 2898 State Street has been denied. The reason for the denial is that
the land use regulations set forth for the subject property in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual does not permit the operations of your business at the proposed location.
Your business is classified as a real estate office use, which is a provisional use within Land
Use District 1. Land Use District 1 is primarily intended for retail uses with office uses
permitted if they do not upset retail continuity, or are replacing an existing office use. As we
have discussed with you previously, the Housing & Redevelopment Department has
determined that replacing the existing retail space with a ground floor office use would upset
the retail continuity along the 2800 block of State Street and the 500 block of Grand
Avenue. The proposed real estate office use at the subject site has not been approved.
Therefore, your business license has not been approved.
If you do wish to move your real estate business to another location within the Village, staff
encourages you to locate your business in a location that allows for an office use. There
are a number of locations within the Village area where a real estate office would be
permitted. Please contact our office to confirm if an office use would be permitted within a
specific property located in the Redevelopment Area.
We look forward to continuing to work together with you to make the Village a success for
everyone involved. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this
letter, please contact the Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2810.
Sincerely,
AUSTIN SILVA
Planning Technician
C:Fountain, Housing &
Brandt, Finance Department
_
2965 ftoosevelt St.
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
May 4, 2006
JOE MCDONALD
2898 STATE STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Re: Permitted uses at 2898 State Street
Dear Mr. McDonald,
The purpose of this letter is to follow up in writing the concerns I discussed with
you on the phone last week regarding one of your office tenants impending plan
to move to 2898 State Street.
As you are now aware, the above mentioned property falls within Land Use
District 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment area. I have included
documents from the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan relating to
District 1 for your review. District 1 , also known as the Village Center, is a
pedestrian-oriented center of retail activity in the Village. The intent of the land
use standards for District 1 is to reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment,
encourage mutually supportive uses, and provide a major activity focus for
Carlsbad Village and the City as a whole. The Village Center has and continues
to function as a strong retailing center, serving city residents as well as tourists
and regional visitors. "Permitted" land uses in District 1 include retail sales,
certain commercial uses, and restaurants as they are the preferred uses in the
areas of highest pedestrian activity. Since the subject property is in an area of
high pedestrian activity (located within the core of the Village at the corner of
State Street and Grand Avenue) and across the street from a prominent public
gathering space (the public water fountain), a retail or restaurant use that would
reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment of downtown is highly
encouraged.
City staff has recently become aware that an office use plans to move to this
prominent location within the Village and replace the retail use that currently
exists. As you are now aware, office uses are classified as "provisional" uses
and will only be permitted if they do not upset retail continuity. This means that
the use is subject to discretionary approval based on findings that the use is
consistent with the Village vision and goals. This will require special scrutiny
concerning location, size, and anticipated impact on adjacent uses and the
Village as a whole. Office uses are allowed within District 1 only if an office use
is replacing an existing office use at the same location or if the office use is
determined to not have an impact on surrounding uses and does not break up
retail continuity. Since the subject property has frontage along both State Street
and Grand Avenue (streets of high pedestrian activity) staff cannot support an
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037
office use at this location as an office use could break up the retail continuity
along both blocks.
Therefore, staff encourages you to reconsider allowing an office use at the
abovementioned address. If an office use does move into this location without
prior city approval this will become a code enforcement issue for both you and
the business owner.
We value you as a property owner of Carlsbad and look forward to continuing to
work together to make the Village a success for everyone involved. If you have
any questions regarding the information contained in this letter, please contact
me at (760) 434-2813.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CLIFF JONES
Assistant Planner
C: Garry Nessim, Home Life Village Realtors
Housing & Redevelopment Director
Community Development Director
Building & Code Enforcement Manager
City Manager
City Attorney
Code Enforcement
File
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: SEPTEMBER 25, 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 Lawson 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
Darren Hamilton
Tony Lawson
Michael Schumacher
Chairperson: Courtney Heineman
Absent: None
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Assistant Planner: Cliff Jones
Assistant City Attorney. Jane Mobaldi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the July 24, 2006 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 said the item is an appeal of the Housing and Redevelopment Director's decision to deny an
administrative redevelopment permit that would convert an existing retail space to an office use at 2898 State
Street. Cliff Jones, the Assistant Planner for the Housing and Redevelopment Department, will make the
presentation.
Mr. Jones said the applicant, Gary Nessim, representing HomeLife Village Realtors has appealed the
Housing and Redevelopment Director's decision to deny an administrative redevelopment permit, RP 06-08,
for an office use to be located within District 1 of the Village Redevelopment area. An administrative
redevelopment permit is required for office uses within District 1 because office uses are considered
provisional uses within this district and require special scrutiny regarding the uses location, size, impacts on
adjacent uses and consistency with the village vision and goals. In accordance with the redevelopment
permit procedures, this appeal is being brought forward for a decision by the Design Review Board. The
action of the Design Review Board is final unless appealed to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of State Street and Grand Avenue, which is a
prominent retailing corner of the village with high levels of pedestrian activity. The suite that the applicant
wishes to move his office to is at 2898 State Street, which is currently a mattress retailer and is classified as a
retail use. Other land uses on the subject property include uses such as Beach Shack, Caroline's Women's
Apparel, Ghana Creations, Dana G, Beach Baby, Bit O'Britain, and the office use of the applicant, a real
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25,2006
PAGE 2 of 13
estate office use called HomeL'rfe Village Realtors at 530 Grand Avenue. The real estate office use at 530
Grand Avenue is a grandfathered use under the Village Master Plan adopted in 1995 and has been at the
present location since the late 80's. The office use may remain at its current location, but relocation or
expansion is subject to compliance review by the Redevelopment Agency.
To the east and north of the site are retail uses; to the west of the site is a public space incorporating a public
water fountain and public parking; to the southwest are retail and restaurant uses along the west side of State
Street; to the southeast are also retail and restaurant uses along the east side of State Street; and to the east
on both sides of Grand Avenue are retail and restaurant uses; and to the north are retail uses, a restaurant
and a theater along State Street.
As mentioned previously, the subject property is located within District 1 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment area. District 1, also known as the village center, is a pedestrian oriented center of retail
activity in the village serving city residents as well as tourists and regional visitors. The village center
provides a vital mix of shopping, dining and visitor attractions. The overall vision and intent of land use
standards for this district is to reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment by providing a lively mix of retail
shops, encouraging mutually supported uses, such as restaurants, theaters, art galleries, museums, coffee
houses, delicatessens, and public space for gathering which all provide a major activity focus for the Carlsbad
Village and the city as a whole.
Permitted uses within District 1 include retail uses; some are antiques, appliances, coffee houses and tea
rooms, drug stores, dry goods, electronic equipment stores, florists, jewelry stores, luggage stores, pet
stores, photo supply stores, stationery stores and cards, picture framing, art gallery, and video sales and
rental, to name a few.
Restaurant uses are permitted as well, large and small, as are sidewalk cafes and small fast food restaurants
and mutually supportive commercial uses such as barber shops, beauty parlors, dry cleaners, libraries,
parking lots and shoe garment repair.
As stipulated within the Village Master Plan Design Manual, a real estate office use is classified as a
provisional use within Land Use District 1. Provisional uses are subject to discretionary approval based on
findings that the use is consistent with the village vision and goals and requires special scrutiny regarding the
uses location, size and impacts on adjacent uses. As set forth within the Village Master Plan, ground floor
office uses should not be located along commercial shopping streets where they would disrupt retail
continuity. However, office uses are generally appropriate on the upper floors of the buildings where they do
not disrupt retail continuity. The Village Master Plan also stipulates that the approving body must find that the
use is not likely to negatively impact existing or planned retail continuity in significant concentrations of
commercial shops.
Staff has determined that the proposed project does not satisfy the location and development criteria for a
provisional office use. The subject property has frontage along both State Street and Grand Avenue where a
lot of commercial shopping exists and is in an area that receives a high level of pedestrian activity where
synergy exists between retail shops, which creates a high level of retail continuity. Additionally, the property is
at a prominent retail corner within the village where additional shopping opportunities are bountiful to the
south, east, north and west. Allowing office use at this location would break up the retail continuity that exists
within the village center for shoppers traveling along both State Street and Grand Avenue. Staff has been
consistent in denying provisional office use requests to locate on the ground floor, in desirable retail spaces
along Grand Avenue and State Street within the village center, District 1 based upon the location and
development criteria set forth within the Village Master Plan. Staff has also determined that the proposed
project does not satisfy the findings required for provisional office use. As mentioned previously, the office
use is determined to negatively impact existing retail continuity along State Street and Grand Avenue where a
significant concentration of commercial shops exists. The subject property is in a significant concentration of
retail uses and mutually supportive uses, which include the businesses, 550 Photo and Studio, Chizel,
Mystical Dragon, a donut shop, Ginger Graham Art Gallery, Santa Fe Traders, Andrew's Optical, the Grand
Deli, Chandler's Jewelry Store, Corner Collage, Vigillucci's, Caldo Palmadoro, Tick Tock Doc, Poached Pear,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25,2006
PAGE 3 of 13
Village Grille, Amy's Antique Mall, Le Muse, Somewhere in Time Antiques, Carlsbad Florist, Carlsbad
Theater, O'lrelands, and those are just a few.
Within District 1, these retail uses and mutual supportive uses create a synergy where pedestrians can shop
creating a lively environment and generating pedestrian activity. The land use standards encourage retail
uses because when concentrated together, they create retail continuity and pedestrian activity reinforcing the
pedestrian shopping environment within the village center. An office use at the proposed site will hurt the
pedestrian shopping environment within the village breaking up existing and future retail continuity in the area.
The importance of retail continuity within the retail area is recognized by planning and land use development
organizations such as the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Community Land Use Group (CLUE). ULI, a
well known organization throughout the land use and development communities, stated in a recent publication
aimed at rebuilding retail districts that if office uses are self-enclosed fortresses or if they disrupt retail
continuity, they will detract rather then add to the street. ULI has also stated in a publication regarding zoning
for retail uses that uninterrupted commercial activity makes for a synergy between individual retail uses which
in turn generates pedestrian activity and attracts shoppers. The CLUE Group suggests that downtown should
have an articulation of specific zones for retail activities. Within the Village, District 1, is an area that is zoned
for most retail uses and mutually supportive uses such as restaurants, theaters, art galleries, museums and
delicatessens. These uses are concentrated in order to create a synergy and retail continuity which attracts
shoppers, residents and visitors to the village.
The only time that office uses are permitted within District 1 is if the office use is replacing an existing office
use or the use has been "grandfathered in." A grandfather office use's definition is an office use that was put
in prior to the adoption of the Village Master Plan, which was adopted in 1996. Also, office uses are permitted
within District 1 if the office use is located on the second story of a structure, as mentioned previously where
the impacts to pedestrian activities are minimized.
It is important to note that staff has received frequent requests to locate offices, specifically real estate office
uses, on State Street and Grand Avenue due to the high visibility and pedestrian traffic. Staff has been
consistent in denying these requests where they are proposed to locate on the ground floor and will break up
retail continuity. Staff has been very informative and proactive in explaining the land use standard
requirements of District 1 to the applicant and the property owner. Staff has sent letters, which are attached
as exhibits to the staff report such as the one dated to the applicant on May 9, 2006, explaining why office
uses are not permitted on the ground floor within District 1 and also explaining why the business license was
denied to operate an office use at that proposed location. Staff has also offered to meet with the applicant to
suggest locations where an office use might be permitted. Staff has also sent out a letter to the property
owner dated May 4, 2006, explaining to the owner why office uses aren't permitted on the ground floor in
District 1 because they break up that retail continuity. Additionally, staff has had phone conversations with
the applicant and the property owner explaining what uses are permitted within District 1 and why an office
use would not be permitted at the subject property.
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 15270 of the State CEQA guidelines
as a project which is disapproved. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in
the attached Design Review Board Resolution.
In conclusion, staff is recommending denial of the appeal of the Housing and Redevelopment Director's
decision. This concludes staffs presentation.
Board Member Baker asked about the grandfathering for provisional uses. Why wouldn't we use it as an
opportunity when an office left a space to not allow another office to replace it and upgrade the retail
activities?
Mr. Jones said it is his understanding that when the Master Plan was originally approved, the approving
bodies at that time did not wish to require new uses be restricted to conform to new allowable uses such as
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
PAGE 4 of 13
an office use leaving being required to become retail. At that time, it was the Design Review Board and the
Planning Commission that did request the non-conforming use not be required to be conforming.
Mr. Jones said the applicant has prepared a presentation that he would like to make to the Board.
Gary Nessim, 2987 Highland Drive, Carlsbad. Mr. Nessim said HomeLife Realtors has been in that building
since 1978. It was a tourist serving commercial office on State Street on the side we are trying to move back
into. Buddy and Alberta Storms operated the office until I bought it in 1987. Shortly after that, we moved it
over to the Grand Avenue side into 3,000 square feet around 1990 and operated for two years at that size
until reducing our square footage to 1,600 square feet. It was before the 1995/1996 upgraded, however, it
didn't require, as far as I know, any particular permit to move from the 1,600 square feet we were in into the
3,000 square feet we've moved into at that point and time. We determined it would be better to go into a
smaller space. I have been waiting for a number of years for the corner to open up; watching different
retailers come and go. It is not that busy of a pedestrian corner.
HomeLife Village Realtors is presently 1,600 square feet. We would be moving over to the corner location at
1,200 square feet. The Village would be gaining about 400 square feet of retail square footage permanently
because the existing office grandfathered use would change into a retail use permanently. The presentation
of the windows would be much better than the current use. I would be changing the exterior of the building by
putting circular columns around the columns that you see on the right hand side, and putting skylights in,
removing the awning that is there and doing a fascia that is similar to the rest of the building; a wavy, wooden
fascia instead of an awning. When I count the number of people who come to our corner, which is one of the
reasons I would like to move to the corner, we draw more pedestrian traffic than any of the existing retail
spaces. We draw more visitors who are interested in real estate. If you go to downtown La Jolla, Del Mar,
any place else, you will always see there is a couple of real estate offices with flyers in their window that
people are always looking at just like they like looking at the retail spaces. As opposed to the beauty shops
where there is really nothing to look in the window at. We are visited by title representatives, lenders, we
bring lots of visitors into the Village who I guarantee shop at the gift shops that surround us and the
restaurants that are downtown.
Mr. Nessim continued that we get increased signage from the side. We just get a smaller amount of square
footage, and we do draw very well so people can see the flyers in the window. When they are drawn, they
like to look at real estate flyers and see what is going on and then they go shopping next door. We make a
nice synergy rather than interrupting the flow of the retail uses. We are the only one among our building and
among the several places that do Christmas displays and seasonal displays in the window. Across the street
there are three salons on the 500 block of Grand Avenue that do no displays, there is nothing to look into, it is
not a retail type use. That is classified as a retail use so they can open up without getting a special permit,
but they don't function as a retail as far as people looking in the windows and wanting to buy merchandise
goes.
He continued there is a mural in his alley. There is Buddy Storms in the window, the founder of HomeLife
Village Realtors, and there are flyers in the window of our space that people spend a lot of time looking at,
inquiring about properties and we have been giving out free maps and balloons and things to tourists and
residents for twenty-five years.
Since the Redevelopment District made some adjustments in the 1995/1996 era, two real estate offices
opened up. I had the opportunity to move to the corner by making myself a 50% retail establishment, which I
could do in the same manner exactly as that Chuck Buck Rogers Realty did on the corner of Christensen
Way and Carlsbad Boulevard; a higher visibility spot then I am. There is a small sign below the real estate
sign that says "local gifts," of which there are a couple of local gifts inside but very few. When it opened up, it
had a bunch of gallery pictures. I could do the same at my office. I could open up with a gallery on the walls
and antique gifts for sale like the antique shops, but when you are moving from 1,600 square feet down to
1,200 to try and take half of that again and use it as retail space, whether you are doing it for show or doing it
for real, it is a very difficult way to operate because I would like to efficiently use my square footage. I already
operate as a commercial-type tourist-serving office by not just having hundreds of desks in a little bull pin by
having flyers in the window that people appreciate.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
PAGE 5 of 13
Also, I happen to have sold off that company on the right, which is the Village Realtors which opened up on
State Street as a residential real estate office. My competition in Redevelopment District 1 didn't require any
special variance or permits. Neither of these offices did and they opened up in the same timeframe, and I
happen to sell that one as a piece of my office. For me to be restricted in moving and get smaller within the
same building that I moved in before with the same landlord and have another piece of my office go and
move into the same district without restrictions whatsoever and take retail space and make it into office space
obviously it is a precedence that this is a normal function except for my move.
Board Member Lawson said Mr. Nessim mentioned upgrades he is proposing to do with respect to the
columns and some other things you made reference to. Are those things that need to take place to that
building or what is the reasoning for those upgrades?
Mr. Nessim said he thinks they need to be done to the building because I don't find it that attractive at the
moment. You may recall from the Chamber of Commerce's design contest, they proposed a stone look
building for that particular location looking something like the Forum. Even though it is a nice colonial
building, it is a little dated and I felt changing those posts to columns. The building is severely lacking power.
I would be putting skylights into the building and changing the awnings. I've noticed all the buildings tend to
get old very fast, and they don't replace them. Doing wooden fascia that matches the rest of the building
would look a lot better. Since I am looking to move, I have been waiting for years to move so I haven't
upgraded the interior of my office, waiting to make this move. While the exterior needs to be upgraded a little
to make it a little classier look.
Board Member Hamilton commented that Mr. Jones referred to the Carlsbad Master Plan that was adopted in
1996. Is that correct? Are you saying that they need to update the entire Master Plan to allow real estate to
be referred to as retail Instead of professional services?
Mr. Nessim answered they should do that and include it in the mix. If you are going to include a beauty salon
as an acceptable use in the retail area, I'd say a real estate office that operates like mine would be
acceptable in that area also. But to lump the way a real estate office functions and the way an insurance
office functions where there is nothing to display, nothing to interest tourists, it is strictly something as a back
office function as opposed to we are definitely a tourist-serving type of office. I would say that should be
allowed along with the beauty salons. I don't personally think we should allow that many beauty salons in.
Because they are easy to open and you don't require any extensive permitting process, people open them
very easily. Look how difficult it is for me to move a real estate office; months of hearings; I have to
guarantee my landlord the rent in case this particular retailer who is there, moved out. I'd have to pay double
rent during the months when I am waiting for hearings to go. Most retailers would be discouraged waiting for
that to occur and the same thing for a real estate office. But for a salon, they call it retail, you just move right
in, no hearings or anything. Then you are getting too many beauty salons and they move into a place that
operated to sell, let's say, dry goods or something with two employees and they go into 2,000 square feet and
they have 10 employees with no additional parking spaces required and 5 or 10 clients at a time with no
additional parking spaces. The use hasn't changed. They are using up all the parking spaces and not
bringing that much to the village. That is just my opinion.
Mr. Don Dewhurst, 3425 Seacrest Drive. I am here as a citizen. I kind of concur with everything that Gary
said. I don't know the details in terms of the Master Plan and so forth. One thing I can say is that I do feel
that real estate offices, such as his, and others around town and up and down coastal communities do serve
a public service in that they are for tourists. People come in, they get maps, they visit, and they ask for
friends or so and so live here. They are a place for people to congregate as well as look at photos and I
really see it as a positive move, and I would encourage your endorsement of the application.
Joe MacDonald, 1010 University Avenue in San Diego. I am one of the building owners of the site in
question. Gary has been there for years. He has been very patient. He has wanted that corner for years and
he has watched tenants come and go. I know it isn't ideal for Mark. He doesn't really want to move, but I am
very loyal to my tenants. I try to do what is best for them. I am not perfect. We don't always agree, but I try
to be fair and we try to work things out. Gary mentioned power; there is not enough power. If I had enough
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25,2006
PAGE 6 of 13
power, this wouldn't even be here. I would have a restaurant in there or something else that would require a
little more power usage and we wouldn't be having this discussion this evening. Gary has been on State and
he's been on Grand. I don't see a problem with him going to the corner. With the available resources I have,
I am trying to do a little mix of my tenants to increase that continuity of retail. You didn't show the next stores
to the north; it's all antiques. I could load up that whole block with antiques and boutiques and it wouldn't do
anyone any good. Gary does draw a lot of people and Mark doesn't. He does well. I think Mark would do
equally well in Gary's spot, and I think that perhaps putting Gary on the corner would help out my other
tenants. It is selfish. I want my tenants to do well. Therefore, if they do well, the rest of the village does well.
Board Member Baker asked Mr. MacDonald if his current tenant on the corner is moving.
Mr. MacDonald said it all depends on the outcome of this.
Board Member Baker said in other words, the space isn't necessarily available now? I'm sorry, I don't mean
to put you on the spot but when I was reading the application, I was under the impression it was going to
become vacant and that was what was driving the decision. But that isn't necessarily the case.
Mr. MacDonald said he is trying not to air personal business.
Board Member Baker commented she is not asking him to.
Mr. MacDonald said the current lease structure right now allows him to move the tenants. It isn't available,
but it is.
Board Member Lawson asked Mr. MacDonald with respect to the Village Master Plan and those uses,
obviously I know your family has had that property for a very, very long time. As a child, that was the only
drug store that I ever knew, but with respect to the uses and the intended uses, have you ever expressed
previous opposition to office use as how it may relate to the Master Plan? Would you be looking to seek
changes to it as was asked of your tenant earlier here this evening?
Mr. MacDonald said what he thinks needs to be done is look at it. The hard and fast rule, they can't cover
everything. I think what you need to do is look at each individual case. Does it make sense? Does it not? In
this case, I really don't see a problem. He has been there. Like Gary said, you will be gaining 400 square
feet of retail, losing 400 square feet of office. That is a gain on your part, and it allows me to try to do a
product mix, if you will, with my tenants. For me it is a business and being hamstrung on what I can do in
terms of external forces, I think you just need to look at things logically. You can't just have a blanket policy
and zero tolerance.
Board Member Lawson said he had another question. With respect to the suggestions for the property
across the street and the improvements are being anticipated at some point down the road, do you have any
plans for any type of redevelopment to your property and if so, what kind of a timetable are you on?
Mr. MacDonald said obviously it is an old building and I would like to do a lot of things with it. My main
hindrance is power. Everyone around me has three phase and it will cost about $100,000 for me to bring
three phase to my building. That is cost prohibitive. I'd like to have retail on the bottom and office or
residential above, but that requires parking spaces and that is several hundred thousand that I have to come
up with cash before anything ever gets going, and there aren't parking spaces available in the village. It is
monetary constraints based on some of your policies that are keeping me from upgrading the building.
Board Member Lawson commented then there are no plans or any timetable for anything at the moment.
Mr. MacDonald said we have ideas and we have things we'd love to do, but as far as anything specific, no.
My name is John Prietto and I live at 2760 Carlsbad Boulevard, about a block and a half from the shops. I
would just like to lend a hand to Gary. I have known him for many years. And also Mark, if you haven't tried
a Temperpedic mattress, you don't known what you are missing. I am on that corner every day walking to
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
PAGE 7 of 13
work and back and the only people that you see standing there looking into Gary's window. So he is really
the one that draws the traffic. He is the one that has the answers. I think I even asked Mark one time, why
are you here? It just didn't make sense, a mattress shop. I was ready to drive to San Marcos. Does it fit
Kennedy Smith's plan? Probably not the highest and best use to have Gary there, but I think it is a far cry
from what we do have. I think if we have the opportunity to make this change, I think it upgrades the corner.
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, said this is an appeal so the appellant has the burden of proof. You
are reviewing the decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Director to determine whether you feel it is
arbitrary and capricious as opposed to whether or not there is substantial evidence for that determination.
You do not have, before you tonight, a Master Plan amendment. So it really is not appropriate to consider
whether office use should be provisional use in District 1 or not. That is the case. That is the standard and
you need to work within the standards that are currently in place. Likewise, whether or not the building is
going to be upgraded by whom, etc. monetary considerations are really not before you this evening. You
need to focus on whether or not there was substantial evidence for the Director's determination based on the
current standards.
Chairperson Heineman asked Ms. Mobaldi to repeat that last sentence.
Ms. Mobaldi said you need to focus on whether or not the Director's decision was arbitrary and capricious,
which is a legal standard, or whether or not there was some substantial evidence for the decision.
Board Member Schumacher said he thinks it is a tough one because it sounds like it is a good business, a
good business for the village. I'd rather see real estate go in there than another antique store, because I
think we have enough of those. But at the same time, the Redevelopment Agency is there in place to not
only put paint on old buildings, they are there to establish a certain synergy in the Village and take a look at
what retail use is in place, that is their job and that is what they are there to do. I have to admit I am on the
fence right now. I do have a question for Mr. Jones. The 400 square feet would be retail space, but in terms
of the sidewalk area that people walk, I would imagine it would be quite a bit more because it is a corner lot, is
that correct?
Mr. Jones said that would be his assumption. Maybe Joe MacDonald can clarify that for us. Based upon
walking the site and taking a look at the photos, I would concur.
Board Member Schumacher said if he thought there was another type of retail there altogether, something of
a different use that would bring, not real estate and not a mattress store but something altogether different, I
think that is really the direction the Redevelopment Agency is going. I think that is the right way to go. How to
accomplish that, I am not sure.
Board Member Baker said given what Ms. Mobaldi has told us about making findings that the decision by the
Redevelopment Director was not arbitrary or capricious, I would have to support the denial for this request. I
would also say that I can't recall in La Jolla, any real estate offices that are on a 100% corner. I think this is
an extremely important corner within the Village and as much as I am sure that the real estate office does
draw some foot traffic, I could not support putting a real estate office on that corner. No disrespect to the
mattress store either, but it seems like eventually it would be nice to have a different kind of retail use in that
area that would draw more foot traffic, more shoppers. At this point, I can't make a finding that the decision
was arbitrary or capricious.
Board Member Lawson said he can't split hairs between one type of retail commercial use from another.
Whether a mattress store or any of the other uses that are down there. It is not up to me to make such a fine
line between the two. Nothing here that has been presented here this evening, gives me reason to interpret a
realtor as an office use it's really different than what it is. It's still an office use. The consistency in the staff
over the years in upholding the definitions of those uses, I think they, in themselves, also maintain a level of
consistency and so I see no arbitrary treatment to this one versus the other. The other issues, I don't think
that people are going to argue those others, but they are irrelevant somewhat to the actual meat of what this
is about right here. I would be supporting the staffs decision as it has been processed so far.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
PAGE 8 of 13
Board Member Hamilton said he thinks the real issue here is the land use question. Can you consider real
estate retail or not? I went down this weekend, looked at Gary's operation, I was standing out there with my
wife and my dog and one of the ladies came out and engaged in a discussion with us. I found it a very good
operation. She was very pleasant to talk to. They had somebody actually, referring to my past life, manning
the desk at all times. It was a good experience. So HomeLife does not qualify as a self-enclosed fortress.
What I really do see is it allowing one person to get a foot in the door, if it will allow other people to get their
feet in their door, it would set a bad precedence in the long run. Tenants typically have a short-term interest.
I know he's been here a long time, but your owner's are the ones who have the long-term interest. I would be
more interested to see Mr. MacDonald present this case instead of one of his tenants. What is really in
question here is the Master Plan. Can we redefine real estate as retail? I think that is beyond the scope of
the Design Review Board. That is a question for the City Council. I support the Redevelopment Director's
decision on this.
Chairperson Heineman agrees with the decision. This does not in any way qualify as retail, and I feel the
situation, the location will be better with retail business.
Board Member Baker moves that the Design Review Board deny the appeal of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director's decision.
Board Member Lawson seconded the motion.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES: Baker, Hamilton, Heineman, Lawson, and Marquez
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ChaScperson Heineman said the next item is Roosevelt Plaza.
Board Mefnbjsr Hamilton indicated that he must step down due to a conflict of interest. I live wittjirfeoo feet of
the project.
Ms. Fountain said^lKe second item is a major redevelopment permit for a new constpuc'tion project. It is a
mixed-use project consisting of some residential and retail/office at 3135 and 3147/Roosevelt Street. Cliff
Jones, our Assistant Plahqer, will make the presentation tonight.
Mr. Jones said the applicant Patrick Norman, has requested a majpf^redevelopment permit for the
construction of a 8,445 square rqot mixed-use project consisting of foyfapartment units and 2,170 square
feet of commercial space on the property located at 3135 and 3147 Roosevelt Street in Land Use District 5 of
the Carlsbad Village Redevelopmenf>area. The proposed projeet requires a major redevelopment permit
because it involves new construction ora building that has a[bonding permit valuation that is greater than a
$150,000. In accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the permit is being brought forward for a
recommendation by the Design Review Boahs^and for/Bflal approval by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
The subject property is located on the west side ofNRoosevelt Street in between Oak Avenue and Pine
Avenue. The subject property totals 10,4^3 square reet and currently contains a one-story commercial
building and a single-family residence, which are proposecNo be demolished in order to accommodate the
new building. The proposed projects bordered by a single^family residence and commercial uses to the
south, to the east across the streeUsa two-story commercial builatRJg and a multifamily residential building, to
the north is the Boys and Girls CKlb, and to the east a millwork use exi^te. Staff would also like to add that to
the south of the project site^are two projects that have been recently approved. These projects are at the
corner of Roosevelt and Bine Avenue and were recommended for approvaPbythis Board.
The proposed development consists of a two-story mixed-use project consisting of four apartment units and
2,170 square fejafof commercial space. The frontage of the commercial space incorporates decorative iron
APPLICANT APPEAL FORM
DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
City of Carlsbad
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are aopealina: SEPTEMBER 35 , 2006
BECStEQWE
SEP 2 6 2006
4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
mJ
Subiect of Appeal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
_ The Housing and Redevelopment Director's decision denying an administrative
redevelopment permit (RP 06-08) to convert and existing retail space to an office use at
— 2898 State Street in land use district 1 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment area.
Reason(s) for Appeal: • Please Note • Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy?
SEE ATTACHED PAGE
/'SIGNATURE
NAME (pleaseprint)
DATE
(76017^3393
PHONE NO.
ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
City,State,Zip Code
12OO Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1 989 - (619)434-2808
l.The amount of retail space in the building increases by 400 square feet and
office decreases by 400 square feet without any new construction
Improvements in the exterior of the building and window presentation with
new wooden fascia, removal of old awning, additional brick trim and
skylights
2.The combination of interesting real estate brochures and retail spaces
creates a synergy and not a disruption of the retail continuity. More
pedestrian traffic is generated by the real estate office than by any other
individual tenant in the building, and the building needs more pedestrian
traffic. All tenants can verify that pedestrian traffic is not heavy on our
corner at this time.
S.HomeLife Village Realtors is a tourist serving commercial use selling a
product more similar to the adjacent retailers than an insurance or medical
office
3.Since the office is "grandfathered" at the current location, which should be
interpreted as the building, and not the exact address, and is not expanding,
the move and address change should have not even be subject to review.
4.Staff has not objected to other real estate office uses recently opened in
District 1 and the Redevelopment Director chose not to hold a hearing and
view the presentation prior to the Design Review Board appeal hearing and
therefore staff objections are not consistent but arbitrary and capricious.
:7-\ All Receive
? N For the Information of Ac:
November 6,2006 x ^ * V \ CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Lewis CHy Manager's Office
City Manager Pachette ', City of Carlsbad ^/
City of Carlsbad , , '^/
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive v -^
Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^ ~~~ """
RE Housing and Redevelopment Commission Meeting scheduled for
November 7, 2006. Public Agenda Item #1. AB#392 HOMELIFE
VILLAGE REALTORS
Please accept this request to reschedule my appeal hearing from November 7
to November 21 so that I may have a full Council at the Hearing. I
understand that Councilwoman Kulchin is on vacation in China and I would
appreciate the opportunity to have her vote on this matter.
I hereby waive my right to a prompt hearing in making this request for a
rescheduling.
Sincerely,
Gar$MSfessim
President
HomeLife Village REALTORS
Homelife Village Realtors AppealHousing & Redevelopment CommissionDecember 5, 2006
Location MapSITE
Subject Property2898 State Street
Properties to the Southwest
Properties to the Southeast
Public Space to the West
Properties to the North
Properties to the East
Downtown Village Redevelopment Area District 1District 1 “Village Center”“Village Center shall provide a lively mix of shops, restaurants,entertainment uses, visitor accommodations, and commercial services in an environment that emphasizes pedestrian convenience”
District 1 Permitted Uses Retail Uses:Arts/Crafts, Bakery/Candy/Creamery, Books, Clothing/Shoes, Coffee Houses/Tea Rooms, Drug Store, Electronic Equipment, Florist, Gifts, Hobby Items/Toys, Ice Cream/Frozen Yogurt, Jewelry, Newsstand, Pets, Sporting Goods/Bicycles, Video Sales/Rental. Restaurant Uses:Restaurant (large & small), Sidewalk Cafes, Fast Food Restaurant (small)Commercial Uses (Mutually Supportive):Barbershop, Beauty Parlor, Dry Cleaners, Libraries, Parking lots, Shoe/Garment Repair.
District 1 Provisional Use Office Use = Provisional UseSpecial scrutiny: location, size, adjacent impacts, & consistency with Village vision and goals.
Land Use Criteria & FindingsGround floor office uses should not be located along commercial shopping streets where they would disrupt retail continuity.Office use must not negatively impact existing or planned retail continuity in significant concentrations of commercial shops. Significant concentration of retail shops.Adjacent uses retail or restaurant which add retail continuity and reinforce pedestrian shopping environment.Prominent retailing corner of Village.Office use breaks up retail continuity on both streets.
Importance of Retail Continuity Urban Land Institute (ULI):If office uses “disrupt retail continuity, they will detract rather than add to the street.”“Uninterrupted commercial activity makes for a synergy between individual retail uses, which in turn generates pedestrian activity and attracts shoppers.”Community Land Use Group (CLUE):Downtowns should have specific retail zones.District 1 serves as the retail center for Village.
Existing Office Uses Within District 1 Permitted if:Office use is replacing an existing office use where the use has been “grandfathered” in.z“Grandfathered” office uses: present prior to adoption of the Village Master Plan adopted in 1996.Office use located on the second story where impact to pedestrian activities are minimized.
Environmental ReviewExempt from CEQASection 15270zProject which is disapproved.
DRB DeterminationDenial of the appeal.Project will disrupt retail continuity along State Street & Grand Avenue and hurt retailing activities within the Village Center (District 1).