HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-26; Design Review Board; Minutesa. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26,1998 Page 1
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of Meeting: January 26,1998
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Board Member Savary.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Members Compas, Savary, and Marquez.
Absent: Scheer
Staff Present: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION: Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of December
22, 1997, as amended.
VOTE: 3-0-1
AYES: Welshons, Compas, and Marquez
NOES:. None
ABSTAIN: Savary
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. RP 97-03 - JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY - A request for approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit to
allow the construction of a new 9587 square foot youth facility. The requested permit includes requests for the
following variances: a) for rear setbacks which exceed the maximum range; b) a portion of the front and the
side setbacks to be reduced to zero feet, which are below the minimum requirement of 5 feet; c) a gym roof
which does not provide for the required 4:12 roof pitch; and, d) an off-site loading and unloading area for
participants. The project is proposed for property located on the west side of Roosevelt Street (mid-block)
between Pine Avenue and Walnut Street in the Village Land Use District No. 5.
Chairperson Welshons asked the applicant, Frank Sorino, to step to the podium and asked him if he was agreeable
to having this item heard even though there were only four Board Members present. Mr. Sorino agreed to have the
*I -
. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 2
item heard with only four members present.
Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain, presented the staff report, and slide presentation,
and summarized the project as follows: This is the second hearing on this item having been continued from the
meeting of November 24, 1997, so that the Board could consider variances for the project. At the first presentation,
staff recommended that the project be redesigned and some of the variances not be granted. The variances that
staff recommended be denied are the subject of this meeting. As supplemental report, in addition to the original
report, has been given to the Board for consideration. This is a request for a major redevelopment permit and is to
construct a 9587 square foot youth facility on a vacant lot. This property is located on Roosevelt Street, between
Pine and Walnut, and identified as three lots. The facility will provide for a variety of youth sport activities, to serve
at-risk lower income youths of Carlsbad. It is proposed as a two-story building with a variety of different programs
offered within its walls. This project is located in Land.Use District 5 of the Village Redevelopment Area and youth
facilities are permitted on a provisional basis, which means the uses are examined, very closely, to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses. If there are any special conditions for operation required, they can be placed on
the project as one of provisional use. The site is not located in the Coastal Zone so a Coastal Development Permit is
not required. The project is consistent with the Village Vision, goals, and objectives because it does provide a place
for people to come to be a part of community events. In this case, those people are youths. It is consistent with the
General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. It re-enforces a pedestrian orientation, provides for recreational as well
as civic and cultural opportunities for youths, and it assists with the effort to create a distinct identity through the
design of the building and consistency with the Design Guidelines.
There is no specific parking standard for youth facilities so staff recommends that the elementary school standard be
applied. This would provide one parking space for each employee. This facility will employ one full-time employee
and one part-time employee, hence there will be two parking spaces required. The project, as it is currently
proposed, will provide for a total of three spaces; two regular and one disabled. If the elementary school standard is
applied, then this project would meet the parking requirement. It is required that the Design Review Board make the
determination that the elementary school standard is the appropriate standard for this project. Some of the options
that were considered for other parking standards were gyms and health clubs, public assembly, and the high school.
For a number of reasons, staff decided that the options were not as applicable as the elementary school standard,
primarily because of the age group that will be served by this facility. The average age of the participants at this
facility is fourteen. Also, this facility will be in a primarily residential area and the children will walk from home to the
facility. Based on the fact that this is a project focused on "at risk and low income youth, staff believes the
elementary school standard to be the most appropriate. If the Elementary School standard is accepted, a variance
would have to be granted for the loading and unloading area because there is no room for such an area on-site in the
current design. The applicant has proposed that the loading and unloading area be located off of Tyler Street, to the
rear of the building, but it is also possible that youths can be loaded and unloaded off of Roosevelt Street in front of
the center. Either way, it is off site and a variance would have to be granted in order to have it accepted as meeting
the parking standard.
The front setback requirements are set in a range of five to ten feet. The proposed front setback for this project
ranges from zero to twenty feet. In the original report, staff recommended that the Design Review Board approve the
front setback which exceeded the maximum range, to twenty feet. However, staff recommended a redesign of the
project to have a minimum of five feet on the front setback. As the project is currently designed, about 51% of the
building front is at the five foot setback, 33% is at the twenty foot setback, and 16% is at the zero setback (the
entryway into the building). Under the supplemental report, staff has provided findings for the Board's consideration,
to be able to grant the variance that would allow 16% of the front of the building to be reduced to a zero front setback.
As proposed, this project has side setbacks of zero feet. The rear setback range is from 31'3", to 39' to
accommodate parking, a landscaped area, and some other features that will require the setback to be that large.
Staff recommended that the rear setbacks be allowed to exceed the range but again requiring a re-design to allow for
a five foot setback on each side of the building. The supplemental report provides findings needed to approve the
proposed zero side setbacks. Also, findings have to be made to allow the front and side setbacks to be reduced to
the minimum of five feet. The top of the range is considered desirable but five feet is acceptable as long as the
findings can be made.
. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 3
The project meets the open space requirement; a minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open
space which includes landscaped area, planter areas, walkways, balconies, and a wide variety of other like spaces.
This project, as proposed, provides for 23.32% of the site for open space. If the redesign were done, there would
probably be a slight increase in the amount of open space. The desired percentage of building coverage is 60% to
80% and this project, as it is currently designed, has a footprint coverage of 64.7%. This footprint, however, would
be slightly reduced if the project was re-designed as staff had originally suggested.
The height limit of Land Use District 5, is 30 feet with a 4:12 roof pitch. At its highest point over the gym, as indicated
in the current design for properties within the roof will be 30 feet in height. The project has been designed with
pitched roof features, at the front and rear, but the gym portion of the roof is flat. If the Board is willing to allow the
building to be constructed with a flat roof, a variance would have to be granted to relieve the project of having to meet
the 4:12 requirement. Findings have been again provided to aid the Board in granting the variance. The applicant
has provided information indicating that if they are required to provide that 4:12 roof pitch, they would not be able to
get the-30 foot height, in the gym, that they need. By their calculations, the pitched roof would reduce the total
building area by 10% to 15%.
Access to the parking will be from Tyler Street and not from Roosevelt Street. Also, the project is required to put in a
solid masonry wall, between the project and the residential building to the north. The masonry wall to the north has
been included in the proposed design. Regarding the south side of the project, there is an existing masonry wall at
that location if a new one is not necessary.
The project as been designed in a manner that is consistent with the City’s design principles and the proposed
signage is consistent with the standards that are desired for the Village character.
This is a Major Redevelopment Permit because the estimated building permit valuation is over $150,000. The
Design Review Board recommendation is required and will be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission. Again, the project is not in the Coastal Zone, so there is no Coastal Development Permit required.
Because all of the improvements are already in, the only additional public improvement required of this project is to
install the driveway apron off Tyler Street.
The applicant will also be required to make a Lot Line Adjustment to convert the three parcels into a single parcel, for
development purposes.
The EIR was completed and the Negative Declaration was issued on September 19, 1997. No comments have been
received from the public. This is a non-profit organization and therefore no tax revenue will be realized.
It is hoped that this project will be the catalyst for other improvements in the area.
Member Savary asked if the flat part of the roof could be seen from the front or rear of the building and Ms. Fountain
replied that it would not be seen.
In reply to a question from Chairperson Welshons, Ms. Fountain responded that the flat roof, however, would be seen
from the sides of the building and the adjacent properties.
Chairperson Welshons stated that she was not aware of a “fee exemption status” (with regard to make
improvements) and asked Ms. Fountain to clarify.
Ms. Fountain replied that it is possible that there is no longer an exemption for “non-profit” and, if so, there will be an
adjustment made.
Chairperson Welshons, while on the subject of non-profit, asked what would prevent an applicant from building under
a non-profit status (thereby avoiding the improvements fees), and when the building is complete, changing its use a
for-profit business.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 4
Ms. Fountain stated that there really is not prevention in place. However, if that should ever happen, it would
probably be up to Code Enforcement to deal with the problem.
Chairperson Welshons pointed out that the proposed window, on the south side of the building, appears to be so low
that the adjacent building somewhat obstructs it, and asked if that will be corrected.
Ms. Fountain stated that the window will probably have to be raised.
Chairperson Welshons asked if there are any additional city codes that would preclude the facility’s participants from
having a barbecue in the back area outside the building. Ms. Fountain replied that the project was designed to
include the rear landscaped area and the barbecue and it will be up to the Fire Department or the Building
Department to impose any regulations necessary.
Regarding the request for a variance for the rear setback, Chairperson Welshons asked how an applicant could
otherwise have parking, if the maximum setback must be exceeded in order to put that parking in.
Ms. Fountain replied that it would probably be pretty difficult, in most cases, unless the building could be placed in
another position to allow for the parking without exceeding the maximum acceptable setback.
Chairperson Welshons stated that the applicant had mentioned that the Senior Center parking lot could be used for
parking for special events or overflow parking and asked what the City’s position is regarding the use of another
facility’s parking.
Ms. Fountain replied that there is no specific policy governing that issue. Generally, public parking lots are available
for use when there are public events. It is suggested, she added, that if a situation like that should arise it would be
expected that one party would contact the other to make sure there will not be any conflicts. Staff would not suggest
that the applicant be required to obtain an agreement from the Senior Citizen Center. Agreements could be made on
a case-by-case basis.
Applicant, Frank Sorino, 3528 Madison Street, Carlsbad, submitted photographs of the property, a petition containing
a large number of signatures in support of the variances and the project as a whole, and a letter from the Carlsbad
Youth Enrichment Services to the Board, a copy of which is on file in the Office of Housing and Redevelopment.
Regarding Chairperson Welshons’ concern about the window in the south wall, Mr. Sorino stated that it will be
recessed and it not up against the wall of the adjacent property.
With regard to setback variances, Mr. Sorino pointed out that when they bought this property, there were no set back
requirements. In addition, he stated that they purchased this property specifically because there were no setback
requirements and although it would be a tight fit, they considered this property to be exactly what they wanted. He
also pointed out that they need every bit of space they can get in order to provide the activities that are necessary for
the success of this program. He emphasized that the gym is an integral part of the overall success of this project.
Member Compas asked Mr. Sorino if, in his talks with the neighborhood residents, he encountered anyone who is
against this project.
Mr. Sorino replied that he had not met anyone who is against it, as yet. He added that he is going to be discussing
the project with others in the very near future. Also, no one refused to sign the petition.
Regarding the proposed basketball court, Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Sorino if he knows what the dimensions
of a regulation court are and what will be the size of the court at the youth center.
Mr. Sorino stated that it depends on whether it is a professional, college, or high school court. The professional court
is 100 feet and a high school court is 84 feet. He further stated that the proposed court at the center will be
approximately 71 feet.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 5
Chairperson Welshons asked why his court is short and why they chose not to turn the building around so they could
have a regulation sized court.
Mr. Sorino replied that they considered turning the building around but found that by doing so, the building became
misaligned; the two story portion would be looking into their neighbors’ windows; the sun-deck would be in the shade;
etc. He went on to state that short courts are not unusual and even though their court will be short, it will serve the
needs of the participants.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Sorino to explain the meaning of the following statement that was made at an
earlier hearing. “We are a non-profit organization which is required to maximize the available contributions to the
organization, for the subject facility.”
Mr. Sorino’s response was that he is required to make every attempt to get the most benefit out of the contributions,
from negotiating for the lowest purchase price possible for the land, to building the largest and most functional
building for the least amount of money.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Sorino if he has CDBG money pending to building this facility and if he has to build
this exact building or something smaller.
Mr. Sorino stated that they do have CDBG money pending and that they arrived at the size of the proposed building
because it will accommodate all the activities necessary to meet the needs of the youth of the neighborhood.
Chairperson Welshons asked if the kitchen is going to be a commercial style kitchen and is there going to be a hood
over the stove.
Mr. Sorino deferred to the architect, Paul Longton, to answer that question.
Chairperson Welshons asked what percentage of the participants are male and what percentage are female.
Mr. Sorino was unsure of the exact number but stated that there are many more boys than girls.
Chairperson Welshons asked where Mr. Sorino conducts his soccer program.
Mr. Sorino replied that they use empty fields, parks, etc.
Chairperson Welshons, indicating that membership is free, asked Mr. Sorino what his funding source(s) is (are) for
maintenance of the operation of his programs and what his predictions are for what funds will be necessary for its
maintenance in the future.
Mr. Sorino stated that they have concentrated on raising building funds through charity auctions and other fund
raising activities. Now that they have grant money pending for the construction, they are concentrating on various
fund raising activities as well as securing grants and other public and private contributions for the maintenance. As
for the operating budget, Mr. Sorino estimated their operating costs to be approximately $1 50,000 annually.
However, those costs will decrease depending upon how much money and/or equipment they receive each year.
Chairperson Welshons asked if Mr. Sorino expects this facility to ever be used by anyone other that youths and
teens.
Mr. Sorino replied that this is strictly a youth facility but that there may be times when adults may wish to attend some
type of exhibition, such as a professional boxing exhibition, or other special event at the facility. Also, if a parent
wishes to come with their child or children, occasionally, that would be acceptable.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Sorino if only one full time employee and one part-time employee is all that will be
necessary for adequate supervision.
- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 6
Mr. Sorino replied that there will be volunteers available to assist the paid staff.
Chairperson Welshons asked how many supervisors would be necessary to adequately supervise the participants if
the facility was filled, or nearly filled, to capacity.
Mr. Sorino stated that on a normal day, no more than two would be required. However, in the case of a special
event, as many volunteer supervisors as necessary would be brought in.
Member Marquez asked where the weight equipment will be located. Ms. Marquez also asked what the ratio of
youths to supervisors will be.
Mr. Sorino indicated, on the exhibit, approximately where the weights will be located. As for the ratio of youths to
supervisors, Mr. Sorino indicated that it will probably be about 11 to 15 youths per supervisor.
Member Marquez voiced her concern for having many activities going on, all at the same time, and not having
enough supervision.
Mr. Sorino pointed out that he has been operating this program for seven years and there is a specific time allocated
to each activity so that the activities don’t overlap each other and give cause for additional supervision. In addition,
Mr. Sorino estimated that it would be unusual to have more than 20 to 23 kids, at the facility, at any given time.
Chairperson Welshons pointed out that the facility is being conditioned to provide appropriate adult supervision, at all
times, and if Mr. Sorino cannot provide the number of attendees, the Board will have to make the determination as to
what the ratio of youths to supervisors will be.
Mr. Sorino replied that generally no more than two supervisors are required and if there happens to be an unusually
large group, the older teens of the group help supervise the younger kids.
Chairperson Welshons opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Arthur Sternberg, 3156 Harding Street, Carlsbad, stated that he is an adult volunteer and strongly favors the granting
of all of the variances so as to allow this facility to be constructed.
Oscar de la Riva, 3676 Harding Street, Carlsbad, enthusiastically stated his support for the granting of all variances
and the construction of this facility. He emphasized the need for such facilities not only in the barrio but it other areas
as well.
Reverend Tom Sallen, 502 N. Ditmar Street, Oceanside, urged the Board to grant the necessary variances and also
stated how great the need is for facilities, such as this one, for all of our youth.
Dennis Cunningham, 7105 Azalea Place, Carlsbad, reminded the Board that if this issue had come before the Board
before the setback ordinance revision(s), an approval of variances would not be necessary. With that in mind, he
asked that the Board be mindful of that fact and urged them to approve all of the variances so this project can
proceed as proposed.
Juan Flores, 965 Laguna Drive, Carlsbad, urged approval of this project, as a whole. He also assured the Board that
although the basketball court will not be of regulation size, it will be just fine for practice.
Antonio Deo, 677 Magnolia Avenue, Apt “A, Carlsbad, stated that he has been associated with this program since its
inception, and credited Mr. Sorino for turning his life around. He urged the Board to approve the project so other kids
can benefit from it like he has.
Joe Finnini, 2370 Rising Glen Way, Carlsbad, stated that he is an adult volunteer and urged the Board to approve all
of the variances and to forward their approvals to the City Council so this project can become a reality.
- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26,1998 Page 7
Paul Longton, 2909 Mesa Drive, Oceanside, stated that he is the architect and in answer to the questions regarding
the kitchen, he said that they have not discussed the equipment to date. He stated that he will be talking with the
Building Department and they will do whatever is necessary according to the code. He pointed out that the kitchen is
too small to be used in a commercial way and whether they use any commercial style equipment is yet to be
determined. However, if the city requires a hood to be installed over the stove, then they will install one, regardless
of what style of equipment is used.
Member Marquez asked if it has ever been anticipated that the upstairs area would be used as a dwelling unit and
also if Mr. Longton knows what the occupancy load will be.
Mr. Longton replied that there has never been any mention of using the upstairs as a dwelling unit. As far as the
occupancy load, he stated that he does not know how it will actually be defined but that each room could have its
own occupancy maximums, the total of which would make up the building’s maximum occupancy load.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Welshons closed Public Testimony.
Chairperson stated that when the Girl’s Club built their facility, they were required to install a very expensive exhaust
hood over their kitchen stove and asked if that was a requirement specific to the Girl’s Club or will that also be
required for this project.
Ms. Fountain stated that she was not involved with the Girl’s Club project, but it is her understanding that it was
always the intention of the Girl’s Club to not only used the kitchen for their own functions, but to rent the facility out to
other organizations and for private parties. It was designed to be more of a commercial type kitchen and therefore
required the exhaust hood.
MAIN MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution
No. 259, recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 260, recommending approval of RP 97-03, to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, with variances for; 1) the front and rear setbacks which exceed
the range; 2) the front and side setbacks below the minimum to zero feet; 3) the gym roof
which does not meet the requirement for a 4:12 roof pitch; and, 4) an off-site
loading/unloading area to be provided off Tyler Street at the sidewalk curb for participants,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Straw Votes and Discussions on each variance and finding were as follows:
Variance #I: Front setback below the minimum range to zero feet.
VOTE: 3-1
AYES: Compas, Savary, and Marquez
NOES: Welshons
Variance #2: Front setback exceeding the maximum of the acceptable range.
VOTE: 4-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Welshons, Compas, Savary, and Marquez
Finding #I: To allow 51% of the building to drop to a minimum of five feet in front.
VOTE: 4-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Welshons, Compas, Savary, and Marquez
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26,1998
Variance #3: Side setbacks below the minimum of the acceptable range.
(A). South Side (zero setback)
VOTE: 3-1
AYES: Compas, Savary, and Marquez
NOES: Welshons
(B). North Side (zero setback)
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie)
AYES: Compas and Savary
NOES: Welshons and Marquez
Variance #4: Rear setback exceeding the maximum of the acceptable range.
VOTE: 4-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Welshons, Compas, Savary, and Marquez
Variance #5: Roof Design
VOTE: 3-1
AYES: Compas, Savary, and Marquez
NOES: Welshons
Finding #2: Parking
(A) Elementary School Parking Standard
VOTE: 3-1
AYES: Welshons, Compas, and Savary
NOES: Marquez
(B) Parking spaces based on the number of employees.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie)
AYES: Compas and Savary
NOES: Welshons and Marquez
Variance #6 Off-site loading and unloading area.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie)
AYES: Compas and Savary
NOES: Welshons and Marquez
Discussion:
Variance # 3(B) Zero setback - north side
Page 8
Member Savary stated her support for the zero setback because they will be building a security wall to protect the
neighboring property.
. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 9
Member Marquez stated that she cannot support the zero setback because, in her opinion, it will not work well with
the neighboring dwelling unit.
Member Compas agreed with Member Marquez and stated his non-support for the zero setback on the north side.
Chairperson Welshons stated that she cannot support the zero setback, because there comes a time when the
Design Guidelines must be upheld, particularly in the event of an emergency, such as a fire.
adult volunteers that will
VOTE: 1-3
AYES: Savary
NOES: Welshons, Compas, and Marquez
Finding #2(B) Parking spaces based on the number of employees.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie) Motion failed
AYES: Compas and Savary
NOES: Welshons and Marquez
Member Marquez stated that, based on the testimony, it appears that there will b cl parking spaces and she believes that the volunteers should be counted in the number of employees, whether they
are paid employees or not. Also, it is her belief that the Elementary School Parking standard does not apply to this
project.
Member Compas stated his support for the Elementary School Parking standard. He pointed out that for the vast
majority of the time, there will not be a large enough number of participants to require more than one or two
supervisors and therefore more parking will not be needed. He also pointed out that this is a very worthwhile project
and it is possible that it will not be completed if they are required to provide more parking.
Chairperson Welshons agreed with Member Marquez but added that it appears that there will be parents and adult
siblings that will also use the facility and they will require parking facilities as well as guest instructors and
volunteers. She further stated that she feels that they are definitely not meeting the parking requirements, based on
this evening’s testimony.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie) Motion failed
AYES: Compas and Savary
NOES: Welshons and Marquez
Variance #6 Off-site loading and unloading area.
Member Marquez stated that she had driven by the site at about 3 p.m., this date, and noted that there was only one
parking-space on Tyler Street and none on Roosevelt. She further stated that, in the interest of public safety, there
should be an on-site designated area for loading and unloading.
Chairperson Welshons asked if it is possible to require the applicant to provide a circulation plan that would designate
how children would be safely loaded and unloaded at this site, with the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie) Motion failed
AYES: Compas and Savary
NOES: Welshons and Marquez
* DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 10
Member Compas amended his original motion as follow:
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution
No. 259, recommending approval of a Negative Declaration.
Welshons, Compas, Savary, and Marquez
VOTE: 4-0
AYES:
NOES: None
DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT:
Member Compas stated that this project should be approved because it is in the best interests of the City as well as
the youth of the city.
Member Savary agreed with Member Compas and stated that this is a needed facility and is beneficial to the city as a
whole. She pointed out that this Board is not the final authority and that the results of these public hearings should
be forwarded to the higher authorities for their consideration and their decision.
Member Marquez stated that she thinks the program is commendable, but, the problem she has is with the design of
the building. She went on to say that she does not think it meets the standards and the parking is going to be
inadequate which will result in impacting an already impacted area.
Chairperson Welshons agreed with Member Marquez but added that she feels that this project is a much too
ambitious in its attempt to satisfy all the activities at one time. She suggested that the project be scaled down to
include only two or three activities, thereby allowing the building to be scaled down so that all of the requirements
can be met. Also, Ms. Welshons pointed out that there are nine (9) different variances or findings that this Board is
being asked to approve and, in her opinion, that is just too much. She stated that she cannot, in good conscience,
approve of that many deviations from the norm and can’t overlook the Design Guidelines by circumventing them.
ACTION: Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to recommend denial of Design Review
Board Resolution No. 260, RP 97-03, because it lacks adequate parking and an appropriate
on-site loading and unloading area.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie) Motion failed
AYES: Welshons and Marquez
NOES: Compas and Savary
ACTION : Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to recommend approval of Design Review
Board Resolution No. 260, recommending approval of RP 97-03, to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, including all variances, except that variance for the north side
setback, and findings, based on the findings and subjects to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 2-2 (Tie) Motion failed
AYES: Compas and Savary
NOES: Welshons and Marquez
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Sorino if (in the interest of time) he would prefer that this Board recommend denial,
and send it on to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, in an effort to break the deadlock, or would he prefer
this item be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board on February 23, 1998, to
be heard by the full five-member Board.
Mr. Sorino asked what impact a recommendation of denial would have on the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
Chairperson Welshons explained that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission would receive the
recommendation for denial, with the understanding that the recommendation is as a result of a deadlocked vote AND
that the Board has acquiesced at the request of the applicant, and there would be no negative impact.
* DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 1998 Page 1 I
Mr. Sorino stated that he would prefer to continue this item to the next meeting of the Design Review Board on February 23, 1998.
ACTION: Motion by Member Savary, and duly seconded, to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board on February 23, 1998.
Welshons, Compas, Savary, and Marquez
VOTE: 4-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Chairperson Welshons'announced that the next meeting of the Design Review Board will be on February 23, 1998,
at 6:OO p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of January 26, 1998, was adjourned at 8:ll p.m.
Respectfully submitted, n
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Director of Housing and Redevelopment
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
c
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Application Complete Date: Staff: Debbie Fountain
May 30, 1997 Christer Westman
Environmental Review: Ken Quon
Neg. Dec. 9/19/97
DATE: January 26, 1998
SUBJECT: RP 97-03 - JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY: Request for
a Major Redevelopment Permit, with variances on setbacks, roof pitch
and off-site loading/unloading area, to allow the construction of a 9587
square foot youth facility on property located on the west side of
Roosevelt Street between Pine and Walnut in Village Land Use District 5.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 259
recommending APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Design Review
Board Resolution No. =recommending APPROVAL of RP 97-03, to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission, with variances for 1) the front and rear setbacks
which exceed the range, 2) the front and side setbacks below the minimum to zero feet,
3) the gym roof which does not meet the requirement for a 4:12 roof pitch, and 4) an
off-site loading/unloading area to be provided off Tyler Street at the sidewalk curb for
participants, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Join Hands Save-A-Life, has requested a major redevelopment permit to
allow the construction of a new 9587 square foot youth facility on a vacant lot located
on the west side of Roosevelt Street (mid-block), between Pine and Roosevelt. The
proposed facility will provide for a variety of youth sport activities (i.e, basketball and
boxing) and other programs designed to serve at risk, lower income youths of Carlsbad.
The focus of Join Hands is on activities which will deter youths from criminal violence.
The primary clients are the under-privileged youths of Carlsbad which are living in close
proximity to the site selected for the proposed youth facility.
The proposed project consists of construction of a new, two story building which will
include a gym with a basketball court and boxing ring, an office and lobby area, a study,
training room, and a video and arts room for the Join Hands organization.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 2
The applicant will need, and has requested, variances for I) the front and side setbacks
which are below the minimum of the acceptable setback range, to zero feet, 2) the front
and rear setbacks which exceed the maximum of the acceptable setback range, 3) a
flat roof on the gym roof, which does not allow for the required 4:12 roof pitch, and 4) an
off-site loading/unloading area for participants. Staff originally recommended that the
Board grant the variance for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the maximum of
the acceptable setback range. Also, staff recommended that the Board condition the
project to be redesigned to allow for the minimum 5 foot front and side yard setbacks
and to provide for a pitched roof (4:12) on the gym. The issue of the off-site loading and
unloading area was not discussed in the previous report.
At the first public hearing held on November 24, 1997, the Design Review Board
reviewed the original staff report with the recommendations noted above and accepted
public testimony. As a result of their review and consideration, the Board indicated that
they would like to review the project again at a future public hearing to consider findings
required to grant approval of the variances requested by the applicant. As a result of
the Board’s action on November 24th, this project is being returned to the Board for an
additional public hearing to consider the granting of variances to allow the project to be
constructed as currently designed with no further modifications. The original staff report
dated November 24, 1997 is included as an attachment for reference purposes only.
This report provides supplemental information for the Board to consider prior to its
action on this item. The original report should also be referenced for information on how
the project meets the applicable policies and codes. In order to grant the requested
variances, the Board will be required to make appropriate findings as set forth in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual and Carlsbad Municipal Code. Staff has
prepared this report in an effort to provide the Board with justification to grant the
required variances. Ultimately, it is a decision of the Design Review Board and/or the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission as to the adequacy of these findings and
justifications for granting the variances.
In addition to information to be considered on the requested variances, the Board
requested that the applicant provide a proposed lighting plan and identify a location for
bicycle racks. The applicant has submitted a proposed lighting plan which is attached
for review by the Board. On the proposed lighting plan is also information regarding the
bicycle racks. The applicant has proposed to provide bicycle racks which will
accommodate a total of 20 bicycles. The racks are to be located to the rear of the
building at the northwest property line, within the rear landscaped/open space area.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 3
111. JOIN HANDS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND RELATED INFORMATION
In an effort to provide the Board with more specific information on the clients served by
the Join Hands organization. Staff requested some additional information from the
organization. Based on information provided by the applicant, the following provides a
summary of the clients served by Join Hands.
Clients served. From July 1 , 1996 to June 30, 1997, there were a total of 303
participating youths. The average age of these youths was 14.5 years. The average
family size of the participant households averages 6 people. Of the 303 youths served,
282 (93%) are Hispanics who reside in the Hispanic neighborhood surrounding the
location of the proposed project.
Income Levels. The average family income for the participants is $14,000 per year. In
total, the breakdown by income categories is: 77% (233) are from very low income
households, 16% (49) from low income households, 5% (I 5) from moderate income
households and 2% (6) from above moderate income households.
Participation Numbers. The average number of participating youths per day for the 96-
97 fiscal year was 23. The average number of participating youths per week was 133.
The pattern for the participants is for the younger children to arrive early and then leave
early. The older youths come later in the evening and stay later. Although there is an
overlap period, the applicant has indicated that there is rarely a total number of
participants at the facility at any given time which exceeds the above numbers.
Pick UP and Drop Off of Participants. The Join Hands organization is currently operating
out of the private residence and garage of Frank Sorino, which is located on Madison
Street within the Old Carlsbad (Barrio) Area. Under the current operations, the youths
are dropped off at the sidewalk in front of the house and watched until they enter the
house. The parent or other guardian will then leave. Join Hands has proposed to have
youths dropped off and picked up from the rear of the new building, off of Tyler Street.
Proqrams to be Provided. The programs to be provided, or offered, by Join Hands
within the new proposed building include: arts/crafts, barbecues, basketball, boxing,
computer skills, cooking, cookouts, conditioning, homework, library, video filming and
editing. Special events will include athletic events, dances, and fund-raisers. The
organization anticipates that it will have no more than 4 special events per year. Join
Hands intends to make special arrangements for parking of attendees based on the
type of event. If appropriate and necessary, attendees to special events will be
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 4
encouraged to park within the public parking lot provided at the Senior Center/School
District Offices, which is located within easy walking distance of the proposed project
site.
Hours of Operation. The hours of operation for the proposed facility will be Monday
through Friday, 3pm to 10pm and Saturday 8 am to 10pm.
Fees: Join Hands has indicated that all of their programs will be offered at no fee to the
participant.
IV. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In discussing whether or not there is a need for an additional youth facility within the
subject area, the issue has been raised regarding the fact that the Boys and Girls Club
is located in close proximity to the subject site and offers similar youth programs and
services. In anticipation of this issue being raised again as the Board continues to
discuss the proposed Join Hands project, the following information is provided on the
Boys and Girls Club facility.
Location: The Boys and Girls Club facility is located on the southwest corner of Oak
Avenue and Roosevelt Street. It is located within the Old Carlsbad (Barrio) area and is
approximately 700 feet, or 1 '/I blocks, from the proposed Join Hands facility site.
Clients served. income levels, participation numbers: Additional information on the
client statistics will be provided at the public hearing on January 26, 1998.
Pick up and Drop Off of Participants: Under the current operations, the youths are
dropped off in front of the facility on Oak Avenue. There is no on-site loading or
unloading area for participants.
Programs Offered: The Boys and Girls Club offers the following programs/activities. A
Guidance Program offers educational, social, artistic, aquatic, athletic and recreational
services for youths within the age range of 6 to 12 years. Specific activities include
learning with interactive, educational computers, instruction in drama, sports,
educational activities and experimenting in the kitchen. Also, homework assistance is
provided every day. The Street Safe Program offers junior high students activities
created to address their particular needs including arts and crafts, sports, swimming,
special events such as dances and field trips. The Teen Scene Program provides high
school students with a broad array of assistance to help teenagers become productive
and healthy adults. Specific activities include volleyball, basketball, fitness room,
swimming, tutoring, counseling, workshops covering topics such as employment and
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 5
Program
GuidanceKtreet Safe
Teen Scene
Kids Kamp
teen pregnancy prevention, community service, field trips and other educational and
social endeavors. The Build Program matches 12-1 9 year old youths with mentors from
the community. The mentor assists the youth with such life skills as goal setting,
problem solving and career development. The Boys and Girls Club also provides for a
free swim period on Tuesday and Thursday from 4:30pm to 5:30pm. In addition, a
water polo team for youths 14 years of age or younger meets on Saturdays from 3pm to
5pm.
Hours Days
2:30pm to 6:OOpm
1:30pm to 6:OOpm Thursday
2:30pm to 6:OOpm Monday -Wednesday
2:30pm to 9:OOpm
7:OOam to 6:OOpm
Monday - Friday
Thursday and Friday
Most school holidays and
vacation periods.
Hours of Operation. The Boys and Girls Club has the following program schedule:
Program Fees: The Guidance and Teen Scene Programs are offered at no cost to
participant. The Kids Camp has a cost of $10 per day/$40 per week. The Boys and
Girls Club will consider a fee reduction for any individual demonstrating financial need.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides for two types of standards that
every project must be consistent with in order to receive approval. The first type is
known as “Universal Standards”. Every project within the Village Redevelopment Area
must comply with these Universal Standards. The second type is known as “Individual
Standards”. These standards are specific to the Land Use District in which the project is
located.
“Universal Standards” address 1) the issues of General & Redevelopment
Plan Consistency, Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing; and 2) special
instructions regarding the application of individual standards related to parking, building
coverage, building height and setbacks. The following information is provided to
indicate how the proposed project meets the “Universal Standards”.
General and Redevelopment Plan: 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.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 6
Residential Densitv and lnclusionarv Housing Requirements: There is no
residential proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary
housing requirements are not applicable to this project.
Parking: No specific parking standard has been established within the Village Master
Plan or the Carlsbad Municipal Code for Youth Facilifies. Therefore, a determination
must be made by the Design Review Board as to whether or not there is a comparable
parking requirement which can be applied to the project. On similar projects in past
years, the parking requirement applied for youth facilities has varied. Per the Planning
Department, the Girls Club was parked at 1 space for each “major use” within the
facility. The recommendation for parking the Boys and Girls Club a year ago was I
space for each full time employee and 2 guest spaces. These previously used parking
requirements were not specifically list within the zoning code or the Village Master Plan,
however. Therefore, for the Join Hands Youth Facility, staff has identified
a parking standard which is identified within the zoning code and within the Village
Master Plan and is more appropriate for the subject project. Staff is recommending that
the parking requirement for an Elementary School be applied to the project because the
children to be served by the non-profit organization, Join Hands, at the subject facility
will be elementary school age, or youths/teenagers without vehicles. The proposed
facility is instructional and client specific.
The parking requirement for an Elementary School is one (I) space per employee
minimum, with an adequate loading and unloading area. Join Hands intends to have 1
full-time and 1 part-time employee. Therefore, the application of the elementary school
standards results in a minimum parking requirement of 2 parking spaces. The applicant
has provided for 3 parking spaces total, one of which is a disabled space which will
provide for appropriate facilities for either a disabled employee or guest. Per the
applicant, the loading and unloading area can be located at either the front or rear of
the building at the curb. Youths may be dropped off on Tyler or Roosevelt Street and
enter through either the rear or front of the building. A separate designated
loading/unloading area has not been provided on-site. While staff believes that there is,
in fact, adequate public access to the site and that youths can be dropped off safely
from the street, at the curb either on Roosevelt or Tyler Street, a variance would need
to be granted to allow the loading/unloading area to be provided off site, from the public
right-of-way (curbside loading and unloading). If the Design Review Board is satisfied
that the off-site loading and unloading area is adequate, the Board would need to make
findings that the elementary school standard is the appropriate standard to apply to the
subject project and that a variance should be granted to allow the loading/unloading
area to be provided off-site at the curb on Tyler Street, as currently proposed.
Although staff has determined that the following parking requirements are
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 7
comparable, these options for an alternate parking standard are provided for further
consideration by the Design Review Board:
1. Gvms and Health Spas . The parking requirement for a gym or health spa is 1 space
for each 35 square feet of gross floor space. Staff does not believe that this is an
appropriate parking requirement because it is applied to adult gyms and health
spas, which generally requires adults to drive to the location. The adult gym or
health spa is typically not allowed within residential areas; they are most often
located in commercial areas. The proposed youth facility is client specific in terms of
its age group (primarily elementary school-aged children) and is located to allow for
pedestrian access from the residential neighborhood near the site. In addition,
unlike a gym or health spa, many of the activities of the youth facility are held at off-
site locations as field trips or community activities. For example, many of the youths
will participate in fishing trips, graffiti clean up activities, picnics, etc. At a gym or
health spa, all of the activities occur at the site of the gym or health spa which has a
much greater impact in terms of parking demands.
2. Public Assemblv. The parking requirement for a public assembly use is 1 space for
each 100 square feet of gross floor space. Because this parking requirement is
typically applied to uses where there is a set time for a performance or speaker,
such as a performing arts center, and again typically focuses on activities for adults,
staff did not believe that this was an appropriate standard for the subject youth
facility. The youths will be allowed to enter and leave the site throughout the day,
and will typically be arriving from the surrounding neighborhood rather than by
vehicle. Again, the youth facility offers a variety of programs, many of which are
located off site as part of field trips or community activities.
3. High School. The parking requirement for a high school is 1 space per employee
and 1 additional space per 10 students. While it is anticipated that there will be high
school aged youths participating in the program at various times, staff did not
believe that this parking requirement was the most comparable due to the focus of
the youth facility and its efforts to attract at-risk, lower income youths from the
nearby neighborhood. Based on conversations between Staff and the organization
representatives, the focus of the organization’s gang diversion activities is on
elementary-aged youths. Due to the fact that the youth facility is focused on youths
which come from families with economic hardship, it is not anticipated that the high
school aged youths will be driving vehicles to the site.
Based on the age of the youths (14 years average) proposed to participate in the
programs at the subject facility and the focus on at-risk, lower income youths from the
nearby neighborhood, staff believes that the elementary school parking requirement is
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 8
the most comparable and results in a requirement of 2 parking spaces, with a
requirement to also provide for an adequate loadinglunloading area. Staff is
recommending that the Design Review Board find that the elementary school parking
requirement is applicable to the subject project. If the Board does not agree with staffs
analysis regarding the parking standard for the youth facility, the Board will need to take
action to identify the appropriate standard to be applied to the project. The applicant will
be required to redesign the project if an alternate parking standard is approved which
results in an increased parking requirement, or the Board will be required to grant an
additional variance to allow the project to have a substandard number of parking
spaces.
To approve the project as currently designed, the Design Review Board must find that
I.) the elementary school standard is appropriate; 2) the three parking spaces proposed
meet the requirement; and 3) that there is an adequate loading and unloading area to
serve the proposed project. Although the elementary school standard does not
specifically state that the loading/unloading area must physically be located on the
applicant’s property, it is generally understood that the area should be located on the
site. The Board would, therefore, need to grant a variance to allow the loading and
unloading area to be located off-site at the rear of the subject building, off of Tyler
Street. The findings to be made to allow the loading/unloading area to be provided off-
site are detailed later within this report and set forth within the approving resolution.
Buildinq Coveraqe, Heiqht and Setbacks: These standards are
established individually according to the applicable land use district within the
Village Redevelopment Area. The Universal Standards section of the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual provides information on variances and criteria to be used in
setting the standards for individual projects when a range is set forth for the subject
standard. The details of the subject standards are described below.
“Individual” development standards set forth specifically for new development within
Land Use District 5 are as follows:
Buildinn Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual sets the front setback
standard as a range from 5 to 10 feet for commercial land uses. The project as
proposed has been designed with a front setback which ranges from 0 to 20 feet, with a
majority (51 %) of the building setback 5 feet from the property line. The entryway has
been designed to extend to the property line (0 setback), for design reasons, to allow
for some visual articulation in the building. However, this area requires approval of a
variance to allow for the reduced setback to 0 feet. Also, a variance is required to allow
the setback to exceed the standard of 10 feet for one third of the front of the building.
The building setback to 20 feet is above the maximum for the range of the front
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 9
setback. Findings will need to be made to grant the variance for the front setback which
exceeds the range, and to allow for the front setback to be reduced to the minimum of
the acceptable range (5 feet), and to allow for a portion of the front setback to be
reduced to zero.
In the Master Plan, the side and rearsetback standards are also indicated as a range
from 5-1 0 feet. The project as proposed provides for no side setbacks. Therefore, a
variance will be required to allow the building to be constructed as designed with no
side yard setbacks. The first story of the subject building provides for a rear setback of
39 feet from the property line, off Tyler Street. The second story is setback from the rear
property line by 31 feet 3 inches. There is also a 5 foot landscaped setback area to be
provided between the property line and the first parking space in the rear; this is
required because parking is not permitted in the rear setback area. Although the
significant rear setback is desirable in this case, the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual does require that a variance be granted for any setback which is above the
maximum or below the minimum. The rear setbacks proposed for the project are above
the maximum of IO feet. Findings will be needed to grant the variance for the rear
setback which exceeds the maximum of the range and for the side setbacks to be
reduced to zero.
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 may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and
appropriate findings are made by the Design Review Board and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. As previously indicated, the setbacks do drop to the
minimum 5 feet in the front for 51% of the building front. Therefore, to allow this
setback, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission are
required to find as follows:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced 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 to be located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area.
Staff believes the above findings can be made to allow the reduced front setback to a
minimum of the range (5 feet) for the following reasons: 1) The project is to be located
in an area which has a mix of uses, both commercial and residential. The commercial
W 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 10
property to the south has a similar (5 foot) setback. The residential property to the north
is setback approximately 15 feet from the property line. The reduced setback will have
no adverse impact on the commercial property to the south or the residential property to
the north; 2) The reduced standard is necessary in order to allow the applicant to
construct a building which can provide needed services to the youths of the area. It
allows for a more visually appealing design and assists in the effort to create a gym
area which is the appropriate size to accommodate a regulation-size basketball court
and related facilities; 3) The proposed design is consistent with the guidelines for the
Village and the reduced setback standard in the front will allow for articulation in the
building which assists in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more
appealing.
In addition to the above findings to allow for the reduced front yard setback to the 5 foot
minimum, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission will
also be required to grant the following variances:
1. No side yard setbacks; 0 feet side setbacks.
2. No setback for the front entry which makes up 12 feet (or 16%) of the building front.
3. Rear setbacks which exceed the maximum range of 10 feet.
4. Front setbacks which exceed the maximum range of 10 feet for approximately one
third of the building front.
The findings required to grant a variance for the front and side setbacks which are
below the standard (reduced to 0 feet) are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan.
There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls.
The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area.
The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual.
A need has been publicly expressed for additional youth activities within the community
.. which will provide a diversion to gang activities and other activities which may have an
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 11
adverse impact on the community. The Join Hands organization intends to provide a
facility with structured activities for youths of lower income households within the
community. The following justifications for granting the variances noted above have
been provided by the applicant for review and consideration by the Board:
I-.
2.
3.
The subject property was purchased prior to the revisions of the regulations related
to building setbacks. At the time the Join Hands organization purchased the site,
there were no setback standards for buildings within the Village Area. Unfortunately,
for a variety of reasons, Join Hands was not able to quickly process a
redevelopment permit to remain subject to the previous standards. Without approval
of the variances requested, the Join Hands organization will not be able to build the
type of facility which will best meet the needs of the youths they wish to serve. The
organization has indicated that the site will be rendered “not useable” for the
proposed purpose. The financial hardship would then come in the attempt by the
organization to locate and purchase an alternate, suitable property in the
neighborhood from which the youths come. There are limited sites within the Old
Carlsbad (Barrio) Area which would be appropriate for the proposed youth facility.
This is due to the fact that the area further south of the site is primarily residential in
nature. The site selected for the proposed site is located within a mixed use area
which allows for a variety of commercial, as well as residential uses, but remains in
close proximity to the residential area which is home for a majority of the
participants.
As designed, the length of the basketball court and the out of bounds area is 71
feet, 6 inches. Using the minimum standard of a 3 foot out-of-bounds (between the
end line and the wall) area at each end, the court length is 65 feet, 6 inches. If the
Join Hands organization is required to provide 5 foot side setbacks, the court will be
reduced in size to 55 feet, 6 inches. At this length, the circles at the free throw line
would overlap each other; this is not a desirable situation.
The building as designed represents an architectural credit to the existing
community. The landscaped courtyard on Roosevelt Street is exactly the type of
streetscape which enhances a community’s appearance. The absence of the side
yards is actually a benefit. A five foot setback which is not visually or physically
accessible to the public will not benefit the public. Additionally, the area would invite
trash and bad behavior, which is not desirable for the community. Allowing this
setback area to be transformed into useable indoor facility space provides a more
appropriate benefit to the community.
The above justifications were provided by the applicant. While Staff does agree that the
applicant has financial hardship which results in practical difficulties for providing the
KP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 12
setbacks required by the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, we do not believe
the fact that the property was purchased prior to the change in regulations is an
adequate justification for granting a variance; many property owners could claim this
same type of hardship. Staff does, however, support the claim that Join Hands has not
had, and probably will not have, the organizational capacity to raise large amounts of
funding to assist with the effort to construct the desired facility and that the required
design changes would result in additional costs and create further financial hardship.
The organization is attempting to maximize the use of the property purchased with
Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) provided by the City of Carlsbad.
The primary problem, as identified by staff, is that the Join Hands organization has
purchased a site which is in fact too small for the type of desired facility. However, the
organization purchased the subject site in an effort to maximize the use of its available
funding, while also locating the project in an area where the need currently exists. Staff
does believe that it would be difficult for the Join Hands organization to sell the current
site and locate an alternate site within the same area which would accommodate the
type of facility that is desired and depicted within the current plans. This is due to the
fact that there are not many sites within the subject area which would be appropriate, in
terms of land use and compatibility, for the proposed project. The project site, as
currently proposed, is located within a mixed use area which allows for the subject use
(youth facility). The organization has not been able to locate an alternate site which is
financially feasible or acceptable in terms of the proposed land use.
Staff does believe that the organization could simply choose to eliminate the basketball
court and some of the other proposed uses within the building. With a change in
programs offered, the building could be reduced in size to meet the required setbacks.
However, if the Design Review Board is convinced by the applicant and the community
of the need for the Join Hands organization to provide a wide variety of activities to
maintain the interest of the youths, staff believes the Board could make the findings of
financial hardship and exceptional circumstances, based on the information provided
above by the applicant and staff, to allow for the variances in the setbacks to be
reduced to zero on the sides and for a portion (12 feet) of the front.
The front and side setbacks which are below the minimum (to zero feet) will not have a
detrimental impact on neighboring properties because 1) the property to the south
provides for a commercial, car repair business. The reduced side yard setback will have
no negative impact in terms of noise or other conflicts; and 2) the residential unit to the
north is separated by a driveway which is approximately 25 feet in width, which allows
for an appropriate separation between the new and the existing buildings to the north.
The granting of the variance for the front and side setbacks will not contradict the
standards established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual because those
EW 97-03 Staff Report January 26, 1998
Page 13
standards were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and
variety. Although it is not desirable to continue to grant variances from the standards,
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual does recognize that there may be
circumstances under which it is appropriate to grant variances in order to appropriately
develop any given site based on the specific facility needs within the area.
The findings required to grant a variance for the rear and front setbacks which exceed
the standard (range) are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the
permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the
structure back to the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village
character of the area.
The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential development
and where increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between
commercial and residential development or would protect the liveability of the
residential develop men t .
Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining
space subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This
finding is not applicable to the subject project.)
The first two findings noted above for allowing the rear and front setbacks which
exceed the maximum standard (range) are justified as follows: 1) the subject project is
in a location which has varying setbacks. To the north, the residential property is
setback in the front by approximately 15 feet. To the south, the commercial property is
setback in the rear by nearly 77 feet. It is expected that these existing buildings will
remain for many more years. Therefore, staff believes that the increased setbacks are
consistent with the area. These larger setbacks allow for a design of the building whict
is more visually interesting and appealing. The large rear setbacks allow for a private
outdoor patio area and a rear parking lot, which are both desirable features for the
project. 2) The project is located in a very mixed use area with a gradual transition into
residential. The proposed project serves as a “bridge” between the uses in terms of the
mixed setbacks. The increased setbacks in the front and rear help to create an
appropriate transition from the residential to the north to the commercial property to the
south.
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
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 14
with the City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to
landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies,
patios andlor outdoor eating areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the
open space. The project, as proposed, provides for a total of 2449 square feet of open
spaceAandscape area, which represents 23.32% of the site (1 0,500 square feet); this
exceeds the 20% requirement.
Buildinq Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects
in Land Use District 5 is 60% to 80%. The bottom of the range is considered the desired
standard. However, similar to the setback standards, an increase in the standard to the
maximum may be permitted if the project warrants such an increase and the same
findings can be made as noted above for the setback standards.
For the proposed project, the building coverage is 64.7%. This is consistent with the
desired standard at the bottom of the range.
Buildinq Heiqht: The height limit for Land Use District 5 is 30 feet with a 4:12 roof
pitch. At the peak of the gym building, the project is 30 feet in height. The building has a
varying roof line with pitched roof features (4:12) at the front and rear of the building.
The gym facility portion of the building has a flat roof. However, architectural features
have been added which are complimentary to the roof pitches at the front and rear of
the building. The building height and roof pitches are consistent with the standards set
forth within the Village Master Plan and Design, with the exception that a portion of the
building (the gym facility) has a flat roof. A variance is required to allow the subject
portion of the building to be constructed with the flat roof. The following findings must
be made to approve the variance:
1. The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan.
2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls.
3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area.
4. The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual.
--
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 15
Because the project provides for a facility which is not typical in terms of commercial
buildings, there are certain requirements which present a conflict for the applicant in
meeting all of the design standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The applicant has proposed a youth facility which provides for a gym. The gym
building for the Join Hands organization must be constructed as designed in order to
allow for the height required for a basketball court and boxing ring within the interior.
This is not a typical problem for most commercial projects in the area. The requirement
to add a pitched roof to the gym facility would result in pracfical difficulties and an
unnecessary hardship for the non-profit organization proposing the project. To provide
for a 4:12 roof pitch, the applicant has indicated that the lower part of the framing would
be at approximately 15 feet above the floor, or possibly lower. A 20 foot height is
considered a minimum roof height for a gym, ,while a 24 foot height is preferred. The
required 4:12 roof pitch would also have a negative impact on the amount of buildable
area available for the second floor. Since the roof line from the gym continues over the
study and administrative offices in the rear, a pitched roof area would reduce the total
building area by 10% to 15%, per the applicant. The building design as currently
presented does provide for an appearance of Mission Style architecture both in
materials and proportions. The pedestrian will see the pitched tile roof and most likely
not notice that the gym roof is flat. The applicant has indicated that they do not believe
that a long exposed roof, which would be created with a pitched gym roof, would be
desirable because it would present itself as a chief design element (it would stand out,
rather than blend in) and not be particularly attractive.
Since the applicant has made a good effort to design the remainder of the building with
appropriate roof pitches, staff believes that the flat roof on the gym will not be injurious
or maferially detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the
area. The applicant should, however, be required to add some additional architectural
(facade) treatments to the roof line in an effort to add more visual interest, in exchange
for the variance to allow for the flat roof.
In total design concept, the granting of the variance for the flat gym roof will not
contradict the standards established by the Village Master Plan and Design Manual
because the entire front and rear elevations of the building have been designed with the
required 4:12 roof pitch. Visually, pedestrians will enjoy a pitched roof view. Also, the
combination of flat and pitched roofs allow for diversity in design which is encouraged
by the design guidelines within the Manual. The applicant has made an effort to design
the entire project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting.
Parking: As stated above, staff is recommending that the elementary school parking
standard be applied to the subject project which results in a parking requirement of 2
spaces. The project has proposed a total of 3 parking spaces to accommodate one full-
W 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998 Page 16
time and one part-time employee as well as a disabled client or employee. Based on
the information provided by the applicant on the total number of employees to be
present within the building, staff has determined that the 3 parking spaces provided
satisfies the elementary school parking standard (1 space per employee). The
additional requirement to provide an on-site loading and unloading area (per Chapter
21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), however, has
Board will be required to grant an additional variance to allow for the loading/unloading
area to be provided off-site at either the front or rear entrance, at the curb off of
Roosevelt Street or Tyler Street. The applicant has indicated that the primary
loading/unloading area shall be provided at the rear of the building, at the curb off of
Tyler Street. Therefore, the Board will need to find that this is an appropriate location for
the loading/unloading area for this project. Also, the following findings must be made by
the Design Review Board and ultimately by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission in order to grant the required variance for the loadinglunloading area to be
located off-site:
been met. Therefore, the
1.
2.
3.
4.
The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan.
There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or
developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls.
The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area.
The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual.
As mentioned previously, staff believes that the primary problem faced by the applicant
is that the site purchased for the subject project is actually too small to accommodate
the type of facility proposed for construction. This was due to the fact that the applicant
is a non-profit organization which is required to maximize the available contributions to
the organization for the subject facility. As indicated for the findings related to the
variance for the zero setbacks, it would be difficult for the applicant to sell the current
site and locate an alternate site within the same area which would accommodate the
type of facility that is desired and depicted within the current plans. The area needed for
the building, open space and parking lot consume the entire site. Therefore, there is not
adequate area available on site for the required loading/unloading area. The applicant
is consequently faced with practical difficulties (site constraints) which simply do not
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 17
allow him to add a loading/unloading area and maintain the current design for a fully
“useable” building. In order to maintain consistency with the intent of the Village
Redevelopment Area Plan, it is most important for the proposed project to be consistent
with the goals and objectives for the Village, which encourage pedestrian orientation
and community orientation. Therefore, the loading/unloading area is less important than
the building design and open space requirements. Because there is adequate curbside
area for the loading and unloading activities related to the proposed facility, staff does
not believe it is necessary to require an on-site loading and unloading area. The
proposed project is located mid-block in an area where vehicle speeds are lower and
the street is wide. Therefore, the curbside loading/unloading area will not impede
vehicular traffic or create conflicts with pedestrians.
Because of the nature of the programs offered by the applicant, there are exceptional
circumstances which result in less need for the loading/unloading area to be provided
on the site. The open space areas are much more desirable for this type of facility and
the type of activities to be conducted on the site. Also, due to the lower volume of
participants served, in comparison to an elementary school, the loading and unloading
area is not as critical. The participants will arrive at differing times throughout the
afternoon and evening, which is much different than an elementary school where
students are arriving at basically the same time in the morning and leaving at the same
time in the afternoon and creating a much more significant potential for traffic conflicts.
Although the age group is similar which results in the recommendation to apply the
elementary school standard to the subject project, the operation of the facilities are
different in nature and result in an exceptional circumstance under which a
loading/unloading area could be found to be unnecessary. A majority of the participants
in the Join Hands programs will be arriving as pedestrians or bicycle riders. If the
Design Review Board finds that these are exceptional circumstances, a variance to
allow the loading and unloading area to be located off-site can be deemed acceptable.
The limited hours of the facility operation should reduce any impact on neighboring
properties. With the mixed use nature of the area which already exists, there will be no
detrimental impact on surrounding businesses since their employees will generally
arrive prior to opening of the facility during the week and most likely leave at varying
times in the afternoon or evening. This is a mixed use area which already provides for a
combination of commercial and residential uses. The youth facility use hours are at off-
peak hours in terms of commercial compatibility and will provide for closure at an hour
which should have minimal impact on the neighboring residential.
In total design concept, the granting of the variance for the off-site loading/unloading
area will not contradict the standards established by the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual because there is adequate area to the rear of the building (within the
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 18
public right of way) to allow for participants to be dropped off and picked up safely
without having a detrimental impact on traffic flow within the area. The project has been
designed in a manner consistent with a pedestrian orientation which is desired for the
area and set forth as an objective of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Other Miscellaneous Requirements: The “Individual Standards” for Land Use District
5 include a statement that access to parking will not be allowed from Roosevelt Street
unless no other access is available. The proposed project will have access off of Tyler
Street. Therefore, the project is consistent with this requirement. In addition, there is
also a miscellaneous development standard which requires that for any lot proposed for
non-residential development which adjoins an existing residential lot, the project shall
include construction of a solid masonry wall along common lot lines. The project has
been designed to include a new masonry wall along common lot lines on the north side
of the property. A masonry wall already exists on the south side of the property.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
As stated in the original report, the project is consistent with the design guidelines for
the Village Redevelopment Area. The original report dated November 24, 1997 may be
referenced for the detailed summary of the design features for the subject project.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
The proposed signage meets the standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual. See original report for details.
VIII. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building which will have a building permit valuation which is greater
than $1 50,000. The project must have a recommendation from the Design Review
Board and final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
A public hearing was initially held on November 24, 1997 to consider the proposed
project. At that time, staff recommended redesign of the project to allow for the required
minimum setbacks and 4:12 roof pitch on the gym roof. The Design Review Board
indicated that they would like to consider the project again with findings drafted to
approve the requested variances. The project has been returned to the Board at this
time for additional consideration following a second public hearing. The public hearing
was renoticed with the indication that variances would be considered for the project.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 19
The Design Review Board is now asked to hold the second public hearing on the
permit requested, consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the
project, discuss the project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the
project with the requested variances. If the Board so chooses, the original resolutions of
approval presented on November 24, 1997 which require the redesign of the project
could also be considered for approval. If the Board decides to deny the project, staff will
need to be instructed to prepare new resolutions and return to the Board for action on
those resolutions to deny the project.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal
Development Permit is not required for the subject project.
IX. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND
OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
See original staff report'dated November 24, 1997 for information on traffic, circulation,
sewer, water, reclaimed water and other special considerations.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department conducted an environmental review of the above described
project, as currently designed, 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, a Negative Declaration was issued for the
subject project by the Planning Director on September 19, 1997 and made available for
public review. No comments were received on the environmental document. Adoption
of Design Review Board Resolution No. =will recommend approval of the Negative
Declaration for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
XI. ECONOMIC IMPACT
As indicated in the original staff report, the proposed project will have very little financial
impact on the City or the Redevelopment Agency due to the non-profit status of the
applicant (Join Hands). However, the project may serve as a catalyst for other
improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings.
The proposed project does provide for development on a currently vacant, blighted
sight and will provide for a socialhecreational facility for youths in the neighborhood.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
January 26, 1998
Page 20
XII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project, with the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Findings to grant the variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the
maximum of the range.
Findings to allow a portion of the front setback to be reduced to the minimum of the
acceptable range at 5 feet.
Findings to grant the variances on the front and side setbacks which are to be
reduced to 0 feet.
Findings to grant a variance to allow a flat roof on the gym portion of the building,
rather than providing for the 4:12 roof pitch.
Approval of the elementary school parking standard as the appropriate, or
comparable parking standard, for the subject youth facility, with findings to grant a
variance for the loading/unloading area to be provided off-site at the curb on Tyler
Street (to the rear of the building).
EXHIBITS :
1.
2.
3. Location Map.
4.
5.
6.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 259, recommending approval of the Negative
Declaration
Design Review Board Resolution No. 260, recommending approval of RP 97-03 with
variances.
Staff Report to Design Review Board, dated November 24, 1997
Lighting Plan, dated October 14, 1997.
Project Plan Exhibits "A' - "C", dated November 24, 1997 (distributed with original
report).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
21
22
22
24
2:
2c
2;
2t
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 259
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR THE JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY, WITH
VARIANCES FOR THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS WHICH
EXCEED THE STANDARD RANGE, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS
WHICH ARE BELOW THE RANGE, A PORTION OF THE ROOF
WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED 4:12 ROOF PITCH AND
ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT
STREET BETWEEN PINE AND WALNUT IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5
OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
AN OFF-SITE LOADING/UNLOADING AREA FOR PARTICIPANTS,
CASE NAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
APN: 204-081-08, 09, 10
CASE NO: Rp 97-03
WHEREAS, Join Hands Save-A-Life, a California Non-Profit Corporation,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Join Hands Save-A-Life, a California Non-
Profit Corporation, “Owner”, described as Lots 27, 28, and 29 in Block 31, in the Town of
Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,
1888 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the standard range, the front
and side setbacks below the minimum to zero feet, the portion of the roof which does not meet
the requirement for a 4: 12 roof pitch and an off-site loading and unloading area for
participants, as shown on Exhibits A-C, dated November 24, 1997 on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, “Join Hands Project RP 97-03” as provided by Chapter 21.35.080
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
1E
1i
1t
16
2(
2'
2:
2:
24
2!
2(
2
2;
-
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26th day of January,
1998 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request for a
qegative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony and
irguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
:onsidering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
elating to the Negative Declaration on RP 97-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design
teview Board 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 hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration according to the one page notice and the EIA Part I1 Form
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
WDINGS:
1.
... ...
... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
...
The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (RP 97-03), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the
project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Design Review
Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approval of the
Negative Declaration.
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
2E
27
2€
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 97-03)
reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26th day of January, 1998 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: A through lot between Tyler Street and Roosevelt Street north of
Walnut Street in the City of Carlsbad.
Project Description: A 9,974 square foot recreation center with associated offices.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described 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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 19,1997
CASE NO: RP 97-03
CASE: NAME: JON HANDS
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 19,1997
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad. CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 FAX (61 9) 438-0894 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 97-03
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE A LIFE
2. APPLICANT: FRANK SORINO
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3528 Madison Street. Carlsbad,
California 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 30,1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 9,974 square foot recreation buildins which princbal space is a
basketball court on an existing infill lot within the Citv of Carlsbad redevelopment area.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning @ TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be coinpleted by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact’’ answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a If there are one or more potentially
EIR if there are mitigation measures
significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case. the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 I)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01)
e)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (General Plan Master ETR 93-
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-01)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
01)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-01)
Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Subsidence of the land? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
Expansive soils? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-0 1)
01)
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
lmpact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
cl 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
U
0
0 El
LessThan No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0 [XI
0 1xI
0 Ix1
0 IXI
0 €3
0 (XI
0 w
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 a
5 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Informailun Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (General Plan
Master EIR 93-0 I)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan Master
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-0 I)
EIR 93-01)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-0 1) '
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
d) Create objectionable odors? (General Plan Master EIR 01)
93-01)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c3
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
El
0
0
U
0
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
LGSS Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
Ix)
El
Ix1
€3 w
Ix)
El w w
0
El
El
€3
0
Ixi
Ix1
IXI
Ix1
Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Informawn Sources).
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-0 1) g)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan Master EIR
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
93-01)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (General Plan Master EIR
93-01)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk or’ accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan Master
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
01)
EIR 93-01)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
S igni ficm t
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Sign ifican
t Impact
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
No
Impact
(XI
Ix1
(XI
(XI
(x1
IXI
1xI
(x1
El
(XI
Ix1
(XI
Ix1
(XI
(XI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0
0 0 0
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (General Plan Master
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
EIR 93-0 1)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
b) Police protection? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
c) Schools? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan Master
EIR 93-0 I)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Communications systems? (General Plan Master EIR
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
Storm water drainage? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
Solid waste disposal? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan Master
93-01)
01)
01)
EIR 93-01)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: .
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-0 1)
Create light or glare? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-01)
Disturb archaeological resources? (General Plan Master
Affect historical resources? (General Plan Master EIR
EIR 93-0 I )
93-01)
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 cl
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl a 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
No
Impact
Ixl
IXI €XI IXI
(XI
(XI
R IXI 0 ‘1x1
0 €3
0 Ix1
0 w
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Informat~un Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-0 I )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-01)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 .w
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCLJ~~ION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
GENERAL:
The project is the construction of a single building less than 10,000 square feet. The site is zoned
for commercial development and is vacant. Development of the site will not require significant
modification to the land. There are no natural or historical significant resources onsite, therefore
there will be no significant impacts due to development of the property.
The development will not create significant impacts. There will not be a significant increase in
traffic from the use in that most users will not be of driving age. Noise will be contained within
the structure, no hazardous materials will be used or stored onsite, the project wiIl be constructed
according to the requirements of a redevelopment permit which included review of the building
for aesthetic compatibility in the existing neighborhood.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulhr, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage a1 ternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth managemect. strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01 , by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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. 260
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT, INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR
FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
STANDARD RANGE, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS WHICH ARE
BELOW THE STANDARD RANGE, A PORTION OF THE ROOF
WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED 4:12 ROOF PITCH AND
FOR THE JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY PROJECT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT
STREET, BETWEEN PINE AND WALNUT, IN LAND USE DISTRICT
5 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
AN OFF-SITE LOADING/UNLOADING AREA FOR PARTICIPANTS,
CASE NAME: JOIN HAM)S SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
APN: 204-081-08, 09, 10
CASE NO: RP 97-03
WHEREAS, Join Hands Save-A-Life, California Non-Profit Corporation,
“Developer“, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Join Hands Save-A-Life, California Non-
Profit Corporation, “Owner”, described as Lots 27, 28 , and 29 in Block 31, in the Town of
Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,
1888 (“the Property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the maximum of the standard
range, the front and side setbacks which are below the minimum of the standard range, the
portion of the gym roof which does not provide the required 4: 12 roof pitch and an off-site
loading/unloading area for participants, as shown on Exhibits A-C, dated November 24, 1997
on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, “Join Hands Project RP 97-03” as
provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
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
DRB Resolution No. 26r-
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 24th day of November,
1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did continue said public hearing on the
24"' of November, 1997 to the 26" of January, 1998 for additional consideration on the
requested variances; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 26" of January, 1998, upon hearing
and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said
Board considered all factors relating to "Join Hands Project RP 97-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
Board 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 a Major Redevelopment
Permit for the Join Hands Save-A-Life Youth Facility Project, RP 97-03,
including variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the
maximum range, for the front and side setbacks which are below the
minimum range, for the portion of the roof which does not provide for the
required 4: 12 roof pitch and for an off-site loading/unloading area for
participants, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board has recommended approval of a Negative
Declaration for the subject project and has determined that the project will have
no significant environmental impact.
2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit with requests for
variances under Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code because the
project involves new construction of a building , or addition to an existing
building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds $150,000.
3. The Project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, no Coastal
Permit is required.
4. The Project is determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development
standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth with the
Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines,
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
-. DRB Resolution No. 26(
Page 3
with approval of the following required findings to allow for variances for no
side setbacks, no setback for the front entry, a pat roof for a portion of the
building to accommodate the gym faciliry, the front and rear setbacks that
e.rceed the standard range and an off-site loading/unloading area for
participants:
a) The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development
inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Plan. A need has been publicly expressed for additional
youth activities within the community which will provide a diversion to
gang activities and other activities which may have an adverse impact on
the community. The Join Hands organization purchased the subject site in
an effort to maximize the use of its available funding, while also locating
the project in an area where the need for the facility currently exists. It
would be difficult for the applicant to sell the current site and locate an
alternate site that would be larger and would be still located within the
same area which would accommodate the type of facility that is desired and
depicted within the current plans. The organization has not been able to
locate an alternate site which is financially feasible or acceptable in terms
of the proposed land use. The requested variances are necessary in order
for the applicant to construct a youth facility which is appropriate for the
type of programs to be offered to youths within the neighborhood. The
required roof pitch for the gym and the setbacks would not allow for the
appropriate height and length for the basketball court and gym room. As
related to the off-site loading/unloading area, the Board finds that the off-
site location will not impede vehicular traffic or create conflicts with
pedestrians. In addition, the proposed project is located mid-block in an
area where vehicle speeds are lower and the street is wide enough to
accommodate the off-site loadinghnloading area.
b) There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or
the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties
or developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls. The
proposed project represents a unique use with unique circumstances.
Because the project provides for a facility which is not typical in terms of
other commercial buildings in the area, there are certain facility design
requirements such as the setbacks and roof pitch which present a conflict
for the applicant in terms of the programs to be offered within the subject
facility. The applicant has proposed a gym which has minimum size
requirements. This is not a typical problem for other commercial projects
in the area. Without the required setback variances, the applicant could not
provide an acceptable basketball court in terms of size. In addition, a
pitched roof on the gym would reduce the total buildable area by 10 to
15 %, which is not acceptable and would be detrimental to the programs
desired by youths within the area. Because of the nature of the programs to
be offered by the applicant, there are also exceptional circumstances which
result in less need for an on-site loading/unloading area. The participants
will arrive at differing times throughout the afternoon and evening, which
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
2e
DRB Resolution No. 26C-
Pagc 4
is much different than an elementary school where students are arriving
basically at the same time in the morning and leaving at the same time in
the afternoon and creating a much more significant potential for traffic
conflicts. A majority of the participants in the Join Hands programs will be
arriving as pedestrians or bicycle riders. The Board finds that the
exceptional circumstances due to the type of programs provided by the
applicant justify a variance from the subject development standards.
c) The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area.
The reduced setbacks will not be detrimental because the property to the
south provides for a commercial, car repair business. The reduced side
yard setback will have no negative impact in terms of noise or other
conflicts. In addition, the residential unit to the north is separated from the
subject project by a driveway which is approximately 25 feet in width,
which allows for an appropriate separation between the new and the
existing buildings to the north. As related to the roof pitch, the variance
will not be detrimental because the building as currently designed does
provide for the desired mission style architecture both in materials and
proportions. Pedestrians will see the pitched roof at the front and rear of
the building and will generally not notice that the gym roof is flat in design.
Since a significant portion of the building is designed with the appropriate
roof pitches, the flat portion of the gym roof will not be materially
detrimental or injurious to the public welfare, other properties or
improvements in the area. In addition, the limited hours of the facility
operation will reduce any impact on neighboring properties. The off-site
loading and unloading area will have no detrimental impact on surrounding
properties due to the already existing mixed use nature of the land uses
within the area. Employees of surrounding businesses will generally arrive
at work prior to the opening of the youth facility and will leave the
businesses prior to the highest anticipated usage period for the youth
facility. The youth facility use hours are at off-peak hours in terms of
commercial compatibility and will provide for closure at an hour which
should have minimal impact on the neighboring residential.
d) The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual because those standards were
intended to be somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and
variety. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual does recognize that
there may be circumstances under which it is appropriate to grant variances
in order to appropriately develop any given site based on the specific
facility needs within the area. As related to the gym roof, the granting of
the variance will not contradict the standards because the entire front and
rear elevations of the building have been designed with the required 4: 12
roof pitch. Visually, pedestrians will still enjoy a pitched roof view with the
current project design. The combination of flat and pitched roofs allow for
diversity in design which is encouraged by the design guidelines within the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual. In total design concept, the
granting of the subject variances, including the off-site loading/unloading
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
le
1:
2c
21
2;
22
2r
2!
21
2‘
21
DRB Resolution No. 26r
Page 5
area will not contradict the standards because the project has been designed
in a manner consistent with the pedestrian orientation which is desired for
the area and set forth as an objective of the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. There is adequate area to the rear of the proposed building (within
the public right-of-way, off of Tyler Street at the sidewalk curb) to allow
for participants to be dropped off and picked up safely without having a
detrimental impact on traffic flow within the area. These conditions are all
consistent with the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual.
e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further
than the permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain,
and setting the structure back to the desired standard will maintain and
reinforce the Village character of the area. The subject property is in a
location which has varying setbacks. To the north, the residential property
is setback in the front by approximately 15 feet. To the south, the
commercial property is setback in the rear by nearly 77 feet. It is expected
that these buildings will remain for many more years. The larger setbacks
in the front and rear of the building allow for a design of the building
which provides for more articulation in the building, which ultimately
results in a building which is more visually interesting and appealing. The
larger rear setbacks allow for a private outdoor patio and a rear parking lot,
which are both desirable features of the project.
n The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential
development and where increased setbacks would soften the visual
transition between commercial and residential development or would
protect the livability of the residential development. The project is located
in a very mixed use area with a gradual transition into residential. The
proposed project serves as a “bridge” between the uses in terms of the
mixed setbacks. The increased setbacks in the front and rear help to create
an appropriate transition from the residential to the north to the commercial
property to the south.
5. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth
with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, with approval of the findings noted above to grant the requested
variances. The following required findings will allow for the reduced front and
yard setbacks, to the minimum of five (5) feet (of the acceptable range):
a) The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties. The project is located in an area which has a mix of uses, both
commercial and residential. The commercial property to the south has a
similar (5 feet) setback. The residential property to the north is setback
approximately 15 feet from the property line. The reduced setbacks will
have no adverse impact on the residential property to the north or the
commercial property to the south.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
1E
2c
21
2;
22
2L
2E
2f
2;
21
-
DRB Resolution NO. 260
Page 6
b) The reduced 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 to be located. The
reduced standard is necessary in order to allow the applicant to construct a
building which can provide needed services to the youths of the area. It
allows for a more visually appealing design and assists in the effort to
create a gym area which is the appropriate size to accommodate a boxing
ring and related facilities.
c) The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is interesting
and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. The
project design is consistent with the guidelines for the Village and the
reduced setback standard in the front will allow for articulation in the
building which assists in the effort to make the building visually interesting
and more appealing.
6. The Design Review Board has found that the applicable parking requirement for
the proposed project shall be the same as that applied to elementary schools, as set
forth within Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project shall
provide for a total of three parking spaces which meets the applicable standard for
elementary schools and will provide a loading and unloading area at the curb off of
Tyler Street, to the rear of the subject project. The Design Review Board has
determined that the loading and unloading area to be provided off of Tyler Street at
the sidewalk curb is acceptable and meets the intent of the applicable parking
standard. The applicable findings, as noted above, have been made in order to
grant a variance to allow the loading/unloading area to be provided off-site.
GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the
area. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual,
effective as of January 12, 1996, with approval of the requested variances,
because it will provide for a land use (youth facility) which supports the
residential units within Land Use District 5 of the Village Redevelopment
Area.
That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all
required public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation
have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking.
Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building
design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned
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
DRB Resolution No. 26
Page 7
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for
the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are
transported within storm drainage facilities.
c) The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot
which has appropriate zoning for a youth facility. The project is also
consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within
the Village Redevelopment Area.
d) The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project
meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards.
e) The proposed project is exempt from paying public facilities fees because
the applicant is a non-profit organization.
The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that
the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have
been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or
development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements
established by the Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which are applicable to the
project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement
approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s
Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384.
The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to
the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough ’
proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
DRB Resolution No. 26C
Page 8
GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Design Review Board does hereby RECOblillEND APPROVAL of a Major
Redevelopment Permit, for the Join Hands Project, including variances for the
front and rear setbacks which exceed the standard range, front and side setbacks
which are below the standard range, a portion of the roof which does not meet the
required 4: 12 roof pitch and an off-site loading/unloading area for participants, as
provided for in RP 97-03 subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is
authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary
corrections and modifications to the Exhibits and/or other documents to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Developer
shall develop the property substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits for the
project
The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24" X 36", mylar
copy of the Site Plan for the project as approved by the final decision making body.
The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the Agency. The plan copy
shall be submitted to the Planning Director and approved prior to building or
grading permit approval, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24" X 36"
blueline drawing.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment 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's
Redevelopment Agency has issued a Redevelopment Permit by Design Review
Board Resolution No. 260 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
Planning Director or 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.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall
be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
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
2E
27
2E
I
DRB Resolution No. 26(
Page 9
7.
8.
9.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director approval. All lighting shall be
designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief
and the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in
conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s
Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the approval
of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall
construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain
all landscaping in a healthy and thriving conditions, free from weeds, trash and
debris.
10. The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be accompanied
by the project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
1 1. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so as
to be plainly visible from the street; color of identification and/or addresses shall
contrast to their background color.
12. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and
local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
13. The Developer shall construct a six foot (6’) masonry block wall on the north
side of the common property line. The height of the solid block wall shall drop
to forty-two inches (42”) ten feet (10’) from the east and west property line for
pedestrian visibility purposes.
14. The hours of operation for the subject facility shall be 3pm to 10pm, Monday
through Friday, and Sam to lOpm on Saturday. No youths may remain in the
facility after the noted hours.
15. The applicant shall ensure that full-time adult supervision is provided at all
times during the hours of operation noted above.
16. The applicant shall provide for the installation of permanent bicycle racks as
noted on the preliminary lighting plan submitted by the applicant and dated
January 26, 1998.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
17. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
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
-
DRB Resolution No. 26C
Page IO
18. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
19. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when
such a program is formally established by the City.
20. Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the developer shall file and receive
approval of a boundary adjustment application with the City to merge the
three existing lots so that the project site is situated on one lot.
21. Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall obtain a City right-
of-way permit to install driveway aprons in the public right-of-way on Tyler
Street.
WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
1..
5.
The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met.
The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits, and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installations.
Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate
parties.
b) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (Le., GPM - EDU).
This project is approved under the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the
time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available
until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the project plans.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans for
conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the stand and local Fire
Codes. The plans must include a site plan which depicts the following:
a) Location of existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
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
2E
2i
2€
DRB Resolution No. 26(
Pagc 11
b) Location of off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
c) Depiction of emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire
Department approval.
6. If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur; or, if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment 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 Agency's approval
of this Resolution.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited
to the following code requirements.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
...
,...
,... ...
,... ... ,... ... ... ... ... ...
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
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 time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets,
in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of
the Directors of Planning and Building.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
DRB Rcsolution No. 26(
Page 12
6. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Director.
The project shall comply with recycling collection area requirements pursuant to
Section 21.105.060. The recycling area shall be noted on the final plans submitted for
applicable building permits for the project.
7.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26th day of January, 1998 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
- - EXHIBIT3
-I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"I I1L
I-
C/)
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
1 OL I- C/)
I- -I
W
C/) 0 0
9
OL
OAK AVENUE
PINE STREET
I I I I I I N II II I I
4- P i oject Site
I I I I I I 3lparce1s I
WALNUT AVENUE
S
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RP 97-03 JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY - - - -
EXHIBIT 4
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Application Complete Date: Staff: Debbie Fountain
May 30, 1997 Christer Westman
Environmental Review: Ken Quon Neg. Dec. 9/19/97
DATE: November 24, 1997
SUBJECT: RP 97-03 - JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY: Request for
a Major Redevelopment Permit to allow the construction of a 9587 square
foot youth facility on property located on the west side of Roosevelt Street
between Pine and Walnut in Village Land Use District 5.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. mrecommending
APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Resolution No. mrecommending
APPROVAL of RP 97-03 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, with
variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the range, and based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including a condition to
redesign the project to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director to
provide for a gym roof which meets the requirement for a 4:12 pitch and minimum 5
foot front and side setbacks.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Join Hands Save-A-Life, has requested a major redevelopment permit to
allow the construction of a new 9587 square foot youth facility on a vacant lot located
on the west side of Roosevelt Street (mid-block), between Pine and Roosevelt. The
proposed facility will provide for a variety of youth sport activities (i.e, basketball and
boxing) and other programs designed to serve at risk, lower income youths of Carlsbad.
The focus of Join Hands is on activities which will deter youths from criminal violence.
The primary clients are the under-privileged youths of Carlsbad which are living in close
proximity to the site selected for the proposed youth facility.
The proposed project consists of construction of a new, two story building which will
include a gym with a basketball court and boxing ring, an office and lobby area, a study,
training room, and a video and arts room for the Join Hands organization.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 2
The applicant has requested variances for 1) the front and side setbacks which are
below the minimum of the acceptable setback range, 2) the front and rear setbacks
which exceed the maximum of the acceptable setback range, and 3) a flat roof on the
gym roof, which does not allow for the required 4:12 roof pitch.
The details of the requested variances for the setback and roof pitch will be described
in further detail later within this report. Staff is recommending that the project be
approved with variances granted for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the
acceptable range. However, staff is nof recommending approval of the front and side
setbacks which are below the minimum acceptable setback or for the flat roof on the
gym portion of the building. Although unusual, staff is recommending that the project be
approved but conditioned to require a redesign of the gym roof to allow for the required
4:12 roof pitch and to allow for the minimum 5 foot front and side setbacks. Within the
approving resolution, staff has recommended that the redesign be completed to the
satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. This action would allow the
proposed project to move forward while also assuring that the minimum standards have
been met by the project.
111. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual allows for youth facilities on a provisions/
basis within Land Use District 5. This means that the project must be given much more
consideration in terms of compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The Village Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission to permit the establishment and expansion of facilities which provide for
recreational facilities or programs provided by charitable institutions.
The site is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, consistency with the Village
Local Coastal Program is not applicable to this project.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will satisfy several components of the Vision Statement for the
Village Redevelopment Area of Carlsbad. First, it will provide a place for people
(youths) to come to be a part of important community events. Second, the project will
help in the effort to create a Village which provides for a comfortable and safe place to
work, shop, visit and live by developing a project which provides activities for the youth
who live in the area. The youths will benefit and the community benefits when youths
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 3
are involved in constructive activities which do not result in adverse impacts on
surrounding shopping and employment areas.
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:
Environmenf. The proposed project will result in development of a new facility which will
have a positive visual impact on the area. The positive visual appeal assists in the effort
to create a quality shopping, working and living environment. In addition, the project will
increase a very important use (youth activities) which serves Carlsbad residents.
Esfablish Carlsbad Villaqe as a Qualify Shoppinq, Workinq and Livinq
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulafion in the Village Area. The
project has been designed to minimize the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along major
pedestrian walkways (Roosevelt Street). The project will provide for parking at the rear
of the site and will have no driveways off of Roosevelt Street.
Goal 3:
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. The proposed project will assist in the
continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area, specifically the area from
Carlsbad Village Drive to Walnut.
Sfimulafe Properfv Improvemenfs and New Developmenf in the Villaqe.
Goal 4:
made a very good effort to design a project which will convert a vacant, blighted site
into a physically attractive project. The proposed project promotes the objective of
creating a sense of design unity and character while also encouraging design diversity.
Improve fhe Physical Appearance of the Villaqe Area. The applicant has
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 5 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Youth facilities are permitted within Land Use District 5 on a
provisional basis.
The goal of Land Use District 5 is to provide both residential units and residential
support services for the area. All uses permitted within the area, as identified within the
Village Land Use Plan, have been determined to be compatible with existing residential
uses. In the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual, it is intended that Land Use
District 5 provide for neighborhood commercial and support the residential character of
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 4
the area. At this time, staff believes that the youth facility provides for a very important
use which supports the residential character of the area by providing activities designed
to be attractive to youths and teenagers who live within the adjacent neighborhoods.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides for two types of standards that
every project must be consistent with in order to receive approval. The first type is
known as “Universal Standards”. Every project within the Village Redevelopment Area
must comply with these Universal Standards. The second type is known as “Individual
Standards,’. These standards are specific to the Land Use District in which the project is
located.
“Universal Standards’’ address 1) the issues of General & Redevelopment
Plan Consistency, Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing; and 2) special
instructions regarding the application of individual standards related to parking, building
coverage, building height and setbacks. The following information is provided to
indicate how the proposed project meets the “Universal Standards”.
General and Redevelopment Plan: 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; and 2) a City which creates a
distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a
pedestrian-oriented downtown area. 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 recreational as well as civic
and cultural activity opportunities for youths and teenagers of the Village community.
Also, since the project is located in close proximity to a residential neighborhood and
schools, it reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area and
assists with the effort to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area which
provides a wide variety of activities for residents and visitors.
In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area and the
mixed use nature (commercial mixed with residential) of the immediate area. The
project is located within easy walking distance of residential neighborhoods with
families who will benefit from the services provided by Join Hands. The project is
consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also been
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 5
determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village
Redevelopment Area.
Residential Densitv and lnclusionarv Housinq Requirements: There is no
residential proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary
housing requirements are not applicable to this project.
Parking: No specific parking standard has been established within the Village
Master Plan or the Carlsbad Municipal Code for Youth Facilifies. Therefore, a
determination must be made by the Design Review Board as to whether or not there is
a comparable parking requirement which can be applied to the project. On similar
projects in past years, the parking requirement applied for youth facilities has varied.
Per the Planning Department, the Girls Club was parked at I space for each “major
use” within the facility. The recommendation for parking the Boys and Girls Club a year
ago was 1 space for each full time employee and 2 guest spaces. These previously
used parking requirements were not specifically list within the zoning code or the Village
Master Plan, however. Therefore, for the Join Hands Youth Facility, staff has identified
a parking standard which is set forth within the zoning code and Village Master Plan,
and is more appropriate for the subject project. Staff is recommending that the parking
requirement for an Elementary School be applied to the project because the children to
be served by the non-profit organization, Join Hands, at the subject facility will be
elementary school age, or youths/teenagers without vehicles. The proposed facility is
instructional and client specific. The parking requirement for an Elementary School is
one (1) space per employee. Join Hands intends to have I full-time and 1 part-time
employee. Therefore, the requirement would be for 2 parking spaces. However, the
applicant is providing 3 parking spaces total, one of which is a disabled space which will
provide for appropriate facilities for either a disabled employee or guest.
Although staff has determined that the following parking requirements are not
comparable, these options for an alternate parking standard are provided for further
consideration by the Design Review Board:
1. Gvms and Health Spas . The parking requirement for a gym or health spa is 1 space
for each 35 square feet of gross floor space. Staff does not believe that this is an
appropriate parking requirement because it is applied to adult gyms and health
spas, which generally requires adults to drive to the location. The adult gym or
health spa is typically not allowed within residential areas; they are most often
located in commercial areas. The proposed youth facility is client specific in terms of
its age group (primarily elementary school-aged children) and is located to allow for
pedestrian access from the residential neighborhood near the site. In addition,
unlike a gym or health spa, many of the activities of the youth facility are held at off-
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 6
site locations as field trips or community activities. For example, many of the youths
will participate in fishing trips, graffiti clean up activities, picnics, etc. At a gym or
health spa, all of the activities occur at the site of the gym or health spa which has a
much greater impact in terms of parking demands.
2. Public Assemblv. The parking requirement for a public assembly use is 1 space for
each 100 square feet of gross floor space. Because this parking requirement is
typically applied to uses where there is a set time for a performance or speaker,
such as a performing arts center, and again typically focuses on activities for adults,
staff did not believe that this was an appropriate standard for the subject youth
facility. The youths will be allowed to enter and leave the site throughout the day,
and will typically be arriving from the surrounding neighborhood rather than by
vehicle. Again, the youth facility offers a variety of programs, many of which are
located off site as part of field trips or community activities.
3. Hish School. The parking requirement for a high school is 1 space per employee
and 1 additional space per IO students. While it is anticipated that there will be high
school aged youths participating in the program at various times, staff did not
believe that this parking requirement was the most comparable due to the focus of
the youth facility and its efforts to attract at-risk, lower income youths from the
nearby neighborhood. Based on conversations between Staff and the organization
representatives, the focus of the organization’s gang diversion activities is on
elementary-aged youths. Due to the fact that the youth facility is focused on youths
which come from families with economic hardship, it is not anticipated that the high
school aged youths will be driving vehicles to the site.
Based on the age of the youths proposed to participate in programs at the subject
facility and the focus on at-risk, lower income youths from the nearby neighborhood,
staff believes that the elementary school parking requirement is the most comparable
and results in a requirement of 2 parking spaces. Staff is recommending that the
Design Review Board find that the elementary school parking requirement is applicable
to the subject project. If the Board does not agree with staffs analysis regarding the
parking standard for the youth facility, the Board will need to take action to identify the
appropriate standard to be applied to the project. The applicant will be required to
further redesign the project, if an alternate parking standard is approved.
Building Coveraqe, Heiqht and Setbacks: These standards are
established individually according to the applicable land use district within the
Village Redevelopment Area. The Universal Standards section of the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual provides information on variances and criteria to be used in
setting the standards for individual projects when a range is set forth for the subject
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 7
standard. The details of the subject standards are described below.
“Individual” development standards set forth specifically for new development within
Land Use District 5 are as follows:
Buildinq Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual sets the front
setback standard as a range from 5 to 10 feet for commercial land uses. The project as
proposed project has been designed with a front setback which ranges from 0 to 20
feet, with a majority (51%) of the building setback 5 feet from the property line. The
entryway has been designed to extend to the property line (0 setback), for design
reasons, to allow for some visual articulation in the building. However, this area would
require approval of a variance to allow for the reduced setback to 0 feet. Also, a
variance is required to allow the setback to exceed the standard of 10 feet for one third
of the front of the building. The building setback to 20 feet is above the maximum for
the range of the front setback. Staff is recommending that the variance be granted for
the front setback which exceeds the maximum of the range. However, staff is also
recommending that the footprint of the building be reduced to allow for a minimum 5
foot front setback in all areas, including the front entrance. This would mean that the
range of the front setback would be 5 to 20 feet, rather than the proposed 0 to 20 feet.
Findings will need to be made to grant the variance for the front setback which exceeds
the range, and to allow for the front setback to be reduced to the minimum of the
acceptable range (5 feet).
In the Master Plan, the side and rear setback standards are also indicated as a range
from 5-1 0 feet. The project as proposed provides for no side setbacks. Therefore, a
variance would be required to allow the building to be constructed as designed with no
side yard setbacks. The first story of the subject building provides for a rear setback of
39 feet from the property line, off Tyler Street. The second story is setback from the rear
property line by 31 feet 3 inches. There is also a 5 foot landscaped setback area to be
provided between the property line and the first parking space in the rear; this is
required because parking is not permitted in the rear setback area. Although the
significant rear setback is desirable in this case, the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual does require that a variance be granted for any setback which is above the
maximum or below the minimum. The rear setbacks proposed for the project are above
the maximum of 10 feet. Staff is recommending that the variance for the rear setback
which exceeds the maximum of the range be approved. However, staff is also
recommending that the footprint of the building be reduced to allow for the minimum 5
foot side setbacks.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of
the range is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, I997
Page 8
standard to the minimum may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and
appropriate findings are made by the Design Review Board and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. As previously indicated, staff is recommending that the
front and side setbacks be allowed to drop to the minimum 5 feet. To allow for this
minimum 5 foot setback on the front and side, the Design Review Board and Housing
and Redevelopment Commission is required to find as follows:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced 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 to be located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area.
Staff believes the above findings can be made to allow the reduced front and side
setbacks to the minimum of the range (5 feet) for the following reasons: 1) The project
is to be located in an area which has a mix of uses, both commercial and residential.
The commercial property to the south has a similar (5 foot) setback. The residential
property to the north is setback approximately 15 feet from the property line. The
reduced setback will have no adverse impact on the commercial property to the south
or the residential property to the north; 2) The reduced standard is necessary in order to
allow the applicant to construct a building which can provide needed services to the
youths of the area. It allows for a more visually appealing design and assists in the
effort to create a gym area which is the appropriate size to accommodate a boxing ring
and related facilities; 3) The proposed design is consistent with the guidelines for the
Village and the reduced setback standard in the front will allow for articulation in the
building which will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more
appealing.
In addition to the above findings to allow for the reduced front and side setbacks to the
5 foot minimum, the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment
Commission will also be required to make appropriate findings to grant the following
variances :
1. Rear setbacks which exceed the maximum range of 10 feet.
2. Front setbacks which exceed the maximum range of 10 feet for approximately one
third of the building front.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 9
The findings required to grant a variance for the rear and front setbacks which exceed
the standard (range) are as follows:
The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the
permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the
structure back to the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village
character of the area.
The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential development
and where increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between
commercial and residential development or would protect the liveability of the
residential development.
Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining
space subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This
finding is not applicable to the subject project.)
The first two findings noted above for allowing the rear and front setbacks which exceed
the maximum standard (range) are justified as follows: I) the subject project is in a
location which has varying setbacks. To the north, the residential property is setback in
the front by approximately 15 feet. To the south, the commercial property is setback in
the rear by nearly 77 feet. It is expected that these existing buildings will remain for
many more years. Therefore, staff believes that the increased setbacks are consistent
with the area. These larger setbacks allow for a design of the building which allows for
more articulation in the building, which ultimately results in a building which is more
visually interesting and appealing. The larger rear setbacks allow for a private outdoor
patio area and a rear parking lot, which are both desirable features for the project. 2)
The project is located in a very mixed use area with a gradual transition into residential.
The proposed project serves as a “bridge” between the uses in terms of the mixed
setbacks. The increased setbacks in the front and rear help to create an appropriate
transition from the residential to the north to the commercial property to the south.
Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open
space. The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in
accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be
dedicated to landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof
gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating areas. No parking spaces or aisles are
permitted in the open space. The project, as currently proposed, provides for a total of
2449 square feet of open spacellandscape area, which represents 23.32% of the site
(10,500 square feet); this exceeds the 20% requirement. This percentage of
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 10
landscaping will increase with the condition of approval which requires reduction of the
footprint of the building to allow for the minimum 5 foot front and side setbacks.
Building Coveraqe: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all
projects in Land Use District 5 is 60% to 80%. The bottom of the range is considered
the desired standard. However, similar to the setback standards, an increase in the
standard to the maximum may be permitted if the project warrants such an increase
and the same findings can be made as noted above for the setback standards.
For the proposed project, as currently designed, the building coverage is 64.7%. This is
consistent with the desired standard at the bottom of the range. The building coverage
will be reduced slightly by the condition of approval which requires reduction of the
building footprint to allow for a minimum front and side setback of 5 feet.
Buildinq Heiqht: The height limit for Land Use District 5 is 30 feet with a 4:12
roof pitch. At the peak of the gym building, the project is 30 feet in height. The building
has a varying roof line with pitched roof features (4:12) at the front and rear of the
building. The gym facility portion of the building has a flat roof. However, architectural
features have been added which are complimentary to the roof pitches at the front and
rear of the building. The building height and roof pitches are consistent with the
standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design, with the exception that a
portion of the building (the gym facility) has a flat roof. A variance would be required to
allow the subject portion of the building to be constructed with the flat roof.
Staff is not recommending approval of a variance for the flat roof on the gym portion of
the facility. Staff is recommending that a condition be approved for the project which
requires redesign of the gym roof to provide for the required 4:12 roof pitch and to
remain under the 30 foot height limit for the area.
For consideration purposes, the following information on the applicant's justification for
granting a variance for the flat roof on the gym is provided to the Design Review Board.
Because the project provides for a facility which is not typical in terms of commercial
buildings, there are certain requirements which present a conflict for the applicant in
meeting all of the design standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual. The applicant has proposed a youth facility which provides for a gym. The
applicant has indicated that the gym building requires a maximum height of 30 feet in
order to allow for a basketball court and boxing ring within the interior. This is not a
typical problem for other commercial projects in the area. Per the applicant, the
requirement to add a pitched roof to the gym facility would result in practical difficulties
and a financial hardship to the Join Hands organization. Since a good effort has been
made to design the remainder of the building with appropriate roof pitches and add
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 1 I
attractive architectural features to the gym roof, the applicant believes that the flat roof
on the gym will not have an adverse impact on the Village or other properties within the
area. In fact, the Boys and Girls Club, which is located approximately 2 blocks north
from the proposed Join Hands facility, has a similar gym facility which also provides for
a flat roof. The applicant believes that the Join Hands organization should be able to
have a gym facility similar to the Boys and Girls Club in terms of roof design.
Parkina: As stated above, staff is recommending that the elementary school
parking standard be applied to the subject project which results in a parking
requirement of 2 spaces. The project has proposed a total of 3 parking spaces to
accommodate one full-time and one part-time employee as well as a disabled client or
employee. For a complete discussion of the alternate parking standards which were
considered prior to selecting the elementary school standard, please see Section VI
above.
Other Miscellaneous Reauirements: The “Individual Standards” for Land Use District
5 include a statement that access to parking will not be allowed from Roosevelt Street
unless no other access is available. The proposed project will have access off of Tyler
Street. Therefore, the project is consistent with this requirement. In addition, there is
also a miscellaneous development standard which requires that for any lot proposed for
non-residential development which adjoins an existing residential lot, the project shall
include construction of a solid masonry wall along common lot lines. The project has
been designed to include a new masonry wall along common lot lines on the north side
of the property. A masonry wall already exists on the south side of the property.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to
design a project which is consistent with a village scale and character. 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 (IO) 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.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, I997
Page 12
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 has provided for an overall informal character in design. The architectural design
provides for variety and diversity through varying roof lines, varying window treatments,
arches, building articulation in the front and rear and patio/balcony areas. There is also
landscaped areas which add to the variety and diversity of the design. The
development is small in scale in terms of its design. The building has a very strong
relationship to the street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public
sidewalk area and encourages pedestrian access. The ground floor facades are
designed in an attractive manner with brick treatment, open arches, landscaping,
balconies and interesting window treatments. The building provides for a variety of
architectural features and details as previously described. The parking is visually
subordinate in that is located at the rear of the property, off of Tyler Street. It is not seen
from Roosevelt Street. The proposed signage is consistent with the standards and the
desired Village character. A summary of the design features related to the project is
provided as an exhibit to this report.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
The property will be allowed a total of 75 square feet of signage for the subject building.
The applicant has proposed a total of 4 wall signs - two on the front of the building and
two on the rear of the building. The signs provide information on the name of the
organization (“Join Hands Save a Life”) and the type of facility (“boxing gym”/”gym”).
The total amount of signage proposed is 75 square feet. The signage meets the
standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
IX. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building which will have a building permit valuation which is greater
than $150,000. The project must have a recommendation from the Design Review
Board and final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested,
consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the
project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project.
The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal
Development Permit is not required for the subject project.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
Novern ber 24, I997
Page 13
X. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND
OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic. The total projected average daily traffic for the project is 13 ADTs, based on the
most recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations.
Circulation. Circulation for the project is designed with an entrance and exit onTyler
Street.
Sewer. The total number of sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) required for the
project is calculated to be 1 .OO, with the application of the same calculation used for
school facilities. Sewer service to the project will be provided by an existing sewer line
on Tyler Street. The sewer pipe size is 8 inches.
Water. The total number of EDUs required for the project is calculated to be 1 .OO, as
noted above, with water usage estimated at 220 gallons per day. The water service
requirements for the subject project are calculated by multiplying the EDUs times the
estimated gallons per day which amounts to 220 gallons per day. Water service will
be provided by an existing 6 inch water main on Tyler Street.
Reclaimed Water. The use of reclaimed water is not a requirement for this project due
to its low demand for irrigation water.
Gradinq: Grading for this project will be very minimal. It will consist primarily of building
pad preparation and establishing the desired drainage pattern for the site. There are no
slopes or retaining walls on this project.
Drainaqe and Erosion Control: The property will drain to the east and west of the
property. No erosion control required.
lmprovemenfs. Sidewalks have already been installed on the west and east sides of the
proposed project. The applicant will need to obtain right-of-way permits to remove and
install driveway aprons in the public right of way.
Propertv Lines. The applicant will be required to process a lot line adjustment to
convert three parcels (single ownership) into a single parcel (single ownership) for
development purposes.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 14
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the above
described 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, a Negative Declaration was issued for the subject
project by the Planning Director on September 19, 1997 and made available for public
review. No comments were received on the environmental document. Adoption of
Design Review Board Resolution No. =will recommend approval of the Negative
Declaration for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
XII. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project will have very little financial impact on the City or the
Redevelopment Agency due to the non-profit status of the applicant (Join Hands). The
property will most likely be exempt from property taxes and no sales tax will be
generated by the establishment. However, the project may serve as a catalyst for other
improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings.
Therefore, it could have financial impact in terms of the interest it may generate for
other private development in the area. The project will result in the construction of a
new development and the elimination of a blighting influence within the area, as a result
of the development on a vacant site. In addition, the facility will provide constructive
activities for area youth.
XIII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project, with the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Findings to grant the variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the
maximum of the range.
Findings to allow the front and side setbacks to be reduced to the minimum of the
acceptable range at 5 feet.
Conditions requiring the redesign of the project, to the satisfaction of the Housing
and Redevelopment Director, to reduce the footprint of the building to allow for the
minimum 5 foot front and side setbacks, and to allow for a roof pitch of 4:12 on the
gym portion of the facility with a maximum height of 30 feet at the peak of the roof.
Approval of the elementary school parking standard as the appropriate, or
comparable parking standard, for the subject youth facility.
RP 97-03 Staff Report
November 24, 1997
Page 15
With the conditions requiring redesign of the roof and reduction of the building footprint
to allow the minimum front and side setbacks (5 feet), the proposed project will meet all
of the minimum development standards. Although it is somewhat unusual, staff is
recommending that the Design Review Board recommend approval of the project to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission with the requirement for the redesign as
noted above, to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. By taking
the recommended action, the Design Review Board will provide the applicant with
appropriate direction as to the acceptable design standards, and also allow the
organization to continue with the processing of the permit without further delays at this
point in time.
Although the project may have little financial benefit, the new facility will offer very
important services to the community through the activities sponsored by the
organization for at risk youths within the immediate neighborhood.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 259, recommending approval of the Negative
Declaration
Design Review Board Resolution No. 260, recommending approval of RP 97-03
Location Map.
Project Description with Disclosure Statement.
Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines.
Reduced Site Plan and Elevation Exhibits
Signage Site Plan and Elevations
Full Size Project Plan Exhibits "A" - "C", dated November 24, 1997.
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. 259
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR THE JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY, WITH
VARIANCES FOR THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS MWICH
EXCEED THE STANDARD RANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT STREET BETWEEN PINE AND
WALNUT IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
APN: 204-081-08, 09, 10
CASE NO: RP 97-03
WHEREAS, Join Hands Save-A-Life, a California Non-Profit Corporation,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Join Hands Save-A-Life, a California Non-
Profit Corporation, “Owner”, described as Lots 27, 28, and 29 in Block 31, in the Town of
Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,
1888 (“the property); and
WHENAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the standard range, as shown
3n Exhibits A-C, dated November 24, 1997 on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Join Hands Project RP 97-03’, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 24th day of November,
1997 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request for a
Negative Declaration; and,
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
:onsidering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration on RP 97-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design
Review Board 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 hereby RECORIIVXENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration according to the one page notice and the EIA Part I1 Form
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings :
FINDINGS:
1.
2.
The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbac! has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (RP 97-03), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the
project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Design Review
Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approval of the
Negative Declaration.
The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 97-03)
reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 24th day of November, 1997 by
:he following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
- KIM WELSHONS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
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. 260
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT, INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR
FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY
PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
ROOSEVELT STREET, BETWEEN PIME AND WALNUT, IN LAND
USE DISTRICT 5 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
APN: 204-081-05, 09, 10
CASE NO: RP 97-03
WHEREAS, Join Hands Save-A-Life, California Non-Profit Corporation,
”Developer“, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Join Hands Save-A-Life, California Non-
Profit Corporation, “Owner”, described as Lots 27, 28 , and 29 in Block 31, in the Town of
Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2,
1888 (“the Property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit and variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the maximum of the standard
range as shown on Exhibits A-C, dated November 24, 1997 on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, “Join Hands Project RP 97-03” as provided by Chapter 21.35.080
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 24th day of November,
1997, 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
1L
1:
1t
1;
14
l!
2(
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I )RB Rcsofution NO. 260,
’age 2
actors relating to “Join Hands Project RP 97-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
bard 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 a Major Redevelopment
Permit for the Join Hands Save-A-Life Youth Facility Project, RP 97-03,
including variances for the front and rear setbacks which exceed the
maximum range, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board has recommended approval of a Negative
Declaration for the subject project and has determined that the project will have
no significant environmental impact.
2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of
a building , or addition to an existing building, with a building permit valuation
which exceeds $150,000.
3. The Project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, no Coastal
Permit is required.
4. The Project is determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development
standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth with the
Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines,
with approval of the following required findings to allow for variances for the
front and rear setbacks that exceed the standard range:
The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The variances for the front
and rear setbacks which exceed the range do not create a situation which
contradicts the intent of the standards established in the subject document.
With the condition that the proposed project be redesigned to provide for
the minimum 5 foot setbacks on the front and side, and to provide for a
gym roof which meets the 4: 12 roof pitch requirement, the final project
will be consistent with the minimum development standards for the area
and meet the needs of the youth of the community which is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further
than the permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain,
and setting the structure back to the desired standard will maintain and
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
reinforce the Village character of the area. The subject property is in a
location which has varying setbacks. To the north, the residential property
is setback in the front by approximately 15 feet. To the south, the
commercial property is setback in the rear by nearly 77 feet. It is expected
that these buildings will remain for many more years. The larger setbacks
in the front and rear of the building allow for a design of the building
which provides for more articulation in the building, which ultimately
results in a building which is more visually interesting and appealing. The
larger rear setbacks allow for a private outdoor patio and a rear parking lot,
which are both desirable features of the project.
The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential
development and where increased setbacks would soften the visual
transition between commercial and residential development or would
protect the livability of the residential development. The project is located
in a very mixed use area with a gradual transition into residential. The
proposed project serves as a “bridge” between the uses in terms of the
mixed setbacks. The increased setbacks in the front and rear help to create
an appropriate transition from the residential to the north to the commercial
property to the south.
5. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth
with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, with approval of the conditions set forth herein requiring redesign of
the building, to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, to
allow for minimum front and side setbacks of 5 feet and to allow for a gym roof
which provides the required 4: 12 roof pitch while remaining under the 30 foot
height limit. The following required findings will allow for the reduced front and
yard setbacks, to the minimum of five (5) feet (of the acceptable range):
a) The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties. The project is located in an area which has a mix of uses, both
commercial and residential. The commercial property to the south has a
similar (5 feet) setback. The residential property to the north is setback
approximately 15 feet from the property line. The reduced setbacks will
have no adverse impact on the residential property to the north or the
commercial property to the south.
6) The reduced 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 to be located. The
reduced standard is necessary in order to allow the applicant to construct a
building which can provide needed services to the youths of the area. It
allows for a more visually appealing design and assists in the effort to
create a gym area which is the appropriate size to accommodate a boxing
ring and related facilities.
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
-
DRB Rcsolutiou NO. 260
Page 4
c) The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is interesting
and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. The
project design is consistent with the guidelines for the Village and the
reduced setback standard in the front will allpw for articulation in the
building which assists in the effort to make the building visually interesting
and more appealing.
GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEhIENT FIiNDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the
area. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual,
effective as of January 12, 1996, because it will provide for a land use
(youth facility) which supports the residential units within Land Use
District 5 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all
required public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation
have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking.
Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building
design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned
to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for
the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are
transported within storm drainage facilities,
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot
which has appropriate zoning for a youth facility. The project is also
consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within
the Village Redevelopment Area.
The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project
meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards.
The proposed project is exempt from paying public facilities fees because
the applicant is a non-profit organization.
2. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- DRB Resolution No. 26C
Page 5
3.
4.
5.
6.
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that
the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have
been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval.
The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or
development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements
established by the Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which are applicable to the
project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement
approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City's
Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384.
The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to
the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough
proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS:
1, The Design Review Board does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of a Major
Redevelopment Permit, for the Join Hands Project, including variances for the
front and rear setbacks which exceed the standard range, as provided for in RP 97-
03 subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to
make, or require Developer to make, all necessary corrections and modifications to
the Exhibits and/or other documents to make them internally consistent and in
conformity with final action on the project. Developer shall develop the property
substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits for the project, with the exception
that the building footprint shall be reduced to allow for a minimum 5 foot
front and side setback, and the gym roof shall be redesigned to allow for the
required 4:12 roof pitch while remaining under the 30 foot height limit for the
area. The required redesign shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Housing and Redevelopment Director.
2. The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24" X 36", mylar
copy of the Site Plan for the project as approved by the final decision making body.
The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the Agency. The plan copy
shall be submitted to the Planning Director and approved prior to building or
grading permit approval, whichever occurs first.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
DRB Resolution NO. 26C
Page 6
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24" X 36"
blueline drawing.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment 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's
Redevelopment Agency has issued a Redevelopment Permit by Design Review
Board Resolution No. 260 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
Planning Director or 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.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall
be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director approval. All lighting shall be
designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for apprdval by the Fire Chief
and the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in
conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's
Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the approval
of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall
construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain
all landscaping in a healthy and thriving conditions, free from weeds, trash and
debris.
10. The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be accompanied
by the project's building, improvement and grading plans.
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
-
DRB Resolution No. 26C
Page 7
I 1. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so as
to be plainly visible from the street; color of identification and/or addresses shall
contrast to their background color.
12. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and
local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
13. The Developer shall construct a six foot (6’) masonry block wall on the north
side of the common property line. The height of the solid block wall shall drop
to forty-two inches (42”) ten feet (10’) from the east and west property line for
pedestrian visibility purposes.
14. The Developer shall reduce the footprint of the proposed building, to the
satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, to allow for a
minimum front and side setback of five feet (5’). The range of the front
setback will subsequently be 5 feet to 20 feet.
15. The Developer shall redesign the roof of the gym portion of the subject facility,
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, to allow for
the required 4:12 roof pitch, while also maintaining the thirty foot (30’) height
limit.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
16. he developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
17. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
18. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when
such a program is formally established by the City.
19. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall file and receive
approval of a boundary adjustment application with the City to merge the
three existing lots so that the project site is situated on one lot.
20. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall obtain a City right-of-
way permit to install driveway aprons in the public right-of-way on Tyler
Street.
WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
1, The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met.
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
- DRB Resolution NO. 260
Page S
2. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits, and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installations.
3. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate
parties.
b) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (Le., GPM - EDU).
4. This project is approved under the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the
time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available
until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the project plans.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans for
conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the stand and local Fire
Codes. The plans must include a site plan which depicts the following:
a) Location of existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
b) Location of off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
c) Depiction of emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire
Department approval.
If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur; or, if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so implemented and
maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment 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 Agency's approval of this Resolution.
STANJJARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited
to the following code requirements.
1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
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
DRB Resolution No. 26C
Page 9
2. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
3. 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 time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
4. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
5. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets,
in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of
the Directors of Planning and Building.
6. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Director.
7. The project shall comply with recycling collection area requirements pursuant to
Section 21.105.060. The recycling area shall be noted on the final plans submitted for
applicable building permits for the project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 24th day of November, 1997 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, Acting Housing and RedeveIopment Director
EXHIBIT 4
PROJECT OESC R I PTION/EXPLANATION
Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately
explain the scope ax/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and suppoiting statements regarding the reasons for, or
appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
.
Rev. 4/91
This proposed project is a 9,974 SF Recreation Building. The principal space is a
basketball court. This will be used for other purposes as well such as; volley ball
and a boxing ring. Interior spaces include office space, storage, locker rooms,
kitchen and bathrooms.
There are 3 parking spaces, including a handicapped space. The architectural
and landscape style is Spanish.
The intent is to build into the side yard setbacks to accommodate an already
undersized basketball court. Although the roof over the gymnasium will be flat it
will be concealed behind a parapet with decorative tile treatment.
D I S CLOS L' RE STATESIENT
The fcllowlng information must be disclosed:
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
,&/# r
2. - Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved
;To, b/A/UDS -y# of5 # 4/F 5 3528 m#b /son, s7.
C#/eLS&t3AP c4. 92@'8 -so29
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) .or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. A//p
/
4. If any person identitled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person Sewing as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficW
of the trust.
9 L 0°K
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1161
- -
VILLA - MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELII~ES EXHIBIT 5
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
II
Maintain Retail Continuity along Pedestrian-Oriented
frontages
Avoid Drive-Through Service Uses
Minimize Privacy Loss for Adjacent Residential Uses
II
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
I
-
Project: Join Hands Youth Facility
The area the project is located has a mix of uses,
including residential and commercial. Due to this mix,
there are and will continue to be a variety of set-backs
on the Roosevelt Block. The proposed project has front
setbacks on Roosevelt Street which range from 0 to 20
feet. The adjacent residential and commercial propertie
also provide for varying setbacks off of Roosevelt.
Although the proposed project will not provide for
pedestrian amenities such as benches or low walls, the
project will provide for attractive landscaping and facad
design. These features are important to creating a
strong pedestrian orientation in the area.
This is a mixed use area. The proposed project will not
conflict with retail continuity.
No drive through service included in project.
A 6’ Masonry Wall will be constructed on the north side
of the property to provide privacy for the residential unit
located adjacent to and north of the proposed project.
Also, there are not design features (ie balcony) on the
north side of the building which would result in any loss
of privacy. The balconies or patios face either Tyler
Street or Roosevelt Street.
’
The project has been designed to be pedestrian friendly
and encourage pedestrians to walk into the front of the
property.
~ ~~
Landscaped areas are provided in the front and rear of
the proposed building. The low level ground cover and
trees will provide for an informal characterketting.
This project has been designed in a manner which
provides for “green space” in the front and rear of the
building. This will create visual interest and also create
pleasing area for youths to gather as part of the
activities provided at the facility.
Landscaping is provided within the parking lot area.
No Alley. This project is bordered by Roosevelt on the
east and Tyler on the west.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
Avoid parking in block corner locations
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces.
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mere copies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
3reak large buildings into smaller units.
With Roosevelt dS the front of the lot, the parking is
located at the rear of the lot off of Tyler Street.
All areas not required for parking spaces or aisles or
driveways or the trash enclosure have been
landscaped.
No parking proposed in front setback.
Roosevelt is a major pedestrian area and no curb cut is
to be constructed on it.
The parking lot will not be visible from the corner.
A Setback which includes a 5 foot landscape area was
provided between the parking lot and the adjacent
sidewalk.
Not applicable to this project.
At this site, it was not feasible or necessary to place
parking below grade. To be feasible, a much larger/talle
building would need to be constructed. Staff could not
support a larger or taller building on this particular site.
The parking lot surfaces will most likely be asphalt. The
proposed landscaping will assist in the effort to enhanc
the look of the parking lot.
The proposed new design of the building provides for
articulation in the building, varying roof forms, and othe
architectural features which provide for a unique
character. The proposed building will not look like any
other building currently in the area. However, it will also
blend into the area in a complimentary manner. The
site was taken into consideration in terms of its
constraints. Also the location within the Village and
Barrio Area were important in development of the
design.
At its peak, the proposed project is 30 feet in height.
The taller portion of the building (the gym) is set-back
from the sidewalk and the roof line has been varied to
reduce any negative impact on pedestrians.
The applicant has made a good effort to design the
building in a fashion which creates a sense of division.
However, due to the nature of the use (youth facility), it
would be quite difficult to actually break the building into
smaller units.
#1g height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and “look at me”
design solutions are strongly discouraged. r
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater. I1 -
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 5 clay tile roofs
are acceptable.
Avoid flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
The height of tt le building is fairly COnSiStent with other
commercial buildings in the area. It, however, is taller
than the neighboring buildings to the north and south.
The building has been designed with simple lines and
forms but allows for representation of the Village
character desired for the area. The building is not trend
or “look at me” in design.
-
Gabled-type roofs and roof features with the desired
pitch have been provided within the project.
While no dormers are used within the roof, staff believe
the design is consistent with the type of roof desired for
this area of the Village.
The project provides for a red tile roof. The project is
located in Land Use District 5 which allows for clay tile
roofs.
While the building does provide for a portion as a flat
roof, staff believes that the added “railing” features
together with the effort to add some visual interest in th
flat roof is acceptable for this area of the Village.
This will be a requirement of the project.
Mansard roof not designed into project.
By providing for an attractive front facade and
landscaping, the entry to the project is very visually
appealing. Visual interest is added to the building
through attractive building colors, many windows with
varying shapes and architectural features, and varying
entrances.
The building facades which are visible from the streets
have been given special design attention by the
variation in facade fronts and entrances. recessed
entrances, a varying roof line and a variation in
landscaping. To provide some visual appeal to the rear
of the building, the parking lot will be landscaped and
there will be outdoor patio areas and balconies.
Decorative doors will be used for the front and rear
entrances. The sides of the building is not visually
interesting, with the exception that the applicant did
attempt to provide a little more interest on the north sid
of the building with some arch-like projections for
articulation purposes. The sides, in general, however
must remain solid walls for sound attenuation purposes.
Therefore, staff finds the lack of visual interest on the
building sides to be acceptable.
-
Utilize small individual windows exLipt on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding;
stucco
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
1) Utilize light and neutral base colors.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less colors)
11 Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid Large Blank Walls. I
The proposed project provides for smaller, individual
window openings at the front and rear of building. -
The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create some shadows and
contrast.
The upper level of this commercial building does provid
for balconies and attractive window features which
reflects special attention in design.
The upper levels of this building will be accessed
through internal stairways and accessed internally.
Therefore, no special treatment of upper level use
entries is necessary. - -
Detail elements have been incorporated into the entire
project by design. The window and entrance designs all
provide for detail which adds visual interest. The
balcony areas and central entry way were also designe
to provide for detail in architecture.
The materials and colors proposed for the building will
not conflict with adjacent developments.
The walls will have a whitelcream stucco finish. The
windows will have brown wood trim. Also decorative
brick will be used on the front facade.
At this time, none of the noted materials have been
indicated for use.
The windows are clear glass.
The applicant will be using dark wood window s and
trim.
The applicant has proposed no awnings or canopies.
The building walls will have a whitekream stucco finish.
The colors and materials are limited to stucco, brown
wood window frames and red tile roof.
Due to the type of commercial facility, a youth facility,
this design feature is not applicable.
The project provides for blank walls on the north and
south side. This is primarily due to the type of facility
Droposed for construction. However, an effort has been
vade by the applicant to provide some visual interest
Nithin the roof line and on the north side with some
arch-type features.
-
Encourage large window opening:
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
r restaurants
Utilize small paned windows // Develop a total design concept.
1 Provide frequent entries.
Limit the extent of entry openings. I
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate Fences and walls into the building design. I .. ._
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
~
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
-
Not applicable, .,a restaurant proposed within the
project.
No fabric awnings to be used; not a retail or storefront
operation.
No display lighting. Not applicable to project.
Dutch doors not proposed. The applicant believes that
the doors as designed are more appropriate for the
selected style of the building and the type of use for the
facility.
The applicant is using small divided paned windows.
All facade design elements are unified. The applicant
was able to develop a total design concept with is also
functional and visually interesting.
The project does provide for variation in entrances by
providing for two entrances - on to the office area and
another to the gym.
~~
The extent of the entry openings has been limited
through the design.
The project does not include pull down shutters or
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along the
street frontage.
The primary entrance to the facility is emphasized with
an arch feature and decorative door. The entrance is
immediately adjacent to the sidewalk which also create
an emphasis.
Fences and walls have been incorporated into the
building design.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not amlicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not aRDlicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Encourage detached garages whl
visual importance to the house itself.
are subordinate in
11 Provide quality designed fences and walls.
Not applicable.
I Not applicable.
lpy separate multi-family developments into smaller I Not applicable.
components. I
n
$3
$8
RECREATJON BUILDING
5 c- ROOSEVELT STREET
0 2 CARLSBAD, CA
2
I- 9
JOIN NdNDS b
FFLOK SORINO. -5. jg 3528 PlADISCP( 4T.
LCNGTm f 2- MESA DRlM 7 CCEdNSlDE, cA. 92554 m CARLWAD. CA 92-8
io (160) 120-0540 1160) 122-4204
-I
Y
TYLER STREET
/
I -P B e
TYLER STREET
.=* P
ROOSEVELT STREET I
P
TYLER STREET -- -
i f rn w
ROOSEVELT STREET
- EXHIBIT 7
PAU~ LONGTON, ARckiTEcT AIA
2909 MESA DRIVE
OCEAwdE,
Cali fon~ IA
92054
(619) 722-4904
FAX (619) 722.4903
November 12, 1997
Ms. Debbie Fountain
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B
Carlsbad, California 92008
Reference: Join Hands
Dear Debbie;
Enclosed are elevations are information regards the proposed signage for the
Join Hands project.
The letters will be IO” tall. They will be black plastic fastened to the walls. I have
enclosed the approximate linear dimensions of each sign.
The signs facing Roosevelt Street will total 43 SF. The signs facing Tyler Street
will total 18.5 SF.
Please call with any questions or comments.
t 1
n
BOXING GYM
6 E5 1/2" - - I
JOIN HAND5
5AvE A LIFE
JOIN HAND5
5AvE A LIFE I' 'I
FRANK'S
GYM
3229