Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-20; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 407; Lincoln and Oak mixed-useHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL 1 ^i^7 AB# MTG. DEPT. 407 05/20/08 H/RED LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED-USE RP04-11x1/CDP 04-30x1/CT 05-03x1 DEPT. HEAD CITY ATTY. &L CITY MGR. (XA- RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution Nos. 451 , 452 and 453 APPROVING an extension of Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) for the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 as previously approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION: On March 28, 2006, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Tract Map for a three-story mixed-use project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 17,514 square foot site contains a single-family residence and a commercial building containing a surf shop, which are both in a state of disrepair and proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed building. The site is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, commercial development to the west, condominiums to the north, and a 5-unit condominium project on the property to the east is currently being constructed. Surrounding uses are predominantly multi-family with scattered commercial uses. The proposed project involves the construction of a three-story building consisting of two-stories of residential condominiums located over aboveground parking and retail space. There are six (6) units total varying in size from 3,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The building has a pleasant architectural design with attractive retail space on the ground floor incorporating decorative materials such as travertine and decorative awnings to enhance the street scene at the corner. The residential condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper level of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and attractive balcony railings. The residences are significantly setback from the street at upper levels in order to reduce the massing of the building along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominate feature of the corner. Each unit within the project is equipped with a private roof garden/patio and/or a roof balcony for recreational purposes. Parking for the project is screened from public view contained entirely within the structure. Each residential unit has a 2-car garage with roll up garage doors, covered guest parking is provided, and covered retail parking is provided as required. The project also includes extensive landscaping within and around the project, a pleasant architectural design unique to the Village, and an attractive retail fagade. Vehicular access to the site is provided off of Lincoln Street and off Oak Avenue. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Austin Silva 760-434-2813 asilv@ci.carlsbad.ca.us FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVED E. DENIED D CONTINUED D WITHDRAWN D AMENDED D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D RETURNED TO STAFF D OTHER-SEE MINUTES D Page 2 At the public hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission members voted unanimously (5- 0) to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following: 1. Establishment of the Medium-High Residential (RMH) density designation for the subject property with a corresponding density of 8-15 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre; In addition the Design Review Board added a condition of approval to the Design Review Board resolution requesting city staff to determine the appropriateness of constructing a secondary masonry wall for the neighboring property to the east. The approved Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative Tract Map was set to expire on March 28, 2008. The applicant was not able to obtain a final map or building permits by said date. Prior to expiration of the permit/map, the applicant filed an application requesting a time extension to allow an additional two years to file a final map and receive the appropriate building permits for said project. Staff is recommending approval of the extension request with some additional engineering conditions to address recent changes in storm water quality regulations. The conditions set forth within the approved Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 411 and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 302, 303, and 304 will also remain in full force and effect. 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 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. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Housing & Redevelopment Commission resolution. 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 $688,500. With the new construction, it is estimated that the assessed value will increase to approximately $11.7 million. The increase in value would result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $ 108,171 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, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. EXHIBITS: 1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 451. APPROVING RP 04-11x1 2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 452. APPROVING CDP 04-30x1 3. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 453. APPROVING CT 05-03x1 4. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 411, APPROVING RP 04-11, CDP 04-30, & CT 05-03. 5. Design Review Board Resolution No. 302, 303, and 304 dated January 23, 2006. 6. Design Review Board Staff Report dated January 23, 2006, w/attachments. 7. Design Review Board Minutes, dated January 23, 2006. <£. 1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 451 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT 3 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF MAJOR 4 REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-11 FOR THE 5 CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE 6 FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD 7 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.8 9 CASE NAME: LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED-USE APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 10 CASE NO:RP 04-11x1 11 12 WHEREAS, Robert Richardson, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the 13 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell Lee 14 Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 & 203-260-15, and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and 16 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for an extension of a Major 17 Redevelopment Permit, known as RP 04-11 for the Lincoln and Oak Mixed-Use Projectlo 19 originally approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on March 28, 2006; and 20 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said permit extension request; and 22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and 23 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to the 24 extension of Maj or Redevelopment Permit 04-11. 26 27 28 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and 2 Redevelopment Commission as follows: 3 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.4 B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES an additional two (2) year 6 extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 04-11 for the Lincoln and Oak Mixed- Use Project, based on the following findings and subject to the following 7 conditions: 8 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS; 9 1. The Housing & Redevelopment Commission finds that the subject project has been found to 10 be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project on a site less than 5 acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. 12 The project remains consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design 13 guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth within the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the findings set forth in 14 Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 dated February 23, 2006 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on March 28, 2006. 16 CONDITIONS: 17 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission does hereby APPROVE a two (2) year extension of Major Redevelopment Permit 04-23 for the Lincoln and Oak Mixed-Use Project to allow the applicant additional time to apply for and receive approval of the building permits for the subject project, subject to the conditions set forth in Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 dated February 23, 2006 and approved by the Housing and 20 Redevelopment Commission on March 28, 2006. The permit shall be extended two (2) years from the date of the first permit expiration which is March 28, 2008. The new expiration 21 date for the permit shall be March 28, 2010. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 NOTICE 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 , "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 Government Code Section 6 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. 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 charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees hi 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 12 expired. 13 14 " 15 " 16 // // 18 // 19 20 21 " 22 /' 23 // 24 „ 25 // 26 27 28 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California held on the 20- day of May. 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Kulchin and Packard. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commission Members Hall and ATTEST: §/ESTABLISHED^ LISA HILDABRAND, Secretary |\ wo /!= (SEAL) *"B ** ^ **" — in '. ATTACHMENT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. 1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 452 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT 3 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF COASTAL 4 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-30 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 5 OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON 6 THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA 7 AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 8 CASE NAME: LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED-USE 9 APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 CASE NO: CDP 04-30x1 10 " WHEREAS, Robert Richardson, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the 12 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell Lee 13 Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 & 203-260-15, and more14 i r thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and 16 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for an extension of a Coastal 17 Development Permit, known as RP 04-30 for the Lincoln and Oak Mixed-Use Project originally i ( approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on March 28, 2006; and 19 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did hold a duly noticed public 20 hearing as prescribed by law to consider said permit extension request; and 22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and 23 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to the 24 extension of Coastal Development Permit 04-30. 25 26 27 28 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and 2 Redevelopment Commission as follows: 3 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 4 B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES an additional two (2) year 6 extension of Coastal Development Permit 04-30 for the Lincoln and Oak Mixed- Use project, based on the following findings and subject to the following 7 conditions: 8 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 9 1. The Housing & Redevelopment Commission finds that the subject project has been found to 10 be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project on a site less than 5 acres in an urbanized area 1 that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. 12 2. The project remains consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design 13 guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth within the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the findings set forth in 14 Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 dated February 23, 2006 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on March 28, 2006. 16 CONDITIONS: 17 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission does hereby APPROVE a two (2) year extension of Coastal Development Permit 04-23 for the Lincoln and Oak Mixed-Use project to allow the applicant additional time to apply for and receive approval of the building i o permits for the subject project, subject to the conditions set forth in Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 dated February 23, 2006 and approved by the Housing and 20 Redevelopment Commission on March 28, 2006. The permit shall be extended two (2) years from the date of the first permit expiration which is March 28, 2008. The new expiration 21 date for the permit shall be March 28, 2010. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 NOTICE 2 3 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 6 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. 9 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions 10 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. 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 17 18 19 'I 20 // 21 // 22 23 24 25 26 " 27 // 28 // -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California held on the 20- day of May. 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Kulchin and Packard. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commission Members Hall and r S/ESTABLISHED M \ LISA HILDABRAND, Secretary ll\. 197° /|| (SEAL) ATTACHMENT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. 1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 453 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND 3 REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR 4 A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF CARLSBAD TRACT MAP CT 05-33 TO SUBDIVIDE .402 ACRES INTO SIX (6) 5 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF 6 RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE 7 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 8 CASE NAME: LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED-USE CASE NO.: CT 05-03x1 10 WHEREAS, Robert Richardson, "Applicant", has filed a verified 11 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell Lee Bennett, 12 "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 and 203-260-15 and more 1-3 thoroughly described as PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) 15 PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF 16 CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 7 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 18 1981. 19 PARCEL 2: (APN: 203-260-15) 20 PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF 21 CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE 22 COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. 23 ("the Property"); and 24 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative 25 Tract Map Extension as shown on Exhibits "A" - "J" dated January 23, 2006, on file in 26 the Housing and Redevelopment Department as Lincoln and Oak Mixed-Use RP 04- 28 1 11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03", as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal 2 Code; and 3 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the 4 20tb day of May , 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by 5 law to consider said request; and 7 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 8 testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission o considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map Extension; 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and 11 Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 12 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 14 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES Lincoln and Oak 15 Mixed-Use CT 05-03x1, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 16 17 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 13 1. The Housing & Redevelopment Commission finds that the subject project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project on a site less than 5 acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate 20 facilities. 21 2. The project remains consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General 22 Plan, the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State 23 Subdivision Map Act and will not cause serious public health problems with approval of the findings and conditions set forth in Design Review Board 24 Resolution No. 304 dated January 23, 2006 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on March 28, 2008. £J 26 CONDITIONS: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 04-11x1 & CDP 04-30x1 27 and is subject to all conditions contained in Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution Nos. 451 and 452 for those other approvals. Zo -2- I ft 2. All the conditions contained in Design Board Resolution No. 304 dated January 2 23, 2006 for CT 05-03 are incorporated herein by reference and shall remain in full force and effect except for condition No. 23 which shall be amended to read 3 as follows; 4 Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan 5 (SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the current City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order R9-2007- 001 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality 7 Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the 8 maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: 9 a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; 10 b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; 11 c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented 12 with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; 13 d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident and employee education 14 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 15 identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not 16 exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. 17 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 18 extent practicable. g. incorporate Low Impact Development (L.I.D.) measures into the project 19 design. 20 3. Developer shall cause property owner to process, execute and submit an 21 executed copy to the City Engineer for recordation a City standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Maintenance 22 Agreement for the perpetual maintenance of all treatment control, applicable site design and source control, post-construction permanent 23 Best Management Practices prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, or the recordation of a final map, whichever occurs first for 24 this Project 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever 26 occurs first, the Developer shall complete a Project Threat Assessment Form as required per Volume 4, Section 3 of the Carlsbad Engineering 27 Standards and submit the appropiate Tier level Storm Water Compliance Form and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as determined28 by the completed Project Threat Assessment Form. -3-li 5. This Tentative Tract Map Extension is granted for a period of two (2) years 2 retroactively, from March 28, 2008 through March 28, 2010. 3 NOTICE 4 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, 5 dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 6 You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these 7 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 8 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. 10 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified 11 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 12 fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of 13 which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 14" 15 16 17 " 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 23 24 25 " 26 " 27 // 28 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California held on the 20- day of May. 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Kulchin and Packard. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commission Members Hall and /Cnairman ATTEST: O/ESTABUSHED\%S LI$A HILDABRAND, Secretary 11 1970 j|! (SEAL) •Vv /*£^ *v «•^ <• v i 2 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 411 , A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 4 APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP04-11, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CDP04-30, AND TENTATIVE 5 TRACT MAP NO. CT05-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED- USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) 6 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET & 325 7 OAK AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES 8 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. APPLICANT: KARNAK PLANNING & DESIGN 9 CASE NO: RP 04-11/ CDP 04-307 CT 05-03 . 10 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly 11 noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development 12 Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) for the construction of mixed-use 13 development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on 14 the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street & 325 Oak Avenue, and adopted Design Review Board 15 Resolutions No. 302, 303, and 304 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission 16 that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) be approved; and 18 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03); and 7, WHEREAS, the recommended Design Review Board approval includes findings establishing _. the Medium High (RMH) residential density range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre for the subject _, property; and -, WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant 27 to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the -a Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to be categorically PAGEl 2 exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 3 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an 4 urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment 6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 7 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 8 2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), 9 and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) are APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the 10 Design Review Board contained in Resolutions No. 302, 303, and 304, on file in the City Clerk's 11 Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and 12 Redevelopment Commission. 13 3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, 14 analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all 17 applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; 18 (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more 19 than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses; 20 (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; 21 (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to 22 traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and 23 (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 24 The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination reflects the 25 independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 26 4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and 27 Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time 28 Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: n PAGE 2 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 TO APPLICANT: "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of record, if he/she has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008." PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 28th day of March . 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hall ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: ,SECRETARY o/ESTABLISHED \! x i : w : "" // '', * '•• ••'' * PAGES 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 302 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-11 FOR THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 6 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES 7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE 8 APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 9 CASE NO: RP 04-11 10 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified application 12 with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell 13 Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 & 203-260-15, 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-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment 17 Department, "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03", as provided by18 19 Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23rd day of January, 2006, hold a 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 to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to 24 25 "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11." 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as 27 follows: 28 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. \1 B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review 2 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 3 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 4 1. The Housing & Redevelopment Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact 6 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 7 Guidelines as an infill development project. In making this determination, the Housing & Redevelopment 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 the 10 establishment of the RMH 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 January 23, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: 13 a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family residential use and retail use in an appropriate location within the Village. This 1«. in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the Village. By 16 providing more residential and retail opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment be encouraging and increasing the 17 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 needed 19 sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue and the location of the project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and 20 mass transit functions. The project's proximity to existing bus routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing new economic development near 21 transportation corridors. Furthermore, the project will provide a strong street presence with extensive architectural relief, including outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent streets and fully enclosed parking. Overall, the new residential 23 units will enhance the Village as a place for living and working. 24 b. The project is consistent with the 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 9 through the following actions: 1) it establishes the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing for a multi-family for-sale product which serves to increase the 27 type of housing options available to people seeking to reside in the downtown area, 2) it improves the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Village Area by providing residential units in close proximity to both bus and rail mass DRB RESO NO. 302 -2- transit and improves the pedestrian environment by providing needed sidewalk 2 improvements along Oak Avenue, 3) it stimulates property improvements and new development in the Village by providing for an appropriate intensity of 3 residential development and retail development that may serve as a catalyst for future redevelopment in the area, 4) it improves the physical appearance of the 4 Village Area by replacing currently blighted buildings with an aesthetically - pleasing building with attractive landscaping. 5 c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land Use District 9, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set 7 forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. o d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required 9 public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have 10 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 1 1 project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best j2 management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. 13 e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within 14 the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and the City's Landscape Manual. 16 f. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building 17 and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards. 18 g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment 20 Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-Iieu fee for six (6) 21 units. 22 h. The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth 23 in Chapter 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the 24 project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the architectural features of surrounding developments. The buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all 25 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, off-street parking, 27 recreational facilities and other pertinent amenities. The parking is well integrated into the building and the project is compatible with surrounding land 28 uses and will not negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. Common DRB RESO NO. 302 -3- areas and recreational facilities are located so that they are readily accessible to 2 the occupants of the dwelling units. The overall architecture is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Village character as set forth in the 3 Village Design Manual. 3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project is RMH (11-15 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as , follows:o 7 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and 8 hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of , n surrounding uses. b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, 12 and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The medium- high density designation allows for future development that would be consistent the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master Plan. 14 The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of 15 Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster 16 Station). Medium-high residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing 7 balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. 19 4. The project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facility plans will not be adversely impacted, in that all necessary public improvements to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. 22 5. There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the 23 control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. 25 6. All necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created 26 by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that all required public facilities necessary to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -4- 7. 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 provide funding to 3 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 7 is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they 9 apply to sewer service for this project. 10 b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval.11 c. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation to provide school 13 facilities. 14 d. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit e. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. 17 8. The project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. 18 9. 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 20 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. 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 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 DRB RESO NO. 302 -5- 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. 4 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 * 1 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid ,2 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 jg liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been 20 concluded and continues even if the Agency's approval is not validated. 21 6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a 22 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the 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 24 reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing format. £J 26 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to 27 provide school facilities. 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -6- 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 04-11 as shown on Exhibits 4 A-V, dated January 23, 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. 11. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit No. CDP 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein. 9 12. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. CT 05-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein. 13. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this 12 project within 24 months from the date of project approval. 13 14. Building permits will not be issued for the project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate 1 water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of j5 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 16 placed on the Final Map. 17 HOUSING CONDITIONS; 18 15. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of 19 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 20 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. 22 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS; 23 16. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary 24 Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and _„. install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 26 17. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the 27 landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans.2o DRB RESO NO. 302 -7- 18. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 2 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 3 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS: 4 19. 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 Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the 7 Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: o 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 of, or in which the City has an interest. 11 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 within 30 days for the official record. 14 20. 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 15 such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this requirement.16 17 21. 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 18 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 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. 21 22. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and 22 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and/or Housing and Redevelopment. 24 23. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required 25 passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational facilities. 26 2? NOTICING CONDITIONS; 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No. 302 and 304 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. ON-SITE CONDITIONS: 25. 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. 26. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housing & Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. 27. The developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 28. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. Individual antennas shall not be permitted. 29. There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. 30. Building materials identified in acoustical study prepared by Eilar Associates shall be used in the building construction in order to reduce noise levels to an acceptable level. 31. The eastern property wall will be reviewed and considered by Redevelopment staff, Engineering, applicant and developer in order to determine the appropriateness of construction of a second masonry wall adjacent to existing masonry wall for the neighboring property. If a second masonry wall is deemed appropriate by the above mentioned parties it's placement, height, and related design shall be subject to final review and approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. DRB RESO NO. 302 -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 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following code requirements. Fees 32. 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. 33. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 34. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. General 35.The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. 36. 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. 37. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.04.320. 38. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and approval of the Housing & Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs. DRB RESO NO. 302 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher None None None COURTNEY HblNtMAN, CHASIPERSON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 302 -11- 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 303 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP 04-30 FOR THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE 5 FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD 6 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 7 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE 8 APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 CASE NO.: CDP 04-30 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified 11 application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned 12 by Russell Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-260-14 & 13 203-260-15, and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and 14 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal 15 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the 16 Housing and Redevelopment Department, "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04- 30/CT 05-03" as provided by Chapter 21.81.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 18 ,AWHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 23 day of January 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 all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors 22 relating to the CDP. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2i B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use CDP 04-30 based 28 on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 3. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which serve as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Carlsbad Segment of the California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone, and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the site. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to the shore. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes exist within the proposed construction area, all grading will conform to the City's erosion control standards, and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. Conditions: Note: 3. 4. 5. Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Coastal Development Permit. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Coastal Development Permit reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 04-11 and CT 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolutions No. 302 and 304 for those other approvals and incorporated by reference herein. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within twenty- four (24) months of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.81.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. DRB RESO NO. 303 -2- 1 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. 3 7. All construction activities shall be planned so that grading will occur in units that can be 4 easily completed within the summer construction season. All grading operations shall be limited to April 1 to October 1 of each year. All areas disturbed by grading shall be 5 planted within 60 days of initial disturbance and prior to October 1 with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control methods. The October 1 6 grading season deadline may be extended with the approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of erosion control measures designed to prohibit 7 discharge of sediments offsite during and after the grading operation is completed. Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to 8 sensitive coastal resources and may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as a formal amendment to an existing coastal development 9 permit. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 303 -3- 1 NOTICE 2 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 3 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 4 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 5 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. 8 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, 9 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 10 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design 13 Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006, by the 14 following vote, to wit: 15 AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher 16 NOES: None 17 ABSENT: None 18 ABSTAIN: None 19 COURTNEY HtlN£'MAN. AC I INfe CHAIR 2U DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 21 ATTEST: 22 23 DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 24 " 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 303 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 304 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 05-33 TO SUBDIVIDE .402 ACRES INTO SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE CASE NO.: CT 05-03 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 and 203-260-15 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibit(s) "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department as "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03", as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 23rd day of January, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use CT 05-03, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 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. 3 2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since 4 surrounding properties are located within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area and the intent of the Village Master Plan is to accommodate 5 a wide mix of uses in this district with an emphasis upon facilities, goods and services to tourists and regional visitors traveling along the coast. 6 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the 7 site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the development is consistent with the RMH density 8 designation which has been assigned to the property based on the following findings: 9 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density 12 residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses. 13 b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of 14 the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The medium-high density designation allows for future development that ,, would be consistent the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master 16 Plan. c. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives 18 of Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & 19 Village Coaster Station). Medium-high residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation 20 promote greater job/housing 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 Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and there are no 24 easements granting access through the property to others. 25 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 26 6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or 27 natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. 28 7. That the Design Review Board has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those DRB RESO NO. 304 -2- 1 2 housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. 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 4 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 5 is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA 6 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. 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. 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 12 Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated January 23, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: the 13 project will provide for a permitted mixed-use development (multi-family residential and retail commercial) in an appropriate location within Land Use 14 District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. 15 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 16 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 requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been 20 met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District. 22 c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval. 23 d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as 24 conditions of approval. 25 e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment 26 of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. 27 12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new 28 construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to DRB RESO NO. 304 -3- ' 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. - 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. 4 Conditions: 5 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a 6 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 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so 8 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 9 condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; 10 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 12 Tract Map. 13 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to 14 make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any 15 proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 16 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local 17 ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 18 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 19 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 21 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 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body 23 members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and 24 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) Agency's approval or issuance 25 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 26 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 27 emissions. 28 DRB RESO NO. 304 -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 effect10 shall be placed on the Final Map. Engineering Conditions: 12 NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the 13 approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building or grading permit whichever occurs first. 14 General 15 10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site 16 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route.17 11. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other18 recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all g the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner 2Q among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 2j 12. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance 23 with Engineering Standards. 24 14. Developer shall install sight distance corridors (see below for types) at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following 25 statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R's). 26 "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified 27 as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street- Design Criteria, Section 8.B. The underlying property owner shall maintain this28 condition." DRB RESO NO. 304 -5- 1 The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any 2 improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development. Fees/Agreements 4 15. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross 5 lot drainage as shown on the tentative map. The deed restriction document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall: 6 A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course; 7 B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying 8 property owner; and C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict, impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public nuisance. 16. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an 14 additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. 15 Grading 16 17. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the 17 tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for 18 the project. * Dedications/Improvements 20 18. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropn'ate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, 22 but not limited to paving, base, cross gutter, signing & striping, sidewalk, curb and gutter, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer 23 lateral, water service, relocation of fire hydrant, and installation of street lights, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: 24 a) Half street improvements to Oak Avenue along the property frontage. 25 b) Replacement of pavement on a portion of Lincoln Street, c) Installation of water services and sewer laterals. 26 d) Relocation of an existing fire hydrant at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. e) Installation of pedestrian ramps. _„ f) Underground overhead utilities./o A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the DRB RESO NO. 304 -6- 1 provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 1. The proposed public sidewalk located between the proposed driveway on Oak 4 Avenue and the easterly property line shad be revised to be noncontiguous with the curb. Said revision shall be reflected on the tentative map mylar, landscape 5 plans, grading plans and improvement plans. 6 2. Prior to removal of any trees within the public right-of-way, the developer shall receive permission to remove said trees from the General Services Division of the 7 Public Works Department. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the subdivision boundary. . „ 4. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed , I pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable 12 level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include 13 but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: 14 A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and 15 hazardous waste products. 16 B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such 17 fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. 90 C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. 22 5. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, 23 Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad 24 Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City 25 of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: 27 a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; DRB RESO NO. 304 -7- 1 recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident and employee education on the 4 proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and 5 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 6 practicable. 7 1. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 8 2. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street corners 9 abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 10 Final Map Notes 3. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. 4. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: 13 A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the 14 exception of the following: 15 1. Half street improvements to Oak Avenue within the public right-of-way. 2. Replacement of pavement on a portion of Lincoln Street. 16 3. Portions of water services and sewer laterals within the pubic right-of- way. 17 4. The fire hydrant at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. 5. Pedestrian ramps at the street corner. 18 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. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as sight distance corridors. 22 Special Conditions 23 1. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on 24 the tentative map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad 25 Municipal Code, respectively. 26 Carlsbad Municipal Water District 2. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire 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 DRB RESO NO. 304 -8- 1 considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. - 3. 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 4 Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits. 5 4. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public 6 improvement plans. 7 5. 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 8 improvement plans. 9 6. 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 Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 7. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned 12 13 Standard Code Reminders: 14 8. This approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final unless extended per section 20.12.100 of the Carlsbad Municpal 15 Code. 16 9. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 and 17 303 for those other approvals and incorporated by reference herein. 18 10. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 304 -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 23rd day of January, by the 15 following vote to wit: 6 AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher 17 NOES: None 18 ABSENT: None 19 ABSTAIN: None 20 21 COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON 22 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 23 ATTEST: 24 ( "\ 25 i n,L DEBBIEFOUNTAir 26 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 304 -10- City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Application Complete Date: Staff: Cliff Jones 6/24/2005 Bob Wojcik Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption ITEM NO. 1 DATE: January 23, 2006 SUBJECT: RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 - "LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE": Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 recommending APPROVAL of RP 04-11, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 recommending APPROVAL of CDP 04-30, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 recommending APPROVAL of CT 05-03 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation greater than $150,000. This major redevelopment permit serves as the site development plan required by Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project also requires the approval of a tentative tract map because it involves separate ownership of the residential units. In addition, due to the fact that the subject site is located within the Coastal Zone, the project is required to process a coastal development permit. In accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the three permits are 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 permits requested, consider the public testimony and staff's recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant, Karnak Planning & Design, has requested a major redevelopment permit, coastal development permit, and tentative tract map to allow the construction of a 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 2 The subject property totals 17,514 square feet and is located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The existing structures on-site include one single-family residence and a commercial building containing a surf shop. The existing buildings are in a state of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the new building. The subject property is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, commercial development to the west, condominiums to the north, and construction recently began on a 5-unit condominium project on the property to the east. The surrounding properties are predominantly multi-family with scattered commercial uses. The three-story building consists of two-stories of residential condominiums located over aboveground parking and retail space. There are six (6) units total varying in size from 3,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The building has a pleasant architectural design with attractive retail space on the ground floor incorporating decorative building materials such as travertine and decorative awnings to enhance the street scene at the corner. The residential condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper levels of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and solid iron railings. The residences are significantly setback from the street at upper levels in order to reduce the massing of the building along Oak Avenue & Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominate feature of the corner. Enhanced paving is provided at driveway entries and interlocking pavers are provided at the entry to the retail space. Parking for the project is screened from public view contained entirely within the structure. Each residential unit has a 2- car garage with roll up garage doors, covered guest parking is provided, and covered retail parking is provided as required. Vehicular access to the site is provided off of Lincoln Street and off Oak Avenue. 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 and retail 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 and retail opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment be 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 needed sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue and the location of the project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 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, including outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent streets and fully enclosed 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 within clear walking distance to District 1, the retail and commercial core of the Village Area and the visitor-serving commercial uses of District 9. 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 proposed retail space will serve residents, attract tourist-serving uses, and provide additional retail close to Carlsbad Boulevard. The attractive architectural design of the project 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 needed sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue in order to enhance the pedestrian circulation adjacent to the project. 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. Two of the objectives of this goal are to increase the intensity of development and to encourage mixed-use development projects in the Village. The proposed project will specifically accomplish both of these objectives. In addition, the proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Tourism Support Area (Land Use District 9) by providing for an appropriate intensity of residential development and retail development that is compatible with surrounding area. Staff sees the development of the subject property as an additional catalyst for further redevelopment along Oak Avenue. Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The project has a design that is visually appealing. 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 is intended to respect adjacent and surrounding properties. 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. In addition, the proposed project will establish a commercial use with scale and character that is appropriate for the neighborhood. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 4 VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, mixed-use projects are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still required. In addition, the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual stipulates that the mixed-use aspect of the project is permitted provided that the ground floor of all approved mixed-use projects be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. Since retail space is proposed along portions of the frontage of Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street closest to the travelers and tourist along the Carlsbad Boulevard coastal highway, Staff concludes that the project complies with this requirement. The overall vision for the development of District 9 (Tourism Support) is to accommodate a wide mix of uses with an emphasis upon facilities, goods and services to tourists and regional visitors traveling along the coast. High quality hotels, restaurants, and retail shops are emphasized and multi-family development is permitted as part of a mixed-use project. Permitted land uses in District 9 include hotels, restaurants, tourist retail, and mixed-use developments. Staff believes that the proposed project achieves this vision by providing a highly desirable mixed-use project, which promotes tourist retail at the northwest corner of the site close to the travelers along the coastal highway, while remaining sensitive to the adjacent residential uses by providing the residential component of the project along the adjacent residential sides. The residential component of the mixed-use project helps to ensure that the south side of Oak Avenue and the residential portions of Lincoln Street remain a quality residential neighborhood. In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is located in close proximity to mass transit, parks, the beach, retail, and commercial services. The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also been determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village Redevelopment Area. Development of the subject property will serve as a catalyst for future projects and help to promote the Village Design further within District 9. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 9 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 9, the required front yard setback is 5-20 feet, the required side yard setback is 5-10 feet, and the rear yard setback is 5- 15 feet. All setbacks are measured from property lines. The front yard setback of the proposed building is 8'-3" feet from the front property line. The street side yard setback is set at 7'-7" and the south side yard setback is set at 7'. The rear of the building is located 7' feet from the rear property line. All of the setbacks fall within or close to the middle of the standard range. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGES 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 setbacks for the front and rear at a level below the maximum and within the standard range are as follows. First, the proposed setbacks will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties as the reduced setbacks will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated and contained entirely within the structure. Visual and noise impacts to adjacent residents will be reduced by allowing the parking to be contained within the structure and allowing the associated proposed setbacks. 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 two blighted structures with a visually appealing project with a 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. The mixed-use component of the project will help to further establish Carlsbad Village as a quality shopping and living environment and the proposed sidewalk improvements will improve access to nearby transit. Lastly, the reduced standard will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through setbacks that provide adequate space for landscape planters and decorative paving at the ground floor, and allows building recesses and relief along the various building planes. The reduced standard will assist in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more appealing which is a primary goal of the Village Design guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Based on these findings, it is staff's position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements set forth for Land Use District 9. Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for mixed-use projects in Land Use District 9 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 72.6% which is within the established range. The bottom of the range is considered the desired standard. However, an increase in the standard to the maximum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such an increase and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission: 1. The increased standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The increased standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the village character of the area. The proposed building coverage is consistent with the building coverage for many of the properties within the Village. The project provides ample setbacks on both the south (side yard LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 6 setback) of 7' and the east (rear yard setback) of 7' allowing for a building coverage of 72.6%, which will not negatively impact the adjacent residential uses. First, the proposed building coverage will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated and contained entirely within the structure thereby reducing visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties. Second, the proposed building coverage standard provides for the intensification of development desired for the area and a building with a strong street presence, which assists in creating a project design that is appealing and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 9. Third, the proposed building coverage will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through building coverage that provides adequate space for landscaped planter areas, decorative paving at the ground floor, low lying walls for seating at the north west corner of the site, a decorative fountain, and allows building recesses and relief along the various building planes for architectural enhancement. Based on these findings, it is staff's position that the proposed building coverage is consistent with the desired standard. Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 9 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12 roof pitch. Per the Village Master Plan, however, the maximum height may be increased to 45 feet for any size project where residential or commercial space is located over a parking structure. The project proposes a maximum roof height of 41 feet for architectural roof towers contained within the middle of the building that are necessary for access to the roof balconies. However the remainder and majority of the building is set at a building height of 36 feet with the required 5:12 roof pitch. The building height is in compliance with the established standard set forth in the Village Master Plan. Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space. The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Per the Village Master Plan (which supercedes all other regulatory documents), 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, and sides of the building, balconies, and private roof gardens/patios. The project provides for a total of 7,438 square feet of open space, which represents 42.5% of the site and is consistent with the open space requirement. Landscape and hardscape on the ground floor alone (excluding the private balconies and roof gardens) equates to 16.3% of the site and the roof decks/patios and balconies encompass the remaining 26.2%. Parking: The parking requirement for the multi-family portion of the project is two standard spaces per unit and 1/2 guest parking space per unit. The parking requirement for the retail portion of the project is 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor space. As a result, the parking requirement for the 6 proposed units and the 1,913 square foot retail space is 21 parking spaces [(2.5x6)=15 + (1,913/300)=6.37 = 21]. The project provides 6 two-car garages with rollup doors, 3 guest parking spaces, 6 retail spaces, and 1 accessible space for a total of 22 parking spaces (1 space greater than required). The 22 parking spaces will not be visible from the public street as the spaces are contained entirely within the structure. With the proposed parking the project satisfies the parking requirements. 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 LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 7 findings with the surrounding area. Maximum project density may not exceed the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation unless a density increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Appropriate findings must also be made per Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to exceed the GMCP. After considering the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area, the vision for Land Use District 9 and surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a Medium-High Density (RMH) General Plan Designation for the subject property. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as follows: 1. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density. 2. The RMH 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 medium-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 RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster Station). Medium-High residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. The RMH designation allows for a density range of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The site area for the proposed project is .402 acres (17,514 square feet), which will accommodate 4.62 dwelling units per the GMCP. As discussed below, the project applicant is requesting a density increase to accommodate a total of 6 dwelling units. With 6 dwelling units proposed, the project results in a density of 14.89 dwelling units per acre, which is above the GMCP of the RMH density range (11-15 dwelling units per acre). In accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance specific findings regarding the availability of public facilities must be made in order to approve a density bonus above the GMCP. The proposed project complies with these findings because all necessary public improvements and facilities to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. In addition, there have been sufficient developments approved in the northwest quadrant at densities below the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGES The proposed density of 14.89 dwelling units is close to the maximum of the RMH density range. However, since many of the surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and have a corresponding density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre, approving a project of 14.89 dwelling units is not out of character for the density of the surrounding area. Justification for meeting the findings of the Growth Management Ordinance to allow a density that exceeds the GMCP has been incorporated into the attached DRB Resolution No. 302. 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 six (6) 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, refuse areas 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 additional development standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance. 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 balcony area for each unit. The proposed units each contain a minimum of 120 square feet of total balcony area and/or roof deck/patio area. With six units proposed, a total of 720 square feet of private recreational space is required for the proposed project. The proposed project provides for a total of 4,584 square feet of private recreational space and, therefore, exceeds the standard. 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 Housing & Redevelopment Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. Utilities: There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 9 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 to provide for a minimum of 480 cubic feet of storage space. Therefore, sufficient storage area has been designed into the units. 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. 302. 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. VIM. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. In accordance with the design review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These design principles are: 1. Development shall have an overall informal character. 2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity. 3. Development shall be small in scale. 4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged. 5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street. 6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades. 7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details. 8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design. 9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated. 10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character. The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project provides for an overall informal character, yet maintains a pleasant architectural design. The project is consistent with the desired Village scale and character for a relatively dense urban neighborhood providing an appropriate density and intensity of development. The ground floor of the building has a strong relationship to the street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue enhancing the pedestrian- orientation of the Village. The ground floor is enriched with travertine and an attractive fountain is provided at the ground level in order to enhance the first floor fagade. Upper levels of the building are setback from the street in order to provide architectural relief along the upper level LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 10 building planes. The building's architecture incorporates many of the same architectural elements found in other Village residential/commercial projects. The architectural design elements include the incorporation of various sized multi paned windows with decorative trim, travertine at the ground floor facade, aluminum and tempered glass balcony railings, varied stucco colors, tile roofing with a 5:12 roof pitch, and cherry colored doors. The project provides landscaped planter areas amongst the decorative paving at the ground floor and provides low lying walls for public seating around a decorative fountain at the north west corner of the site. Parking is visually subordinate contained entirely within the building itself. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (See Attached Exhibit B). 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 and Circulation: Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 128 A Traffic study was not required because of the insignificant traffic projected. Comment: All frontage and project related roadways exist and are conditioned to be improved as needed with development of this project. Sewer: Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Sewer EDU's Required: (1)edu/dwelling x 6 dwellings = 6 EDU's One 1,964 square foot retail/1800 = 1.10 EDU's TOTAL = 7.10 EDU's Comment: Sewer facilities exist in Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The developer will connect into the Lincoln Street main with one 6-inch lateral serving Units 1,2,3 and 4. One 6 inch lateral connecting to the Oak Street main will service Unit 5 and 6. A separate 6" sewer lateral to Oak Avenue will be installed for the retail building. All onsite sewer lines will be privately maintained. Water: Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District GPD Required: 250 gpd/edu x 7.10 edu's = 1,775 GPD Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project. Separate service lines and meters are provided from each unit. Soils & Grading: Quantities: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 11 Cut:1,325cy Fill:0 cy Export: 1,325 cy Import: 0 cy Permit required: Yes Off-site approval required: No Hillside grading requirements met: N/A Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: GeoSoils, Inc. Comment: There are no major grading issues associated with this project. Drainage and Erosion Control: Drainage basin: A Preliminary hydrology study performed by: Conway and Associates, Inc. Erosion Potential: Low Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. Given the minor increase of 0.76 CFS of storm water runoff caused by the development, the existing public storm drain system has the capacity to accept this additional runoff. Land Title: Conflicts with existing easement: None Easement dedication required: No Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project. Improvements: Off-site improvements: Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk exists on Lincoln Street. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and half street improvements will be installed on Oak Avenue, a street designated for compatible street improvements. Overhead utilities fronting the project will be relocated underground. Standard variance required: no. Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project. Storm Water Quality: The applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) measures, to the maximum extent practical, to ensure that no additional pollutants-of-concern are contributed downstream of the project. The applicant has prepared a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan that lists BMPs including site design, covered parking, stenciling of catch basins, and catch basin filters. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 12 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. XI. ECONOMIC IMPACT The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the project. The project 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. XIII. PUBLIC COMMENT To date, the subject project has received substantial public comment from the property owner located immediately east of the proposed development. Attached to this report as Exhibit G are copies of all emails, letters and reports submitted by Mr. Michael Bovenzi, the adjacent property owner. Mr. Bovenzi is opposed to the subject project because he does not believe the project meets the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As noted in this report, it is staff's opinion that the project is consistent with all standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The project requires no variances from the standards, and is consistent with the land use requirements for the property. Mr. Bovenzi contracted with a private land use consultant to complete a review of the subject project. Staff reviewed the consultant's report and prepared responses to the report findings. This staff response is provided in Exhibit H to this staff report. Due to Mr. Bovenzi's ongoing concern regarding redevelopment staff's review of the subject project, staff obtained a third party review of the project. Michael Holzmiller, retired Planning Director for the City of Carlsbad and private planning consultant, was asked to complete a review of the project. Mr. Holzmiller's report is attached as Exhibit I to this staff report. Mr. Holzmiller concluded with his report that the proposed project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. He did indicate, however, that he did not believe the private balconies or patios should be included in the open space calculation. He suggested that the public open space component be increased by approximately 4%. Mr. Holzmiller also suggested that the building setbacks for the LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 13 residential portions of the building be increased to the maximum of the range for neighborhood compatibility purposes. These suggestions we represented as a personal and professional opinion of Mr. Holzmiller. They were not intended to indicate non-compliance with the development standards. They were intended to address neighborhood compatibility concerns. Staff met with the property owner located immediately to the south (Mr. Dennis Baueren) regarding the proposed project. Mr. Baueren informed staff that his concerns with the proposed project were that the units windows that face south would be able to look into the units of his apartment building. Mr. Baueren also had concerns about the wall height and asked that the south wall be raised higher in order to visually separate the adjacent uses. Lastly, Mr. Baueren expressed to staff that the south side yard setback (approximately 19 feet between the two uses) may not be enough and he would like to see the building setback further along this elevation. Due to the size and scale of the proposed project, there is a concern about neighborhood compatibility. This is a concern, however, which is a matter of opinion rather than a standards compliance issue. The Design Review Board will need to consider this matter in its review and make its own determination. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines. B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 recommending approval of RP 04-11. C. Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 recommending approval of CDP 04-30. D. Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 recommending approval of CT 05-03. E. Location Map. F. Exhibits "A - V", dated January 23, 2006, including reduced exhibits. G. Written public comments on project from adjacent property owner. H. Staff response to land use consultant review of project plans dated 12/11/03. I. Project Review Report by Michael Holzmiller, Planning Consultant. 7 . Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: JANUARY 23,2006 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 Marquez to lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Chairperson Heineman proceeded with the roll call of Board Members. Present: Board Members: Julie Baker Tony Lawson Sarah Marquez Michael Schumacher Chairperson: Courtney Heineman Absent: None Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain Assistant Planner: Cliff Jones Engineer: David Rick Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the November 21,2005 meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA There were no comments from the audience. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Heineman asked Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, to present the item on the agenda tonight. Ms. Fountain stated the first item on the agenda is a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the Lincoln and Oak mixed-use project. Tonight Cliff Jones, our Assistant Planner in Housing and Redevelopment, assisted by Dave Rick from Engineering, will make the presentation. Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner, stated the applicant, Karnak Planning and Design, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit and a Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six condominium units and 1,913 square feet of DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 2 of 24 retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The Proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation that is greater then $150,000. The project also requires the approval of a Tentative Tract Map because it involves separate ownership of the residential units. In addition, the project is required to process a Coastal Development Permit because it is located within the coastal zone. In accordance with the redevelopment permit procedures, the three permits are 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 corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue at the edge of the VR zoning boundary. The VR zoning boundaries are depicted in yellow on the screen above. The subject property totals 17,514 square feet with building frontage along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The existing structures on the property include one single-family residence and a surf shop. The structures are in various stages of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed building. The project is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, to the east construction recently began on a five-unit condominium project, the property to the north contains a condominium project called the Monterey, and the project to the west of the proposed project across Lincoln are commercial uses. As mentioned previously, the application is for a proposed three-story, 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six condominium units with roof decks/patios and 1,913 square feet of retail space. The three-story building consists of two stories of residential condominiums located over above ground parking and retail space. The six units vary in size from 4,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The building has a pleasant architectural design incorporating decorative materials such as travertine and decorative black awnings in order to enhance the street scene at the comer. The residential condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper levels of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and solid iron railings. The residential portion of the project is significantly set back from the street in order to reduce the massing of the building along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominant feature of the corner. Vehicle access to the site is to be provided off of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the Village. The proposed project is within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Mixed-use projects are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 9. Permitted uses are defined as those, which are permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. The Village Master Plan stipulates that the ground floor of all approved mixed- use projects in District 9 must be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. Since retail space is proposed along portions of the frontage of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue, closest to the travelers and tourists along Carlsbad Boulevard Coastal Highway, staff concludes that the project complies with this requirement. The remainder of the site is occupied by setbacks, residential storage space, access points, and required parking. Staff believes the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 9 through the following actions: • The project provides for a desirable use; • It may serve as a catalyst for future development; • It provides for the development of an underutilized lot; • It helps to attract additional tourist serving uses by providing additional retail close to Carlsbad Boulevard; • It increases the pedestrian circulation in the village through the additional new sidewalk; • It is compatible with the surrounding residential area; DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 of 24 • It increases the number, quality and diversity of housing types. The proposed project also meets all the required development standards outlined within the Village Master Plan. The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping, not only on the ground floor, but also on the balconies and private roof garden/patios. The Village Master Plan requires a minimum of 20% of the property to be maintained as open space. The project provides for a total of 7,438 square feet of open space, which represents 42.5% on the site and is therefore consistent with the open space requirement. Landscape and hardscape on the ground floor alone equates to 16.3% of the site and the roof decks, patios and balconies encompass the remaining 26.2%. It is noteworthy that the Village Master Plan and Design Manual allows for private roof decks/patios and balconies to be calculated in the 20% open space requirement. This open space calculation is unique to the Village Redevelopment Area. This method of calculating open space has been used on past redevelopment projects within the Village and allows for the intensity of development that is encouraged within the downtown Village Redevelopment Area. The building coverage of the proposed project is set within the middle of the range at 72.6% and is appropriate for a mixed-use development project. The increased building coverage will allow the developer to locate the parking within the building itself to screen the parking from view. In addition, the proposed building coverage allows the developer to construct a building that has a retail component close to the street. The necessary findings to allow the increased building coverage are contained within the report to the Design Review Board. Within Land Use District 9 the maximum height of the project is 45 feet for any size project, with residential or commercial space located over a parking structure. The project proposes a maximum height of 41 feet for architectural roof towers contained within the middle of the building that are necessary for access to the roof decks/patios. However, the remainder of the building is set at a building height of 36 feet. Staff finds the building height of the project is in compliance with the established standard set below the permitted maximum height of 45 feet. Adequate parking is also provided for the proposed project through the use of six two-car garages for residents and three guest parking spaces as required. Ample parking is provided for the retail use through six standard spaces and one accessible space. The project provides for a total of 22 parking spaces, which is one space greater then the 21 spaces required, and therefore meets the parking requirements. In Land Use District 9 the permitted setbacks are as follows: • The front yard setback is 5 to 20 feet; • The side yard setbacks are 5 to 10 feet; • The rear yard setback is 5 to 15 feet. All the proposed building setbacks fall within the standard range or are very close to the middle of that range. The front yard setback of the building and the street side yard setback are proposed close to the street in order to create a strong retail presence at the corner and to attract visitors from Carlsbad Boulevard. The upper levels of the residents are setback further from the street in order to reduce the massing of the building at that corner. Permitted side yard setbacks for the adjacent properties are shown on the screen above in order to demonstrate setback compatibility with the R3 zoning. The necessary findings to allow the reduced setbacks, which are still within the setback range, are contained within the report to the Design Review Board. In addition to the Development Standards set forth for the Village Master Plan, the planned development ordinance provides development standards for recreation space, lighting, utilities, recreational vehicle DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 4 of 24 storage, tenant storage space, and antennas. The project was found to comply with each of these development standards and design criteria of the planned development ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with the desired village scale and character for the relatively dense urban neighborhood desired by the Master Plan, providing an appropriate density and intensity of development. The ground floor of the building has a strong relationship to the street and is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue, enhancing the pedestrian orientation of the Village and enhancing the retail space of the comer. Upper levels of the building are setback from the street in order to provide architectural relief along the upper level building planes. The project incorporates several design features to achieve the desired village character including: • The first floor is enriched with travertine; • An attractive fountain is provided on the ground level at the corner of the site, in order to enhance the first floor facade; • Low lying walls to sit on are incorporated at the corner of the site around a decorative fountain; • The building incorporates various sized windows and decorative glass block windows with decorative trim; • The second and third floor balconies have tempered glass balcony railings; • There are various building recesses; • The project has decorative cherry colored doors; • The project proposes tile roofing with a 5 and 12 roof pitch as required; • The building has varied building colors. The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the building and parking is visually subordinate contained within the building itself. The proposed project has received substantial public comment from the property owner who is constructing the building immediately east of the proposed development, Mr. Michael Bovenzi. Mr. Bovenzi is opposed to the subject project because he does not believe the project meets the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As noted in the report to the Design Review Board, it is staff's opinion that the project is consistent with all standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The project requires no variances from the standards and is consistent with the land use requirements for the property. Staff has also met with the property owner located immediately to the south, Mr. Dennis Bauem, to discuss the proposed project. Mr. Bauern informed staff that his concerns for the proposed project were the units' windows at the south of the building would have downward visibility into his apartment project. Mr. Bauern also had concerns about the wall height along the south elevation and asked that the south wall be raised in order to prevent persons from being able to look down into his units. Also Mr. Bauem expressed to staff that he would like to see an increased setback along the south elevation. Staff also met with the secretary to the Board of the Monterey Condominiums to the north of the proposed project, Ms. Nancy Kaupp. Ms. Kaupp informed staff that she shared the plans with the board of the Monterey and that the board did not have any major concerns with the proposed project. She mentioned the board thought the block was one of the worst in the village and they were happy to see the corner redeveloped. Written public comment that has been received on the proposed project has been included as an attachment to the report to the Design Review Board. The Housing and Redevelopment Department conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 5 of 24 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 environment determination is included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an underutilized lot will increase property taxes and this increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, it is anticipated the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing structures through the elimination of a blighted structure and construction of a quality multi-family residential project. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project. Development of this site is anticipated to 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. Board Member Lawson stated he did get a briefing with staff to get some additional background on this project. One of the items that needs clarification is the concern one of the adjacent neighbors brought up regarding the walling around the south and eastern property lines. Could you elaborate a little bit on that because that does warrant additional clarification if possible? Mr. Jones said staff has received some concern from the property owner to the south and the east with regards to the wall heights. The way the project is proposed currently the site is a maximum of three feet higher on the proposed project's side and rear. In between a commercial project and a residential project in the village area; a solid masonry wall is required. The applicant has proposed a nine-foot wall as seen from the property to the south and the property owner to the east. The purpose of the six-foot masonry wall on top of the three-foot retaining wall is for visual screening as a person is walking along the proposed project so they cannot see down into the adjacent properties. We had discussion with the property owner to the south and he had a preference to have the six-foot wall on top of the three-foot retaining wall in order to maintain some sort of privacy along that elevation. That was also done along the eastside elevation as well. Board Member Lawson commented that procedurally as he understands it, we have a situation here, which is not unlike many places throughout the city where you have different land uses adjacent to one another. So there are different standards on one side of the property line versus the other. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any requirement to create some hybrid standard because of what is adjacent to the other side of your property line. Is there any requirement for purposes of creating transition that is within the code? Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, said this property is located in the Redevelopment Area, and it is adjacent to other properties that have residential zoning only. That does create a situation where you have properties adjacent to the site where they have totally different regulations. They have more restrictive height limits on them then the Village Area. There isn't anything within the Master Plan or the Municipal Code that would state you have the ability to create some alternate codes. Obviously, you don't have to go to the maximum the codes will allow, and actually as Cliff showed, in this project on several cases they didn't go to all of the maximums they would have been allowed on the site. It does create some inherent conflicts so we try to work with the property owner and the applicant to address those issues the best we can. We understood when the project came in there was some conflict because it was immediately adjacent to these residential properties, but this is not unusual for the Redevelopment Area. We actually have other locations within the Redevelopment Area that have a similar type of situation where they are immediately adjacent to residential properties that have different requirements. It is something, as a staff member, we try to work through the best we can and try to address those conflicts the best we can in terms of trying to get more articulation or try to enhance the privacy with the walls. There really isn't the ability at the Board level to start setting different standards for DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 6 of 24 the area. The standards are what they are, but there is some ranges in the Redevelopment Area and it does allow some additional height on it. Board Member Baker asked if the difficulty wasn't necessarily because it is next to residential, but that the sites in white are subject to City of Carlsbad Planning Department regulations where the yellow sites are Redevelopment regulations, which are different? Ms. Fountain said that is correct. The Village Redevelopment Area has it's own Master Plan document, which sets forth the standards for the Village Area. Any time that it is not stated in the Master Plan what a standard is, then we would go to the Municipal Code. The properties that are outside the Redevelopment Area are subject to the Municipal Code and whatever those standards are as well as any additional overlays that might be in the area like the beach overlay zone or some others that might put some more restrictive standards on them. Chairperson Meineman asked if all the areas in white are subject to the Municipal Code and the areas in yellow are subject to the Redevelopment Code? Ms. Fountain said correct. Robert Richardson with Kamak Planning and Design, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad. He is here representing his client, Russell Bennett and Earl Miller. We have tried to work with the neighborhood as best we can by meeting with our neighbors. On the south wall we did have it lower, and then he expressed an interest in bringing it up, so we brought it up. Then we also looked at every window on the south wall and analyzed where our windows were on an angle and we placed palm trees so someone standing in the window would have to see through the palm tree before they could see into the apartment to the south. We were very concerned about that. On the east property, our retaining wall and our land was actually lower in some cases then the property to the east. At the last minute we were given the working drawings, which lowered their grade 2 Vt feet below where they were, which developed a concern for us. Otherwise, our wall was right on the money. They have taken that house out and by doing so, they ended up cutting it deeper than the preliminary grading plans that was used for the public hearing. Mr. Richardson continued they were concerned about the roof decks. We pulled them all to the center of the building. There was some concern about visibility of our decks to the people around us on both sides. They have been pulled down in the line of site. We did some line site drawing. You can't even see our next-door neighbor. You can only see two or three lots out away from us. You would actually have to climb out and crawl down to the edge of the roof to look down into the project next door. We have tried to give privacy. Also, to our neighbor to the east we did include raising up a small screen wall on the east side so the two units on the east would not have any opportunity of a view to the east. We have tried hard to work with the neighborhood. We've tried to do something real quality to where it is a very expensive building. The residential units are first class. Two of the units will be occupied by the owners at a really high end with elevators. It is exciting to see something of this caliber coming into the Village, and you will see more of it in the future. Cliff has done a good job and has been very thorough. Board Member Lawson said he understands each of the units, with the exception of unit number 4, takes utilization of the deck above the commercial and a portion of the garage. Is that correct? Mr. Richardson answered yes. Board Member Lawson continued by asking if unit number 4 only has a roof deck? Mr. Richardson said it does have a small deck on the main roof deck as well as the one up on top. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 7 of 24 Board Member Lawson asked if there was one tucked further back into the corner? Mr. Richardson said right it is on the far side. Board Member Baker asked about the corner and if Mr. Richardson could explain the concept with the fountain and the low wall on the corner of Oak and Lincoln. Mr. Richardson said they were asked to make it a public people space and more of a retail space. So we put low seat walls and we did the fountain and the fountain wall is also a seat wall. We would have added more to it, but there is a lot of utilities. On the south side of the front entrance way we did early sketches and it looked even bigger and then we started plotting all the transformers, underground vaults on that comer, there is a lot there so we tried to leave enough landscape around it and pull it a little bit to the north corner of that. It doesn't look perfectly balanced but that is mainly because of the utilities. We tried to keep a nice buffer. The travertine tile look and beautiful corners goes all the way across the front and then we carried it past the driveways all the way to the end of the building so the whole entire front has a retail look about it that feels strong and solid. Only the two units with beautiful curved balconies come out. Everything else is pulled behind it. We also plotted shadows in the summer and in the winter. Board Member Lawson asked about the retail use. Have you targeted or had discussion as to what type of retail use you anticipate? Mr. Richardson said there have been several considerations. There has been some inquiry about putting in a small bookstore. It's too early to know for sure yet. We have tried to make it as visible as possible. Board Member Schumacher asked about the grade that is three feet of fill? Is that right? Mr. Richardson said no. Board Member Schumacher said he is wondering if related to the wall on the south side and the east side. Old the site get raised at all or is it level? Mr. Richardson said no. The only site that moved was the east side, which is 2 V* feet more then actually in the plan. They have cut that out. That old house that was sitting on there was sitting on a knoll and they took all that out and they brought it down. At the last minute we had our civil engineer replot that grade. Board Member Schumacher asked if the finished grade of fifty some feet is the same or equal to the lot on the south? Will that be level? Mr. Richardson said no. The neighbor to the south wanted the six-foot wall to come up three more feet so he has more privacy. Board Member Marquez asked if the adjacent property owners already have existing walls in place on their property separating this one? Mr. Richardson answered there is a wood fence on the south side. Right now it's bougainvllleas, weeds and tall grasses to where it is like a jungle. Board Member Marquez asked if it is true that the owner to the east just put up a block wall approximately six foot high? Mr. Richardson said he hasn't seen the new wall. If it has been in the last week, I haven't been there. Board Member Marquez said she just drove by today. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 8 of 24 Chairperson Heineman opened public testimony and he has eight requests to speak. The requests are for Ron Alvarez, Don Johnson, Peter Dreifuss, Dennis Sharp, Dennis Bauern, Joanne Sharp, Michael Bovenzi, and Sandra Bovenzi. Each speaker has five minutes to make their comments. Those comments should be addressed to the Board, not to the staff, not to the applicant or the public. After we receive all testimony from everyone who wishes to speak, we will ask the appropriate person to respond to all questions. Please speak into the microphone clearly, state and spell your last name and give us your address for the record. We ask as new speakers come up, please not repeat what others have said. My name is Ron Alvarez and I live at 354 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad. I am a designer in the City of Carlsbad and have been a resident since 1986. I started some of the first design projects for redevelopment, and I didn't have much to go by with standards and design, and I relied upon the Council to give me direction. With much painstaking design submittals and such, we ran into lots of problems because there was only a very small select group of people giving me information. There was basically no origin or basis at the beginning of this Redevelopment Zone. Now we have a manual of standards and parameters. I have looked through those. I had a meeting with the designer of this project that we are speaking about. I talked directly with Deborah Fountain who is present and Cliff Jones who is present. I had some concerns because I didn't feel the design standards were being met. The start of the project, I felt should have started with a subterranean or complete submerged garage, which would have put to bed a lot of these wall height issues, height of buildings, building setbacks, privacy and site line issues. I will quote what Deborah Fountain said. She said, "setting a new trend" maybe that was the word she used, "when we have a design manual to go by, we have a guide." When there is too much project-to-project basis of what everyone thinks, that's not what I use in designing. I have been designing since 1985 with many, many projects in the City and outside of the City. I was really taken back by that because I will have new projects that my clients are hiring me at this time to work with the redevelopment. To make a long story short, I am a little taken back by that. One of the biggest things about this project, I thought, was if I was to design this, I would put a subterranean garage completely submerged so I could put a fully contained retail space which is what I think this new $90,000 study is going to be, correct? It is based upon a greater need for retail space within the cities. It is maybe not done yet. We'll find out when that comes about. That is what I would have done with that project to start with, which would have reduced the heights of the building, reduced these walls heights, reduced all these things that are going to be addressed after I speak. The design parameters needed to start with fully submerged parking garages maximizing retail space. To make my point clear, as a designer I would have not even presented a project as we see here today. It would have been fully submerged parking, out of line of site; we would have less of a height, which would have been a little more balanced to the community. It is way too tall for the community if you look at it from a standpoint of all the surrounding areas. Finally it would have given you a much different picture then what we have today. I think it is a little too overbearing and it doesn't even fit with redevelopment, as far as architectural standards are concerned if you look in that guideline, which is what we work with. I will be working with it, and hopefully they will be working with me in regards to what is supposed to be set forth in that guideline when I bring in projects, because I don't want to have to come here and present a project to the Board and have everyone say it is too big, it's too tall, it's too this because I wasn't sensitive as a designer. Thank you for listening to me. Hopefully you will take into account this project and re-evaluate it for what it is. My name is Don Johnson and I currently live in Oceanside but I lived at the 3140 Lincoln Street in Carlsbad, which is two houses down from this project. I lived there for about 30 years and my mom still lives in that property since about 1925. My reason for speaking is that I will at some point be the inheritor of the property, and I do not really like the idea of a property that is that large and of an oppressive height, which does not fit the rest of the character of the neighborhood. Nothing else that is visible from my mother's property is more then two stories. It does not seem to me that height is necessary. In addition, when the two-story complex next to my mom was put up, the solar reflections caused the heating in the summer on my mom's property to get to a point where it is oppressive. I suspect the same thing will happen to the two-story complex to the north of us with the reflections from the new project. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 9 of 24 Peter Dreifuss, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008. I have lived in the City of Carlsbad for 13 years and have enjoyed it. This is the constitution for the City of Carlsbad for construction and new development and what Mr. Jones read earlier, he must have a different manual then I do. If you wish to change what is in this constitution, you can't Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Dreifuss what is the name of the manual? Mr. Dreifuss said it is the Redevelopment Master Plan. He continued that if the Master Plan is changed, you can't do it on a whim. You have to do it by law and do it in a proper way. It has to be done in a legal way. This Master Plan states inside it is a legal document. The standards are clear. The intent is clear. It is an approved Master Plan. It was never meant to be just interpreted. The Redevelopment staff has approved this current project because Debbie Fountain has said we are going to set a new precedent. Well I am a co-developer of the property just east of this, the new condos that are going up that just broke ground. I am sure they were trying to set a new precedent recently in Carlsbad when they approved the most ugliest project that Carlsbad has ever seen adjacent or across the street from the military academy, the retail space with the condo's on top of it. That is probably the ugliest thing that I have ever seen in a city. I am sure that if Debbie Fountain was about to have a 40-foot high building that blocked all of her views built right next to her 20-foot high residence, that she would just rejoice. But wait, I don't think she even lives in Carlsbad. The redevelopment staff basically are non-residential directors who have done no oversight review. The reports, which they have submitted to the Design Board contain outright lies and deception. The Board should not have a predetermined point of view on this proposed project, and the Board has the responsibility to be objective and to not take the staffs report at any way near accurate or truthful. We will show you some of the inconsistencies in the staff report. Mr. Dreifuss continued that they do not blame the Design Review Board for allowing this project to come this distance, but we do blame the incompetence of the development staff. The current designer of this proposed project is Mr. Karnak. We originally hired Mr. Karnak to do our project, which is right next door. He accepted our $15,000 as initial payment. He represented himself as an architect. Mr. Karnak is not an architect, but a draftsman. We found out he was not licensed in the State of California to design. He was not licensed within his industry to build a five-unit project, more or less a six-unit project. He must be an architect to design anything that is five units or more. Not only has he designed more then five units, but the sixth unit is illegal. This project only allows for four condo units by the Master Plan. If you do your calculations, it comes to 4.6 units is what is allowed. He has put in six units. Mr. Karnak is not licensed to do the current project by California law and risks having some problems by doing so. In a recent set of submitted plans to the City, not his most recent but in a recent set to the City of Carlsbad, he shows an architectural stamp that has been illegally affixed to those documents. Not only has Mr. Karnak drawn a plan, which allows two more condominiums than allowed by law, but has done so in an improper way. Joanne Sharp, 1230 Umatilla, Del Mar, CA 92014. She is part of Sharp Design Consultants. My husband, Dennis, and I have reviewed these plans in regards to access for persons with disabilities. I would like to talk a little bit about that and give the Board some background. On March 13, 1991, the housing provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 became effective in all state, city and county jurisdictions that had not adopted regulations more stringent than that act. The California Building Industry Association petitioned California's Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt the federal regulations and to combine into one document the more stringent requirements of the existing state regulations. On December 9, 1992, the California Building Standards Commission approved the forum regulation adoption with an effective date of July 15, 1993, which incorporated them into Title 24 of the California Building Code. Providing an environment where person's with disabilities can have the same access to and ability to use housing that others enjoy is both a worthwhile goal and the law. The regulations were developed to provide for the safety and welfare of persons with disabilities as residents and visitors of apartment buildings, condominiums and timeshare units. The state regulations require adaptations for newly constructed, privately funded apartment buildings having three or more units, condominium buildings containing four or more units, and privately funded shelters intended as a residence for homeless persons. An adaptable building is one that is accessible in terms of entry and DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 10 of 24 circulation. That is a person using a wheelchair must be able to enter the unit, move around, have a bathroom and a sleeping area that is accessible and usable. The unit must also be constructed so that it can be adapted to meet specific needs of a person with disabilities for items such as grab bars, lowered counters, etc. In other words, constructed in a way they can add things that are specific to their needs. The regulations require that multifamily buildings have units that are adaptable to meet the needs of mobility and sensory impaired persons. Ms. Sharp added as a background about her and her husband, they received more then 250 hours of official training on all state and federal disabled access regulations. They also provide disabled access consultant services to government entities, businesses and individuals in their efforts to comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, California's Title 24, which are the disabled access regulations included in our state building code, and other state and federal regulations dealing with access for persons with disabilities. We have done extensive fieldwork since 1993. We volunteer on several committees advising on disabled access including the City of San Diego Community Services, Citizen's Review Committee on ADA and Disability, the City of San Diego Facilities Access Review Subcommittee, the City of San Diego Access Law Technical Group, and Scripps Park Project in La Jolla. In 2004,1 am very proud to say, that a Sharp Design Consultant was awarded a certificate of excellence in appreciation by the City of San Diego for Outstanding Performance and Lasting Contribution. Board Member Baker asked Ms. Sharp how she is involved in this project? Ms. Sharp said they were asked by Mr. Bovenzi to review the plans for accessibility and to give him our opinion on if we felt there were any problems with the project. Board Member Baker asked if she was hired as a consultant? Ms. Sharp said yes, that's correct. My husband will speak more about specific things in the plans. Board Member Lawson asked while evaluating the project, are you comparing it then to the immediate project to the east, the Bovenzi project. I am wondering, the things that you are suggesting this is deficient in, the adjacent property complies with all those same areas? Ms. Sharp answered no. We are basing our opinions strictly on the Federal and State standards that exist for accessibility in privately funded, multifamily housing. We are not looking at any other project, only this one. Dennis Sharp, 1230 Umatilla, Del Mar, CA 92014. My wife and I both have been doing this since 1992. The plans I see here that I have reviewed, the designs lack an understanding of accessibility. The accessibility means independent living so that if you are in an apartment, not everybody can afford a full- time attendant. You should be able to get in and out by yourself and do your laundry or whatever. The way this is designed, that can't be done. The bathroom is not accessible, no details to show otherwise. The common areas are not accessible, and by code, they should all be accessible. In some of these places you just can't get to where you need to go because there is no connection. When I say path of travel, it means to get from one place to another. For the path of travel for the apartments to the trash does not exist for a wheelchair. The driveway is not set up for people who use wheelchairs or drive vans. It is the wrong matrix. The van accessibility parking is both wrong. Signage is required and I see none. In the commercial unit, there is one entrance and a second one, but you can't have an entrance with steps. It all has to be accessible. It should have a ramp. I hope I am not getting too aggressive here, because it is hard to be nice when you are saying all these things. The location of the pedestrian curb ramps are confusing because I see them at different locations. There are new federal regulations coming out that say you must have 48 inches, not counting the curb; that is minimum. If there is any street furniture, you have to go further then that; I don't see that happening here. In fact, this is too small. Furniture means a post, any kind of device that is in the cement you have to add 48 inches in addition to it, not landscaping, but hardscape; they don't have that. If this project is approved and later on it is discovered it is wrong, the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 11 of 24 City will have to pay to fix it. This has happened all over California. It is a big problem in Sacramento. It is a big problem in San Diego, but it is up to you people. I just don't think you have had the training to know that if this is done incorrectly because technically that has to be put in according to your laws. If it is not put in right, who is going to pay to fix it? That means if somebody falls and gets hurt, you are covering that. What my wife and I have done a great deal in San Diego is to stop this because it costs too much and the taxpayers are paying for it. Petco had a situation where it was going to cost the City of San Diego over $200,000 for one walkway that was wrong. We caught them in time to have them fix it. The contractor was there and said, you did it wrong and fix it and they did. Now if we hadn't done that, it would have gone through, somebody could have fallen and sued and won. It is that simple. Get it while it is right. So if you don't tell them what you want, you are not going to get it. This shows a lack of understanding of what a wheelchair does. I encourage the building because it has a lot of wonderful things, but it will not accommodate a wheelchair, and I think there is good tax credits here, but they are not going to be available to this project. Sandra Bovenzi, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008. I have been a resident of Carlsbad for 22 years. I am not anti-development, but I am a firm believer in development of the greater good for the people of Carlsbad. The Carlsbad bible, which everyone keeps referring to, was created by a qualified Carlsbad staff and also subcontracted outside support as well. The book should be adhered to and followed to the letter. On our project, which is to the east of the project we are talking about tonight, we have had to follow everything to the letter. I think everyone else should follow it to the letter as well. A perfect example of abuse by a mixed-use project, I'm not against a mixed use project, I think it certainly does have some wonderful qualities to it, but the perfect example of a project gone array is the Anastasi project, which is right across the street from the Coldstone Creamery. That is a real eyesore. It is terrible because we had the opportunity to create a wonderful pedestrian area. Yes we did get our retail in, but that is all there is. It butts right up almost to the street. If a car were to jump the curb, you'd wipe out probably all the people on the sidewalk, but there are no trees, there is no vegetation, there are no benches, it is not a pedestrian area; it is to get from point A to point B. I think it is a real eyesore to Carlsbad and it is sad because it is a new project. I am afraid this mixed-use project that is going in next to us is heading in the same direction. Because it is a massive project and it is two to three stories higher then anything in the area. The whole block, which is a larger then average block, is all residential, and this is a mixed use project, which is fine, I have no problems with that, but I think they should have been more sensitive like the gentleman, Ron, said they should be more sensitive to the area. Ms. Bovenzi continued by referring to the manual; the project that is underway is massive and contrary to the book here to Goal 4.2 in the manual which clearly states "established buildings whose scale and character who are compatible with the residential neighborhoods and Goal 4.5, which required design sensitivity to surrounding development;" this project does not. I feel the proposed project is a kind of a nightmare for Carlsbad, and I think if we are going to put in a mixed-use property, we should get it right the first time. Board Member Marquez asked Ms. Bovenzi what she felt about the improvements that are presently existing on the subject site? Ms. Bovenzi said it is an abomination. It is two to three stories higher Board Member Marquez interjected that she is talking about what is presently there today. Right now, the little house and the boarded up building. How do you feel about those improvements that are there now? Ms. Bovenzi answered that a mobile home would look better than what is there. Board Member Schumacher asked if Ms. Bovenzi's project has been approved? Is that right? Ms. Bovenzi said yes, we are underway. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 12 of 24 Board Member Schumacher asked if that is 30 feet high? Did you get any resistance from the neighbors when your project was approved? Ms. Bovenzi answered no; none whatsoever. Michael Bovenzi, 343 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92018. I have been a resident for close to 20 years. First I wanted to discuss the wall issue. On the south property line we are showing an existing grade of 49 feet. They are proposing a 53.5 finished surface, which is almost level to that, which is a 4 Vz foot fill. The fill is not a 3 foot fill as proposed; it is a 4 1/2 foot fill with a 6 foot solid concrete wall on top of there, which means Mr. Bauern to the south is going to have a wall that is a better part of 11 feet bordering his property line. Myself, to the west here, I just put in a brand new perimeter wall on both the west and the east. The west with the adjacent property. Mike Grimm, Senior Planner, who is my project planner, who is was very specific when I spoke with him last week; do not build your wall higher then 6 feet from existing grade. I was out there all day every day making sure this wall was not higher then 6 feet in height. That is not because of my site; that is because you don't have an affect on your neighbor. Mr. Bovenzi continued, when you get down to Policy 21 written by Michael Holtzmiller regarding perimeter walls, it says: In a required side yard, total height shall not exceed 6 feet. He clearly states a 4 foot retaining wall and a 5 foot fence would not be permitted because the total exceeds 6 feet. Starting with Craig Ruiz, back in 2004, he was the assistant planner on the project, stated that the retaining wall shall not exceed 6 feet as measured from the exterior from the property. Cliff Jones, December 15 wrote the same thing, staff has concerns about combination wall/fences, being aware that the fences along the property line shall not exceed 6 feet. Cliff Jones also said the same thing on March 28th and he also quoted the same thing on June 24th in the preliminary review letters to Robert Richardson. I asked many times for the preliminary review letters. I was only given one or two, and I did find another three of them in the City of Carlsbad last week. They also wanted in writing from Dennis Bauem what the walls were going to be; they want his opinion and they never got his written opinion on the walls. The problem with the walls and then the village redevelopment is, they want the wall as a 6 foot buffer, solid masonry wall, for privacy and sound. It is pretty simple. If you can't build up the lot, that means the entries for all the units along the east and the south have to be at grade level. The entries are not at grade level. Did they have a challenging lot here? No. There was no challenge. What they could have done, which they didn't do, was they could have put the parking below grade because it says in the manual, the ground floor shall be devoted to commercial uses. Now the 12 thousand or so six hundred square feet, which defines the ground floor, the 1,900 square foot retail combined with the parking for the commercial is less then 25% of the ground floor. That by definition of devote, which means commit all to, is far from the definition. When you get into parking, the ground floor of all mixed-use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses, avoid buildings which devote significant portions of the ground floor space to parking uses, and they have devoted 75% of the ground floor to parking uses. It would have been really easy to put the parking three or four feet below grade, which it easily could have done, because the lot has a natural slope of approximately four feet and all the entries to the adjacent properties would have been at grade level. Mr. Bovenzi said as far as the setbacks, the setbacks on both Lincoln and Oak, the buildings stick out 20 feet farther on Oak Avenue and 18 feet farther then anything on Lincoln Avenue. Not only are they going up 4 Vz stories, but the building sticks out 20 feet farther on both sides, and they claim there is no adverse affect on existing residential. Not only do you lose the line of site down both Lincoln and Oak for the entire block, we have loss of sun, we have loss of view, and you lose your ocean breeze. That is an adverse affect. Dennis Bauern, 3149 Coachman Court, Oceanside, CA 92056. My wife, Jeannie, and I own the building to the south at 3134 Lincoln Street. We are here because we have problems with the development. Let me just say, clearly what is there now is a blight and something needs to be done so there is no doubt in all of our minds that much improvement can come from that area. However, we are very developer friendly, to be honest. We have five units to the east of us going up, and the reason we have no comment and have no problems is the setbacks are to the maximum and we have no loss of privacy for a five-unit DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 13 of 24 building. Our building is two stories, 18 foot tall, three units on the top and two on the bottom. They are all with the living and family room facing the north, which would be facing right into the south facing side of the new development. The biggest concern we have is, and I think the map up here earlier showed it, the redevelopment has 270 degrees around an existing set of zone requirements. This means the developers have a real responsibility to be very sensitive about the surrounding environment. In my opinion, they really weren't in this case. First of all, 41 feet or 35 to 40 feet and we are at 18 feet. Secondly, even with the southwest facing four units, rather than have them face south for the living and family room, they have them southwest facing. That still looks into our properties. It seems to me with our five units facing north, their four units facing southwest, we are going to have a conflict. When the developer is gone, we are going to have people owning those properties. Our tenants are going to be in there and it is going to be a conflict. If we could have had at least upfront involvement with the acclimation of which direction it was facing, facing over Oak made just a whole lot of sense. The properties could have faced out over Oak. Even if we look into the back of the unit, we have the privacy. So the orientation of the building from the start is a concern. The height is the second concern. The setbacks I saw earlier were 5 to 10 feet. I believe the recommended is 7 feet. Between our property and this new development is probably not going to be over 18 or 19 feet apart. That is very tight and very close for a surrounding area. I believe for those three reasons and just the simple fact that the insensitivity to the surrounding area I don't believe was taken into account. The first I became aware of this was about June or July of last year at which time I met with Cliff Jones, and I took him through some of our concerns. The bottom line is if this were acclimated or at least oriented in a different fashion, we could deal with the height. We did agree in a meeting I had with him, I said we've got to do something about this orientation, the height, and then the ingress, egress, because everything is on our side. To be sensitive to the developer, I said if we could increase at least the wall, then they are not looking over into our living rooms when they are walking into their units. I look at what this is resulting in, and I just think we are going to have long-term problems with our five residents and their four owners of their units with people looking into each other. They can put palm trees in there, they can put walls higher that are above code, but I really don't think that is a good long-term fix for that area. Those are my concerns. Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Bauern how old his building is? Mr. Bauern said it is about 40 years old. Chairperson Heineman closed the public hearing. He asked staff, Mr. Rick and Mr. Jones, to respond to the questions. Mr. Cliff Jones asked if there was a particular question they would like him to start with. Chairperson Heineman told him wherever he wants to start. There were a number of questions raised. Mr. Jones started with the comment made about requiring underground parking. There actually isn't a requirement for underground parking. There is a design guideline that talks about how parking should be screened from public view. But there isn't anything in the Master Plan or municipal code that requires parking to be provided below grade. As one of the basic ten design principals, parking is to be visually screened and the structure surrounds the parking area so it is achieving that basic design principal. Mr. Jones continued with regard to providing underground parking, which would make the entire ground site be a retail space, staff felt as though it would create a compatibility issue with the adjacent residential uses having such a large commercial space there at that comer space. In addition, it may be difficult to lease a space that large as well, which could lead to undesirable tenants locating in the commercial space there at the ground floor if the entire ground floor were devoted to a retail use. As with regards to height, as the Board already knows, if a project is located over parking, the permitted building height is up to 45 feet. The subject project has a building height at a maximum of 41 feet. However, the majority of the structure is set at 36 feet. With the comment with regards to the project being 2 to 3 stories taller then DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 14 of 24 anything on this street, the project is actually three stories with roof decks, so it actually is not 2 to 3 stories taller then anything on the block. There are a number of two-story structures on the block. Mr. Jones said in regard to the comment about Title 24 accessibility. The Title 24 review, the detailed review, is done at the time that the detailed construction plans are submitted. For the purposes of receiving the redevelopment permit and related coastal development permit and tentative map, we do not require detailed construction plans at this time. The applicant was made aware of the concern about the Title 24 requirements and staff was assured they had met with our building plan check consultant for the Title 24 compliance. Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Jones what the Title 24 compliance is. Is that the handicapped? Mr. Jones answered correct. He said those were the major issues that I heard. There might be additional issues that I would be more than happy to respond to. Mr. David Rick, Engineering, said he could verify some of the grade changes that have occurred with respect to the wall. Mr. Richardson responded regarding Ron Alvarez talking about line of site and putting parking underground. We didn't put our parking underground. It is semi-underground, but it is out of sight to where we have walls and we have garages. Our garages are garages that have roll up doors and there is beautiful entry ways with lighting and pavement so that even though it is underground, it is going to have a look and feel like an entryway instead of a backdoor. We feel most of the time they will come in that way than the other way. The issue about being a licensed architect, I am not a licensed architect. I am a planner. I have been in the business for thirty some years. I have had staff up to 17,18 people. I've done all kinds of work up to a ten-story building. I have two architects that are outside consulting staff, a structural engineer and no project that I have ever done had to be signed and stamped by an architect. We do the planning and no way are we cheating anything or trying to do anything other then the right way of doing it. This town would not allow it anyway. As far as the ADA issues, when this project started over a year ago, this building was designed and since then there has been some changes. This last summer there was a change with Title 24 and ADA so there are a few issues that have been pointed out tonight that have to be addressed. Mike Bovenzi's projects would not meet the new standards that we are being judged by tonight. He got in and had his plans in plancheck before the cut off for that. Mr. Richardson continued with the comments about how massive the building is. This exhibit here is 30 feet and he is higher up on the street then we are and it is going up hill. He is at 30 feet, but if you look at that exhibit and also at this other one covered up, Mike Bovenzi's project, his windows and our windows are within a couple feet of each other. His project looks down on the lot going down Lincoln, the side of it. They impact the neighbors every bit as much as we do, and it is sad to see that now that he has his high building, he is complaining that we are doing the same thing. As far as the wall down on the south property line, it was tapered, it was low, and if you look at the grades one spot or the other, as you will see in the elevations, it tapers down with the grade. The south property line changes from the curb line and it goes up almost four feet, so the wall and the grades along our building taper down with it to where we did not carry the grade level all the way out. We originally had it at 6 feet from his existing grade and that's when we asked to increase it only by that 3 feet. I feel for the gentleman to the south property. We have tried to be instrumental; I know it well. My daughter lived in a downstairs unit so I have been there a hundred times or more while she lived there so I was very sensitive to it. I feel like our windows are at an angle to them, we have the buffering trees and we plotted so I think it has a lot less impact. It is also not the main part of the house. The main part of the house is facing towards those patio decks on the north side so that is a secondary use in that building. Chairperson Heineman commented that Mr. Richardson mentioned that the handicapped access laws have been changed or were changed at the time you were finishing the plans, is that correct? DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 15 of 24 Mr. Richardson answered yes, right. The various codes that Ms. Sharp brought up have changed. Chairperson Heineman asked if he does plan to change the plans? Mr. Richardson said if we don't change the interior of this building, it will never get built. Sometimes we have more corrections on ADA then we do on structural or architectural. Chairperson Heineman confirmed that Mr. Richardson is planning to make corrections to be code? Mr. Richardson said you have to be. Board Member Lawson asked Mr. Richardson regarding him speaking of the southern property line and for that matter even the eastern property line, as I am understanding the plans, the setback from the property line is from the extreme of the building edge, which happens to be the corner points of the pop- out windows, correct? Yet, the main flat portion of the building is setback even further from that. About how much further is that additional setback? Mr. Richardson answered it is approximately five feet. Board Member Lawson continued that the perception of looking at this facing at you, then actually there is a significant amount of this being recessed even further back from the property line than the eight feet or whatever is set here. With respect to the wall along there, I would like to get clarification from staff first; that has to do with the retaining wall. There was comment made earlier that the six foot walls are intended for visual blocking and sound. I was not aware that sound was a built in requirement for those walls. Can you clarify that? Mr. Jones answered that for any type of commercial property that is located adjacent to a residential use, it is written in the Master Plan that a solid masonry wall be provided. Typically it is for privacy and sound from the commercial use for the adjacent residences. Board Member Lawson asked when you speak of sound, is it hit with requirements of certain decibel readings and that level of compliance? Mr. Jones said no, not that particular wall. Board Member Lawson commented it is intended in concept that everyone recognizes that a solid masonry wall is going to provide better sound buffering, but it is not to require a certain precise dropage of decibel readings. Mr. Jones said that is correct. Board Member Lawson said based upon that clarification, he doesn't have the question for Mr. Jones. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, added there were a lot of comments on the Manual being the bible, etc., and the standards have to be strictly followed, but I think it is important to understand that in terms of development standards in many cases there are ranges. For instance, on the height, even though you have parameters, the development can fit within those parameters at different points in the range. So that isn't set in stone. Likewise, when you are talking about policies such as compatibility with surrounding development and sensitivity to the neighborhood and compatibility in size and character, those types of decisions are by their very nature discretionary and that is why the Board is here, to make those decisions and to make determinations based on the evidence and the presentation as to whether or not those developments are in keeping with the neighborhood. It is not something that is black and white and you can always definitively say, this is okay and this is not okay. There are guidelines, there are standards, but within those standards, there is often discretion for the Board. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 16 of 24 Board Member Schumacher asked about the wall between the subject property and the one to the east. Also the one to the south as well. The project to the east is getting a six foot wall as well? Are they required to put in a six foot wall also? Mr. Richardson said yes. Their grade has been a little bit of a moving target to where we designed our original grade to the proposed grade that he had within his project. It sounds like we know now our engineer checked with the drawings and also worked with David Rick in Engineering, they gave us the new grades. It has been dropped considerably, two and a half feet, which has also now changed for us. At the last minute David Rick and Cliff Jones called us and we did an overnight design with the civil engineer changing our grade on the east wall so that the drawings you have were accurate to the new as- built condition that was set up by the grading plans that were used for the grading. If it is more then two and half feet, I wonder if their grading meets the intent of their original design. I am shocked that it changed that much. Normally Engineering is really tough on us. Once we do the grades like we have here now, they are going to be really tough on us when we come back for a grading permit, It is interesting it dropped so far. Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Richardson about the property to the east that had a finished grade that was the same as your existing finished grade. Now he has put up a six foot masonry wall, correct? Then you are going to bring your finished grade up three feet, correct? Then put another six-foot masonry wall on top of that? Is that what you are doing? Mr. Richardson answered no. Our original grade was actually below his grade. Our grade on the east side was actually below him to where we were originally. Board Member Marquez asked if he lowered his? Mr. Richardson said yes, he lowered his grade. Board Member Marquez commented she noticed there is about a two foot difference between his grade now and your existing grade. But now you are bringing your existing grade up another three feet with a retaining wall? Is that true? Mr. Richardson asked David Rick to answer that. David Rick said the grade on the subject property is being raised anywhere between about a half foot to two feet. Board Member Marquez asked if that was where it is presently? Mr. Rick answered right, on the southeast corner. Depending on where you take the grade, it has a variation. Board Member Marquez asked what kind of separation is going to be between these two walls separating the properties? Mr. Rick said he doesn't know the exact measurement, but it is anywhere between no more then a foot, based on Mr. Bovenzi's plan and comparing with the subject property. Board Member Marquez said Mr. Bovenzi put a wall cap on top of his nice masonry wall. I am wondering how close the applicant's wall is going to be to that and how that is going to look. Mr. Rick said that is a good question. I don't know how far that cap stretches out because I don't have that detail in front of me. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 17 of 24 Board Member Marquez guessed about three inches on each side. Mr. Richardson said originally it was set up that we had offered to even put the wall up for him and then he got ahead of us and so he put his wall up separate from our's. Of course, his needs to be completely on his property. Board Member Marquez agreed and then said your footing will have to be designed differently because it is a retaining wall. Mr. Richardson answered absolutely. His footing should be engineered to be completely on his side. Board Member Lawson just wanted to make this clear. So we are going to have a wall and a foot between basically two walls? Mr. Richardson said no, our's is a property line wall. You can only put it within an inch of the property line. So we need to find out from Mike Bovenzi where he put his wall. Whether he put it right on the property line or a distance in. Our wall cannot go over our property line, either the footing or the wall or the cap, nothing can go over that wall, and it has to be completely self-designed to carry our loads, our design, and anything that is against him. Like right now, if he is above us and he has a wall with a footing, our wall has to be engineered to take his footing so his soil pressure is coming towards us, we have to engineer for that. Board Member Baker commented how odd that is going to be to have two walls with dead space in between that will fill up with trash and weeds. Isn't there a way to share the wall? Make this work? Mr. Jones said with regards to what the Board would like to see the finished wall appear as, the Design Review Board has the discretionary approval to make a recommendation for what they would like to see the wall height as. If that means having additional separation for the wall height, that could be done or keeping the wall height very close, maybe up to that point where the walls meet at a higher point, that could be proposed as well. Mr. Rick clarified that he did some measurements and the subject property wall is six inches from the property line, and it appears that from Mr. Bovenzi's plan, that wall is also six inches according to the plan from the property line. Chairperson Heineman said then there would be a foot gap between them? Mr. Rick answered right, a foot gap. Board Member Baker has a question for Mr. Jones. One of the speakers, Mr. Dreifuss, said this project is over the amount of units that is allowed. Could you give the audience a brief explanation about the growth control plan. Mr. Jones said the City does have a Growth Management Ordinance, and the range within the RMH designation that this property is receiving is 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The growth management control point restricts that to 11.5 dwelling units per acre. I believe that is where they were getting that lower calculation for the number of units. However, if certain conditions are made by the Board, the number of units could be increased over that growth management control point. Those conditions are included in the Design Review Board Resolution. They are related to certain types of public improvements already being there in place and those findings have been found in the Design Review Board Resolution. It is up to the Board to adopt it. It is also noteworthy that this project as it is proposed, is at a density of 14.89 dwelling units per acre. Within the Redevelopment Area, you can actually dedicate a higher density based upon project compatibility. So the project could have received a RH zoning designation. However, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 18 of 24 it wouldn't meet the general plan because it would be less then the 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre. So the project did receive an RMH density designation. Chairperson Meineman reiterated then it is in compliance. Mr. Jones said correct. Ms. Mobaldi interjected with regard to the question about the wall; Ms. Fountain and I have been discussing it. I believe the manual requires that you have a masonry wall in between residential and commercial development, and it seems to me that there is already one there even though it is on the adjacent property, that you are meeting that requirement. At least as to the east side and perhaps on the south if there is no masonry wall, you would have to have this developer install one there. Chairperson Heineman said he thinks that is the answer to the wall. Mr. Jones said the additional height was proposed for screening, but a six-foot wall could be proposed. Ms. Mobaldi said the Board can also consider other things for screening, assuming the wall is already there, additional landscaping and that sort of thing in terms of screening if you feel that is necessary. They wouldn't have to have necessarily two walls. Board Member Marquez said the property owner to the east, his wall will not retain the soil they are going to back up against it. The extra three feet they are putting up against it so the applicant has to construct a wall. Now are you saying that wall will just extend three feet over the retaining wall that is retaining the soil because that is part of finished grade, that retaining wall, and you have to go six feet up over that so that is nine feet of masonry wall? Ms. Mobaldi said she is not addressing this from an engineering standpoint, so I don't have an understanding of that. Board Member Marquez questioned still needing two walls. Ms. Mobaldi said you may feel you need two walls. I am just saying that the Manual says there needs to be a masonry wall between the commercial and the residential. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to have two, one on each property. I was just trying to answer Board Member Baker's question about the wall. Board Member Marquez thought maybe we could have the two walls married at the ends so that we wouldn't have the foot separation. We'll talk about that when we get to our discussion. Board Member Lawson reiterated what he was hearing Ms. Mobaldi say that there is the potential that however you get to this pad elevation that is equivalent to the perimeter, which is approximately three feet of additional retaining, but above and beyond that point, that remaining wall doesn't necessarily have to be masonry wall if there already is a masonry component along the property line. Am I making any sense with that? Ms. Mobaldi said that is a legitimate interpretation, yes. Board Member Lawson said then it may be open for an alternative material that if the asthetics issue of be it 9 feet or 11 feet, or whatever it is, there is an opportunity to either be working with a different material, whether it be wood fencing or something else that the owner is willing to put there instead of continuing a masonry wall along that boundary line. That would be up to them if they want to proceed further with this project. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 19 of 24 Chairperson Heineman commented it is not the Board's decision. ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 302, recommending approval of RP 04-11 and adopt Design Review Board Resolution 303 recommending approval of CDP 04-30 and adopt Design Review Board Resolution 304 recommending approval of CT 05-03 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Board Member Lawson wanted to know how we can put in a request to try to get the wall issue resolved or whether or not we really even need to. Because understanding the process by which this project moves forward, we are just providing a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission which is an additional public hearing process. Between now and then the applicant may explore alternatives on how to address some of the discussions that have surfaced here this evening. Is there any need to add anything else into that because I personally hope this issue with the wall around the perimeter will be addressed. Chairperson Heineman said he could add that into the motion by saying, "With the understanding that the question of the wall will be settled by staff and developer." Does that sound good Ms. Mobaldi? Ms. Mobaldi said she doesn't know what "settled" means but, I think they could come up with some recommendations for how to resolve that in light of the Board's concern about the double walls. Chairperson Heineman said then we can say, "With the understanding that they will come up with a settlement." Board Member Lawson commented that he knows there was a lot of heartburn and frustration here this evening with those who have expressed their concerns, and I sympathize with them. I have been through something similar when you have adjacent land uses where the codes are slightly different. It is a question of why aren't the rules that I operated under the same for the guy across the street or next door. When those are not always the same, it can be quite frustrating, but I find staff has done a remarkable job to prove compliance with their codes. I have no reason to think there is any smoke in mirrors to try and get around those codes, and with that in mind, I am very supportive and I do like the design. While I've been on this Board, I have been waiting to see something that I thought looked like this and I am impressed with it. I might not reflect the sentiments of the audience that is here, however what I have seen over the years, and I was born and raised here and go back a number of generations beyond, but this is what I was hoping we would see more of while I have been on the Design Review Board. With that in mind, I am very supportive of this project. Board Member Baker said she supports the project. She does have sympathy. I think Mr. Lawson said it very well. It is difficult when there are different land uses right next to each other. I think the properties to the east and the south develop under the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code and these are under Redevelopment Code. I haven't heard anything at the public hearing tonight that would lead me to think this project doesn't comply with the Design Standards. That being said, it is difficult to make any findings that it isn't compatible with the neighborhood. I think because of the retail, it does have to be closer to the street. Some speakers made reference to the Anastasi project. Retail is close to the street. You walk down State Street, you walk down Grand and they are close to the street with the sidewalk right there. That is something we have been trying to encourage in the village; the 24-hour live/work sort of thing. I think this project will go a ways to help create that atmosphere. I agree with the wall, it seems redundant to have two walls right next to each other with some dead space in between so I would like for the engineer and the applicant and the property owner to the east to try to come to some resolution on how that can happen so we don't have a double wall, one higher, one lower, dead space in between; that just makes no sense. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 20 of 24 Board Member Marquez commented that she is a Village resident and has been for 23 years continually and lives not too far away from this project. The beach bungalow, I am afraid, that I occupy is an endangered species in the Village and it looks like there will be more and more of this type of development coming into town. I think this is a high quality design. I felt very happy with it, and I was very glad to see the tourist serving commercial aspect of the development. I am in total support of the project. I understand a little bit about construction and know about how walls have to be engineered and whatnot so I know this is going to be a challenge for staff, but we will leave it to them. Board Member Schumacher said he doesn't have anything much more to add then what has already been said. I like the project. I think it wasn't maximized in every way. They could have gone a little taller, they could have gotten some more retail in there, and I appreciate that. I think the setbacks on the second level offer some relief architecturally and pull it back away from the street. They could have elected to not do that and get more square footage and then they would have sacrificed the design, but they didn't. I think it is a good model. Chairperson Heineman commented he thinks it is an outstanding project. I think we will be proud of it. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Ms. Fountain presented the next item which is referred to as Madison Square and it is another Major Redevelopment Permit. Again, Cliff Jones, our Assistant Planner in Housing and Redevelopment,^!! do the presentation with assistance from Dave Rick. Mr. Jones said the applicant and part owner, Bruce Baker, is requesting a Major Redevelopment permit for the construction of a 6,234 square foot, three-story, four-unit condominium locaterfat 2737 Madison Street in Land Use District 1 for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Representing Mr. Baker today is his architect, Judson Pittam. The proposed project requires a Major Redevelopment Permit because it involves new construction that has a building permit valuation that is/greater then $150,000. In accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the Major Redevelopment Permit is being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board anpkffnal approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The subject property is located on the west side of/Madison Street, south of Laguna Drive at the intersection of Arbuckle Place and Madison Street. JKe subject property is currently vacant totaling 8,248 square feet with frontage along Madison Street.^According to City records, the last known use for the site was a detached 768 square foot single-famjty'awelling unit, which was in a state of deterioration. The property owner, at the time, not seeing ap^value in the structure, demolished the unit in 1994 in order to make the property more marketable.,70 this date, the lot has remained vacant. The proposed project is bordered by a post office, not onjjno the south, but behind to the west as well. To the north of the proposed project is a residentiajxlse. To the east, across Madison Street, exists a residential use. The proposed development application is for a three-story, four-unit condominium project totaling 6,234 square feet. There aretwo floor plans for the proposed units. Floor plan one totals 1,514 square feet and floor plan two tatefls 1,603 square feet. Each unit has three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Vehicular access to thX'covered resident and guest parking is provided off of Madison Street. Residents may access tb^units through the garage or at the entries along the southside elevation. The Village Master Plan^efnd Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the Village. The purposed project is within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residences This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times- Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: May 09th, 2008 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 09th, day of May, 2008 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of CITY OF CARLSBADNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGI LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE EXTENSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Hous-ing & Redevelopment Commission of the City ofCarlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Coun-cil Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, tooval of a request for an extension ofMajor Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11) CoastalDevelopment Permit (CDP 04-30), and TentativeTract Map (CT 05-03) to allow the construction of amixed-use development project consisting of six (6)condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retailspace on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Streetand 325 Oak Avenue APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15) in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Re-development Area. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal arecordially invited to attend the public hearing. If youhave any questions or would like a copy of the staffreport, please contact Austin Silva in the Housing andRedevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. 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 the Cal-ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City ofCarlsbad, the Housing & Redevelopment Departmenthas determined that the project is categorically ex-empt from the requirement for preparation of environ-mental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of theState CEQA Guidelines as an infill developmentproject. The Housing & Redevelopment Commissionwill be considering approval of the environmental de-termination during the public hearing. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit ex-tension, Coastal Development Permit extension, andTentative Tract Map extension in court, you may belimited to raising only those issues you or someoneelse raised at the public hearing described in this no-tice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad VillageDrive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 at or prior to the publichearing. CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-11x1/CDP 04-30X1/CT05-03x1 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USEEXTENSION CITY OF CARLSBADHOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PUBLISH: May 9, 2008 NCT 2147774 09 (.8/09i9<sAi8AV oaAB aiqiieduioo uiui is x uiui gz leuuot ap apnbjg 09t8/09tS® AJ9AV i|}!/w a|qm3duioo ,,8/g 2 x „1 SOUTHLAND CORP PO BOX 711 DALLAS, TX 75221-0711 MILDRED GUERNSEY 123 2ND AVE 607 SALT LAKE CIT, UT 84103-4755 PAUL & GUSTE ERIKSEN 1201 W 860 N PROVO, UT 84604-3108 RUSSELL LEE BENNETT L L C 6039 E MARIPOSA ST SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251-1935 ANGELO & ANDREA RIVERS 19834 W MINNEZONA AVE LITCHFIELD PA, AZ 85340-6623 K B CARLSBAD INVESTORS L L C 3915 E BROADWAY BLVD 300 TUCSON, AZ 85711-3422 DANIEL WIEHLE 2148 S PEARL DR CAMP VERDE, AZ 86322-6949 DEWANNA HUSCHKA 3522 W 229TH PL TORRANCE, CA 90505-7336 MICHAEL T MARSHALL 5256 PIZZO RANCH RD LA CANADA FLI, CA 91011-1850 WARD 945 S ORANGE GROVE BLVD D PASADENA, CA 91105-1793 SPADARO 212 DONNICK AVE THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360-3313 TRENT 2429 WINDWARD CIR WESTLAKE VILL, CA 91361-3440 BITONTI THOMAS 536 N MISSION DR SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775-2147 MARIE A BITONTI 536 N MISSION DR SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775-2147 FIVE Z NORTH L L C 1579 HIKERS TRAIL DR CHULA VISTA, CA 91915-1826 VERA G MORIN 10952 MORNING STAR DR LA MESA, CA 91941-7232 THOMAS D & LUCINDA VIGNE 3880 HIBISCUS CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3561 STEVEN & MARGARET MACPHERSON 1277 FOREST AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1008 STEPHEN & MARLA FROST 1380 CYNTHIA LN CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1507 BEATRICE H NELSON 3955 SKYLINE RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2746 BRADSHAW 4376 HORIZON DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3652 FRANK E & PATRICIA MALDONADO 4213 BEACH BLUFF RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3607 DINITTO PROPERTIES INC 264 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2915 WILLIAM M KORN 3177 LINCOLN ST F CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2939 31623056 CARLSBAD BLVD L C 2950 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2952 DOROTHY K JOHNSON 3140 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2933 INCIYAN 3076 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2907 JUDY A MIKOVITS 3080 LINCOLN ST 14 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2932 SUE HOCKETT 3080 LINCOLN ST 24 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2976 CALIFORNIA PROPERTY BROKERS I 3324 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2035 STAPES label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 0919/09 lfi®AJ3AV MAI? aiqpduioo luui 19 x mm gz JEUUOJ ap anenbjg 0918/0915® AJ3Atf mm 8|q!iBdiuoo ,,9/9 z x „(. MATTHEW HALL 2604 EL CAMINO REAL 334 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1205 MATTHEW HALL EL CAMINO REAL(2604B) 334 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1214 STEPHEN & SHERRYL FORD 3869 WOODVALE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2757 BERNARD & MARINA GOLDSTEIN 160 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4059 PHYLLIS M HALL 4046 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7401 GOFAT L L C 160 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4059 BERNARD & MARINA GOLDSTEIN 160 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4059 THOMAS D & LUCINDA VIGNE 3880 HIBISCUS CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3379 TOBO INVESTMENTS 2785 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1617 OCEAN MIST L L C 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR 108A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2990 ALBERT & SANDRA BOVENZI 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2900 ROBERT L NIELSEN 525 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2304 GLENN L GOLDMAN 2653 ROOSEVELT ST D CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1667 ROBERT L NIELSEN 525 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2304 CARLSBAD INN L L C 5900 PASTEUR CT 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7336 S S 218 PINE AVE AVEA CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2981 NASSAR THREE III *B* 3217 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3126 STEVEN B & DIANE CASEY 317 PINE AVE 105 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3194 DARRELL R & DEBORAH CUMMINGS 317 PINE AVE 201 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3195 RANDY E & CRYSTAL NARRAMORE 317 PINE AVE 202 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3194 LINDA L NACIF 317 PINE AVE 203 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3184 CRAIG C STERLING 317 PINE AVE 205 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3184 ERIC DUCETTE 317 PINE AVE 209 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3195 FRANK A & SUSAN FERENCZ 349 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 ERIC L & DARLENE FINK 347 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 SAGA 345 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 DANA K GRACE 335 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 AMMON 4070 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2750 GARY C & DEBRA CRUSE 7927 CORTE CAROLINA CARLSBAD, CA 92009-9251 PRISCILLA L DENBY 3154 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4509 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 091-8/09 IQaAiaAV OSAB 3|qpduioa uim /9 x uiiu sz IBiuJQjjp 9] f^ 09t9/09l-9® AJ8AV qj|M 3|q»Bdiuoo ,,8/9 2 x«(. GRANT HOLDINGS L L C 1950 SILVERLEAF CIR C218 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-8434 BUTCHKO *M* 2763 VICTORIA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010-2146 DAVID K & BEVERLY WOODWARD 3413 CORVALLIS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92010-2187 WALTER E & GEORGINA WAGNER 7234 COLUMBINE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92011-5147 MCCABE 6489 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD, CA 92011-3212 LANCE B & KATHLEEN SCHULTE 7386 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD, CA 92011-4692 DANIEL & COLLEEN SOTO PO BOX 353 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-0353 ROBERT L & ELAINE NIELSEN PO BOX 2445 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-2445 ROSE LASKI PO BOX 2686 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-2686 MARK STONE PO BOX 4485 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-4485 JALINDA BASTIAN 560 N HIGHWAY 9 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 BENNETT RUSSELL LEE L L C 951 NEPTUNE AVE ENCINITAS, CA 92024-2077 SCOTT D & LINDA CORDES *M* 315 S COAST HIGHWAY 101 U106 ENCINITAS, CA 92024-3543 TAMARA GREEN 821 EL PAISANO DR FALLBROOK, CA 92028 THOMAS F & GAYLE HODGES 19988 LAKE DR ESCONDIDO, CA 92029-7024 SAN KATRINA L L C 7136 VISTA DEL MAR AVE LA JOLLA, CA 92037-5341 VIRGINIA L GIPNER 1508 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-5511 DENNIS R & JEAN BAUERN 3149 COACHMAN CT OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-3602 HARRY M & SHARON MELLANO PO BOX 100 SAN LUIS KEY, CA 92068-0100 MARGARET I & STANLEY POTTER 856 SEABRIGHT LN SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075-1273 STANLEY G & MARGARET POTTER 856 SEABRIGHT LN SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075-1273 BUTLER PROPERTIES L L C 1261 LINDA VISTA DR SAN MARCOS, CA 92078-3827 DENNIS E & STAGEY BOYER 14149 HILLDALE RD VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082-3432 CYPRESS COVE APTS L P 1322 SCOTT ST 102 SAN DIEGO, CA 92106-3702 WALID & MARCELLA ROMAYA 5422 NAPA ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92110-2617 EUGENE H SIEGEL 5553 TRINITY WAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92120-4503 W G A PINE AVENUE L P 9252 CHESAPEAKE DR 100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-3183 NANCY ANDERSON 8109 SANTALUZ VILLAGE CRN S SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 MILTON WYATT 17160 BOTERO DR SAN DIEGO, CA 92127-1424 NANCY ANDERSON 8109 SANTALUZ VILLAGE CRN SAN DIEGO, CA 92127-2518 STAPLES label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Averv®5160/8160 0918/09 l9(/i8ftv oaAB aiqpduioo luui /g x uiui 93 jeuuoiap a 0918/091.9®AJ8AVifl!/w 9|qm3duioo,,8/gZx„(. MURPHY 12913 POLVERA CT SAN DIEGO, CA 92128-1118 BILL & JULIANNE DEEN 11808 RANCHO BERNARDO RD 123- SAN DIEGO, CA 92128-1927 JULIANNE DEEN 11808 RANCHO BERNARDO RD 123- SAN DIEGO, CA 92128-1927 SUDER 14465 OLD CREEK RD SAN DIEGO, CA 92131-4275 DAVID & CAMILLE DERK 12719 SANDBURG WAY GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313-5823 NANCY L KAUPP-WARNER 30175 VIA DE LA MESA TEMECULA, CA 92591-1684 GARY A CRINGAN 30195 VIA DE LA MESA TEMECULA, CA 92591-1684 BAUMGARTNER PO BOX 1333 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-0333 KORBONSKI 33731 GLOCAMORA LN SAN JUAN CAPI, CA 92675-4957 DAVID WOL.FSON 25 LEWISTON CT LADERA RANCH, CA 92694-0532 C W D 25 LEWISTON CT LADERA RANCH, CA 92694-0532 S C HOTEL L L C 540 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR 214 SANTA ANA, CA 92705-3914 DAHYA PATEL 10815 TURNLEAF LN TUSTIN, CA 92782-4342 SVF LLC 115 W CANON PERDIDO ST 200 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101-3210 TR LOPEZ 3718 SAN REMO DR SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105-7336 ROBERT H SONNEMAN 52 EL SERENO CT SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127-1816 JOHNS 6565 BIRCH DR SANTA ROSA, CA 95404-8587 QUINN A KREKORIAN 6521 ARTEMIS LN WEST LINN, OR 97068-2802 ROBERT B & ELIZABETH HOLMSTRC PO BOX 528 VANCOUVER, WA 98666-0528 Itf9 Printed label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery «5160/8160 Etiauette de format 25 mm x 67 mm comoatible avec AuRrv®5ifin/8ifiO 091-8/09 lS®AJ8Atf08AB aiqpdiuoo iuiu /g x uiiu 92 y&uuoi sp auantoq Q9f"*<j9lfi9 AWAtf ifflM aiqjiBduioo ,,8/9 Z x „ l azis |aqeiV^ CURRENT RESIDENT STATE ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CURRENT RESIDENT 2978 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2903 CURRENT RESIDENT 3016 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2905 CURRENT RESIDENT 3040 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2905 CURRENT RESIDENT 2975 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2979 CURRENT RESIDENT 276 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2978 CURRENT RESIDENT 264 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2915 CURRENT RESIDENT 201 OAK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2965 CURRENT RESIDENT 3155 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2934 CURRENT RESIDENT 3177 LINCOLN ST F CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2939 CURRENT RESIDENT 3179 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2973 CURRENT RESIDENT 3145 CARLSBAD BLVD 102 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2911 CURRENT RESIDENT 3150 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2974 CURRENT RESIDENT 3100 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2959 CURRENT RESIDENT 3180 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2908 CURRENT RESIDENT 3136 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2908 CURRENT RESIDENT 3162 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2908 CURRENT RESIDENT 3056 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2905 CURRENT RESIDENT 3045 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2906 CURRENT RESIDENT 3001 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2964 CURRENT RESIDENT 3001 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2964 CURRENT RESIDENT 3134 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2970 CURRENT RESIDENT 3140 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2933 CURRENT RESIDENT 3160 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2935 CURRENT RESIDENT 3112 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2933 CURRENT RESIDENT 3076 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2907 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 1 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2930 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 2 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2930 STAPtES CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 3 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2930 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 4 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2930 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Averv^'Si 60/8160 091.8/0919®AJ3AV09AB aiqjiediuoo uiiu /g x uiui 92 leuuoj ap auanbig ,,8/g z x „ |. azjs |aqei CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 5 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2930 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 6 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2930 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2929 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 8 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2931 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 9 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2931 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 10 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2931 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 11 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2931 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 12 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2931 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 13 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2932 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 14 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2932 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 15 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2932 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 16 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2950 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 17 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2950 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 18 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2950 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 19 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2950 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 20 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2950 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 21 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2950 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 22 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2976 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 23 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2976 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 24 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2976 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 25 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2977 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 26 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2977 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 27 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2977 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 28 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2977 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 29 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2977 CURRENT RESIDENT 3080 LINCOLN ST 30 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2977 CURRENT RESIDENT 370 WALNUT AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3153 CURRENT RESIDENT 362 WALNUT AVE -64 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3151 STAPLES CURRENT RESIDENT 3254 LINCOLN ST -5 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-8104 CURRENT RESIDENT 3244 LINCOLN ST -4 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3130 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery^Sl 60/8160 0918/09 lfi®AMaAV09AB aiqjjeduioa uiiu zg x uiiu 92 JBUUOJ ap auanb;^ tS® AjaAV IRIM aiqpduioo ,,8/g 2 x „ t azis wi CURRENT RESIDENT 3077 STATE ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2315 CURRENT RESIDENT 3087 STATE ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2315 CURRENT RESIDENT 3095 STATE ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2376 CURRENT RESIDENT 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2900 CURRENT RESIDENT 325 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2928 CURRENT RESIDENT 355 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2918 CURRENT RESIDENT 363 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2918 CURRENT RESIDENT 377 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2918 CURRENT RESIDENT 395 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2918 CURRENT RESIDENT 395 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2918 CURRENT RESIDENT 399 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2918 CURRENT RESIDENT 417 CARLSBAD VILLAGEDR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2302 CURRENT RESIDENT 3195 TYLER ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3025 CURRENT RESIDENT 3031 WASHINGTON ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2963 CURRENT RESIDENT 3031 WASHINGTON ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2963 CURRENT RESIDENT 250 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3137 CURRENT RESIDENT 218 PINE AVE AVEA CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2981 CURRENT RESIDENT 335 OAK AVE A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2945 CURRENT RESIDENT 341 OAK AVE -47 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2945 CURRENT RESIDENT 391 OAK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2947 CURRENT RESIDENT 393 OAK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2975 CURRENT RESIDENT 381 OAK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2946 CURRENT RESIDENT 371 OAK AVE - CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2945 CURRENT RESIDENT 325 OAK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2945 CURRENT RESIDENT 336 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3174 CURRENT RESIDENT 354 OAK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2944 CURRENT RESIDENT 390 OAK AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2966 CURRENT RESIDENT 165 PINE AVE -75 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3136 STAPtES CURRENT RESIDENT 3217 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3126 CURRENT RESIDENT 3235 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3126 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 091-8/09 i.s@Amv33AB aiqpduioo uiiu ia x uiui 92 JBUIJOJ ap awanbig ,,8/S Z x «I az|s iaqe| CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 00020 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3180 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 101 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3183 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 102 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3183 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 103 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3183 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 104 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3183 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 105 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3194 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 201 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3195 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 202 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3194 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 203 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3184 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 204 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3184 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 205 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3184 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 206 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3184 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 207 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3195 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 208 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3195 CURRENT RESIDENT 317 PINE AVE 209 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3195 CURRENT RESIDENT 355 PINE AVE -95 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3158 CURRENT RESIDENT 349 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 CURRENT RESIDENT 347 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 CURRENT RESIDENT 345 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 CURRENT RESIDENT 343 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 CURRENT RESIDENT 341 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 CURRENT RESIDENT 339 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 CURRENT RESIDENT 337 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 CURRENT RESIDENT 335 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 *** 115 Printed *** CURRENT RESIDENT 333 PINE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3163 STAPC-ES label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avefv®5l 60/8160 (05/06/2008) Sheila Cobian - Lincoln OalyMixed Use PH 5-20-08.doc CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE EXTENSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, to consider approval of a request for an extension of Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) to allow the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue (APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15) in Land Use District 9 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 Austin Silva 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 Housing & Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit extension, Coastal Development Permit extension, and Tentative Tract Map extension 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, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-11x1/CDP 04-30x1/CT 05-03x1 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE EXTENSION PUBLISH: MAY 9, 2008 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use ExtensionHousing & Redevelopment CommissionMay 20, 2008 Location MapSITE Subject Property Multi-Family to the South Multi-Family to the East Multi-Family to the North Commercial to the WestWRONG PHOTO Proposed DevelopmentThree-story mixed-use project 1,913 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space6 residential units ranging in size from 3,211 sq. ft. to 4,535 sq. ft.Parking is visually screened within the ground floor of the building Building CoverageRequired: 60%-80%Proposed: 72.6%HeightRequired: 45’ w/ min 5:12 roof pitchProposed: 41’ w/ 5:12 roof pitchOpen Space Required: 20%Proposed: 42.5%ParkingRetail Req: 6 spacesResidential Req:15 spaces= 21 spaces total 22 spaces providedStandards ComplianceSetbacks Required:Front: 5’-20’S. Side: 5’-10’N. Side: 5’-10’Rear: 5’-15’Setbacks Proposed:Front: 8’ 3”S. Side: 7’ 7”N. Side: 7’Rear: 7’ Strong relationship to streetArchitectural relief at upper levelsDesign Features:Travertine along first floorDecorative fountain at the corner of the siteLow lying walls to sit onVarious sized windows with decorative trim. 2nd& 3rdfloor balconiesVarious building recessesDecorative doorsTile roofing w/ 5:12 roof pitchVaried building colorsAbundance of open space and landscapingVisually screened parkingProject Design Street Side and South Side ElevationNorthSouth Front and Rear ElevationWestSouth Environmental ReviewProposed project is an infill development project and exempt from CEQA review pursuant to section 15332 Staff RecommendationStaff is recommending approval of the two-year extension for the Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-23), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03).