HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-16; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 395; Laguna CondominiumsHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL 1
395AB#
MTG. 1/16/07
DEPT. HIRED
LAGUNA CONDOMINIUMS
RP 06-01
DEPT. HEAD
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 433, APPROVING a Major
Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-01) and Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-01) for the construction of a
21,022 square foot, three-story, five-unit condominium project on the property located at 735 Laguna
Drive in Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 as recommended by the Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On November 13, 2006, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a
major redevelopment permit and tentative tract map for a three-story, five-unit condominium project
known as Laguna Condominiums. The subject property consists of two lots totaling 13,515 square
feet, with one being vacant and the other containing a single-family residence, which is proposed to
be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed project. The site has frontage along both
Laguna Drive and Madison Street and is bordered by a single-family residence to the south, single-
family and multi-family residences to the west, Multi-family residences to the north, and a single family
residence to the east. Surrounding uses are predominantly residential.
The buildings five (5) units vary in size from 2,335 square feet to 2,720 square feet. The building has
an appealing building exterior incorporating attractive materials such as stone work, decorative
wrought iron railing and gates, and decorative wood shutters that all add to the attractive facade.
Empty walls are broken up with multi-paned windows, architectural banding, stone work, and various
building recesses. In order to further enhance the buildings appearance from the street the building
incorporates porches at residential entries and private balconies at upper levels. For recreational
purposes the project provides a common courtyard area as well as individual balconies. The project
includes extensive landscaping within and around the project and decorative paving at residential
entries, which compliment the architectural design of the building. Parking is screened from public
view contained beneath the structure with vehicular access to the site being provided off of Madison
Street.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend
approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following:
1. Establishment of the High Residential (RH) density designation for the subject property with a
corresponding density of 15-23 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control Point
(GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Cliff Jones 760-434-2813 ciones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
D
D
D
D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER-SEE MINUTES D
Page 2
In making its determination, the Board discussed specific concerns regarding the proposed driveway
egress from the underground parking garage onto Madison Street and concerns about sidewalk, curb,
and gutter being provided along Madison Street but not Laguna Drive. The Board asked that the
developer provide signage and/or other appropriate traffic controls at the driveway exit in order to slow
vehicles exiting the site. The Board was concerned that persons walking along Madison Street may
be placed in harms way from vehicles exiting the site too quickly. Additionally, the Board suggested
that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission consider whether sidewalk, curb, and gutter is
necessary along Madison Street since it is not being required of the applicant along Laguna Drive.
(The south side of Laguna Drive is an Alternative Street Design where sidewalk, curb, and gutter are
not required of the applicant; however the applicant is conditioned to sign a neighborhood
improvement agreement so in the future when the street is fully developed, the project will pay for its
fair share of sidewalk and related improvements). The Board was concerned that placing sidewalk
along Madison Street when the properties to the south and to the east do not have sidewalk would
create inconsistencies and a "hodgepodge" look of sidewalk.
Based on the Board's discussion, the Board voted 5-0 to add the following condition to the project:
1. Developer to install signage and/or other measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to
caution drivers exiting the driveway ramp to watch for pedestrians.
The abovementioned condition has been incorporated into DRB Resolution No. 315, which is
attached for review by the Commission. The Design Review Board staff report, and the draft minutes
of the November 13, 2006 meeting are attached for the Commission's review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project will have a positive impact in terms of increased property tax. The current
assessed value of the project site is $675,000. With the new construction, it is estimated that the
assessed value will increase to approximately $6 million. The increase in value would result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $53,250
per year. Additionally, it is anticipated that the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements
in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Planning Director has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been
found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area
that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments were received on the
environmental determination.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 433. APPROVING RP06-01.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 315 dated November 13, 2006.
3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 316 dated November 13, 2006.
4. Design Review Board Staff Report dated November 13, 2006, w/attachments.
5. Draft Design Review Board Minutes, dated November 13, 2006.
1
2 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 433
3 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
4 APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP06-01 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. CT06-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
5 A 21,022 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY, FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 LAGUNA DRIVE IN
6 LAND USE DISTRICT 8 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND . IN LOCAL FACILITIES
7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: ROBERT DULICH
8 CASE NO: RP 06-017 CT 06-01
9
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-01), and Tentative Tract
Map (CT 06-01) for the construction of a 21,022 square foot, three-story, five-unit, condominium
,~ project on the property located at 735 Laguna Drive, and adopted Design Review Board Resolutions
,4 No. 315 and 316 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major
j c Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-01), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-01) be approved; and
j g WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the date
] 7 of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all
] g persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-01), and Tentative Tract Map
19 (CT 06-01); and
20 WHEREAS, the recommended Design Review Board approval includes findings establishing
21 the High Residential (RH) density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre for the subject property; and
22 WHEREAS, the recommended Design Review Board approval includes findings granting a
23 variance for a reduction in driveway width; and
24 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
25 Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning
26 Director has found the project to be categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
27 environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill
28 development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and
HRC RESO NO.
PAGEl
1
2 would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
4 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
5 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
6 2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-01), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-01) are
APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in
° Resolutions No. 315 and 316, 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:
13 NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
14 "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions hereafter
, c 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
i, paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day
following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision
j 1 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
] g petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which
the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of record, if he/she
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the
City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008."
20 "
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Regular Meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 16th day of January, 2007,
by the following vote:
AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT,
(SEAL) £cS'ESTABLISHED\%\
1870
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 315
DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2006
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 315
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 06-01 FOR THE
4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 21,022 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY, FIVE-UNIT
, CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735
LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 8 OF THE CARLSBAD
6 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION
7 IN DRIVEWAY WIDTH.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA CONDOMINIUMS
8 APN: 203-110-42 & 203-110-43
9 CASE NO: RP 06-01
10
WHEREAS, Robert Dulich, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
12 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Rudy C. Zavalani
13 & Cheryl L. Zavalani, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-110-42 & 203-
*4 110-43, and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
16
shown on Exhibits "A-O" dated November 13,2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17
Department, "Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01/CT 06-01", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080lo
19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 13th day of November, 2006, hold a
21 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
23
arguments, if any, of persons desiring "Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01/ CT 06-01."
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
26 follows:
27 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
28
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board APPROVES the Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
4
The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that
the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project, hi making this determination, the
Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state
CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
9
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
10 findings contained herein for a variance to reduce the driveway width and the
establishment of the RH density designation for the project is hi conformance with
the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan,
12 and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the
facts set forth in the staff report dated November 13, 2006 including, but not limited to
13 the following:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
. - as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a residential use in
an appropriate location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance the
16 Village by providing the necessary residential support The location of the
project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping,
recreation and mass transit functions. The new residential units will enhance the
Village as a place for living and working. The project will also be close to
existing bus routes, furthering the goal of new economic development near
19 transportation corridors.
20 b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives
21 set forth for Land Use District 8 through the following actions: 1) the project
22 provides a new residential development that will improve the physical
appearance of the village area, and 2) the building is designed in a manner that
23 compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating many of the same
architectural elements found in residential projects.
24
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 8, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
25 forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
requested variances.
27
d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
DRBRESONO.315 -2-
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
2 been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public
facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The
3 project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best
management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which
enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
6 the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
7 the City's Landscape Manual.
o0 f. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building
and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate
fire protection and other safety standards.
10
g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
11 Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment
Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an mclusionary housing in-lieu fee for five (5)
13 units.
14 h. The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth
in Chapter 21.45.080 except for the requested variance, and has been designed in
15 accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that
the overall plan for the project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the
architectural features of surrounding developments. The buildings,
17 landscaping, and on-site amenities all conform to the Village Redevelopment
Master Plan and Design Manual, which serves as the adopted land use plan for
the area. The overall plan for the project provides for adequate usable open
space, circulation, and off-street parking. The parking is screened underneath
the building and the project is compatible with surrounding land uses and will
20 not negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. The overall architecture
is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Village
21 character as set forth in the Village Design Manual.
3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the
project is RH (15-23 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control
Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RH General Plan
24 density designation is as follows:
25 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of
uses including single-family and multi-family residential. Application of the RH
General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future high
27 density multi-family residential development, which is permitted in District 8,
and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size,
28 scale, and overall density.
DRBRESONO. 315 -3-
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
2 Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity,
and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The high
3 density designation allows for future development that would be consistent with
the development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment
Master Plan.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land
Use District 8 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to
shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster Station).
7 Higher residential densities in close proximity to areas with easy access to mass
transportation promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional
° issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality.
9 4. The Design Review Board finds that the RH residential density is in conformance with
10 the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report
dated November 13,2006, including but not limited to the following:
11
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the
proposed density of 16.1 du/ac is within the density range of 15-23 du/ac
13 specified for the site as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
The project's proposed density of 16.1 du/ac is below the Growth Management
14 Control Point density (19 du/ac) used for the purpose of calculating the City's
compliance with Government Code Section 65584. However, consistent with
Program 3.8 of the City's certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units
which were anticipated toward achieving the City's share of the regional housing
need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects are deposited in the
17 City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for
allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit
capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element
allowing residential development with a unit capacity adequate to satisfy the
City's share of the regional housing need.
20
b. Circulation - The project will take access off of Madison Street and is
21 conditioned to provide all necessary street improvements. On-site circulation
consists of a private driveway which provides access to a subterranean parking
garage designed in accordance with City standards.
23 c. Noise - The project is conditioned to provide all noise attenuation measures as
24 identified in the acoustical study prepared by Eilar Associates.
d. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
^, Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for five (5)
27 units.
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -4-
5. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
2 Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
3 provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
^ facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
, project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
6
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
7 issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
9 the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
10
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
12 c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
13 be collected prior to the issuance of building permit
14 6. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
16 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
17 7. The project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual.
I O 8. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for a reduction in
19 driveway way width:
20 a. That the application of certain provisions of Chapter 21.35 will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
21 with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
22 that the shape of the lot is unusual due to it's "wedged" shape configuration.
This shape restricts the design flexibility for new buildings and related parking.
23 However, through the driveway reduction (variance), the applicant is able to
provide additional building and parking on the site allowing five units on the
24 property. The construction of five units enables the applicant to achieve a
density that falls within the range of the RH density standard range, however
without the variance the applicant would only be able to provide four units with
26 a resulting density of 12.89 dwelling units per acre, which is below the RH
density range of the GMCP and is inconsistent with the density of the
27 surrounding area and properties under the same zone classification. The site is
further hindered due to its location at an intersection of two streets where a 102Rfoot street dedication is required along both Laguna Drive and Madison Street
DRBRESONO. 315 -5-
for sidewalk, curb, and gutter. This location reduces the development potential
2 of the site considerably as compared to other properties in other locations within
the V-R (District 8) zoning because the site requires dedication along two public
3 frontages whereas other properties with the same zoning would only have to
dedicate property on one side of the site because most only face a public street on
4 one side.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
6 proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that By
7 allowing a reduced width for the driveway, the subject property provides the
same development potential (density) as other similar properties within District
8. The granting of the variance will not constitute, a granting of special
9 privileges as the proposed project density is 16.1 units/acre which falls within the
range of the RH density designation.
10
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
^2 variance does not authorize a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized
by the zone regulation governing the subject property, as a multi-family
13 residential use is a permitted use within Land Use District 8 (Residential
Support Area) of the V-R zoning designation.
14
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
16 Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
17 consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. The reduced driveway width is consistent with
engineering standards for driveways. The requested variance in no way changes
^9 the use of development of the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the general plan, Carlsbad village area
20 redevelopment plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual.21
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
23 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
24
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
26 implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or
27 modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future
building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
2° under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
DRBRESONO. 315 -6-
property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
2 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Major Redevelopment
3 Permit
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
- and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
6 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
7
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
9
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
10 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
13
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
14 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
16 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
17 issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
20
6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
21 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
22 conditions approved by the final decision making body.
23 7. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolutions) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
24 format.
25 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
26 Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
27
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -7-
9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
2 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
3
10. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 06-01 as shown on Exhibits
A-O, dated November 13,2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
r and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
6
11. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
8 12. Building permits will not be issued for the project unless the local agency providing water
9 and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate
water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of
10 the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities
will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be
1 placed on the Final Map.
12 HOUSING CONDITIONS:
13. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of
14 certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-space
condominiums, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as
an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the
, f time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.16
LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS;
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
20 healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
21 15. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
22 project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
23 16. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS;
17. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
27 Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of
a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment
28 Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the
DRBRESONO. 315 -8-
Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a
2 minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
3 a. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor
4 of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the
City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right
to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City
7 within 30 days for the official record.
8 18. This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
IQ requirement.
11 19. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
12 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
.- Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
14 taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
15
20. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
17 recreational facilitiesDeveloper shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by
City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad
18 Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any
credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also
iy pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter
2Q 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees
are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become
21 void.
22 NOTICING CONDITIONS;
23 21. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
24 of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 315 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
26 of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
27 specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which28
DRBRESONO. 315 -9-
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
2 successor in interest.
3 ON-SITE CONDITIONS;
22. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site
plan (Exhibit "B") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment
Director.
23. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
9 When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing & Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply
10 with the approved plan.
24. The developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
12 an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
13
25. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
, 5 substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment
16
26. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. Individual antennas shall
not be permitted.
18 27. There shall be separate utility systems for each unit
19
28. Developer to install signage and/or other measures to the satisfaction of the City
20 Engineer to caution drivers exiting the driveway ramp to watch for pedestrians.
21 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS;
22 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following code requirements.
24 Fees
25 29. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.26
27 30. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -10-
31. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
2 prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
3 of the City Engineer.
General
32. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
6 approval becomes final.
1 33. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
9
34. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
10 Code Section 18.04.320.
35. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and approval
13 of the Housing & Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -11-
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of November, 2006 by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
SCHUMACHER.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAKER, HAMILTON, HEINEMAN, LAWSON AND
NONE
NONE
NONE
COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRBRESONO. 315 -12-
ATTACHMENT"A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN 203-110-42 & 203-110-43
Parcel 1:
The portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the Northwesterly corner of land described in
deed recorded June 28, 1962 as Instrument No. 110018 of Official Records; thence
along the Westerly line of said land, South 00°10'00" West 116.50 feet to the most
Southerly corner thereof; thence along the Southwesterly prolongation of the
Southeasterly line of said land, South 56°38'20" West 40.80 feet to the Southwesterly
boundary of said lot 46; thence along said Southwesterly line North 34°26'00" West to
the Point of Beginning.
Parcel 2:
That portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence along said
Northerly line South 89°50' East 65.00 feet; thence South 1°56'04" West 75.00 feet;
thence South 56°38'20" West 75.20 feet to a line which bears South 0°10' West from the
True Point of Beginning; thence North 0°10' East 116.50 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 316
DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2006
3-0
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 316
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
3 APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 06-01 TO
SUBDIVIDE .31 ACRES INTO FIVE (5) CONDOMINIUM UNITS
4 ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 LACUNA DRIVE IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 8 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
5 AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN DRIVEWAY
6 WIDTH.
CASE NAME: LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
7 CASE NO.: CT 06-01
8 WHEREAS, Robert Dulich, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
9 Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by
Rudy C. Zavalani & Cheryl L. Zavalani, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number
11
203-110-42 & 203-110-43 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A ("the Property");
12
and
13
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
14
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) "A-O" dated November 13, 2006, on file in the Housing and
,, Redevelopment Department as "Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01/CT 06-01", as provided by16
Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 13th day of November, 2006,
19 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
20 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
21 and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
22 relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
24 of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
25 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
27 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Laguna Condominiums CT 06-01,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
28
Findings:
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, the
Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Titles
20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will
not cause serious public health problems.
4
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
5 surrounding properties are located within Land Use District 8 of the Village
Redevelopment Area and the intent of the Village Master Plan is to transition into
6 a relatively dense urban residential neighborhood with a Village scale and
character.
7
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
8 site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed, in that the development is consistent with the RH density
designation which has been assigned to the property based on the following
1Q findings:
a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a
variety of uses including single-family and multi-family residential.
12 Application of the RH General Plan designation on the subject property
would allow for future high density multi-family residential development,
13 which is permitted in District 8, and would be compatible with the mixture
of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
14
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality,
diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village.
16 The high density designation allows for future development that would be
, _ consistent with the development in the area and the goals and objectives
of the Redevelopment Master Plan.
18 c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of
19 Land Use District 8 by increasing the number of residential units in close
proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village
20 Coaster Station). Higher residential densities in close proximity to areas
with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing
21 balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion
and improved air quality.
. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the property has frontage on Laguna Drive and Madison Street and there are
25 no easements granting access through the property to others.
26 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
27
6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
28 natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
DRBRESONO. 316 -2-
7. That the Design Review Board has considered, in connection with the housing
2 proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those
housing needs against the pubjic service needs of the City and available fiscal and
3 environmental resources.
4 8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
5 habitat, in that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for
Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it
6 is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project. Therefore, the Design Review Board
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect
° on the environment.
n
9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project is
conditioned to comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
12 10. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Village Redevelopment
13 Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated November 13, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: the
14 project will provide for a permitted residential development in an appropriate
location within Land Use District 8 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
16
17
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer
service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the
20 requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
21
b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
22 the Carlsbad Unified School District.
23 c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
24 d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
25
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
26 condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
27 concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
DRBRESONO. 316 -3-
1 requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
3
13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of
4 the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
5 Conditions:
6 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a
final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
7
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
8 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency/City
shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further
condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City's approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative
Tract Map.
13
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all
14 corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
15 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any
proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
16 approval.
17 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
lo
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
22 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
23 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and
24 all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
25 approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) Agency's approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with
26 the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of
the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising
27 from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or
emissions.28
DRBRESONO. 316 -4-
1 6. The Developer shall submit to the Agency a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the
2 (Tentative Map/Site Plan) reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
3
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
4 Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
5
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
6 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
7
9. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
8 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at
9 the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
10 shall be placed on the Final Map.
Engineering Conditions:
12 General
13
10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
14 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
15
11. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other
16 recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain and water quality
17 facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable
manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision.18
12. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
2Q 13. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be
2i reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association
with this development.
22
Fees/Agreements
23
14. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
24 recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
25
15. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
26 recordation the City's standard Encroachment Agreement for any enhanced concrete
within the public right-of-way.
16. Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Laguna Drive along
the subdivision frontage for a half street width of 30 feet. Public improvements
DRBRESONO. 316 -5-
1 shall include but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curb and gutters,
2 grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities.
3 17. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
4 shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an
5 additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
on a form provided by the City Engineer.
6
Grading
7
18. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
8 Tentative Map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for
and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer.
Dedications/Improvements
-, 1 19. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City
and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the
12 Tentative Map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so
offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost.
13 Streets that already public are not required to be rededicated.
14 20. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall
15 conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and
drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard
16 improvement plancheck and inspection fees.
17 21. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
18 improvements shown on the Tentative Map and the following improvements including,
but not limited to paving, base, signing and striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters,
19 grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water,
fire hydrants, and street lights, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The improvements are:
21 a) Half-street improvements to Madison Street as shown on the
22 Tentative Map.
b) Stripe the intersection of Madison Street and Laguna Drive to create
23 a right angle intersection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
24 A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the
provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above
25 shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
26
22. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots
27 abutting Laguna Drive.
28 23. Laguna Drive and Madison Street shall be dedicated by Owner along the project
frontage based on a center line to right-of-way width of 30 feet and in conformance with
DRBRESONO. 316 -6-
City of Carlsbad Standards. No interlocking pavers will be constructed within the
2 right-of-way.
3 24. Developer shall coordinate with the City of Carlsbad Streets Department and
comply with the City tree policy regarding any removals of trees within public
4 right-of-way.
5 25. Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved
by the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6
6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
7 conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
8
26. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
9 Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)."
The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban
10 Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region
,, of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from
12 storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the
project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall:
13 a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern;
14 b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could
be impacted by this project;
15 c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project
to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable
16 before discharging to City right-of-way;
d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations
17 and effort shall be applied to resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean
up and disposal of pollutants;
e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and
1 q f. identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the
pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable.
20 Final Map Notes
21 27. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
22
28. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data:
23
A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the
24 exception of the following:
25 1. Public street, sewer and water improvements.
26 B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
C. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has
agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that
may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence
DRBKESONO. 316 -7-
and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to
its construction, operation or maintenance.
Special Conditions
4 29. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on
the Tentative Map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact
5 and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively.
6
Sewer/Water
7
30. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire
8 Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
9 considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
. Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
32. The Developer shall install (potable water and/or recycled water services) and meters at
a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
14 reflected on public improvement plans.
15 33. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
16 improvement plans.
17 34. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the District
18 Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
19 35. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned
unit.
20
36. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data.
23 37. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire
24 potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure
that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of
25 the District Engineer.
26 38. The Developer shall coordinate with the District Engineer regarding the looped system
and easements.
27
28 39. Prior to Final Map approval, Developer shall install potable water meter(s) for residential
use and 1 irrigation meter to irrigate the common areas (Homeowner's Association).
DRBRESONO. 316 -8-
1
2 Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
4 40. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
5 approval becomes final.
6 41. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
7 with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRBRESONO. 316 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for
convenience as "fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these
fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in
Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required
information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent
legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified
fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity
charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service
fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of
which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the
statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of November, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
SCHUMACHER
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAKER, HAMILTON, HEINEMAN, LAWSON AND
NONE
NONE
NONE
COURTNEYJHEMgVIANjOtdAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRBRESONO. 316 -10-
20
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN 203-110-42 & 203-110-43
Parcel 1:
The portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the Northwesterly corner of land described in
deed recorded June 28, 1962 as Instrument No. 110018 of Official Records; thence
along the Westerly line of said land, South 00°10'00" West 116.50 feet to the most
Southerly corner thereof; thence along the Southwesterly prolongation of the
Southeasterly line of said land, South 56°38'20" West 40.80 feet to the Southwesterly
boundary of said lot 46; thence along said Southwesterly line North 34°26'00" West to
the Point of Beginning.
Parcel 2:
That portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence along said
Northerly line South 89°50' East 65.00 feet; thence South 1 °56'04" West 75.00 feet;
thence South 56°38'20" West 75.20 feet to a line which bears South 0°10' West from the
True Point of Beginning; thence North 0°10' East 116.50 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
\bi+ M
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2006
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
Application Complete Date: Staff: Cliff Jones
7/13/2006 Glen Van Peski
Environmental Review:
Categorical Exemption
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: November 13, 2006
SUBJECT: RP 06-01 "Laguna Condominiums": Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a 21,022 square foot,
three-story, five-unit condominium project on the property located at 735 Laguna
Drive in Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 315
recommending APPROVAL of RP 06-01, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No.
316 recommending APPROVAL of CT 06-01 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has a building permit valuation greater than $150,000. This major
redevelopment permit serves as the site development plan required by Chapter 21.53 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Additionally, the project also requires the approval of a tentative tract
map because it involves separate ownership of the residential units. In accordance with
redevelopment permit procedures, the major redevelopment permit is being brought forward for
a recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is being asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested,
consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the project
and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is not required for the subject project.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Robert Dulich, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit for a 21,022 square
foot, three-story, five-unit condominium project. The property is located at 735 Laguna Drive in
Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The subject property consists
of two properties totaling 13,515 square feet, with one being vacant and the other containing a
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13,2006
PAGE 2
single-family residence. The site has building frontage along Laguna Drive and Madison Street
and is bordered by a single-family residence to the south, single-family residences across
Madison Street to the west, an apartment complex across Laguna Drive to the north, and a
single-family residence to the east. The majority of Laguna Drive and the northern portion of
Madison Street include single-family and multi-family residences.
IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves,
enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic
and cultural functions while retaining the Village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City
which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate
in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a
City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation
corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety of
complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social
environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family residential use in an appropriate
location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential
neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the Village. By
providing more residential opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social
environment by encouraging and increasing the opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which
provides the necessary customer base to attract complementary uses. The project reinforces
the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by providing the new residents an
opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. The projects proximity
to existing bus routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing new economic
development near transportation corridors. Furthermore, the project will provide a strong street
presence with extensive architectural relief, landscaping and visually subordinate parking.
Overall, the new residential units will enhance the Village as a place for living and working.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping, Working and Living Environment.
The proposed project will result in the development of new condominium units where residents
will be located within close proximity of District 1, the retail and commercial core of the Village
Area. The new residences will increase the number, quality and diversity of housing units within
the Village, particularly those in proximity to transit, shopping and employment for those people
seeking to reside in the downtown area. The attractive architectural design will serve to enhance
the site and the surrounding area.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The project will
provide a new sidewalk along Madison Street improving pedestrian circulation in the area.
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGES
Additionally, the proposed project will be in close proximity to both bus and rail mass transit
options and will thus encourage and promote the use of mass transit, further improving
vehicular circulation in the Village.
Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the Village. The Master
Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or
improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
new development. One of the objectives of this goal is to increase the intensity of development
within the Village. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area developing an existing vacant lot in the Residential Support Area (Land
Use District 8) of the Village providing an appropriate intensity of residential development that is
compatible with the surrounding area. Staff sees the development of the vacant property as a
catalyst for future redevelopment along both Laguna Drive and Madison Street.
Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The project has a design that is
visually appealing and sensitive to surrounding development within the area. The architecture
of the new structure meets the requirements of the design guidelines for the Village. The new
structure is three stories, and is stepped back from the property lines, which reduces the impact
the building has on the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, construction of the proposed
project will reinforce the Village character with appropriate site planning and architectural design
and materials that comply with City standards and requirements.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 8 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residential projects are a permitted use within this district.
Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are
considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although,
these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review
Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is
still required.
The overall vision for the development of District 8 is to provide a relatively dense urban
residential neighborhood with a Village scale and character. The development standards
promote individual buildings set back from the street and surrounded by landscaping intended to
provide a quality residential environment within close proximity to shops, restaurants and other
services provided in the Village. Permitted land uses in District 8 include single-family and
multi-family housing. Provisional uses include the following: live-work studios, bed and breakfast
inns and child care centers. The land use standards encourage the phasing out of existing
professional and medical office uses over time.
Staff believes that the proposed residential units, assists in satisfying the goals and objectives
set forth for Land Use District 8 through the following actions: 1) the project provides a new
residential development that will improve the physical appearance of the Village area, and 2) the
building is designed in a manner that compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating
many of the same architectural elements found in nearby residential projects providing ample
building setbacks, an abundance of landscaping, and underground parking.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13,2006
PAGE 4
The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 8 are as
follows:
Building Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 8, the required front yard
setback is 5 to 15 feet, the west side yard setback is 5 to 10 feet, the east side yard setback is
10 feet (10% of lot width = 10 feet), and the rear yard setbacks is 5 to 10 feet. All setbacks are
measured from property lines. The front yard setback of the proposed building is 5 feet from the
front property line. On the east side yard, the setback is 10 feet from the property line. The
west side yard has a setback of 5 feet 8 inches. The rear of the building is located 5 feet from
the rear property line. All of the setbacks fall within the standard range.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the
minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction
and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district
in which the project is to be located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area.
The findings required allowing a reduction in the front yard, west side yard setback, and rear
yard setback at a level below the maximum and within the standard range is as follows. First,
the proposed setbacks will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties as the
reduced setback will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated contained below grade
and beneath the structure. Furthermore, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of
the building allowing other portions of the building to be setback further and stepped back at
upper levels. Second, the reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the
goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the land use objectives in that
the project will replace existing structures with a visually appealing, project that has scale and
character that will improve the appearance and condition of the current Village housing stock
helping to stimulate property improvements and further new development in the Village. Lastly,
the reduced standard will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually
appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through setbacks that provide
adequate space for landscape planters and decorative paving at the ground floor and allow
building recesses and relief along the various building planes. The reduced standard will assist
in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to
make the building visually interesting and more appealing which is primary goal of the Village
Design guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Based on these findings, it is staffs
position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements set forth for Land Use
District 8.
Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all residential
projects in Land Use District 8 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is
55%, which is below the established range. While the bottom of the range is considered the
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13,2006
PAGES
desired standard a variance is not required for building coverage that is below the standard
range. Therefore, the building coverage is in compliance with the established standard and the
lesser coverage allows for ample parking and recreational areas.
Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12
roof pitch. The proposed project will have a maximum height of 34 feet 9 inches and a roof
pitch of 6:12. Therefore, the building height is in compliance with the established standard.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters,
open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, and/or patios. Qualified open
space for the proposed project includes: landscape and hardscape on the ground floor of the
front, rear, courtyard, and sides of the building. The project provides for a total of 5,442 square
feet of open space, which represents 40% of the site and is consistent with the open space
requirement.
Parking: The parking requirement for a multi-family dwelling is two standard spaces per
unit and 1/2 guest parking space per unit. With five (5) units proposed the project requires 13
parking spaces. The project provides a subterranean garage containing 10 standard stalls, 2
compact stalls, and 1 handicap accessible van stall satisfying the parking requirements for the
project.
Residential Density: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual does not set forth
specific densities in the land use districts that permit residential uses. Instead, an appropriate
General Plan residential density is to be determined for each project based upon compatibility
findings with the surrounding area. Maximum project density may ordinarily not exceed the
Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation. Appropriate
findings must also be made per Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to exceed the
GMCP.
After considering the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area, the vision for
Land Use District 8 and surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a High Density (RH)
General Plan Designation for the subject property. Justification for the RH General Plan density
designation is as follows:
1. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses
including single-family and multi-family residential. Application of the RH General Plan
designation on the subject property would allow for future high density multi-family
residential development, which is permitted in District 8, and would be compatible with the
mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
2. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and affordability of
housing units within this area of the Village. The high density designation allows for future
development that would be consistent with the development in the area and the goals and
objectives of the Redevelopment Master Plan.
3. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13,2006
PAGE 6
District 8 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops,
restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster Station). High residential
densities in close proximity to areas with easy access to mass transportation promote
greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic
congestion and improved air quality.
The RH designation allows for a density range of 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre with a Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. The site area for the proposed
project is .31 acres (13,515 square feet), which will accommodate 5.89 dwelling units per the
GMCP. With 5 dwelling units proposed, the project results in a density of 16.1 dwelling units per
acre, which is below the GMCP of the RH density range (15-23 dwelling units per acre).
The proposed project density, which is below the GMCP, is consistent with Program 3.8 of the
City's certified Housing Element because all of the dwelling units which were anticipated toward
achieving the City's share of the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in
approved projects are deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess
dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of
residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element
allowing residential development with a unit capacity adequate to satisfy the City's share of the
regional housing need. Justification to allow a density that is below the GMCP has been
incorporated into the attached DRB Resolution No. 315.
Inclusionary Housing Requirements: All residential projects within the Village
Redevelopment Area are subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and those requirements imposed by Redevelopment Law. In
accordance with Redevelopment Law, 15% of the private housing units constructed within a
redevelopment area must be affordable to low and moderate income persons, of which not less
than 40% (or 6% of the total units) must be affordable to very low income households. Per City
Ordinance, projects of six or fewer units are eligible to pay an in-lieu fee of $4,515 per market
rate unit. By paying this fee at the time of building permit issuance, the project is providing its
fair share of housing affordable to lower income households and, therefore, is consistent with
the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project has been conditioned to pay the in-lieu fee for
the five (5) proposed residential units. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance.
Planned Development: The Village Master Plan includes a specific condition for
residential units proposed for separate ownership which states that all such units shall comply
with the development standards and design criteria set forth by the Planned Development
Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
In addition to the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the Planned
Development Ordinance provides development standards for recreational space, lighting,
utilities, recreational vehicle storage, tenant storage space, and antennas. The project was
found to comply with each of the development standards and design criteria of the Planned
Development Ordinance. The following is an analysis of how the project provides for the
development standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance, that are standards not
already addressed within the Village Master Plan:
Recreational Space: Private recreational space shall be provided for all planned
development projects with fewer than ten (10) units through a 15'x15' patio or 120 square feet of
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13,2006
PAGE?
balcony area for each unit. The proposed units each contain a minimum of 120 square feet of
total balcony area. The total amount of private recreational space provided for the units is 1,176
square feet.
Lighting: Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety and sufficient to
minimize security problems shall be provided. As a standard condition of approval, the
applicant shall be required to submit a lighting plan, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. This condition has been incorporated into
attached DRB Resolution No. 315.
Utilities: There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. This condition has been
incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 315.
Tenant Storage Space: The Planned Development Ordinance requires separate storage
space of at least four hundred eighty (480) cubic feet for each unit. If all the storage for each
unit is provided in one area, this requirement may be reduced to three hundred ninety two (392)
cubic feet per unit. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas that
are normally part of a residential dwelling unit. Each unit has been designed with 394 cubic feet
of storage space, which exceeds the requirement for tenant storage space.
Antennas: Individual antennas shall not be permitted. The project shall have a master
cable television hookup. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution
No. 315.
Parking: The Planned Development Ordinance does not trigger any additional parking
requirements beyond what is required within the Village Master Plan. Therefore, the project
meets the parking requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance.
Building Coverage. Height and Setbacks: These standards are established individually
according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area. The details
of these development standards were previously discussed above.
Variance Request for Driveway Width: The Design Review Board will be required to
make appropriate findings to grant a variance to allow the applicant to provide a 20 foot wide
driveway instead of the 24 foot wide driveway required by Chapter 21.45 of the Planned
Development Ordinance. Although the proposed 20 foot driveway is adequate in width
according to Engineering Standards, a variance is still required since the driveway width is less
than the 24 foot width as required by the Planned Development Ordinance.
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required findings necessary to grant the
requested variance. In order to approve the requested variances to reduce the required
driveway width, the Design Review Board must be able to make all four findings contained
within Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35. Staff offers the following justification for granting
the requested variances to reduce the width of the driveway:
Variance Finding #1: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zone
regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and
under identical zoning classification. Justification: Special circumstances exist that are
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13,2006
PAGES
applicable to the subject property that justify granting the requested variance. First the shape of
the lot is unusual due to it's "wedged" shape configuration. This shape restricts the design
flexibility for new buildings and related parking. However, through the driveway reduction
(variance), the applicant is able to provide additional building and parking on the site allowing
five units on the property. The construction of five units enables the applicant to achieve a
density that falls within the range of the RH density standard range, however without the
variance the applicant would only be able to provide four units with a resulting density of 12.89
dwelling units per acre, which is below the RH density range of the GMCP and is inconsistent
with the density of the surrounding area and properties under the same zone classification. The
site is further hindered due to its location at an intersection of two streets where a 10 foot street
dedication is required along both Laguna Drive and Madison Street for sidewalk, curb, and
gutter. This location reduces the development potential of the site considerably as compared to
other properties in other locations within the V-R (District 8) zoning because the site requires
dedication along two public frontages whereas other properties with the same zoning would only
have to dedicate property on one side of the site because most only face a public street on one
side.
Variance Finding #2: The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
located. Justification: By allowing a reduced width for the driveway, the subject property
provides the same development potential (density) as other similar properties within District 8.
The granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges as the proposed
project density is 16.1 units/acre which falls within the range of the RH density designation.
Variance Finding #3: The variance does not authorize a use or activity, which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. Justification: The
variance does not authorize a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized by the zone
regulation governing the subject property, as a multi-family residential use is a permitted use
within Land Use District 8 (Residential Support Area) of the V-R zoning designation.
Variance Finding #4: The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the
general plan, Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan, and the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The reduced
driveway width is consistent with engineering standards for driveways. The requested variance
in no way changes the use of development of the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the general plan, Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan, and
the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
Based on these variance findings, it is staff's position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow a reduction of the driveway width from 24 feet to 20 feet.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 9
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design
a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. In accordance with the design
review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as
appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten
(10) basic design principles. These design principles are:
1. Development shall have an overall informal character.
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project
provides for an overall informal character, yet maintains a pleasant architectural design
conducive to the surrounding neighborhood and overall Village character. The applicant has
incorporated several desirable design elements to achieve the desired Village character. The
architectural design elements include wood bahama shutters, stone veneer, decorative metal
railings along the balconies, wood columns and plastered cement walls, exposed rafter tails and
varied roof forms with a 6:12 roof pitch. The buildings have a very strong relationship to the
street in that they are physically located in close proximity to the street along Laguna Drive and
Madison Street and enhance the pedestrian-orientation by providing enhanced landscaping,
decorative paving to the residences from the sidewalk, and front porches oriented towards the
street. The parking is visually subordinate in that it is located beneath the residences within a
subterranean garage. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an
exhibit to this report (See Attached Exhibit A).
IX. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION. SEWER. WATER. RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following:
Traffic & Circulation:
Projected Average Daily Trips (ADT): 40
Comment: Project generates minimal traffic, and does not trigger a requirement for a traffic
study. The project is served by a single driveway off Madison Street to the subterranean
parking garage.
Sewer;
Sewer District: City of Carlsbad
Sewer EDU's Estimated / Required: 5 EDU
Comment: A new sewer lateral to serve each residential unit will be constructed from the
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 10
existing 10" public sewer in Laguna Drive.
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
GPD Required: 1,250 GPD
Comment: Project will a new water meter for each proposed unit. Two connections will be
made to the existing 6" water main in Madison Street. Each water service will be manifolded
to three meters, one meter for each residential unit, and one meter with a backflow
preventer for irrigation of the common area.
Soils & Grading:
Quantities:
Cut: 2,830 cy Fill: 5 cy Import / Export: 2,825 cy
Area of Excavation: 0.3 acres
Permit required: Yes, unless waived by the City Engineer
Off-site approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: N/A
Comment: Proposed grading is almost exclusively for excavation of the underground
parking.
Drainage and Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: A (Buena Vista Watershed)
Preliminary hydrology study performed by: Aquaterra Engineering, Inc.
Erosion Potential: low
Comment: The Preliminary Hydrology Report calculates a pre-development peak 100-yr.
runoff of 0.67 c.f.s. and a post-development peak 100-yr. runoff of 1.03 c.f.s. The resultant
increase in peak runoff of 0.36 c.f.s. is minimal. Since the project is at the lower end of the
Buena Vista Watershed, the small increase is not expected to have any affect on the
watershed peak flow, and will not cause any downstream erosion. The City Master
Drainage Plan shows that the existing 30" storm drain in Laguna Drive should be replaced
with a 45" storm drain. This project will pay into the Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA)
funds towards required storm drain upgrades.
Water Quality / NPDES:
Receiving Water: Buena Vista Lagoon (SDRWQCB Watershed Basin 4.21)
Receiving Water Body 303(d) impaired: Yes (Bacterial Indicators, Sedimentation / Siltation,
Nutrient.
Priority project per Order 2001-01: No
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13,2006
PAGE 11
Best Management Practices shown: Grass swales, covered parking.
Comment: The project storm water runoff discharges into storm drains which outlet into
Buena Vista Lagoon. The project has prepared a Preliminary Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP), and has been conditioned to prepare a Final SWMP with an standard level of
Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project design incorporates vegetated swales to
treat runoff from paved areas before it enters the storm drain system, includes covered
parking which will prevent rainwater from coming into contact with parking surfaces, and
indicates a filtration device will be utilized on the sump pump drain for the parking garage.
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easement: No
Easements/dedication required: Yes
Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes
Comment: Project will dedicate an additional 10 feet of right of way on both Madison Street
and Laguna Drive to create a half-street right of way of 30 feet.
Improvements:
Project will widen Madison Street and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk. Relocation will
be required for an existing fire hydrant, storm drain inlet, and power pole. Laguna Drive is
an Alternative Design street, so the developer is conditioned to execute a Neighborhood
Improvement Agreement for future possible improvements. The project is proposing
enhanced concrete within the public right of way, which, if allowed by the City Engineer, will
require an encroachment agreement.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of
said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary
finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Design Review Board
resolution.
A noise study was prepared by Eilar Associates to determine whether there was a potential for
subjecting the future residents of the project to significant noise impacts. This study concluded
that no interior or exterior noise mitigation would be necessary at any location on site.
XI. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously a vacant and under-
utilized lot will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result
in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 12
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the project. Development of the site will have a positive fiscal
impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and
objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 315 recommending approval RP 06-01.
C. Design Review Board Resolution No. 316 recommending approval CT 06-01.
D. Location Map
E. Exhibits "A - 0", dated November 13, 2006, including reduced exhibits.
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Site Planning:
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
Parking and Access:
Provide landscaping v/ithin surface parking lots
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Project: Laguna Condominiums
The project is predominately surrounded by
residential uses.
The nature of the use does not warrant the
inclusion of benches and low walls.
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity.
The project does not include a drive-thru.
Adequate setbacks are provided along the side of
the property to minimize privacy loss for adjacent
residential uses.
A courtyard is proposed to be used by residents of
the project.
Landscaped areas along the front, sides, and rear
of the building will provide for an informal setting.
Landscaping will be provided along the sides of
the building.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage
and will not be visible form the street.
The subject property does not abut an alley. The
project will provide access to parking from
Madison Street.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
Surface parking lot areas are not part of the
proposal. Landscaping cannot be provided in the
subterranean garage.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
Curb cut is required for driveway. Madison Street
is not a major pedestrian street.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
Appropriate setbacks and landscaping are
provided adjacent to pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces to divide parking lot paving
into smaller segments.
Building Forms:
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mere copies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
Break large buildings into smaller units.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me"
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
Roof Forms:
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 5 in 12
or greater.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are
acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Building Facades:
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
Parking is located within a subterranean garage.
Not applicable.
The building has been designed specifically for the
unique layout of the property and topography. The
building design provides for articulation on all
sides, varying setbacks, and other architectural
features, which provide for a unique character.
Architectural features and relief appears to step
the upper level of the buildings back.
The size and configuration of the lot does not
warrant breaking the building up into smaller units.
However, varying roof peaks and various
architectural features serve to break up the mass
of the building.
The height of the new structure is consistent with
other commercial and residential buildings in the
area.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
is not trendy or "look at me" in design.
The project is providing a 6:12 which is greater
than the roof pitch required in District 8.
Dormers are not included as part of the project
design.
The project uses a slate style tile roofing.
The building does not incorporate flat roofs.
This will be a requirement of the project.
The project does not utilize mansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
Utilize light and neutral base colors.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less surface colors)
Commercial Storefronts:
By providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
various architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all four building facades, thereby
creating visual interest in the building. The project
makes good use of various sized multi-paned
windows with decorative trim, and the use of a
variety of materials.
Multi-paned windows with decorative trim are used
in the project.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections on the second story of the building,
which will create shadows and contrast.
The development is not a commercial structure.
The second floor of the residence will be accessed
through an internal stairway. No external
entrances are proposed.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
building, which include; wood columns, decorative
metal railings, wood bahama shutters and the use
of a variety of materials.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The exterior walls utilize a plastered cement and
stone veneer.
None of the noted materials have been indicated
for use.
The windows are clear glass.
Wood or fiberglass doors and vinyl window frames
will be utilized.
No metal awnings and canopies are proposed.
The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
The project incorporates one primary base stucco
color.
Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid large blank walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
Utilize small paned windows.
Develop a total design concept.
Provide frequent entries.
Limit the extent of entry openings to about 30% of
storefront width or 8 feet, whichever is larger, to preserve
display windows.
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
Emphasi2:e storefront entries.
Integrate fences and walls into the building design.
Residential:
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Emphasiz:e "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Landscaping is proposed along all street frontages
to contribute to the overall visual quality of the
neighborhood. Ample room is available on the
balconies for residents to incorporate flower boxes
and landscape planters.
The residential unit entries are oriented towards
Laguna Drive with the exception of unit 5 which is
accessed from Madison Street.
The project design provides front entry porches
with the exception of unit 5
Windows look out to either Laguna Drive or
Madison Street.
The project utilizes a simple color scheme
A variety of materials are being used along
facades with the incorporation of decorative
shutters around windows.
The project design does not lend itself to "cottage"
form, scale and character.
Open space and landscaping encompass 40% of
the property.
There is one access drive to the project off
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
Provide quality designed fences and walls.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller
components.
Madison Street maximizing the amount of
landscaping adjacent to neighboring properties.
Not applicable.
Low stucco walls match the facade of the building
and are incorporated along all sides of the project.
The design of the project serves to visually
separate the building into smaller elements.
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 315
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 06-01 FOR THE
4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 21,022 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY, FIVE-UNIT
5 CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735
LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 8 OF THE CARLSBAD
6 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION
7 IN DRIVEWAY WIDTH.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA CONDOMINIUMS
8 APN: 203-110-42 & 203-110-43
9 CASE NO: RP 06-01
10
WHEREAS, Robert Dulich, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
12 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Rudy C. Zavalani
13 & Cheryl L. Zavalani, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-110-42 & 203-
110-43, and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
16
shown on Exhibits "A-O" dated November 13, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
17
j g Department, "Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01/CT 06-01", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080
19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 13th day of November, 2006, hold a
21 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
23
arguments, if any, of persons desiring "Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01/ CT 06-01."24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
26 follows:
27 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
28
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
2 Board APPROVES the Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
4
<- 1. The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that
the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
6 environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project, hi making this determination, the
Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state
CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
9
2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
10 findings contained herein for a variance to reduce the driveway width and the
establishment of the RH density designation for the project is in conformance with
the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan,
and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the
facts set forth in the staff report dated November 13, 2006 including, but not limited to
13 the following:
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village,
1 <- as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a residential use in
an appropriate location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance the
16 Village by providing the necessary residential support. The location of the
project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping,
17 recreation and mass transit functions. The new residential units will enhance the
Village as a place for living and working. The project will also be close to
existing bus routes, furthering the goal of new economic development near
19 transportation corridors.
20 b. The project is consistent with Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual in that the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives
set forth for Land Use District 8 through the following actions: 1) the project
22 provides a new residential development that will improve the physical
appearance of the village area, and 2) the building is designed in a manner that
23 compliments nearby residential uses by incorporating many of the same
architectural elements found in residential projects.
24
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 8, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set
26 forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the
requested variances.
27
d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
DRBRESONO. 315 -2-
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
2 been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public
facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The
3 project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best
management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which
4 enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
6 the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and
7 the City's Landscape Manual.
o
f. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building
and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate
fire protection and other safety standards.
10
g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
11 Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment
Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for five (5)
13 units.
14 h. The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth
in Chapter 21.45.080 except for the requested variance, and has been designed in
accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that
the overall plan for the project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the
architectural features of surrounding developments. The buildings,
17 landscaping, and on-site amenities all conform to the Village Redevelopment
Master Plan and Design Manual, which serves as the adopted land use plan for
the area. The overall plan for the project provides for adequate usable open
._ space, circulation, and off-street parking. The parking is screened underneath
the building and the project is compatible with surrounding land uses and will
20 n(>t negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. The overall architecture
is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Village
character as set forth in the Village Design Manual.
22 3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the
23 project is RH (15-23 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control
Point (GMCP) of 19 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RH General Plan
24 density designation is as follows:
25 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of
uses including single-family and multi-family residential. Application of the RH
General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future high
27 density multi-family residential development, which is permitted in District 8,
and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size,
28 scale, and overall density.
DRBRESONO. 315 -3-
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
2 Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity,
and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The high
3 density designation allows for future development that would be consistent with
the development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment
4 Master Plan.
c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land
5 Use District 8 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to
shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster Station).
7 Higher residential densities in close proximity to areas with easy access to mass
transportation promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional
issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality.
9 4. The Design Review Board finds that the RH residential density is in conformance with
10 the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report
dated November 13,2006, including but not limited to the following:
11
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the
proposed density of 16.1 du/ac is within the density range of 15-23 du/ac
13 specified for the site as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
The project's proposed density of 16.1 du/ac is below the Growth Management
14 Control Point density (19 du/ac) used for the purpose of calculating the City's
compliance with Government Code Section 65584. However, consistent with
Program 3.8 of the City's certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units
which were anticipated toward achieving the City's share of the regional housing
need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects are deposited in the
17 City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for
allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit
capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element
1Q allowing residential development with a unit capacity adequate to satisfy the
City's share of the regional housing need.
20
b. Circulation - The project will take access off of Madison Street and is
21 conditioned to provide all necessary street improvements. On-site circulation
consists of a private driveway which provides access to a subterranean parking
garage designed in accordance with City standards.
23 c. Noise - The project is conditioned to provide all noise attenuation measures as
24 identified in the acoustical study prepared by Eilar Associates.
d. Housing - The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the as the Developer has been
conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for five (5)
27 units.
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -4-
5. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
2 Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
3 provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
<- project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
6
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
9 the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
10
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
12 c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
13 be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
14 6. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
17 7. The project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual.
1 O
8. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for a reduction in
1 o, driveway way width:
20 a. That the application of certain provisions of Chapter 21.35 will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent
with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in
~~ that the shape of the lot is unusual due to it's "wedged" shape configuration.
This shape restricts the design flexibility for new buildings and related parking.
23 However, through the driveway reduction (variance), the applicant is able to
provide additional building and parking on the site allowing five units on the
24 property. The construction of five units enables the applicant to achieve a
density that falls within the range of the RH density standard range, however
without the variance the applicant would only be able to provide four units with
26 a resulting density of 12.89 dwelling units per acre, which is below the RH
density range of the GMCP and is inconsistent with the density of the
27 surrounding area and properties under the same zone classification. The site is
further hindered due to its location at an intersection of two streets where a 10
98 foot street dedication is required along both Laguna Drive and Madison Street
DRBRESONO. 315 -5-
for sidewalk, curb, and gutter. This location reduces the development potential
2 of the site considerably as compared to other properties in other locations within
the V-R (District 8) zoning because the site requires dedication along two public
3 frontages whereas other properties with the same zoning would only have to
dedicate property on one side of the site because most only face a public street on
4 one side.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
6 proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that By
7 allowing a reduced width for the driveway, the subject property provides the
same development potential (density) as other similar properties within District
8. The granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special
9 privileges as the proposed project density is 16.1 units/acre which falls within the
range of the RH density designation.
10
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the
12 variance does not authorize a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized
by the zone regulation governing the subject property, as a multi-family
13 residential use is a permitted use within Land Use District 8 (Residential
Support Area) of the V-R zoning designation.
14
1, d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the
16 Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible
in order to encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into
17 consideration the unique conditions associated with many of the properties in
the redevelopment area. The reduced driveway width is consistent with
engineering standards for driveways. The requested variance in no way changes
19 the use of development of the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the general plan, Carlsbad village area
20 redevelopment plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual.21 *
22 GENERAL CONDITIONS:
23 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
24
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
26 implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or
27 modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future
building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
° under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
DRBRESONO. 315 -6-
property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
2 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Major Redevelopment
3 Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
e- and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
6 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
7
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
9
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
10 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
12 unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
13
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
- <. members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
16 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
17 issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
19 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
20
6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
22 conditions approved by the final decision making body.
23 7. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
24 format.
25 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
26 Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
27
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -7-
9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
2 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
.3
10. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 06-01 as shown on Exhibits
A-O, dated November 13,2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
<- and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown
unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
6
11. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
Q
12. Building permits will not be issued for the project unless the local agency providing water
9 and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate
water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of
10 the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities
will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be
placed on the Final Map.
12 HOUSING CONDITIONS:
13. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of
14 certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-space
condominiums, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as
an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the
time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.16
LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS:
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
20 healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
21 15. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
22 project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
23 16. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:
17. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
27 Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of
a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment
28 Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the
DRBRESONO. 315 -8-
Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a
2 minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
3 a. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor
4 of, or in which the City has an interest.
b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the
g City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right
to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City
7 within 30 days for the official record.
8 18. This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this
10 requirement.
11 19. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
12 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
,., Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
14 taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
15
20. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
17 recreational facilitiesDeveloper shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by
City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad
18 Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any
credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also
*•" pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter
2Q 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees
are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become
21 void.
22 NOTICING CONDITIONS:
23 21. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
24 of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
Permit by Resolution No. 315 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice
26 of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
27 specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which28
DRBRESONO. 315 -9-
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
2 successor in interest.
3 ON-SITE CONDITIONS:
^ 22. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site
5 plan (Exhibit "B") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
6 Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or
materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment
' Director.
g
23. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
9 When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing & Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply
10 with the approved plan.
24. The developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of
12 an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
13
25. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
14 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
1 r substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
16
26. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. Individual antennas shall
17 not be permitted.
18 27. There shall be separate utility systems for each unit.
19
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
20
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
21 following code requirements.
22 Fees
23 28. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
24 map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
25 29. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.26
27 30. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -10-
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
2 of the City Engineer.
3 General
31. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
<- approval becomes final.
6 32. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
7 building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
g
33. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
9 Code Section 18.04.320.
10 34. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and approval
12 of the Housing & Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 NOTICE
DRBRESONO. 315 -11-
1
2 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
3 "fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
6 processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
7 annul their imposition.
Q
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
9 DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
10 project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
12 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of
13
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of November, 2006 by the following vote
14
to wit:
16 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:18
ABSTAIN:
19"
20
21 COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
23 ATTEST:
24
25 DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
26 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
27
28
DRBRESONO. 315 -12-
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN 203-110-42 & 203-110-43
Parcel 1:
The portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the Northwesterly corner of land described in
deed recorded June 28, 1962 as Instrument No. 110018 of Official Records; thence
along the Westerly line of said land, South 00°10'00" West 116.50 feet to the most
Southerly corner thereof; thence along the Southwesterly prolongation of the
Southeasterly line of said land, South 56°38'20" West 40.80 feet to the Southwesterly
boundary of said lot 46; thence along said Southwesterly line North 34°26'00" West to
the Point of Beginning.
Parcel 2:
That portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence along said
Northerly line South 89°50' East 65.00 feet; thence South 1°56'04" West 75.00 feet;
thence South 56°38'20" West 75.20 feet to a line which bears South 0°10' West from the
True Point of Beginning; thence North 0°10' East 116.50 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 316
1
7 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
3 APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 06-01 TO
SUBDIVIDE .31 ACRES INTO FIVE (5) CONDOMINIUM UNITS
4 ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 LACUNA DRIVE IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 8 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
5 AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN DRIVEWAY
6 WIDTH.
CASE NAME: LAGUNA CONDOMINIUMS
7 CASE NO.: CT 06-01
8 WHEREAS, Robert Dulich, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the
" Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by
Rudy C. Zavalani & Cheryl L. Zavalani, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number
11
203-110-42 & 203-110-43 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A ("the Property");
12
and
13
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
14
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) "A-O" dated November 13, 2006, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department as "Laguna Condominiums RP 06-01/CT 06-01", as provided by
j 7 Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
18 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 13th day of November, 2006,
19 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
20 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
21 and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
22 relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
25 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
sys:
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
27 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Laguna Condominiums CT 06-01,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
28
Findings:
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
2 conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, the
Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Titles
3 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will
not cause serious public health problems.
4 2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
5 surrounding properties are located within Land Use District 8 of the Village
Redevelopment Area and the intent of the Village Master Plan is to transition into
6 a relatively dense urban residential neighborhood with a Village scale and
character.
7
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
8 site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed, in that the development is consistent with the RH density
9 designation which has been assigned to the property based on the following
findings:
U a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a
variety of uses including single-family and multi-family residential.
12 Application of the RH General Plan designation on the subject property
would allow for future high density multi-family residential development,
13 which is permitted in District 8, and would be compatible with the mixture
of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density.
14
b. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the
15 Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality,
diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village.
The high density designation allows for future development that would be
, 7 consistent with the development in the area and the goals and objectives
of the Redevelopment Master Plan.
18 c. The RH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of
19 Land Use District 8 by increasing the number of residential units in close
proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village
20 Coaster Station). Higher residential densities in close proximity to areas
with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing
21 balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion
and improved air quality.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
24 public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that the property has frontage on Laguna Drive and Madison Street and there are
25 no easements granting access through the property to others.
26 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
27
6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
28 natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
DRBRESONO. 316 -2-
7. That the Design Review Board has considered, in connection with the housing
2 proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those
housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
4 8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
5 habitat, in that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for
Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it
6 is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project. Therefore, the Design Review Board
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect
8 on the environment.
Q
9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project is
conditioned to comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
12 10. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Village Redevelopment
13 Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated November 13, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: the
project will provide for a permitted residential development in an appropriate
location within Land Use District 8 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
10 a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
19 service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer
service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the
20 requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
21
b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
22 the Carlsbad Unified School District.
23 c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
24 d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
25
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
26 condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
27 concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
DRBRESONO. 316 -3-
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
. Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
3 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of
4 the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
5 Conditions:
6 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a
final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
7
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
8 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency/City
9 shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further
condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
, 1 institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
12 interest by the City's approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative
Tract Map.
13 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all
14 corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
15 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any
proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
16 approval.
17 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
1" of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
_0 are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
2| invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
22 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
23 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and
24 all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
25 approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) Agency's approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with
26 the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of
the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising27 from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or
emissions.2o
DRBRESONO. 316 -4-
6. The Developer shall submit to the Agency a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the
2 (Tentative Map/Site Plan) reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
4 Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
5
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
6 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
7
9. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
8 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at
9 the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
10 shall be placed on the Final Map.
Engineering Conditions:
12 General
13
10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
14 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
15
11. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other
16 recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain and water quality
17 facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable
manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision.18
12. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
2Q 13. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance
with Engineering Standards. The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be
2\ reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association
with this development.
22
Fees/Agreements
23
14. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
24 recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
25
15. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
26 recordation the City's standard Encroachment Agreement for any enhanced concrete
within the public right-of-way.
2g 16. Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Laguna Drive along
the subdivision frontage for a half street width of 30 feet. Public improvements
DRBRESONO. 316 -5-
shall include but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curb and gutters,
2 grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities.
3 17. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
4 shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an
5 additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
on a form provided by the City Engineer.
6
Grading
7
18. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
8 Tentative Map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for
and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer.
,„ Dedications/Improvements
U 19. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City
and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the
12 Tentative Map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so
offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost.
13 Streets that already public are not required to be rededicated.
14 20. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall
15 conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and
drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard
16 improvement plancheck and inspection fees.
17 21. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
18 improvements shown on the Tentative Map and the following improvements including,
but not limited to paving, base, signing and striping, sidewalks, curbs and gutters,
19 grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water,
?n fire hydrants, and street lights, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The improvements are:
21 a) Half-street improvements to Madison Street as shown on the
22 Tentative Map.
b) Stripe the intersection of Madison Street and Laguna Drive to create
23 a right angle intersection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
24 A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the
provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above
25 shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.26
22. Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots
27 abutting Laguna Drive.
28 23. Laguna Drive and Madison Street shall be dedicated by Owner along the project
frontage based on a center line to right-of-way width of 30 feet and in conformance with
DRBRESONO. 316 -6-
City of Carlsbad Standards. No interlocking pavers will be constructed within the
2 right-of-way.
3 24. Developer shall coordinate with the City of Carlsbad Streets Department and
comply with the City tree policy regarding any removals of trees within public
4 right-of-way.
5 25. Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved
by the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6
6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
7 conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
26. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
9 Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)."
The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region
11 of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from
12 storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the
project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall:
13 a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concem;
14 b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could
be impacted by this project;
15 c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project
to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable
16 before discharging to City right-of-way;
d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations
1' and effort shall be applied to resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean
up and disposal of pollutants;
e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and
, Q f. identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the
pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable.
20 Final Map Notes
21 27. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
22
28. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data:
23
A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the
24 exception of the following:
25 1. Public street, sewer and water improvements.
26 B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
28 C. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has
. agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that
may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence
DRBRESONO. 316 -7-
1 and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to
_ its construction, operation or maintenance.
Special Conditions
4 29. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on
the Tentative Map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact
5 and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively.
6
Sewer/Water
7
30. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire
8 Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
9 considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.10 a
11 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
, ~ Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
32. The Developer shall install (potable water and/or recycled water services) and meters at
a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
14 reflected on public improvement plans.
15 33. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
16 improvement plans.
17 34. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the District
18 Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
19 35. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned
unit.20
36. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
^ issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
22 determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data.
23 37. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire
24 potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure
that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of
25 the District Engineer.
26 38. The Developer shall coordinate with the District Engineer regarding the looped system
and easements.
27"
28 39. Prior to Final Map approval, Developer shall install potable water meter(s) for residential
use and 1 irrigation meter to irrigate the common areas (Homeowner's Association).
DRBRESONO. 316 -8-
Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
4 40. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
5 approval becomes final.
6 41. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
7 with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRBRESONO. 316 -9-
1 NOTICE
2
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees,
3 dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for
convenience as "fees/exactions."4
5 You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these
fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in
6 Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required
information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal
7 Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent
legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.8
9 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified
fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity
10 charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service
fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of
11 which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the
statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review
14 Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of November, by the
15 following vote to wit:
16 AYES:
17 NOES:
18 ABSENT:
19 ABSTAIN:
20
21 COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON
22 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
23 ATTEST:
24
25 DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
26 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
27
28
DRBRESONO. 316 -10-
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN 203-110-42 & 203-110-43
Parcel 1:
The portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the Northwesterly corner of land described in
deed recorded June 28, 1962 as Instrument No. 110018 of Official Records; thence
along the Westerly line of said land, South 00°10'00" West 116.50 feet to the most
Southerly corner thereof; thence along the Southwesterly prolongation of the
Southeasterly line of said land, South 56°38'20" West 40.80 feet to the Southwesterly
boundary of said lot 46; thence along said Southwesterly line North 34°26'00" West to
the Point of Beginning.
Parcel 2:
That portion of Lot 46 of Seaside Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1722, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 28, 1921, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 46; thence along the Northerly line of
said lot, South 89°50' East 129.93 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence along said
Northerly line South 89°50' East 65.00 feet; thence South 1°56'04" West 75.00 feet;
thence South 56°38'20" West 75.20 feet to a line which bears South 0°10' West from the
True Point of Beginning; thence North 0°10' East 116.50 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
SITE
LACUNA CONDOMINIUMS
RP 06-01/CT 06-01
\nwBjrw3 'aasTan no YKnovi sti
SWniNIWOQNOO VMHSVI S31WOOSSV+MHOO ^lill 1 .
55
88
ai-
BCCJ
z.
o
~-J5
Qv
§tos>
5
u
S
ii
s!ii ! : a
J!Ii
i
Ii?
HI
HI :
1I?
(&I!
5
li
Siis ms
A|SoSfill
E^K
li
KI
n ilifsi ;j
11ri? ff Si!
| *$
ll!i«i"}{ P^iilSt"s-8lF* 3j!Ssl«ifspiiiy i ijiiijliahilirf lillssi!
ssia»si5BSlppp:lllljlcSlSSSBl
Si
I 'OVSS1HVO
SWniNIWOdNOO VNH9V1 S31WXSSV+HH09
SWPINIWOQNOO VNH9V1 ONmw srnowow,ssiwoossv+wm'
o
Ul
QJ
viwiojnvo 'o
SWniNIWOQNOO suvnossv+moo
\n\
o
OC
0
0
CO
OC
swniNiwoaiMoo VNHSVI ssimossv+mw 1 I
\
SWniNIWOQNOQ VNflSVl S31WOOSSV+ HHOO
O
OC
0
0
SWniNIWOQNOO VNH9V1
SZMOOSST+ HHO9 m
\o
u.
0
0
QC
'OV8S1UV3 'W VNflOVn SCi
SWniNIWOQNOO VNH9VI SUMOOSSV+moo
SWniNIWOQNOO VNH9V1 S31VKJOSSV+HH03
0?
til
VINSOJOVQ -avaswa
swniNiwoaNoo viunsvi SSMOOSSV+ ma
I
O
Ul
V)
CO
(0
0
1C
0
>uh.
•**
(0
8 *
SWniNIWOQNOO
SZMOOSSV+MHOO
!L
S 8
O6
0
IU
V)
u>
0
DC
0
Ul
k
0)
vwaojnvo *cr
SWniNIWOQNOO 'W
I*WUU J ^\ J. 1 ^
III
ill
ii!
DRAFT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
DATED NOVEMBER 13,2006
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: NOVEMBER 13, 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
Engineering : Glen Van Peski, David Hauser
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the September 25, 2006, meeting
with two corrections.
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 first item on the agenda tonight is a public hearing to consider a new residential
development on Laguna. Cliff Jones, the Project Planner, will make the presentation assisted by Glen Van
Peski from the Engineering Department.
Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, said the applicant, Robert
Dulich, is requesting a major redevelopment permit for the construction of a 21,022 square foot, three-story,
five-unit condominium located at 735 Laguna Drive in Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment area. In accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the major redevelopment permit
is being brought forward for recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Laguna Drive and Madison Street. The subject
property consists of two properties totaling 13,515 square feet with one property being vacant and the other
containing a single-family residence. The project is bordered by a single-family residence to the south; a
single-family residence exists to the east; to the north across Laguna Drive are apartment units and newly
constructed condominium units; and the properties to the west are residential with single-family and
multifamily residential uses scattered along Madison Street.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 2 of 13
The three-story, five-unit project totals 21,022 square feet. The five units vary in size from 2,335 square feet
to 2,720 square feet and have a minimum of three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The project fronts Laguna
Drive and Madison Street with access to the underground parking being taken off of Madison Street.
Multifamily residences are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 8. The proposed multifamily
project meets the goals and the objectives of the Village Master Plan through providing a desirable use,
serving as a catalyst for future development, providing development of an underutilized lot, and increasing the
number, quality, and diversity of housing types within the Village.
The proposed project meets all the required development standards outlined within the Village Master Plan.
The project provides for an abundance of open space at 40% and landscaping; plus a reduced amount of
building coverage proposed at 55%. The building height of the project is in compliance with the established
standard set just below at 34 feet, 9 inches with a 6 and 12 roof pitch. Adequate parking is provided below
grade with 2 spaces per unit and three guest spaces for a total of 13 spaces. It is noteworthy the applicant
has requested a variance to reduce the driveway width from 24 feet to 20 feet, and the Housing and
Redevelopment Department and the Engineering Department have reviewed said request and determined
the proposed driveway width is acceptable. The necessary findings for the determination are included in the
Design Review Board Staff Report. The proposed project also falls within the required setback ranges; front
yard setback is at 5 feet; it is noteworthy there is a 10 foot dedication along Madison and Laguna; the project
will be about 15 feet setback from the curb area; eastside is proposed at 10 feet; the west side is 5 feet, 8
inches; and the rear is 5 feet.
The proposed project is also consistent with the Design Principles outlined within the Village Design Manual.
The project incorporates several design features in order to achieve the desired village character and these
include decorative wrought iron, stonework, varied stucco colors and recesses, decorative wood shutters,
multi-paned windows, private balconies, slate style tile roofing with a 6 and 12 roof pitch, and the project
provides attractive landscaping and underground parking so that parking is not visible from the street.
The project has been found to be exempt from Environmental Review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State
CEQA guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary finding for this determination is included in
the attached Design Review Board Resolution. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive
financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Redevelopment of this site will result in
increased property taxes, which will result in an increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency.
Additionally, the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or
rehabilitation of existing buildings.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project with the findings for the proposed driveway width;
development of the site will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Agency, and will assist in
fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan.
Board Member Lawson asked Mr. Jones to identify what are the actual street improvements that are going to
take place associated with this permit and this application. I just want to be clear on understanding what is
going to be done out in the street right of way and curbs and sidewalks and such.
Glenn Van Peski, Development Services, said the project is conditioned to construct curb, gutter and
sidewalk and pavement widening on Madison. Laguna, however, is an alternative design street so the project
is conditioned to sign a neighborhood improvement agreement so in the future when improvements may be
installed, the project will pay its fair share of those improvements.
Board Member Lawson asked about the sidewalk that seems to wrap around the corner coming off of
Madison to Laguna. What actually is out along the edge of pavement out there? Is it just a temporary AC
berm or something?
Mr. Van Peski said yes, it is just a temporary AC berm.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 3 of 13
Board Member Lawson commented that the sidewalk comes around the corner and then dead ends at that
point. It is assumed that people would then walk across Laguna or they will go and walk in the street.
Mr. Van Peski said correct.
Board Member Lawson wanted to elaborate on the driveway variance. By dropping it down to 20 feet, could
you elaborate on the justification that we don't establish any precedence for changing our standard to 20
feet?
Mr. Jones said the proposed driveway is 20 feet. In order to meet the requirements for fire and engineering,
a 20 foot minimum is required for access getting into the underground parking. However, the 24 foot
standard of the planned development ordinance, which the applicant is requesting a variance from, has to do
more with access throughout a parking area. Here cars will be passing one another and not actually doing
any turns. So the reduced standard, staff did determine, was acceptable at 20 feet.
Board Member Lawson said also when he is looking at the floor plans, it appears that the single unit that is
over the driveway or to the south portion that has an elevator up into that unit. Is that considered the ADA
unit then?
Mr. Jones said he will need to take a look at the plans real quick. If I can defer to the architect.
My name is Gary Cohn, 380 Stevens Avenue, Solano Beach, and I am the architect for the project. Per the
current standards for condominium development, all of the units have to have a certain degree of
accessibility. In the case of the other units, the elevator goes up to the open courtyard that backs up on the
units and they can take access through there as well as some of the units would be accessible from the front.
The unit you identified above the driveway would use the elevator to get to its main floor. The accessibility
requirements are not as strict as for a public building. It requires that you can get to the main floor of the
building. It requires that a person in a wheelchair could access a bathroom facility and the main door is a
minimum of three feet. All the units would meet the requirement that is per the state law.
Board Member Lawson said he wants to be clear. The rendering almost implies there are two buildings, but
this is a horseshoe shape. So you are not trying to imply that these are two separate ones are you?
Mr. Cohn said no.
Board Member Lawson is wondering why Mr. Cohn is showing it that way because it is a little misleading.
Mr. Cohn apologized for it being misleading. The buildings do connect in the rear beyond and we were just
drawing that particular elevation. You are correct; it is not two separate buildings. It is one building. There is
a u-shaped courtyard, and on all three levels the building connects.
Board Member Lawson said he can't recall how long ago it was, but a few years back where directly across
Laguna there was a proposal for a project and it was for three stories and the concern was three stories up
against residential and the shading and impacts to that adjacent single-family residence. Did staff look at it
from that concern, because you would have some tall three-story units right up against two single-family
residences. I want to make sure we evaluated and recognized it and that it is still compatible.
Mr. Jones said staff did evaluate that. As you are aware, the project is within the permitted height range, but
staff did look at the angle of the sun throughout the day. The plans don't have a shading study, unfortunately,
so I can't show you exactly where the shadows are. As the sun rises from the east, for a good proportion of
the day, the adjacent property owner will not be impacted until late afternoon.
Board Member Lawson said he just wanted to bring that up because if anyone did draw a correlation or a
connection to the other project, we had a completely different scenario, if I recall, where that building was
almost always casting shadow into that backyard. This is just oriented to catch the late afternoon shadow.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 4 of 13
Board Member Baker asked Mr. Van Peski about the sidewalk improvements along Madison Street. Are
there currently improvements just south of there? What is the sidewalk situation there?
Mr. Van Peski said no, there isn't any sidewalk to the south.
Board Member Baker said on the Planning Commission they have dealt with this several times when one or
two new properties come in and we make them put the sidewalk in. What I think happens is we end up with a
hodgepodge of sidewalk, no sidewalk, sidewalk, no sidewalk. Would it make more sense to have them do a
neighborhood improvement agreement along their frontage on Madison so that when these properties further
south do develop, we could do one contiguous sidewalk rather then having a little now and ten years from
now there is a different sidewalk, and this concrete in the meantime has become old and patched and
stained. To me it visually creates some problems.
Mr. Van Peski said personally he tends to agree, but that is not within my purview. Madison isn't identified as
an alternative street so I know there are a couple of other projects along there further south of this that
connect to an existing sidewalk. I agree with you. The potential is certainly there for there to be bits and
pieces of sidewalk for many years.
Board Member Baker said she isn't necessarily suggesting a neighborhood improvement agreement, but it
seems like there should be some mechanism so that when it is timely for that sidewalk to be all along
Madison Street, that they be done all at the same time and the project should, of course, have to pay that. I
am hesitant to insist that it be done now when it doesn't fit in with the existing character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Van Peski commented that it is a valid point. Much of the neighborhood is no sidewalk and this is going
to be a piece that is.
Board Member Baker suggested that Ms. Mobaldi or Ms. Fountain can address that or whether that is a
recommendation that we toss up. I know it has come up before. This isn't the first time.
Ms. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, said Mr. Mauser can probably address it best.
David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer, said the standard policy is when they are not part of the neighborhood
street system that we put in those curb/gutter/sidewalk improvements. I know you mentioned the
neighborhood improvement agreement. Even though that is an alternative, that is not something we prefer to
do. It is very difficult to enforce those with time. We come back and the property owners tend to want to fight
us along the way. They have never been fully tested in the court of law. There is some question about it in
the future if we were to try and make the property owners build those and the other improvements are all
coming about. When the policy is set up to get the improvements, we get it. Typically in the past, when we
had a development on a corner is when we actually said you had to start to build a sidewalk because it made
sense on the corner for them to start moving back into the neighborhood streets. Sometimes if they were in
the middle, they would be more of a problem because drainage issues, those types of things. When they are
on the corner like this, it is usually not a particularly difficult problem.
Board Member Baker agreed, but she still thinks they look odd. Are there other alternatives? Could we have
a DG path or some kind of something? I understand your dilemma but it just seems nutty to be doing
sections and then other little sections and they may or may not ever connect up. I just don't see the point in
doing it now.
Mr. Hauser said he understands her point of view. From our side of it is, if you don't get the improvement
now, you may never get it in. Then if all the properties are allowed to develop that way, we might as well put
that whole street in the category of an alternative design street. We will probably not be getting them in the
future if we defer them out.
Board Member Baker said it seems like we have situations all over the community where a developer has
posted bonds or done all kinds of agreements to continue sections of streets when something triggers it. I
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 5 of 13
just don't see this as being something that can't reasonably be solved so that it makes more sense to do it all
together and have them pay their portion of it. I don't believe there can't be a way to make this work.
Mr. Mauser said if we are going to do it, I recommend going with a neighborhood improvement agreement. I
wouldn't recommend going with a bond. Those things tend to sit around for a period of time. After 5 or 6
years, the property owners stop paying on the bond, and then it is an issue of we have something that is not
very enforceable.
Board Member Baker asked if we have any ability to have them pay whatever that cost is now even though it
is not put in?
Mr. Mauser answered we do not have that mechanism. We have done it on a case-by-case basis, but we
don't actually have an official mechanism that says pay a deposit and we will build it later on.
Ms. Mobaldi said on the subject of the sidewalks, her recommendation would be if you decide on that, it
should be a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission because they are the ones
who set up the policy about when sidewalks go in and when we have alternative designs. I think it would be
appropriate to make that suggestion, but let them make the ultimate determination.
Board Member Baker said on the Madison Street elevation, on the Madison Street side will you actually see
part of a building back there so it doesn't look like it is two separate buildings?
Mr. Cohn said you will see it, but it is quite a ways back. It is probably about 50 feet back or so.
Board Member Baker added that she thinks you should be able to see it. You have an unusual challenge
here since you are on a corner to make both the Laguna and the Madison sides look like they are street
frontage both ways. The Madison Street side, especially the north end, looks a little bit like a side. I think of
Madison Street as being as much a major street as Laguna is. That is why I think if you could see the other
stories back there, it would look more like it is a street frontage or a major thoroughfare kind of frontage.
Also, what about mullion windows; are the mullions actually inside the window or are they outside.
Mr. Cohn said it depends on the manufacturer. Most of the windows I like to use are dual paned windows so
there is a mullion that is put between the glass, but that is not what you see. There is a mullion on the outside
of the window and a mullion on the inside. Whether you are inside the house or outside the house, the
windows appear as divided light windows.
Board Member Baker commented she is not a fan of mullion windows, especially a few blocks from the coast
when they get salty and sticky and difficult to clean. I don't know why anybody in Southern California uses
mullion windows.
Mr. Cohn said depending on the style of architecture you are doing, they are obviously used a lot. They help
to break up the panes of glass. It is more of an older style of window when they were actually individual
panes of glass. By the ocean, windows can be difficult to clean. Most of these window systems will clean
pretty well.
Board Member Baker suggested that he consider not using them.
Mr. Cohn said okay.
Board Member Baker said unless the rest of these people here agree with me, I individually can't make you
do it. I just see this as being a problem for homeowners that close to the ocean. The last thing is on the
landscape plan. I am sorry I am not as intimately familiar with it as I should be, but would it be possible to put
on the Madison Street side some kind of lower tree or hedge or something be on that blank wall space.
Mr. Cohn said he believes it would be. Yes there certainly can be any number of species that can be planted.
I am not a landscaping expert. We hire a landscape architect to do that.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 6 of 13
Board Member Baker said she brings this up because I think it would give Madison Street not so much of a
side of the house look as it would look like it is an entrance.
Mr. Cohn said he would be quite fine with that request.
Board Member Hamilton referred to the driveway, on the ramp going down, are you going to mitigate the risks
there by somebody walking, somebody coming up the ramp? Is there a line of site issue there? Say a
person is going north on Madison and someone is coming out of the ramp, there is going to be a confluence
of traffic, foot versus vehicle, usually the foot losing. Is there going to be a mirror or anything there? It just
looks like there is a wall right up about 5 feet off the property line but after the ramp begins.
Mr. Cohn said that is true. There is a transition at the top of the ramp so when you are getting there, it is
starting to level out. This is not a ramp where you are backing up, which is the most dangerous situation that
you are describing. Obviously anybody coming out of here is going to be going in the forward direction. I
think the drivers will have to be careful coming up the ramp. Obviously you don't want to be coming up too
quickly. The ramp in its middle section has a pretty good pitch to it so I think people would drive it fairly
slowly. There is also an opening in that one section of wall you are talking about. I am not sure that would
necessarily allow a driver to see out to the south or not.
Board Member Hamilton asked if a mirror could be put there. Is there any kind of mitigation we can put in
there?
Mr. Jones said the distance from the edge of the curb to the wall itself is about 15 feet so a driver will have,
as you mentioned, a very limited site but there is a site distance there.
Chairperson Heineman reiterated there is good site distance there.
Mr. Jones said correct.
Ms. Mobaldi wanted to point out the Board has the authority to require mirrors or something if you think that is
appropriate. When you get around to voting, you would probably want to make a suggestion that be added as
a condition and see if your fellow board members agree.
Board Member Schumacher commented about the sidewalk issue that Board Member Baker was talking
about earlier, it appears that the sidewalk will be on Madison Street and stop where the zero curb line is at the
corner. Is that right? Is that where it transitions?
Mr. Jones said that is correct.
Board Member Schumacher continued that as it goes along Laguna, there is no sidewalk but there is a 10
foot dedication the property owner is giving back, is that right? That won't be landscaped, right? It won't be
where those trees are, I presume, or will it?
Mr. Mauser said yes that is the landscaped area.
Board Member Schumacher said the earlier comment that was made that it is hard to enforce this, what
would be the trigger point, how are the sidewalks put in? Will all that landscape be pulled out? The reason I
am asking this is there is no sidewalk on Madison and then it goes sidewalk to the corner and then it goes no
sidewalk along Laguna and then I think there is sidewalk. Somewhere in there it goes back to sidewalk. It is
definitely a checkerboard thing going on. I am curious of when Laguna would actually get done.
Mr. Mauser said on an alternative design street there isn't a trigger of anything. It is just if the residents out
there want to see some type of improvement of the street and they would get together and request that they
go through the alternative design street process, and then look to form a district.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 7 of 13
Board Member Schumacher said as he's reading the report, it says the applicant is going to be required to
form a neighborhood association. Is that not true? Did I misread that?
Mr. Hauser said they sign a neighborhood improvement agreement. It just says they are agreeing at some
time if the neighborhood forms a district that they all be party to it. They will pay their fair share for the
improvements.
Board Member Schumacher continued that at that time, possibly that would be a trigger if the neighborhood
district decided to put in sidewalks all around.
Mr. Hauser said yes, but the likelihood of that happening is not very great. It would probably be some
accidents out there where kids were getting hit and then the neighborhood would rise up and say they want to
put in some sidewalks in this area. But other then that, I just don't see the neighbors going out there and
saying we want to charge ourselves to put in the sidewalks.
Board Member Schumacher said across the street on the other side of Madison there is a sidewalk, I think.
Is there any plan to put in a crosswalk to get people from one side to the other now that we may have an
actual sidewalk, at least a portion of a sidewalk, or is that not practical given the layout? It seems like if you
are going to have a sidewalk that is going to cross a street, you might as well make some use out of it.
Mr. Hauser said it would be up to the Traffic Engineer when the improvements are in to take a look to see
what kind of striping would be necessary. If they felt that a sidewalk would be necessary, they will put one in.
If they feel that leaving it the way it is and allowing the pedestrians to choose which way to go across. If
pedestrians are going to go across and then there is no place for them to walk on that side of the street, I am
not sure we want to be directing them there at this time. If anything, we would probably be directing them
across Laguna.
Board Member Schumacher said he doesn't think there are any sidewalks on the other side of Laguna, is
there?
Mr. Hauser said he's right, he's not sure if there is any sidewalk.
Chairperson Heineman said he does think there is a sidewalk there.
Mr. Hauser said he thinks there may be a sidewalk along that whole side. He is surprised they made that one
an alternative design street because it is pretty well built out, and it would have been better to probably say,
let's build it out, because it has so much traffic on it.
Chairperson Heineman asked if anyone else had anything that needed to be addressed by the architect.
Board Member Lawson said looking at the floor plans and understanding the layout, I am having difficulty in
understanding how one of the residents gets from their parked vehicle down below into their actual unit, with
the exception of unit 5, which has that elevator. Could you walk me through how they get from there? Based
upon the plans that I have, I am not finding how someone gets from that unit, from the parking. Especially
those units that face on Laguna.
Mr. Cohn said there is a stairway from the parking garage that leads up to the courtyard and the elevator will
stop at the courtyard as well so you could take the elevator up to the courtyard or you could take the elevator
up for the 5 unit to its entry level and from the courtyard you would be entering the back of the other units. Or
you could take the steps up to the courtyard and enter your unit.
Board Member Lawson said when he looks at the first floor plan, he doesn't see any direct access from the
courtyard to the back of any units 1 through 4.
Mr. Cohn said all of the units from the courtyard have a sliding door generally off of the kitchen/family room
area.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 8 of 13
Board Member Lawson said then that is intended as a passage way then.
Mr. Conn said yes, that is.
Board Member Lawson said along the southern edge, there are AC units and a service area along the
property line. Typically the utilitarian area has a lot of different things in there. Will there really be enough
room to be able to put the vegetation that is proposed on the landscape plan? I often don't see that actually
working.
Mr. Cohn answered that was one of the challenges. We did a lot of coordination between the civil engineer
who has to get his drainage through there, myself who has requirements, and also the landscape architect. I
asked him about the questions you are bringing up: Can I actually get these trees in here? He said, yes you
can. There is enough room to do it, and we made sure that we provided that.
Board Member Baker asked the engineers if there will be parking in front of this project along Laguna Street.
Can you park on that side of the street?
Mr. Van Peski answered yes you can. The width of Laguna allows for parking.
The applicant, Bob Dulich, 675 Circle Drive, Solana Beach, said he will not give a presentation due to the
thoroughness of Mr. Jones' presentation. I will defer and be here to answer questions if you have any.
Board Member Baker asked Mr. Dulich how he felt about this discussion the Board is having about the
neighborhood improvement agreement. Would you just as soon put the sidewalk in now, would you like to
come back and be dinged for it later, or what is your feeling on this?
Mr. Dulich answered based on the character of the neighborhood, I would agree with you. I would leave that
corner as an alternative design all the way around or put a full sidewalk all the way around, one of the two.
We are willing to go either way. We are just trying to abide by what regulations were set forth. I will say that I
am in complete agreement with the mullions.
Board Member Baker said okay, then you'll take them out.
Mr. Dulich said I don't know if we can do that.
Chairperson Heineman found no one in the audience who would like to speak. He closed the public hearing.
Mr. Van Peski asked if he could correct what he told Board Member Baker. She said Laguna and I was
thinking Madison. There will not be sufficient width on Laguna to allow parking in front of those units. To do
that would require widening the street, which we are not requiring.
Board Member Lawson said he has a little bit of a concern, maybe this should wait for discussion, but if you
have to lug your groceries all that way, I was just wondering about people parking on Laguna Street to get
into their front doors. That was why I was asking the question.
Board Member Lawson said to elaborate on that, these improvements, the edge will come out and consume
where the vehicles currently park. So those vehicles are in the area that shows up on the landscape plan
with the bands, is that correct?
Mr. Van Peski answered yes, the vehicles are parked on the dirt right now, and that will be grass and
landscaping when the project is completed.
Board Member Lawson said he is trying to get a sense of where this actually is and where that parking would
be.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 9 of 13
Board Member Hamilton said all he'd like to see is a stop sign at the top of that ramp to prevent somebody
from zooming up to the top of the ramp and impacting someone walking or skateboarding or riding a bike on
the sidewalk. I would also like the landscape plan to reflect that a line of site does need to be maintained as
vehicles do come up that ramp. I think that is somewhat of a safety issue as fundamental to those who
reside in the neighborhood.
Board Member Baker said overall the project is very nice and I am pleased with it. I just have the things
about the mullion windows, the tree and then whether we are going to make them do the sidewalks on
Madison Street.
Chairperson Heineman asked Board Member Baker if she would feel differently if the mullion windows were
done away with.
Board Member Baker said she is not going to hold up the project or condition it. Again, it is a preference I
have and I just don't understand why there are mullion windows a few blocks from the beach. Unless fellow
Board Members agree with me, I am not going to hold it up or insist or vote no on it.
Chairperson Heineman reiterated that is Board Member Baker's only objection then.
Board Member Baker said also the sidewalk issue. Again, I wouldn't vote no on the project because of it, but
I do wonder how much sense it makes to install that just little section of sidewalk just in front of this project
when it isn't anywhere else in the neighborhood on that same side of the street. If there is sidewalk on the
other side of the street, I guess we could consider it to be a single loaded sidewalk on one side.
Ms. Fountain wanted to add a comment on the mullion windows. In defense of the architect, our Design
Guidelines actually encourage the mullion windows because they are intended to give a more village
character feel to the area. Even sometimes when the architects might not want to do them, staff will generally
push them to do it. I understand your point, and it is just the Design Guidelines, it's not a standard, so if you
didn't want them, you definitely could say you didn't want them. I just wanted to share it is something that is
encouraged by the Design Guidelines.
Board Member Lawson said when he looks at this project and thinks about what we are trying to encourage
and things that we've seen come before this Board, I am actually very pleased from the standpoint that I am
continuing to see a progression of the quality being taken up a little each time. From that standpoint, I think
that at least the way it is graphically portrayed, assuming that is the way it will look when it is finished with the
exception of the fact that it kind of looks like two different buildings on that one elevation, I can support the
project. However, I do have some concern that I want to state and get on the record, and is that the way this
courtyard is laid out and the way the residents are expected to use it, I question it really being a good way that
it should function. As I see it given the way it was described, you're anticipating someone to come into their
parking space down below, go either up those stairs or up the elevator, they are carrying their groceries or
whatever, and they are going to go into this courtyard that doesn't have much going on and enter into a family
room or nook or whatever. It just seems like you are not creating a backdoor entry. If there was some sense
of it feeling like a backdoor, that would be a little different. I would like to think those things might get
overcome while they are working on the construction details, but when I think of it and projecting myself as a
tenant in there, I would question whether or not I would be wondering why they did this for me. Why didn't
they give me a sense that I can come into this space? This is my backyard or it is a private backyard. It
seems like that area needs some refinement to be done. That aside, I can support this project.
Board Member Baker asked what the rest of the Board felt about the neighborhood improvement or the
streets. Are we including that in the motion?
Chairperson Heineman said no one else seemed to find it a problem.
Board Member Schumacher said maybe not in the context of this particular project, but would it make sense
to make a motion like Ms. Mobaldi suggested looking at how the streets are handled going forward? Not
necessarily in the context of this project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 10 of 13
Ms. Mobaldi said you could take a vote of the Board Members as to whether or not they would like the
Redevelopment Commission to consider whether the neighborhood agreement would be preferable in this
situation and keep it out of this motion. Also, I just want to remind you Board Member Hamilton wanted to
make a motion probably at this point to add a condition about the stop sign at the top of the driveway.
Chairperson Heineman suggested the Board considers a stop sign or some sort of a warning sign at the top
of the ramp, which is the point Mr. Hamilton brought up and which I think could be a safety issue. Do I hear
any other comment on that item?
Board Member Lawson said for clarification, he thought staff suggested the Traffic Engineer will be looking at
different things and that might be one of them as well. Or am I mixing a different traffic subject?
Mr. Hauser said he thinks Board Member Lawson is mixing a different traffic subject. We don't get into the
traffic controls. Even if they did put a stop sign on there, I am not sure how enforceable it would be because
it is on private property intended to protect the people coming up onto the public right away.
Chairperson Heineman asked what about a warning sign?
Mr. Hauser said you can put the stop sign there. It is just that it can't be enforced. I don't think you will have
a police officer writing tickets on it. Maybe Ms. Mobaldi could correct me on that.
Ms. Mobaldi said typically those aren't enforced. In shopping centers they even have to adopt an ordinance
to enforce the traffic signals in the private center. They can still put a stop sign. It is just something to try and
get people to stop, though they might do a rolling stop so you might want to consider the mirrors as well,
which might actually be more effective if people are going to tend to roll through there.
Board Member Schumacher suggested we not require the mirrors only because I hardly ever see a mirror
that doesn't look dirty. The mirrors always seem to break and I think they are a liability. I'm presuming we
are not talking about a standard size stop sign. More of the decorative, suggesting to stop type of sign.
Chairperson Heineman said it could be a standard sign. It just wouldn't be official.
Board Member Schumacher said he doesn't think we would want to do a standard size. I think it would
overbear the property.
Ms. Fountain said you could have a sign with warning language like "Watch for Pedestrians" or that type of
sign. You see those in downtowns coming out of parking garages. They will have a more decorative stop
sign but also say "Watch for Pedestrians." Anything to get their attention that they need to pay a little bit more
attention when they are coming out of the driveway. I think that is what Mr. Hamilton wants to make sure
happens.
Board Member Hamilton agreed so there is a sign there that reminds people there might be someone
cruising through the neighborhood. This way they could pay attention to something else besides their cell
phone or their car GPS or something like that.
Chairperson Heineman asked how he would like the Board to make this a part of the motion.
Ms. Mobaldi said you can add a condition that the developer consider alternatives for ensuring safety when
people are exiting the driveway and install whatever they ultimately determine is the best way to do that.
Chairperson Heineman asked if we should do that for the windows too if anyone is in favor of eliminating the
mullions?
Ms. Mobaldi agreed.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 11 of 13
Chairperson Heineman said we are looking at two possible additions or changes to the motion. One would
call for a stop sign of some sort at the top of the ramp. The other would eliminate the mullions in the
windows.
Board Member Schumacher said going back to the window topic, I agree with Mr. Lawson's comments earlier
about the design being unique and really stepping it up. I think it looks great. I think the mullion look is nice.
I think it looks good. Is there a way to solve that? Are the mullions just between the two panes? So you
have the mullion look but yet you don't have the application both sides. I think we can achieve the look
architecturally.
Mr. Cohn, the architect, said there are a couple of alternatives. Sometimes some of the window
manufacturers make mullion grids that are removable for the purpose of cleaning. They are still the mullion
in between the window. That is one option. There are some manufacturers who make them with just the
mullion in between the windows. I don't think they look as good. Often if there is a reflection, you don't even
see the mullions. I will go either way. If you don't want the mullions, we will take them off. If you like the
mullions, we will leave them on. Maybe another option is to do something where instead of having the whole
window as a grid of mullions, just run a band across the top. That is common and you may put three or four
in each window. You get a little bit of each look so you have a few mullions and the windows are easy to
clean. At the same time, it is not just a plain piece of glass. I would be open to any of those options.
Board Member Lawson said with respect to the warning of exiting, can that be phrased as, just to the
satisfaction of the department director so we can deal with it from that standpoint. If that is the case, I will
support it from the standpoint of the project including exiting safeguards to the satisfaction of the director or
city engineer.
Mr. Mauser said he would suggest using the City Engineer. Otherwise, there is no one to enforce it.
Board Member Lawson commented that is why he is asking who it should go to. I would be supportive of
that. Then with respect to the windows and the mullions, personally I have the removable mullions. They pop
out very easily, they are easy to clean, I like the look, so I would not support dropping that from what is
already in our Master Plan as a suggestion.
Ms. Mobaldi asked what he would propose for the other condition.
Chairperson Heineman asked where the Board stands. Are we going with the motion as originally
presented? Or must we include the warning sign and elimination of the mullions.
Board Member Hamilton said he moves to approve the project in lieu of what the City Engineer said. This
would include some type of warning sign at the top of the driveway and I will abstain from the mullion on the
windows.
Board Member Lawson seconded the motion.
Chairperson Heineman said it has been moved and seconded that we handle the motion as originally
presented.
Ms. Mobaldi said we would be adding a condition, if this is satisfactory: Developer to install signage to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer to caution drivers exiting the driveway ramp to watch for pedestrians.
Mr. Hauser said he would recommend in addition saying, signage and/or other measures. Because we could
look at a speed bump or something like that.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES: Baker, Hamilton, Heineman, Lawson, and Hamilton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
•o;
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 12 of 13
ABSENT: None
Board Member Baker said she is not going to give up on this neighborhood street agreement. She suggests
the Board consider recommending to the Council that the Council take a look at it and make a decision on
whether that sidewalk should be required on the Madison portion.
Chairperson Heineman said the Board has already passed the motion as it stands. We can do a minute
motion if you wish.
Board Member Baker said she would like to ask the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to consider
this.
Chairperson Heineman asked Board Member Baker if she is making such a motion.
Board Member Baker answered yes. This would be whether the sidewalk is necessary on the Madison Street
portion.
Chairperson Heineman said we have a proposal of a minute motion, is there a second?
Board Member Lawson seconded the minute motion.
VOTE: 4-1
AYES: Baker, Hamilton, Heineman, and Lawson
NOES: Hamilton
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Hauser had a question regarding the motion. You said in the motion it was specifically related to
Madison. Were you specifically relating this just to Madison in terms of eliminating sidewalk on there or were
you looking at all of the places it would be hodgepodge?
Board Member Baker said since we can only make a minute motion, it is project related, so my question
would be whether this section of Madison needs to have a sidewalk installed in front of the project until the
future when more sidewalks are ready to be installed on that section of Madison.
Board Member Baker continued that there are streets in town like Donna Drive where you walk in the street,
you walk on a little section of sidewalk, you are back on the sidewalk, you are back on the street, and it is
bad.
Mr. Hauser commented he has been here for 28 years now and we have had this policy in effect and I have
felt the same way like it will never happen. In over 28 years of time, you would be surprised of how many
projects end up coming in and how you actually start to build all that. Yes, it is kind of a hodgepodge way of
going about it. It is not the best way, as you said. Sometimes you end up with little pieces of sidewalk next to
new, but at least you have it. I think that is the reason why they have done this, because if you don't get it at
the time the developer is in there with the money in hand getting their construction loans, it is almost
impossible to get it out of the property owner later on.
Board Member Baker said she understands and she buys that argument, but on the flip side of that argument
is that sometimes so much time goes by that the sidewalk has to be torn up and redone anyway. This is
because it has cracked and trees have buckled it and it is sticking up. So why make someone spend the
money when it potentially could be torn out and redone anyway. I guess that is the other side to that.
Board Member Schumacher said on the other side of that, if the vision for the village is to be more pedestrian
friendly and walkable, it all seems to me they should be required to put the sidewalk on Madison and on
Laguna. Eventually, like you said, many years from now those things will come together. What is the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
PAGE 13 of 13
document that says Laguna is the exception to that; that Madison has to have a sidewalk and Laguna
doesn't.
Mr. Mauser said he can't respond directly as to why Laguna was not included in there. A Citizens Committee
reviewed all of the streets in the entire city that didn't have sidewalks and they set up a list of the ones that
were part of the alternative design and the ones that would get the improvements. Generally, I think they
looked at the streets where there is high traffic volume and especially where there had already been a
significant amount of improvements built and then it was just a matter of adding in a few pieces that would
complete the sidewalk or the street network. I am not sure why Laguna was left out of that and made into an
alternative design. If it was up to me, I would have put it into the "build it now" category.
Board Member Schumacher said for that document you are talking about it identifies certain streets that don't
have a lot of traffic on it. My real question is, what is the document that prohibits us putting sidewalks in?
Ms. Fountain said she thinks that is a Council policy, right Dave, the alternative street design?
Mr. Mauser said he doesn't know if it was a Council policy. It was a resolution and I think it was a report and
a study that went with it.
Chairperson Heineman pointed out that the Board has already passed the main motion and the minute
motion. We are not here debating anything at this point.
Board Member Schumacher asked if we could have this discussion.
Ms. Fountain said we can probably put it on a future agenda if you would like to talk about it some more. It is
a program the Council had a lot of discussion around and it actually came from the citizens. It was a big
issue a few years ago. It is not very old. I think it is more then 5 years old but less then 10 years.
Ms. Mobaldi said it was a big issue and that is why they had this input and they had a committee. They
studied it and came forth with recommendations at Council. That is why I think to alter that, you need to go
back to Council and hopefully the minutes of this meeting will at least alert them to the fact that you have a
concern about it and perhaps they will review it.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Special Meeting of November 13, 2006, was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENTI
Minutes Clerk
! Impression antibourrage et & sechage rapide
' Utilisez le gabarit 5160®600._ WWW.Owner ;L&AVERY® 5160®
CARLSBAD LACUNA L L C
414 N ORLEANS ST 710
CHICAGO, IL 60610
ARLENE O OLIVAS
5065 ENCHANTED OAKS DR
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
U D R CARLSBAD APARTMENTS L
1745 SHEA CENTER DR 200
HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80129
CHARLES & LORRAINE WULLENJOH1
1462 S 33RD DR
YUMA, AZ 85364
PACIFIC GENERAL R&E LLC LAGUI
PO BOX 3210
iAKE HAVASU CITY, AZ 86405
HUGH
1033 VIA ZUMAYA
PALOS VERDES , CA 90274
JAMES R DAVIS
13215 PENN ST 610
WHITTIER, CA 90602
STEPHEN DAWES
PO BOX 1375
AVALON, CA 90704
GAIL & ALICE ANDERSON
217 OAKLAWN AVE
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
BON S ALL
31499 LAKE VISTA CIR
BONSALL, CA 92003
VICTOR & ANGELA BALAKER
3811 ALDER AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHNSON
4513 COVE DR 12
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SONDRA CURTIN
3499 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GLENN D & MARCIA CASTENS
2381 JEFFERSON ST A
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JEFFERSON PROFESSIONAL BUILD.
2755 JEFFERSON ST 200
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DANIEL & SUSAN BURKE
2755 JEFFERSON ST 1
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BRUCE & KELLY BANDEMER
2720 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STROTHER 1996
3811 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
VILLAS DE LA PLAYA
229 CHINQUAPIN AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MICHAEL A & KIMBERLY CHAMBER]
2653 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HUSTON
2631 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD, CA 9200«
BETTY LEWIS
2569 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERT DUFF
2690 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GARY L & JESSICA JACKSON
2718 ROOSEVELT ST F
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERTO F & SARA ROJAS
2650 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TREJO
2687 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOE P i FRANCES APODACA
2647 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
'SOLEDAD SOTO
2615 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOSE & MARY MORENO
2605 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
®09ts ®Atl3AV AM3AV-OD-008-1 ®09 is
6uiui;j<i aaij a6pniu$ pue uief
Impression a ntibourrage et h s6chage rapide
Utilisez le gabarit 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
JANE WILSON
2710 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARC R & JOSEPHINE PENA
2712 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TOMMY J & GLADYS HARRIS
722 ARBUCKLE PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MAZZILLI
750 ARBUCKLE PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LISA A BENTSON
2644 MADISON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ISOKAZU TABATA
4929 PARK DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN C SCHUMACHER
668 LACUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD G & JANE SANDERS
672 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DENISE K DEMOTT
684 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
KENNETH A KERANEN
690 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LAGUNA DRIVE LTD LIABILITY CC
590 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVID C & LAURA KURNER
2461 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RONN.& DIANNE MEMEL
2451 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LINDA K GEITNER
2401 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WILLIAM C & CHARLENE STALDER
2407 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STOLL
2409 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN E & ANDRA KAIRATH
2450 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD R & MADELINE MCELROY
2440 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RANDY WILKERSON
2430 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD & MARTA PENMAN
2420 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SCOTT O & HILARY WALSH
2410 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SCOTT L & JUDITH OLIVER
2400 BUENA VISTA CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
AMANDA PROVINS
674 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DIANA K BURKE
676 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ANITA L STAFFORD
888 LAGUNA.DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
KERRY & KIMBERLY ROSSALL
605 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RUDY C & CHERYL ZAVALANI
735 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WILLIAM E JONES
2732 BERKELEY AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
SCARPELLI
929 ORCHID WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
RYANNE APARTMENTS L L C
1540 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
AM3AV-O9-008-1
a6pnuis pue uier )c
Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide
Utilisez le gabarit 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
HENRY TREJO
PO BOX 281
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
H S ERGIN
PO BOX 218
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
WILLIAM V & ROSA DALY
PO BOX 260
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
ROGELIO S & KEELY ALBA
PO BOX 2711
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
KLETT
PO BOX 4086
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
SETH HOENIG
PO BOX 232401
ENCINITAS, CA 92023
KEITH & SARA HARRISON
364 2ND ST 6
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
SIDNEY E & ROSE DVORAK
505 HYGEIA AVE
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
LANCER INDUSTRIES INC
1547 AVENIDA LA POSTA
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
NEMETH
1132 SAXONY RD
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
LIEBERMAN
535 ENCINITAS BLVD 109
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
FRANK & MARY VRETENAR
807 N PACIFIC ST
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
JOSE L & MARIA ARELLANO
835 LADY BUG LN
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
KAREN J BARLOW
226 E BROADWAY
VISTA, CA 92084
PINAMONTI CARL R
2244 S SANTA FE AVE B2
VISTA, CA 92084
S D C PROPERTIES
2155 RAMONA LN
VISTA, CA 92084
L L C HYSPAN PRECISION PRODUCTS INC
PO BOX 636
VISTA, CA 92085
OTIS P HEALD
PO BOX 1707
FALLBROOK, CA 92088
DAKMIN INC
PO BOX 2286
FALLBROOK, CA 92088
GING INVESTMENTS
PO BOX 40501
SAN DIEGO, CA 92164
MARK J NOLAN
PO BOX 7045
SAN DIEGO, CA 92167
TAMARACK PARK L L C
PO BOX 27781
SAN DIEGO, CA 92198
ANTHONY & FRANCESCA DELEONARI
PO BOX 270755
SAN DIEGO, CA 92198
SWANSON
24 BLUFF VW
IRVINE, CA 92603
PARK PLACE CARLSBAD APARTMENT
23 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 139
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
RAJENDRA G & PRATIMA DESAI
2266 CHANNEL RD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
*** 87 Printed ***
®AU3AV AM3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S
Bu.uuud eaij aBpnuis pue uier (
IJB|manfbfinaoti§effraBc£riittin$chage rapide
LOWRY PATRICIA A TRUST PENMAN TRUST TRAYNER TR
2441 BUENA VISTA CIR 43674 OLD TROON CT 672 LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 INDIO CA 92201 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CASA LAGUNA LI LLC WAVE CREST RESORT INC
2171 S EL CAMINO REAL 82 2*° ST A
OCEANSIDECA 92054 ENCINITAS CA 92024
®09l!
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010& 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudicated newspapers of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the City of
Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court
Decree number 171349, for the County of San
Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
January 06th, 2007
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 08th, Day of January 2007
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Proof of Publication of
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tha$3r%fiwarmnfCity Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad VI9, Carlsbad. California, at6:00 PMonTue*
06-01), to allow the construction of a resi-
Those persons wishing tocordially invited to attendhave any questions or wo..._ r, ..report, please contact Cliff Jones in the Housing andRedevelopment Department at (760) 434-28137 Youmay also provide your comments in writing to theHousing and Redevelopment Department at 2965Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and theEnvironmental Protection Ordinance of the City ofCarlsbad, the Housing & Redevelopment Depart-ment has determined that the project is categoricallyexempt from the requirement for preparation of envi-ronmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines as an infill developmentproject. The Design Review Board will be consider-ing recommending approval of the environmentaldetermination during the public hearing.If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit incourt, you may be limited to raising only those issues~ j or someone else raised at the public hearing de-.ibed in this notice or in written conilivered to the City at Carlsbad, Attn: _..,, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, C, at or prior to the public hearing.
SION
NOT 2015952 • 01/06/07
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAGUNA CONDOMINIUMS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a special Public Hearing in the City
Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007, to consider recommending approval of a
request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 06-01), to allow the construction
of a residential development project consisting of five (5) condominium units on
the property located at 735 Laguna Drive and (APN: 203-110-42 & 203-110-43)
in Land Use District 8 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff
report, please contact Cliff Jones in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
at (760) 434-2813. You may also provide your comments in writing to the
Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B,
Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad, the Housing & Redevelopment Department has determined that the
project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of
environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project. The Design Review Board will be
considering recommending approval of the environmental determination during
the public hearing.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA
92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NO.: RP 06-01
CASE NAME: LAGUNA CONDOMINIUMS
CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Laguna CondominiumsHousing & Redevelopment CommissionJanuary 16, 2007
SITELocation Map
Subject Property
Property to the South
Property to the East
Properties to the North
Properties to the West
Proposed DevelopmentThree-Story 21,022 sq. ft. Residential Project13,515 sq. ft. site5 Condominiumsz2,335 - 2,720 sq. ft.zMin. 3-bedroom & 2-bathzPrivate balconiesFrontage along Laguna Drive & Madison Street. Access off of Madison StreetUnderground Parking screened from view
Standards ComplianceOpen Space Required: 20%Proposed: 40%Building CoverageRequired: 60%-80%Proposed: 55%HeightMaximum: 35’ w/ min 5:12 roof pitchProposed: 34’-9” w/ 6:12 roof pitchParkingRequired: 13 spaces (10 resident spaces + 3 visitor)Proposed: 13 spacesDriveway Width Required: 24’Proposed: 20’11 Variance required. Driveway adequate according to Engineering standards
Project DesignLAGUNA DRIVE MADISON STREET
Project Design
Environmental ReviewProposed project is an in-fill development project and Exempt from CEQA.No comments received.DRB recommended approval of environmental determination.
DRB RecommendationDRB voted to recommend approval of the project.Project will have positive financial impact and assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Master Plan.
Site PlanProposed:Front: 5’1E. Side: 10’W. Side: 5 -8”2Rear: 5’1 15 feet from curb2 15’-8” from curb5’5’10’5’10’10’