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).