Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-28; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 381; Lincoln & Oak Mixed UseQ LU 8cc Q. O< OO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL AB# 381 MTG. 3/28/06 DEPT. HIRED TITLE: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 DEPT. HD. (tjjgS) / CITYATTY. {§&- CITYMGR ^=^T RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No 411 . APPROVING a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and tentative tract map (CT 05-03) for the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 as recommended by the Design Review Board. ITEM EXPLANATION: On February 23, 2006, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a public hearing to consider a major redevelopment permit, coastal development permit, and tentative tract map for a three-story mixed-use project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The 17,514 square foot site contains a single-family residence and a commercial building containing a surf shop, which are both in a state of disrepair and proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed building. The site is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, commercial development to the west, condominiums to the north, and construction recently began on a 5-unit condominium project on the property to the east. Surrounding uses are predominantly multi-family with scattered commercial uses. The proposed project involves the construction of a three-story building consisting of two-stories of residential condominiums located over aboveground parking and retail space. There are six (6) units total varying in size from 3,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The building has a pleasant architectural design with attractive retail space on the ground floor incorporating decorative materials such as travertine and decorative awnings to enhance the street scene at the corner. The residential condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper level of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and attractive balcony railings. The residences are significantly setback from the street at upper levels in order to reduce °* the massing of the building along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominate feature of the corner. Each unit within the project is equipped with a private roof garden/patio and/or a roof balcony for recreational purposes. Parking for the project is screened from public view contained entirely within the structure. Each residential unit has a 2-car garage with roll up garage doors, covered guest parking is provided, and covered retail parking is provided as required. The project also includes extensive landscaping within and around the project, a pleasant architectural design unique to the Village, and low-lying decorative walls around a fountain close to the street at the corner of Lincoln Street & Oak Avenue. Vehicular access to the site is provided off of Lincoln Street and off Oak Avenue.O COCO At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the project as proposed with findings to grant the following: 1. Establishment of the Medium-High Residential (RMH) density designation for the subject property PAGE 2 with a corresponding density of 8-15 dwelling units per acre and a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre; In addition the Design Review Board added a condition of approval to the Design Review Board resolution requesting city staff to determine the appropriateness of constructing a secondary masonry wall for the neighboring property to the east. The approving resolutions along with the Design Review Board staff report, and the draft minutes of the February 23rd meeting are attached for the Commission's review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. No comments were received on the environmental determination. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Housing & Redevelopment Commission resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed project will have a positive impact in terms of increased property tax. The current assessed value of the project site is $882,901. With the new construction, it is estimated that the assessed value will increase to approximately $11.7 million. The increase in value would result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $108,171 per year. Additionally, it is anticipated that the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. EXHIBITS: 1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 411 . APPROVING RP04-11, CDP 04- 30, & CT 05-03. 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 302, 303, and 304 dated February 23, 2006. 3. Design Review Board Staff Report dated February 23, 2006, w/attachments. 4. Design Review Board Minutes, dated February 23, 2006. 1 2 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 411 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 4 APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RP04-11, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CDP04-30, AND TENTATIVE 5 TRACT MAP NO. CT05-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED- USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) 6 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET & 325 7 OAK AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES g MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. APPLICANT: KARNAK PLANNING & DESIGN 9 CASE NO: RP 04-117 CDP 04-307 CT 05-03 10 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly 11 noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development 12 Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) for the construction of mixed-use 13 development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on 14 the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street & 325 Oak Avenue, and adopted Design Review Board 15 Resolutions No. 302, 303, and 304 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission 16 that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and 17 Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) be approved; and18 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03); and WHEREAS, the recommended Design Review Board approval includes findings establishing _. the Medium High (RMH) residential density range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre for the subject _, property; and 2£ WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant 27 to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the 2g Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the project was found to be categorically PAGEl 1 2 exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 3 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an in-fill development project on a site of less than five acres in an 4 urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served by adequate facilities. 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment 6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 7 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 8 2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), 9 and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) are APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the 10 Design Review Board contained in Resolutions No. 302, 303, and 304, on file in the City Clerk's 11 Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and 12 Redevelopment Commission. 13 3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, 14 analyzed and considered the environmental determination for this project and any comments thereon. 1 The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; 18 (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more 19 than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; 21 (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to 22 traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and 23 (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 24 The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the environmental determination reflects the 25 independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 26 4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and 27 Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time 28 Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: (J PAGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE TO APPLICANT: "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his/her attorney of record, if he/she has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008." PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 28th day of March , 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hall ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: RAYMOND R. PATCHEtT, SECRETARY ~ o ESTABLISHED •• •*• ••. .•• * c',, * '•• ........ ••; * o-" '/C*Bf-'v PAGES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTIONS NO. 302, 303 AND 304 DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2006 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE 8 APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 9 CASE NO: RP04-11 14 19 20 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 302 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 3 . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-11 FOR THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 22 26 27 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 10 ii WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified application 12 13 with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 & 203-260-15, and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as 16 shown on Exhibits "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment 17 Department, "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03", as provided by18 Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23rd day of January, 2006, hold a duly 21 IlULl^Cl WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and 23' arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to 24 "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows: 95?A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. In making this determination, the Housing & Redevelopment Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. 9 The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and the 10 establishment of the RMH density designation for the project, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 27 28 B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. The Housing & Redevelopment Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for in the staff report dated January 23, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family residential use and retail use in an appropriate location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the Village. By providing more residential and retail opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment be encouraging and increasing the opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary customer base to attract complementary uses. The project reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by providing needed sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue and the location of the project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. The project's proximity to existing bus routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing new economic development near transportation corridors. Furthermore, the project will provide a strong street _» presence with extensive architectural relief, including outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent streets and fully enclosed parking. Overall, the new residential units will enhance the Village as a place for living and working, b. The project is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and 23 24 n Design manual in that the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 9 through the following actions: 1) it establishes the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing for a multi-family for-sale product which serves to increase the type of housing options available to people seeking to reside in the downtown area, 2) it improves the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Village Area by providing residential units in close proximity to both bus and rail mass DRB RESO NO. 302 -2- transit and improves the pedestrian environment by providing needed sidewalk 2 improvements along Oak Avenue, 3) it stimulates property improvements and new development in the Village by providing for an appropriate intensity of 3 residential development and retail development that may serve as a catalyst for future redevelopment in the area, 4) it improves the physical appearance of the 4 Village Area by replacing currently blighted buildings with an aesthetically pleasing building with attractive landscaping. 5 c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land Use District 9, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set 7 forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. o d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required o public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have 10 been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The 11 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. 13 e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within 14 the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and the City's Landscape Manual. f. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building 17 and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards. 18 g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment 20 Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for six (6) 21 units. h. The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the 24 project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the architectural features of surrounding developments. The buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all 25 conform to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which serves as the adopted land use plan for the area. The overall plan for the project provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, off-street parking, 27 recreational facilities and other pertinent amenities. The parking is well integrated into the building and the project is compatible with surrounding land 28 uses and will not negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. Common DRB RESO NO. 302 -3- 1 4 5 ,. follows:6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 c. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of 15 16 17 18 19 20 25 26 27 28 areas and recreational facilities are located so that they are readily accessible to the occupants of the dwelling units. The overall architecture is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Village character as set forth in the Village Design Manual. 3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project is RMH (11-15 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses. b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The medium- high density designation allows for future development that would be consistent the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master Plan. Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster Station). Medium-high residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. 4. The project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facility plans will not be adversely impacted, in that all necessary public improvements to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. 22! 5. There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the 23 control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. 6. All necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that all required public facilities necessary to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. DRB RESO NO. 302 -4- The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local 2 Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to 3 ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; 4 government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, 5 a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service 7 is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they 9 apply to sewer service for this project. 10 b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval. 11 -_ c. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation to provide school 13 facilities. 14 d. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. e. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. 17 8. The project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. 18 , Q 9. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to 20 mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 21 GENERAL CONDITIONS: 23 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. 24 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be 2-> implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so 2/r implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or 27 || modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued 28 I under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the DRB RESO NO. 302 -5- property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said 2 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Major Redevelopment 3 Permit. 4 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections c and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. 6 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 7 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment 10 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 11 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid 12 unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 13 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and 14 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and 16 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or 17 issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all in liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been 20 concluded and continues even if the Agency's approval is not validated. 21 6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a 22 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 23 7. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a 24 reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing format. 25 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to 27 provide school facilities. 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -6- 9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required 2 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 10. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 04-11 as shown on Exhibits 4 A-V, dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 11. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit No. CDP 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein. 9 12. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. CT 05-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 10 for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein. 13. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this 12 project within 24 months from the date of project approval. 13 14. Building permits will not be issued for the project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate ^4 water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of -.t- the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be 16 placed on the Final Map. 17 HOUSING CONDITIONS; 18 15. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of 19 certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-space condominiums, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as 20 an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.21 22 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS; 23 16. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary 24 Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and - install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 26 17. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the 27 landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans.28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -7- 18. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 2 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 3 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS: 4 19. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the 7 Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: 8 a. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor 10 of, or in which the City has an interest. 11 b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right 12 to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City 1, within 30 days for the official record. 14 20. This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for 15 such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this requirement. 16 ,- 21. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable 19 Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 21 22. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and 22 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the 23 Directors of Community Development and/or Housing and Redevelopment. 24 23. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required 25 passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational facilities. 26 2? „ NOTICING CONDITIONS: 28 I DRB RESO NO. 302 -8- 24. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice 2 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 3 successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No. 302 and 304 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, <. location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. 6 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 7 good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 8 ON-SITE CONDITIONS: 9 25. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site 10 plan (Exhibit "B") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the 1 Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or 12 materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment Director. 13 26. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. 14 When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and , Housing & Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. 16 27. The developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of 17 an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.18 19 28. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. Individual antennas shall not be permitted. 20 29. There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. 22 30. Building materials identified in acoustical study prepared by Eilar Associates shall be used in the building construction in order to reduce noise levels to an acceptable 23 level. 24 31 The eastern property wall will be reviewed and considered by Redevelopment staff, Engineering, applicant and developer in order to determine the appropriateness of construction of a second masonry wall adjacent to existing masonry wall for the 26 neighboring property. If a second masonry wall is deemed appropriate by the above mentioned parties it's placement, height, and related design shall be subject to final 27 review and approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. 28 15 DRB RESO NO. 302 -9- 1 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS: 2 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the 3 following code requirements. Fees 4 32. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as 5 required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 6 33. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 7 34. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent ° offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. General 11 35. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. 12 36. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning 13 Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 14 37. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code 15 Section 18.04.320. 38. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in tl Plan and Design Manual and shall require review £ Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs. the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and approval of the Housing & 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -10- 1 NOTICE 2 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 3 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions."4 You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise 12 expired. 13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006 by the following vote to 15 wit: 16 AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher 17 NOES: None 18 ABSENT: None 19 ABSTAIN: None 20 21 22 COURTNEYT1E1NHMAN, C'H^filPERSON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 23 ATTEST: 24 25 26 || DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR11 27 28 II DRB RESO NO. 302 -11- ' / ATTACHMENT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 303 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP 04-30 FOR THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE 5 FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD 6 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 7 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE 8 APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 CASE NO.: CDP 04-309 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified 11 application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned 12 by Russell Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-260-14 & 13 203-260-15, and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and 14 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal 15 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the 16 Housing and Redevelopment Department, "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04- 17 30/CT 05-03" as provided by Chapter 21.81.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 1 8 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 23rd day of January 2006, 19 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 20 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 21 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors 22 relating to the CDP. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board 24 of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.26 971 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board L " RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use CDP 04-30 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Area 2 Redevelopment Plan and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which serve as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the City of 4 Carlsbad Segment of the California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty 5 of the coastal zone, and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the site. 6 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 7 of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to the shore. 8 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection " Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes „ exist within the proposed construction area, all grading will conform to the City's erosion control standards, and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible j j to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. 12 Conditions: 13 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. 14 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be 15 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the 16 right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Coastal Development Permit. 20 . Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as 21 necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. 22 Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 23 3. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a 24 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Coastal Development Permit reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 25 4. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 04-11 and CT 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolutions No. 302 and 304 for those other approvals and incorporated by reference herein. 5. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within twenty- four (24) months of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.81.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. DRB RESO NO. 303 -2- 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. 3 7. All construction activities shall be planned so that grading will occur in units that can be easily completed within the summer construction season. All grading operations shall be limited to April 1 to October 1 of each year. All areas disturbed by grading shall be planted within 60 days of initial disturbance and prior to October 1 with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control methods. The October 1 6 grading season deadline may be extended with the approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of erosion control measures designed to prohibit 7 discharge of sediments offsite during and after the grading operation is completed. Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to 8 sensitive coastal resources and may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as a formal amendment to an existing coastal development 9 permit. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 303 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COURTNEY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CHAIR ATTEST: _ DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 303 -4- ATTACHMENT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 304 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING . APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 05-33 TO SUBDIVIDE .402 ACRES INTO SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS 4 AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND 5 USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 6 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE CASE NO.: CT 05-03 7 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified 8 application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number U 203-260-14 and 203-260-15 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A ("the Property"); 12 and 13 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract 14 Map as shown on Exhibit(s) "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and 15 Redevelopment Department as "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03", 16 as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 17 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 23rd day of January, 2006, 18 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 19 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 20 and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors 21 relating to the Tentative Tract Map. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board 23 of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 24 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review 26 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use CT 05-03, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 28 Findings: 1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, the 1 Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems. T.2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since A surrounding properties are located within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area and the intent of the Village Master Plan is to accommodate 5 a wide mix of uses in this district with an emphasis upon facilities, goods and services to tourists and regional visitors traveling along the coast. 6 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the 7 site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the development is consistent with the RMH density 8 designation which has been assigned to the property based on the following findings: 9 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density 12 residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses. 13 b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of 14 the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. 15 The medium-high density designation allows for future development that would be consistent the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master 16 Plan. c. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & 19 Village Coaster Station). Medium-high residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation 20 promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. 21 That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in 23 that the property has frontage on Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and there are no easements granting access through the property to others. 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 26 6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or 27 natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. 28 7. That the Design Review Board has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those DRB RESO NO. 304 -2- housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources. ~ 8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their 4 habitat, in that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it 5 is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA 6 Guidelines as an infill development project. Therefore, the Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect 7 on the environment. 9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project is conditioned to comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 11 10. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Village Redevelopment 12 Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated January 23, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: the 13 project will provide for a permitted mixed-use development (multi-family residential and retail commercial) in an appropriate location within Land Use 14 District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. 11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and 16 ordinances since: 1 71' 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 20 met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District. 22 c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval. 23 d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as 24 conditions of approval. 25 e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment 26 of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. 27 12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new 28 construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to DRB RESO NO. 304 -3- Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. Conditions: 5 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a 6 final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 7 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so 8 implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency/City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further 9 condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; 10 institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative 12 Tract Map. 13 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to 14 make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any 15 proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 16 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local 17 ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 18 4. if any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project 1^ are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be 20 invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the 91 project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 22 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body 23 members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and 24 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) Agency's approval or issuance 25 of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of 26 the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or 27 emissions. 28 DRB RESO NO. 304 -4- 6. The Developer shall submit to the Agency a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the (Tentative Map/Site Plan) reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the 4 Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. 5'8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required 6 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 7 9. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing 8 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at 9 the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. Engineering Conditions: 12 NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the 13 approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building or grading permit whichever occurs first. 14 General 15 10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site 16 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. 11. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other 18 recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities 1" located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 12. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 22 13. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance 23 with Engineering Standards. 24 14. Developer shall install sight distance corridors (see below for types) at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following 25 statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R's). 26 "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified 27 as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street- Design Criteria, Section 8.B. The underlying property owner shall maintain this 28 condition." DRB RESO NO. 304 -5- 'rtf) 1 The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any . improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development. 3 Fees/Agreements 4 15. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross 5 lot drainage as shown on the tentative map. The deed restriction document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall: 6 A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course; 7 B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying property owner; and C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict, impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public nuisance. 16. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an 14 additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. 15 Grading 16 17. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the 17 tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for 18 the project. 1 g17 Dedications/Improvements 20 18. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, 22 but not limited to paving, base, cross gutter, signing & striping, sidewalk, curb and gutter, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer 23 lateral, water service, relocation of fire hydrant, and installation of street lights, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: 24 a) Half street improvements to Oak Avenue along the property frontage. 25 b) Replacement of pavement on a portion of Lincoln Street, c) Installation of water services and sewer laterals. 26 d) Relocation of an existing fire hydrant at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. ^' e) Installation of pedestrian ramps. f) Underground overhead utilities. A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the DRB RESO NO. 304 -6- 1 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 P s in 19. T A It P 20. P re P 21. P ut 22. D El Pi B< le su bi A B. C. 23. Pri De (S\V*31 Ste O*»ba of or the a. b. provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. The proposed public sidewalk located between the proposed driveway on Oak Avenue and the easterly properly line shall be revised to be noncontiguous with the curb. Said revision shall be reflected on the tentative map mylar, landscape plans, grading plans and improvement plans. Prior to removal of any trees within the public right-of-way, the developer shall receive permission to remove said trees from the General Services Division of the Public Works Department. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the subdivision boundary. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan P)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; DRB RESO NO. 304 -7-30 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 e. f. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident and employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. 24. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 25. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street corners abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Final Map Notes 26. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. 27. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the exception of the following: 1. Half street improvements to Oak Avenue within the public right-of-way. 2. Replacement of pavement on a portion of Lincoln Street. 3. Portions of water services and sewer laterals within the pubic right-of- way. 4. The fire hydrant at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. 5. Pedestrian ramps at the street corner. B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. C. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as sight distance corridors. Special Conditions 28. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the tentative map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. Carlsbad Municipal Water District 29. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be DRB RESO NO. 304 -8- 1 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 considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits. 31. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 32. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 33. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the tentative map to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 34. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned unit. Standard Code Reminders: 35. This approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final unless extended per section 20.12.100 of the Carlsbad Municpal Code. 36. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 and 303 for those other approvals and incorporated by reference herein. 37. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. DRB RESO NO. 304 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: FOUNTAIf HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 304 -10- ATTACHMENT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. "3 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT WITH ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2006 City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Application Complete Date: Staff: Cliff Jones 6/24/2005 Bob Wojcik Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption ITEM NO. 1 DATE: January 23, 2006 SUBJECT: RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 - "LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE": Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 recommending APPROVAL of RP 04-11, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 recommending APPROVAL of CDP 04-30, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 recommending APPROVAL of CT 05-03 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation greater than $150,000. This major redevelopment permit serves as the site development plan required by Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project also requires the approval of a tentative tract map because it involves separate ownership of the residential units. In addition, due to the fact that the subject site is located within the Coastal Zone, the project is required to process a coastal development permit. In accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the three permits are being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Design Review Board is being asked to hold a public hearing on the permits requested, consider the public testimony and staff's recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant, Karnak Planning & Design, has requested a major redevelopment permit, coastal development permit, and tentative tract map to allow the construction of a 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 2 The subject property totals 17,514 square feet and is located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The existing structures on-site include one single-family residence and a commercial building containing a surf shop. The existing buildings are in a state of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the new building. The subject property is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, commercial development to the west, condominiums to the north, and construction recently began on a 5-unit condominium project on the property to the east. The surrounding properties are predominantly multi-family with scattered commercial uses. The three-story building consists of two-stories of residential condominiums located over aboveground parking and retail space. There are six (6) units total varying in size from 3,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The building has a pleasant architectural design with attractive retail space on the ground floor incorporating decorative building materials such as travertine and decorative awnings to enhance the street scene at the corner. The residential condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper levels of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and solid iron railings. The residences are significantly setback from the street at upper levels in order to reduce the massing of the building along Oak Avenue & Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominate feature of the corner. Enhanced paving is provided at driveway entries and interlocking pavers are provided at the entry to the retail space. Parking for the project is screened from public view contained entirely within the structure. Each residential unit has a 2- car garage with roll up garage doors, covered guest parking is provided, and covered retail parking is provided as required. Vehicular access to the site is provided off of Lincoln Street and off Oak Avenue. IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the Village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family residential use and retail use in an appropriate location within the Village. This in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the Village. By providing more residential and retail opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment be encouraging and increasing the opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary customer base to attract complementary uses. The project reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by providing needed sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue and the location of the project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 The projects proximity to existing bus routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing new economic development near transportation corridors. Furthermore, the project will provide a strong street presence with extensive architectural relief, including outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent streets and fully enclosed parking. Overall, the new residential units will enhance the Village as a place for living and working. V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as follows: Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping, Working and Living Environment. The proposed project will result in the development of new condominium units where residents will be within clear walking distance to District 1, the retail and commercial core of the Village Area and the visitor-serving commercial uses of District 9. The new residences will increase the number, quality and diversity of housing units within the Village, particularly those in proximity to transit, shopping and employment for those people seeking to reside in the downtown area. The proposed retail space will serve residents, attract tourist-serving uses, and provide additional retail close to Carlsbad Boulevard. The attractive architectural design of the project will serve to enhance the site and the surrounding area. Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The project will provide needed sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue in order to enhance the pedestrian circulation adjacent to the project. Additionally, the proposed project will be in close proximity to both bus and rail mass transit options and will thus encourage and promote the use of mass transit, further improving vehicular circulation in the Village. Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the Village. The Master Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional new development. Two of the objectives of this goal are to increase the intensity of development and to encourage mixed-use development projects in the Village. The proposed project will specifically accomplish both of these objectives. In addition, the proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Tourism Support Area (Land Use District 9) by providing for an appropriate intensity of residential development and retail development that is compatible with surrounding area. Staff sees the development of the subject property as an additional catalyst for further redevelopment along Oak Avenue. Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The project has a design that is visually appealing. The architecture of the new structure meets the requirements of the design guidelines for the Village. The new structure is three stories, and is stepped back from the property lines, which is intended to respect adjacent and surrounding properties. Construction of the proposed project will reinforce the Village character with appropriate site planning and architectural design and materials that comply with City standards and requirements. In addition, the proposed project will establish a commercial use with scale and character that is appropriate for the neighborhood. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 4 VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, mixed-use projects are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still required. In addition, the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual stipulates that the mixed-use aspect of the project is permitted provided that the ground floor of all approved mixed-use projects be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. Since retail space is proposed along portions of the frontage of Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street closest to the travelers and tourist along the Carlsbad Boulevard coastal highway, Staff concludes that the project complies with this requirement. The overall vision for the development of District 9 (Tourism Support) is to accommodate a wide mix of uses with an emphasis upon facilities, goods and services to tourists and regional visitors traveling along the coast. High quality hotels, restaurants, and retail shops are emphasized and multi-family development is permitted as part of a mixed-use project. Permitted land uses in District 9 include hotels, restaurants, tourist retail, and mixed-use developments. Staff believes that the proposed project achieves this vision by providing a highly desirable mixed-use project, which promotes tourist retail at the northwest corner of the site close to the travelers along the coastal highway, while remaining sensitive to the adjacent residential uses by providing the residential component of the project along the adjacent residential sides. The residential component of the mixed-use project helps to ensure that the south side of Oak Avenue and the residential portions of Lincoln Street remain a quality residential neighborhood. In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is located in close proximity to mass transit, parks, the beach, retail, and commercial services. The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also been determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village Redevelopment Area. Development of the subject property will serve as a catalyst for future projects and help to promote the Village Design further within District 9. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 9 are as follows: Building Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front, rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 9, the required front yard setback is 5-20 feet, the required side yard setback is 5-10 feet, and the rear yard setback is 5- 15 feet. All setbacks are measured from property lines. The front yard setback of the proposed building is 8'-3" feet from the front property line. The street side yard setback is set at 7'-7" and the south side yard setback is set at 7'. The rear of the building is located 7' feet from the rear property line. All of the setbacks fall within or close to the middle of the standard range. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGES As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission: 1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is to be located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. The findings required allowing a reduction in the setbacks for the front and rear at a level below the maximum and within the standard range are as follows. First, the proposed setbacks will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties as the reduced setbacks will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated and contained entirely within the structure. Visual and noise impacts to adjacent residents will be reduced by allowing the parking to be contained within the structure and allowing the associated proposed setbacks. Furthermore, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of the building allowing other portions of the building to be setback further and stepped back at upper levels. Second, the reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the land use objectives in that the project will replace two blighted structures with a visually appealing project with a scale and character that will improve the appearance and condition of the current Village housing stock helping to stimulate property improvements and further new development in the Village. The mixed-use component of the project will help to further establish Carlsbad Village as a quality shopping and living environment and the proposed sidewalk improvements will improve access to nearby transit. Lastly, the reduced standard will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through setbacks that provide adequate space for landscape planters and decorative paving at the ground floor, and allows building recesses and relief along the various building planes. The reduced standard will assist in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more appealing which is a primary goal of the Village Design guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Based on these findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements set forth for Land Use District 9. Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for mixed-use projects in Land Use District 9 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 72.6% which is within the established range. The bottom of the range is considered the desired standard. However, an increase in the standard to the maximum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such an increase and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission: 1. The increased standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The increased standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the village character of the area. The proposed building coverage is consistent with the building coverage for many of the properties within the Village. The project provides ample setbacks on both the south (side yard LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 6 setback) of 7' and the east (rear yard setback) of 7' allowing for a building coverage of 72.6%, which will not negatively impact the adjacent residential uses. First, the proposed building coverage will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated and contained entirely within the structure thereby reducing visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties. Second, the proposed building coverage standard provides for the intensification of development desired for the area and a building with a strong street presence, which assists in creating a project design that is appealing and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 9. Third, the proposed building coverage will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through building coverage that provides adequate space for landscaped planter areas, decorative paving at the ground floor, low lying walls for seating at the north west corner of the site, a decorative fountain, and allows building recesses and relief along the various building planes for architectural enhancement. Based on these findings, it is staff's position that the proposed building coverage is consistent with the desired standard. Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 9 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12 roof pitch. Per the Village Master Plan, however, the maximum height may be increased to 45 feet for any size project where residential or commercial space is located over a parking structure. The project proposes a maximum roof height of 41 feet for architectural roof towers contained within the middle of the building that are necessary for access to the roof balconies. However the remainder and majority of the building is set at a building height of 36 feet with the required 5:12 roof pitch. The building height is in compliance with the established standard set forth in the Village Master Plan. Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space. The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Per the Village Master Plan (which supercedes all other regulatory documents), open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, and/or patios. Qualified open space for the proposed project includes: landscape and hardscape on the ground floor of the front, rear, and sides of the building, balconies, and private roof gardens/patios. The project provides for a total of 7,438 square feet of open space, which represents 42.5% of the site and is consistent with the open space requirement. Landscape and hardscape on the ground floor alone (excluding the private balconies and roof gardens) equates to 16.3% of the site and the roof decks/patios and balconies encompass the remaining 26.2%. Parking: The parking requirement for the multi-family portion of the project is two standard spaces per unit and V* guest parking space per unit. The parking requirement for the retail portion of the project is 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor space. As a result, the parking requirement for the 6 proposed units and the 1,913 square foot retail space is 21 parking spaces [(2.5x6)=15 + (1,913/300)=6.37 = 21]. The project provides 6 two-car garages with rollup doors, 3 guest parking spaces, 6 retail spaces, and 1 accessible space for a total of 22 parking spaces (1 space greater than required). The 22 parking spaces will not be visible from the public street as the spaces are contained entirely within the structure. With the proposed parking the project satisfies the parking requirements. Residential Density: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual does not set forth specific densities in the land use districts that permit residential uses. Instead, an appropriate General Plan residential density is to be determined for each project based upon compatibility LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE? findings with the surrounding area. Maximum project density may not exceed the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation unless a density increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Appropriate findings must also be made per Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to exceed the GMCP. After considering the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area, the vision for Land Use District 9 and surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a Medium-High Density (RMH) General Plan Designation for the subject property. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as follows: 1. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density. 2. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The medium-high density designation allows for future development that would be consistent with the development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master Plan. 3. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster Station). Medium-High residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. The RMH designation allows for a density range of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The site area for the proposed project is .402 acres (17,514 square feet), which will accommodate 4.62 dwelling units per the GMCP. As discussed below, the project applicant is requesting a density increase to accommodate a total of 6 dwelling units. With 6 dwelling units proposed, the project results in a density of 14.89 dwelling units per acre, which is above the GMCP of the RMH density range (11-15 dwelling units per acre). In accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance specific findings regarding the availability of public facilities must be made in order to approve a density bonus above the GMCP. The proposed project complies with these findings because all necessary public improvements and facilities to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. In addition, there have been sufficient developments approved in the northwest quadrant at densities below the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGES The proposed density of 14.89 dwelling units is close to the maximum of the RMH density range. However, since many of the surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and have a corresponding density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre, approving a project of 14.89 dwelling units is not out of character for the density of the surrounding area. Justification for meeting the findings of the Growth Management Ordinance to allow a density that exceeds the GMCP has been incorporated into the attached DRB Resolution No. 302. Inclusionary Housing Requirements: All residential projects within the Village Redevelopment Area are subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and those requirements imposed by Redevelopment Law. In accordance with Redevelopment Law, 15% of the private housing units constructed within a redevelopment area must be affordable to low and moderate income persons, of which not less than 40% (or 6% of the total units) must be affordable to very low income households. Per City Ordinance, projects of six or fewer units are eligible to pay an in-lieu fee of $4,515 per market rate unit. By paying this fee at the time of building permit issuance, the project is providing its fair share of housing affordable to lower income households and, therefore, is consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project has been conditioned to pay the in-lieu fee for the six (6) proposed residential units. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. Planned Development: The Village Master Plan includes a specific condition for residential units proposed for separate ownership which states that all such units shall comply with the development standards and design criteria set forth by the Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. In addition to the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the Planned Development Ordinance provides development standards for recreational space, lighting, utilities, recreational vehicle storage, tenant storage space, refuse areas and antennas. The project was found to comply with each of the development standards and design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. The following is an analysis of how the project provides for the additional development standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance. Recreational Space: Private recreational space shall be provided for all planned development projects with fewer than ten (10) units through a 15'x15' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area for each unit. The proposed units each contain a minimum of 120 square feet of total balcony area and/or roof deck/patio area. With six units proposed, a total of 720 square feet of private recreational space is required for the proposed project. The proposed project provides for a total of 4,584 square feet of private recreational space and, therefore, exceeds the standard. Lighting: Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety and sufficient to minimize security problems shall be provided. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant shall be required to submit a lighting plan, subject to the approval of the Housing & Redevelopment Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. Utilities: There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 9 Tenant Storage Space: The Planned Development Ordinance requires separate storage space of at least four hundred eighty (480) cubic feet for each unit. If all the storage for each unit is provided in one area, this requirement may be reduced to three hundred ninety two (392) cubic feet per unit. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas that are normally part of a residential dwelling unit. Each unit has been designed to provide for a minimum of 480 cubic feet of storage space. Therefore, sufficient storage area has been designed into the units. Antennas: Individual antennas shall not be permitted. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. Parking: The Planned Development Ordinance does not trigger any additional parking requirements beyond what is required within the Village Master Plan. Therefore, the project meets the parking requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. Building Coverage. Height and Setbacks: These standards are established individually according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area. The details of these development standards were previously discussed above. VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. In accordance with the design review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These design principles are: 1. Development shall have an overall informal character. 2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity. 3. Development shall be small in scale. 4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged. 5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street. 6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades. 7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details. 8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design. 9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated. 10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character. The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project provides for an overall informal character, yet maintains a pleasant architectural design. The project is consistent with the desired Village scale and character for a relatively dense urban neighborhood providing an appropriate density and intensity of development. The ground floor of the building has a strong relationship to the street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue enhancing the pedestrian- orientation of the Village. The ground floor is enriched with travertine and an attractive fountain is provided at the ground level in order to enhance the first floor facade. Upper levels of the building are setback from the street in order to provide architectural relief along the upper level LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 10 building planes. The building's architecture incorporates many of the same architectural elements found in other Village residential/commercial projects. The architectural design elements include the incorporation of various sized multi paned windows with decorative trim, travertine at the ground floor facade, aluminum and tempered glass balcony railings, varied stucco colors, tile roofing with a 5:12 roof pitch, and cherry colored doors. The project provides landscaped planter areas amongst the decorative paving at the ground floor and provides low lying walls for public seating around a decorative fountain at the north west corner of the site. Parking is visually subordinate contained entirely within the building itself. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (See Attached Exhibit B). IX. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION. SEWER. WATER. RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following: Traffic and Circulation: Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 128 A Traffic study was not required because of the insignificant traffic projected. Comment: All frontage and project related roadways exist and are conditioned to be improved as needed with development of this project. Sewer: Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Sewer EDU's Required: (1)edu/dwellingx 6 dwellings = 6 EDU's One 1,964 square foot retail /1800 = 1.10 EDU's TOTAL = 7.10 EDU's Comment: Sewer facilities exist in Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The developer will connect into the Lincoln Street main with one 6-inch lateral serving Units 1,2,3 and 4. One 6 inch lateral connecting to the Oak Street main will service Unit 5 and 6. A separate 6" sewer lateral to Oak Avenue will be installed for the retail building. All onsite sewer lines will be privately maintained. Water: Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District GPD Required: 250 gpd/edu x 7.10 edu's = 1,775 GPD Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project. Separate service lines and meters are provided from each unit. Soils & Grading: Quantities: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 11 Cut:1,325cy FilkOcy Export: 1,325 cy Import: 0 cy Permit required: Yes Off-site approval required: No Hillside grading requirements met: N/A Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: GeoSoils, Inc. Comment: There are no major grading issues associated with this project. Drainage and Erosion Control: Drainage basin: A Preliminary hydrology study performed by: Conway and Associates, Inc. Erosion Potential: Low Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. Given the minor increase of 0.76 CFS of storm water runoff caused by the development, the existing public storm drain system has the capacity to accept this additional runoff. Land Title: Conflicts with existing easement: None Easement dedication required: No Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project. Improvements: Off-site improvements: Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk exists on Lincoln Street. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and half street improvements will be installed on Oak Avenue, a street designated for compatible street improvements. Overhead utilities fronting the project will be relocated underground. Standard variance required: no. Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project. Storm Water Quality: The applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) measures, to the maximum extent practical, to ensure that no additional pollutants-of-concern are contributed downstream of the project. The applicant has prepared a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan that lists BMPs including site design, covered parking, stenciling of catch basins, and catch basin filters. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 12 X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Design Review Board resolution. XI. ECONOMIC IMPACT The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the project. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. XIII. PUBLIC COMMENT To date, the subject project has received substantial public comment from the property owner located immediately east of the proposed development. Attached to this report as Exhibit G are copies of all emails, letters and reports submitted by Mr. Michael Bovenzi, the adjacent property owner. Mr. Bovenzi is opposed to the subject project because he does not believe the project meets the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As noted in this report, it is staff's opinion that the project is consistent with all standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The project requires no variances from the standards, and is consistent with the land use requirements for the property. Mr. Bovenzi contracted with a private land use consultant to complete a review of the subject project. Staff reviewed the consultant's report and prepared responses to the report findings. This staff response is provided in Exhibit H to this staff report. Due to Mr. Bovenzi's ongoing concern regarding redevelopment staff's review of the subject project, staff obtained a third party review of the project. Michael Holzmiller, retired Planning Director for the City of Carlsbad and private planning consultant, was asked to complete a review of the project. Mr. Holzmiller's report is attached as Exhibit I to this staff report. Mr. Holzmiller concluded with his report that the proposed project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. He did indicate, however, that he did not believe the private balconies or patios should be included in the open space calculation. He suggested that the public open space component be increased by approximately 4%. Mr. Holzmiller also suggested that the building setbacks for the LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 13 residential portions of the building be increased to the maximum of the range for neighborhood compatibility purposes. These suggestions we represented as a personal and professional opinion of Mr. Holzmiller. They were not intended to indicate non-compliance with the development standards. They were intended to address neighborhood compatibility concerns. Staff met with the property owner located immediately to the south (Mr. Dennis Baueren) regarding the proposed project. Mr. Baueren informed staff that his concerns with the proposed project were that the units windows that face south would be able to look into the units of his apartment building. Mr. Baueren also had concerns about the wall height and asked that the south wall be raised higher in order to visually separate the adjacent uses. Lastly, Mr. Baueren expressed to staff that the south side yard setback (approximately 19 feet between the two uses) may not be enough and he would like to see the building setback further along this elevation. Due to the size and scale of the proposed project, there is a concern about neighborhood compatibility. This is a concern, however, which is a matter of opinion rather than a standards compliance issue. The Design Review Board will need to consider this matter in its review and make its own determination. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines. B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 recommending approval of RP 04-11. C. Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 recommending approval of CDP 04-30. D. Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 recommending approval of CT 05-03. E. Location Map. F. Exhibits "A - V", dated January 23, 2006, including reduced exhibits. G. Written public comments on project from adjacent property owner. H. Staff response to land use consultant review of project plans dated 12/11/03. I. Project Review Report by Michael Holzmiller, Planning Consultant. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST Site Planning; Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial block front. Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian frontages. Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented frontages. Avoid drive-through service uses. Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses. Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major pedestrian walkways. Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to create an informal character. Treat structures as individual buildings set within a landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on: Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street Parking and Access: Provide landscaping within surface parking lots Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever possible. Locate parking at the rear of lots. Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for parking spaces or circulation to landscaping. Avoid parking in front setback areas. Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas. Avoid parking in block corner locations. Project: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use A variety of setbacks are provided along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street. The adjacent residential and surrounding commercial properties also provide for varying setbacks along all streets. Low decorative walls which can be used for seating, are provided around a decorative fountain at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. A retail shop is part of the proposed project at the corner of Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street, which serves to maintain the retail continuity along this pedestrian-oriented frontage. The project does not include a drive-thru. Adequate setbacks are provided along the side of the property to minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses. The proposed project provides for an entry courtyard for pedestrian use. Landscaped areas along the front, sides, and rear of the building will provide for an informal setting. Landscaping will be provided along the sides of the building and the rear. Parking is contained entirely within the structure and will not be visible from the street. The subject property does not abut an alley. Parking is located within garages and/or underneath the building. Parking lot areas are not part of proposal. All areas not required for circulation or parking is devoted for landscaping. No parking is provided in the front setback area. Curb cuts are required for proper driveway access since the property does not have an alleyway. No parking provided in block corner. \ J 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 to divide parking lot paving into smaller segments. Building Forms: Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant and should be designed especially for their sites and not mere copies of generic building types. Step taller buildings back at upper levels. Break large buildings into smaller units. Maintain a relatively consistent building height along block faces. Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me" design solutions are strongly discouraged. Roof Forms: Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12 or greater. Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the exception that in the Land Use District 6 metal roofs are acceptable. Appropriate setbacks and landscaping are provided adjacent to pedestrian areas. The parking is fully integrated into the building design and plays a more subordinate role by being fully screened from the street. The building front is primarily dedicated to a desired retail use. Parking is not visually significant. Underground parking is economically unfeasible. Not applicable. The building has been designed specifically for the unique layout of the property and topography. The building design provides for articulation on all sides, varying setbacks, and other architectural features, which provide for a unique character. Upper levels of the building are stepped back along the street. Architectural features and relief appears to step the upper level of the building back along the rear and side of the property. The size of the lot does not warrant breaking the building up into smaller units. However, varying roof peaks, building lines, and various architectural features serve to break up the mass of the building. The height of the new structure is consistent with the height limit for residential and commercial buildings in Land Use District 9 & 1. The building has been designed with simple lines and forms but allows for representation of the Village character desired for the area. The building is not trendy or "look at me" in design. The project is providing a 5:12 roof pitch. The project design does not lend itself to the use of dormers. The project provides a composition shingle roof, which is consistent with the architectural design intended for the project as well as other projects in J Avoid Flat Roofs Screen mechanical equipment from public view. Avoid mansard roof forms. Building Facades: Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building facades should be visually friendly. Design visual interest into all sides of buildings. Utilize small individual windows except on commercial storefronts. Provide facade projections and recesses. Give special attention to upper levels of commercial structures. Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses. Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail elements for visual interest and scale. Respect the materials and character of adjacent development. Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and stucco. Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor carpeting; distressed wood of any type Avoid tinted or reflective window glass. the area. The building does not incorporate flat roofs. This will be a requirement of the project. The project does not utilize mansard roof forms. By providing for attractive facades and landscaping, the project is very visually appealing. Visual interest is added to the building through various architectural features. The design of the building incorporates design elements into all four building facades, thereby creating visual interest in the building. The project makes good use of various sized windows with decorative trim, attractive stucco siding, decorative travertine, and other decorative features. Multi-paned windows with decorative trim are used in the project. The building design provides for recesses and projections on the various levels of the building, which will create shadows and contrast. The upper level of the commercial structure has decorative travertine and the residences are setback from the commercial space at the upper level in order to accentuate the commercial part of the project. The second floor of the residence will be accessed through an internal stairway. No external entrances are proposed. Detail elements have been incorporated into the building, which include; decorative trim around the windows and architectural designs along the entire building, and attractive stucco siding. The materials and colors proposed for the building will not conflict with adjacent developments. The exterior walls utilize a textured stucco finish of neutral color and an attractive stucco siding. None of the noted materials have been indicated for use. The windows are clear glass. Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated metal door and window frames. Avoid metal awnings and canopies. Utilize light and neutral base colors. Limit the materials and color palette on any single building (3 or less surface colors) Commercial Storefronts: Provide significant storefront glazing. Avoid large blank walls. Encourage large window openings for restaurants. Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront windows and entries. Emphasize display windows with special lighting. Encourage the use of dutch doors. Utilize small paned windows. Develop a total design concept. Provide frequent entries. Limit the extent of entry openings to preserve display windows. 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. Residential: Encourage front entry gardens Wood or vinyl coated doors and window frames will be utilized. No metal awnings or canopies are proposed. The project utilizes a light and neutral color scheme. The project incorporates a stucco color, a trim color, and decorative travertine as part of the building color palette. Retail storefront glazing is extensive. Large blank walls are not proposed. Not applicable. Fabric awnings are proposed. Special lighting is proposed in retail display windows. Project design does not lend itself to the use of dutch doors. Small paned windows are utilized. Design of residential and commercial components of the mixed-use project are harmonious. Frequent entries are proposed. The extent of entry openings is limited. These features are not proposed. Storefront entries are emphasized. Fences and walls are integrated into the overall project design. Landscaping is proposed along the street frontage to contribute to the overall visual quality of the neighborhood. The landscape planter area and the low lying decorative walls will help contribute to the visual quality of the neighborhood and make for a pleasurable pedestrian experience. Ample room is available on the balconies and roof decks 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. Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in visual importance to the house itself. Provide quality designed fences and walls. Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller components. for residents to incorporate flower boxes and landscape planters on the upper levels. Due to the mixed-use nature of the project, the retail has been moved to the street rather than the residential. However, the residential unit entries are near the front property lines and the primary entrances are from the garage, which is oriented towards the street. The project design does not lend itself to front entry porches. The retail space, however, is oriented to invite pedestrians into the area. Windows look out to the street. The project utilizes a simple color scheme Low lying decorative walls, recessed windows, and color trim around the windows have been incorporated. The mixed-use nature of the project does not lens itself to a cottage form and scale. However, the project is consistent with a Village character. The project design incorporates cottage form, scale and character. Open space areas and landscaping encompass 42.5% of the property. Access drives to garages are required since the property does not have an alleyway. Not applicable. Low lying decorative wals enhance the facade of the building and are incorporated along the front of the project. The design of the project serves to visually separate the building into two smaller elements. S3 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 302 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 04-11 FOR THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 5 CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 6 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES 7 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE 8 APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 9 CASE NO: RP04-11 10 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified application 12 with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell 13 Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 & 203-260-15, and *4 more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as 16 shown on Exhibits "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment 17 10 Department, "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03", as provided by lo 19 Chapter 21.3 5.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 20 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 23rd day of January, 2006, hold a duly 21 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and 23 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to 24 25 "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11." 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as 27 follows: 28 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review 2 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 3 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 4 e 1. The Housing & Redevelopment Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact 6 on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA 7 Guidelines as an infill development project. In making this determination, the Housing & Redevelopment Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project. 9 2. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and the 10 establishment of the RMH density designation for the project, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual based on the facts set forth 12 in the staff report dated January 23, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: 13 a. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family 14 residential use and retail use in an appropriate location within the Village. This , - in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the Village. By 16 providing more residential and retail opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment be encouraging and increasing the 17 opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary customer base to attract complementary uses. The project reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by providing needed 19 sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue and the location of the project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and 20 mass transit functions. The project's proximity to existing bus routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing new economic development near 21 transportation corridors. Furthermore, the project will provide a strong street 99 presence with extensive architectural relief, including outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent streets and fully enclosed parking. Overall, the new residential 23 units will enhance the Village as a place for living and working. 24 b. The project is consistent with the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design manual in that the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 9 through the following actions: 1) it 26 establishes the Village as a quality shopping, working, and living environment by providing for a multi-family for-sale product which serves to increase the 27 type of housing options available to people seeking to reside in the downtown area, 2) it improves the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Village Area 2° by providing residential units in close proximity to both bus and rail mass DRB RESO NO. 302 -2- transit and improves the pedestrian environment by providing needed sidewalk 2 improvements along Oak Avenue, 3) it stimulates property improvements and new development in the Village by providing for an appropriate intensity of 3 residential development and retail development that may serve as a catalyst for future redevelopment in the area, 4) it improves the physical appearance of the 4 Village Area by replacing currently blighted buildings with an aesthetically 5 pleasing building with attractive landscaping. 6 c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land Use District 9, the Village Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Q d. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required 9 public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have 10 been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The 1 project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of "best 12 management practices" for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. 13 e. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within 14 the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area and the City's Landscape Manual. 16 f. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building 17 and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards. 18 , g g. The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Redevelopment 20 Agency's Inclusionary Housing Requirement, as the Developer has been conditioned to pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for six (6) 21 units. 22 h. The proposed project meets all of the minimum development standards set forth 23 in Chapter 21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that the overall plan for the 24 project is comprehensive and incorporates many of the architectural features of surrounding developments. The buildings, landscaping, and on-site amenities all conform to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which serves as the adopted land use plan for the area. The overall plan for the project provides for adequate usable open space, circulation, off-street parking, 27 recreational facilities and other pertinent amenities. The parking is well integrated into the building and the project is compatible with surrounding land 28 uses and will not negatively impact circulation patterns in the area. Common DRB RESO NO. 302 -3- areas and recreational facilities are located so that they are readily accessible to 2 the occupants of the dwelling units. The overall architecture is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Village character as set forth in the 3 Village Design Manual. 3. The Design Review Board hereby finds that the appropriate residential density for the project is RMH (1 11.5 dw follows: RMH (11-15 dwelling units per acre), which has a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as £ 7 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and 8 hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses. 1 1 b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, 12 and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The medium- high density designation allows for future development that would be consistent the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master Plan. 14 c. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of 15 Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster 16 Station). Medium-high residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. 19 4. The project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facility plans will not be adversely impacted, in that all necessary public improvements to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. 22 5. There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the 23 control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. 25 6. All necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created 26 by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that all required public facilities necessary to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. 28 SIDRB RESO NO. 302 -4- The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local 2 Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to 3 ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; 4 government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to - serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, 6 a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they 9 apply to sewer service for this project. 10 b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval. c. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation to provide school 13 facilities. 14 d. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. 16 e. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. 17 8. The project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. i n 9. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to 20 mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 21 22 GENERAL CONDITIONS: 23 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. 24 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained over time, if any such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or 27 modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the DRBRESONO. 302 -5-58 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said 2 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Major Redevelopment 3 Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections r and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. 6 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 7 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment 10 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 1 * 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid 12 unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 13 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and 14 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body . , members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and 16 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or 17 issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all 19 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been 20 concluded and continues even if the Agency's approval is not validated. 91^l 6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a 22 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 23 7. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a 24 reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing format. 26 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to 27 provide school facilities. 28 ^Cf DRB RESO NO. 302 -6- ^ ' 9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required 2 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 10. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 04-11 as shown on Exhibits A-V, dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department r and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 6 11. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 7 CDP 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board 0 Resolution No. 303 for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein.o 9 12. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. CT 05-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 10 for this other approval and incorporated by reference herein. 13. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this 12 project within 24 months from the date of project approval. 13 14. Building permits will not be issued for the project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate 14 water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of , <- the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be 16 placed on the Final Map. 17 HOUSING CONDITIONS: 18 15. At issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance of 19 certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-space condominiums, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as 20 an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the amount in effect at the time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time. 22 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS: 23 16. The Developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary 24 Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 26 17. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the 27 landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans.2o DRB RESO NO. 302 -7- 18. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 2 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 3 MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS: 4 19. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of 5 a building permit the Developer shall provide the Housing & Redevelopment Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the 7 Department of Real Estate and the Housing and Redevelopment Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:8 o a. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor 10 of, or in which the City has an interest. 11 b. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City i -> within 30 days for the official record. 14 20. This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for 15 such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this requirement.16 17 21. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable 1" Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such ~~ taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 21 22. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and 22 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and/or Housing and Redevelopment. 24 23. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required 25 passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational facilities. 26 27 NOTICING CONDITIONS: 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -8- Co 24. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice 2 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 3 successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No. 302 and 304 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 8 ON-SITE CONDITIONS: 9 25. The developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site 10 plan (Exhibit "B") with gates pursuant to the City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Housing & Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or 12 materials of the project and subject to the satisfaction of the Housing & Redevelopment Director. 13 26. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and j r Housing & Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. 16 27. The developer shall submit and obtain Housing & Redevelopment Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.lo 19 28. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. Individual antennas shall not be permitted. 20 29. There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. 22 30. Building materials identified in acoustical study prepared by Eilar Associates shall be used in the building construction in order to reduce noise levels to an acceptable 23 level. 24 31. The eastern property wall will be reviewed and considered by Redevelopment staff, __ Engineering, applicant and developer in order to determine the appropriateness of construction of a second masonry wall adjacent to existing masonry wall for the 26 neighboring property. If a second masonry wall is deemed appropriate by the above mentioned parties it's placement, height, and related design shall be subject to final 27 review and approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -9- foof 1 STANDARD CODE REMINDERS: 2 The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the 3 following code requirements. Fees 4 32. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as 5 required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 6 33. The developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.080.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 34. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. General 35. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final. 12 36. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning 13 | Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 14 37. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code 15 Section 18.04.320. 38. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with , 7 the approved plans and the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and shall require review and approval of the Housing & 1 g Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 302 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher None None None COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 302 -11- ATTACHMENT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. (b5 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 303 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP 04-30 FOR THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1,913 SQUARE 5 FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD 6 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 7 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE 8 APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 CASE NO.: CDP 04-30 10 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified jj application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned 12 by Russell Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-260-14 & 13 203-260-15, and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, ("the Property"); and 14 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal 15 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the 16 Housing and Redevelopment Department, "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04- 17 30/CT 05-03" as provided by Chapter 21.81.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 18 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 23rd day of January 2006, 19 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 20 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 21 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors 22 relating to the CDP.23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows: ^f^J 2fi A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 27 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use CDP 04-30 based 28 on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which serve as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the City of 4 Carlsbad Segment of the California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty 5 of the coastal zone, and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the site. 6 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 7 of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to the shore.8 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes , Q exist within the proposed construction area, all grading will conform to the City's erosion control standards, and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. \2 Conditions: 13 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. 14 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be 15 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of 17 occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this Coastal Development Permit. 20 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as 21 necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. 22 Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 23 3. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a 24 reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Coastal Development Permit reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 4. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 04-11 and CT 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolutions No. 302 and 27 304 for those other approvals and incorporated by reference herein. 2g 5. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within twenty- four (24) months of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.81.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. DRB RESO NO. 303 -2- 1 2 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. 7. All construction activities shall be planned so that grading will occur in units that can be 4 easily completed within the summer construction season. All grading operations shall be limited to April 1 to October 1 of each year. All areas disturbed by grading shall be 5 planted within 60 days of initial disturbance and prior to October 1 with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control methods. The October 1 6 grading season deadline may be extended with the approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of erosion control measures designed to prohibit 7 discharge of sediments offsite during and after the grading operation is completed. Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to 8 sensitive coastal resources and may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as a formal amendment to an existing coastal development 9 permit. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (o<8 DRB RESO NO. 303 -3- 1 NOTICE 2 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 3 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 4 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 5 you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for 6 processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or 7 annul their imposition. 8 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, 9 zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 12 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006, by the 14 following vote, to wit: 15 AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher 16 NOES: None 17 ABSENT: None 18 ABSTAIN: None 19 COURTNEY HEINEMAN, ACTING CHAIR 2U DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 21 ATTEST: 22 23 DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 24 " 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 303 -4- ATTACHMENT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. "70 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 304 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING 3 APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 05-33 TO SUBDIVIDE .402 ACRES INTO SIX (6) CONDOMINIUM UNITS 4 AND 1,913 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3112 LINCOLN STREET IN LAND 5 USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 6 CASE NAME: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE CASE NO.: CT 05-03 7 WHEREAS, Karnak Planning & Design, "Applicant", has filed a verified 8 application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Russell Lee Bennett, "Owner", described as Assessor Parcel Number 203-260-14 and 203-260-15 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A ("the Property"); 12 13 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract 14 Map as shown on Exhibit(s) "A-V" dated January 23, 2006, on file in the Housing and 15 Redevelopment Department as "Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03", 16 as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 23rd day of January, 2006, 18 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 19 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 20 and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors 21 relating to the Tentative Tract Map. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board 23 of the City of Carlsbad as follows:24 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use CT 05-03, 27 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 28 Findings: 1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Titles 2 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems. 2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since 4 surrounding properties are located within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area and the intent of the Village Master Plan is to accommodate 5 a wide mix of uses in this district with an emphasis upon facilities, goods and services to tourists and regional visitors traveling along the coast. 6 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the 7 site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the development is consistent with the RMH density 8 designation which has been assigned to the property based on the following findings: 10 a. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, 11 commercial and hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density 12 residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses. 13 b. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of 14 the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number, quality, diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. 15 The medium-high density designation allows for future development that , _ would be consistent the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master 16 Plan. c. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives 18 of Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & 19 Village Coaster Station). Medium-high residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation 20 promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. 21 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with 22 easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the property has frontage on Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and there are no 24 easements granting access through the property to others. 25 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 26 6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or 27 natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. 28 7. That the Design Review Board has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those DRB RESO NO. 304 -2- ' M housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and _ environmental resources. 8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their 4 habitat, in that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it 5 is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA 6 Guidelines as an infill development project. Therefore, the Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect 7 on the environment. ° 9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project is conditioned to comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 10. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, the Village Redevelopment 12 Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated January 23, 2006 including, but not limited to the following: the 13 project will provide for a permitted mixed-use development (multi-family residential and retail commercial) in an appropriate location within Land Use 14 District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. 11. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and ordinances since: The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been 20 met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. 21 b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified School District. 22 c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval. 23 d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as 24 conditions of approval. 25 e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment 26 of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. 27 12. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new 28 construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to DRB RESO NO. 304 -3- 1 Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of 2 public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. T 13. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. 4 Conditions: 5 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of a 6 final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 7 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency/City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Major Redevelopment Permit and Tentative Tract Map. 13 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map documents, as necessary to 14 make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any 15 proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 16 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local 17 ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. |f any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the 2} project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 22 5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body 23 members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and 24 attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b) Agency's approval or issuance 25 of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of 26 the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or 27 emissions. 28 DRB RESO NO. 304 -4-"74 6. The Developer shall submit to the Agency a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the 2 (Tentative Map/Site Plan) reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 3 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the 4 Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. 5 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required 6 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 7 9. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing 8 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at 9 the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect 10 shall be placed on the Final Map. Engineering Conditions: 12 NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the 13 approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building or grading permit whichever occurs first. 14 General 15 10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site 16 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route.17 11. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner 2Q among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. 2i 12. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 22 13. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance 23 with Engineering Standards. 24 14. Developer shall install sight distance corridors (see below for types) at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following 25 statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R's). 26 "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified 27 as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street- Design Criteria, Section 8.B. The underlying property owner shall maintain this 28 condition." 16 DRB RESO NO. 304 -5- The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any 2 improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development. 3 Fees/Agreements 4 15. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross 5 lot drainage as shown on the tentative map. The deed restriction document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall: 6 A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course; B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying property owner; and C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict, impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public , nuisance. 19 16. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area 13 shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an 14 additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. 15 Grading 16 17. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. 19 Dedications/Improvements 20 18. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, 22 but not limited to paving, base, cross gutter, signing & striping, sidewalk, curb and gutter, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer 23 lateral, water service, relocation of fire hydrant, and installation of street lights, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: 24 a) Half street improvements to Oak Avenue along the property frontage. 25 b) Replacement of pavement on a portion of Lincoln Street, c) Installation of water services and sewer laterals. 26 d) Relocation of an existing fire hydrant at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. e) Installation of pedestrian ramps. f) Underground overhead utilities. A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the DRB RESO NO. 304 -6- "7(_p provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above « shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 3 19. The proposed public sidewalk located between the proposed driveway on Oak 4 Avenue and the easterly property line shall be revised to be noncontiguous with the curb. Said revision shall be reflected on the tentative map mylar, landscape 5 plans, grading plans and improvement plans. 6 20. Prior to removal of any trees within the public right-of-way, the developer shall receive permission to remove said trees from the General Services Division of the Public Works Department. o0 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the subdivision boundary. 22. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable 12 level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include 13 but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: 14 A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and 15 hazardous waste products. 16 B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such 17 fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. 20 C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. 22 23. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, 23 Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad 24 Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City 25 of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: 27 a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; 11DRB RESO NO. 304 -7- c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this ~ project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident and employee education on the 4 proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and 5 f. identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent 6 practicable. 7 24. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 8 25. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street corners 9 abutting the subdivision in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. 10 Final Map Notes 26. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. 12 27. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the 14 exception of the following: 15 1. Half street improvements to Oak Avenue within the public right-of-way. 2. Replacement of pavement on a portion of Lincoln Street. 16 3. Portions of water services and sewer laterals within the pubic right-of- way. 17 4. The fire hydrant at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. 5. Pedestrian ramps at the street corner.18 B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. C. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as sight distance corridors. 22 Special Conditions 23 28. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on 24 the tentative map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad 25 Municipal Code, respectively. 26 Carlsbad Municipal Water District 29. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be DRB RESO NO. 304 -8- '" considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the « satisfaction of the District Engineer. 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water 4 Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits. 5 31. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public 6 improvement plans. 7 32. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public 8 improvement plans. 9 33. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the tentative map to the satisfaction of the District 10 Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 11 34. The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned 12 Standard Code Reminders: 14 35. This approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map approval becomes final unless extended per section 20.12.100 of the Carlsbad Municpal 15 Code. 16 36. This approval is granted subject to the approval of RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 and 17 303 for those other approvals and incorporated by reference herein. 37. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRB RESO NO. 304 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of January, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher None None None COURTNEY HEINEMAN, CHAIRPERSON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 304 -10- ATTACHMENT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 203-260-14 & 203-260-15 Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-14) PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. PARCEL 1: (APN: 203-260-15) PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11077, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 10, 1981. SITE LINCOLN & OAK M\XED USE RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 11 B SI k 'I aWl ii < • i Sif S S !'SS#.i /^ V i z•'sii ~3 wins 'BWS '«S ZOK M II»|Da - nurau •w»fimpi)| pt *«* q T—I < D-r e"!*3 S f ilihiMHii* Si1i S iII! I 1 I Im . i 1 ill ii* 11 ll'liigvlils; * 1! I iIKlE3 B B EBB El B B rf a !£) El g) g] BE ill a El Jsl SI El Bl El JS IS H El ^^iaSSlSlS ^s^ii h. if Q_ LJH- t/1 80016 VJ Inwiri 'D """S '»«S 10^ - «i«W ' MOW V01*W«0 V W)»t»ns npaiin Zl 1 £ 1 CO I—I 52< o o• o5 v v a>§14III 8SS o < Q_ X00 ceUJ 00 lit•t/liljCssa^' ^&-UB BODE6 Vj rtug invAi uSuvag pus SUIDUKJ V TO * »as UTI n IE Llliill ' M S| s i1 » a 38 t, |1 Shi! b^jjjlijj In»iiji?i* 1 iii*Jp i |»k ^ls!lsiP*fi »• !!l 133M1S NTODNR tt:OO UJI/) m BOOK YD 1*WJ ^ °l«S "wans »WS WK WOK YS»»*> VO $ W J£Q-DCEO I 1 > ES (- IL 3 i!liH I i si !jl«iS&S? BBBBEl"B'ElBlililll^BEl II8- IISI3.. S-- S" « es sg a!tt w y x JM §s 1S1 S3^ P.li ll 133M1S NIOONn SOIM VD 'V&S ""TO '9K ">fl O'A SOOB VD WTO v W) « WWS "¥»m HIE Llli <N a i *o § o is*0 8 gS i S S Sg s S 8§ 2IPfc §s i"Nil3 ?<cgg i?S|S3 = a i i ? s S J 1 1ss "sP si :H "P <i CL trOO OCJLU00 SOOt, VD "<Pe8B «"10S '9SI T»H O'd WOW YD WTO AV «j» sans «fxan III £ S!CO ceo p I o 9is oe Suiiraejd ^mity 50116 VD "T^H radios "9SI ">8 O'd ]puueg Minion*gooa V3T*woXUMV «> 8 PMS V»n fUE COI < sD.o; U. OO I ||S -i *L - 5 e I s § £ ^ ^ ? * g 1 1 S% s | - i uSissq pire Soiinrey ^ETUE^ a «uqus "9Sf «« ffd ooE P o !M*||i< 5i?E^ i I 3 S ^1 i S :Sfcg|4" 3 2$cl £< in (3 u. OU. u. IL Ld UJ X O ^S '"MS'WSIOK a-jamjKU-owpjnpljjD.K'S LO 4£r U3 1/18) W OwCO H ffi OHH CO fe O -ewCO H ffi O»-H CO a;::i3 H 5 ii M- . -^ "if-' iJiX^ AXIT Ju_ ^-1=0-^f-r N 82Ou£5!u § § Uu Q *>•O P J WigZZWE-a° a50,zgP „ 00,10* . £ < ^ o w J! e lffl I* i fin g|i| liii iiMS h| ft jo ?i !m !I JI !i al J II I? I I 1 III! 5p §^ IPn -5|l 5?§5 *t = ii i ii f in ! S S ! i i!f II'iOJ III i i is O 11 lie PI a i*.!! m 9>i•***..,« C *!!!*. L.S S » t-HS ri^^-eBg u. S3s -s«!Hs;5 H"s!t! ,'5fsi i . 6_.... T-I-T r-rT:—• "'•^"'iftH*1 aM*f;-PiS: I *:T ', •. ••-'.- •• - \133U1S \N100NI1 \ ^ ' *, £ @o5nasiisi Lm P g^ i it o •» o« ga a - • Ck. ^» «»es5 «* gu » csEB * «i $ is is I i i ii is iliii d §i i !i;i i ? " 6K **« J SB 2iillilidllli \J.33U1S \N103NI1 Cliff Jones - Lincoln & Oak Project Page 1 From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: <cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 03/14/2005 12:18:53 PM Subject: Lincoln & Oak Project Hi Cliff Thanks for taking the time with me yesterday to review the new plans submitted by Karnak for the Russ Bennett project on the corner of Lincoln and Oak. As we discussed yesterday, all of my meetings with Karnak failed to achieve a result that is both appropriate and acceptable. I was curious about something and had a question. Originally before you became an addition of the Re Development Office, Craig Ruiz was assigned to this plan check this particular project. One of the preliminary items of his initial plan check was the the Redevelopment office did not support the roof decks at all. Now that Craig is no longer with the redevelopment, the architect" Karnak" made some changes to the plan a few months ago, resubmitted the plans which in turn were plan checked by you. One of your items in the Preliminary letter back to Karnak was that he was required to get a signed statement or letter from neighbors allowing the roof decks. So my question is, now that Karnak resubmitted plans back to the Redevelopment last week or so, and Karnak hasn't yet asked us "Neighbors" for these letters regarding the roof decks, is the process of getting the plans deemed complete going to be on hold until he does so ??? Basically what I'm asking, is he going to be able to move forward without addressing the roof decks issue, even though it's on his Preliminary check list as an item that needs to be addressed ??? Your opinion on this issue is very important Cliff. Thanks again Michael Bovenzi Cliff Jonesj-JgBgo^ ^. ________ , ,, iiiTPage1 From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: <cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 03/21/2005 3:34:15 PM Subject: Opposition to project Cliff Contained in the attachment is a basic letter containing my views in terms of opposition to the Russ Bennett project located on the corner of Lincoln and Oak Avenue. Thanks Michael Bovenzi Date Ms. Deborah Fountain Director CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2965 Roosevelt St. Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30 LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED USE PROJECT Dear Ms. Fountain: Attached to this letter please find a petition of signatures of property owners and residents in the vicinity of the above-referenced proposed project. We are taking this opportunity to make you aware that we find ourselves in OPPOSITION to the project. The reasons for our opposition are as follows: 1. Height - The project has been designed to the maximum height limit, and further includes roof decks for recreation purposes on the top of the structures. These features result in buildings that are severely out of scale and perspective with the much lower structures in the neighborhood, will result in a significant loss of privacy to neighboring lots, and is contrary to the Village Redevelopment Design Manual requirement for common landscaped recreation areas and landscaped pedestrian amenities. 2. Oak St. Setback - The setback proposed along Oak St. is significantly less (approximately 50% of) than the setback for all existing and planned residential units along Oak St. We believe that this reduced setback will result in a tight, enclosed and unattractive streetscape along our street. It certainly will not enhance the existing residential area. 3. Intensity of Project - The Village Design Manual guidelines recommend that projects include landscaping amenities and contain a strong pedestrian orientation. It is our conclusion that the project possesses minimal landscaping and does not contain the required strong pedestrian orientation. The project is clearly not in compliance with the Carlsbad Landscape Manual requirement for a minimum 20% landscaped open space. 4. Retaining Walls - The project proposes up to 8-foot retaining walls along the south property line. Presumably an additional wall or fence (as required by the Design Manual) will be placed on the top of this retaining wall. We conclude that the visual impact of this high wall face from the adjacent property and from Lincoln St. will be sorely unattractive. This retaining wall is a result of the chosen product and the requirement for rear pedestrian entry to the units. An alternative building design (including perhaps a reduction in the size of the units) could eliminate these impacting walls. Again, these walls are a good indicator of the project proponent's over-building of the property. We have been in contact with the developer's representatives in order to make them aware of our concerns with the project. Unfortunately the developer has indicated his unwillingness to take our concerns seriously. Minor effort at design changes here and there have not in our opinion, resulted in improvements in the areas of concern articulated above. We are reasonable people and believe that the landowner has rights to develop his property. And we encourage him to do so, but it must be within the context of the Village Design Manual guidelines. It is our collective conclusion that the project is simply too dense, too massive, with too large of units, on too small a property, and is not in compliance with the Design Manual in several respects, particularly those referenced above. We can provide a detailed analysis of this non-compliance if requested. We wanted to make you aware of our concerns at this relatively early stage of development processing, in order that our concerns may be addressed if City Staff desires. We are prepared to provide an organized presentation in opposition at the public hearings for the project. Sincerely, Mike Bovenzi 343 Oak Ave Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (760) 729-8986 Cliff Jones - Re:,QBposjtk^^ ^^ Page f From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 03/22/2005 2:54:20 PM Subject: Re: Opposition to Project Hi Debbie In response to your letter, it's not that I have any personal issues other then the developer following the Village Design manual, which they're not. If they were, the whole project would be scrapped and they would have to start over...which is primarily their fault for not doing proper research before designing their project. However I must add that the project would not be as far along as it is if, the the redevelopment was holding the designer to the standards set forth in the Village design manual. Unfortunately many of the standards are being overlooked completely within the preliminary review. Building in the City of Carlsbad is no easy task, whether your within the boundaries of the Redevelopment or the city itself. It has taken me the better part of four years to finally get my project approved by the planning commission. I was strictly held to the development standards set forth by the Planning Department and expected no favors, there were no negotiations or compromises on any issues necessary to complete my project. The standards set forth by the Planning Department are crystal clear as are the Standards set forth in the (Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual). Cliff Jones mentioned last week that the Redevelopment Design Manual is basically a guide line, when in Reality and Legally it's a detailed set of development standards for the purpose of developing within the Redevelopment arena that must be followed and not compromised or negotiated. I'm completely aware that the standards of the city differ greatly from those of the Redevelopment area however, standards are standards and it's the responsibility of each of these departments to enforce the standards 100%. I feel the Redevelopment office is falling short of these obligations, with the interest of the department coming first and the project as a whole and how it affects the village and surrounding neighborhoods second....when in fact it should be the opposite, with the village and surrounding neighborhoods taken into consideration first. I was in shock to hear from both Craig Ruiz and Cliff Jones that when assigned and during the review of the project a field assessment was never performed. Pretty strange, careless, and unprofessional especially since the proposed site is within 2 blocks of the office. A simple field assessment would have immediately discovered that the existing neighborhood is completely single and 2 story structures none of which exceed a height of 24 feet, with a good percentage of those well below 20 feet in height. According to Goal 4.2 and 4.5 section 1 page seven which reads (establish commercial buildings whole scale and character are compatible with village residential neighborhoods) and 4.5 requires ( design sensitivity to surrounding development within the area) Clearly this particular goal and objective is being completely overlooked to the the benefit of the developer and Redevelopment office, and at the expense of hundreds of residents and land owners. Also Section 2 page 15 under land uses, requires ( preservation, enhancement and expansion of the existing residential area to create a highly livable neighborhood). Another major issue is the setbacks. I do understand that there is a range from low to high. The preferred is the high range unless the project warrants using the low range. From the ID7 Qliff Jones -J3ejJgpj30sWn to .P[9J§gL original property lines established along Oak Ave and Lincoln street, every structure within those streets is set back a minimum of 20 feet.So now that the developer received a street vacation giving them 10 extra feet and only setting the building back 8 feet from the new property line, this means that this 45 high structure is not only 2 to 3 stories higher then anything in the neighborhood, but sticks out 22 feet farther then any other structure on both Lincoln and Oak, therefore being allowed to go to the low range of the setbacks cannot we warranted. This item is a terrible oversite the affects everyone in the neighborhood, however if a field visit would have been performed by a Redevelopment planner, this issue may have been noticed long ago. Craig Ruiz sent a letter to the Developer back in June of 2004, stating that the Housing and Redevelopment Does not support roof decks. Then in a recent letter from Cliff Jones Dated December 15 it only states the (Staff has a concern about the roof decks and the downward visability they will have into adjacent properties. Staff will REQUIRE letters from adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall prior to staff making a final determination of the proposed project). The Redevelopment has backed down on it's original position of not supporting the roof decks at all and now is leaving the door open to the developer to basically have a giant crows nest at 30 feet Line of site 35 feet) to view down upon everything within immediate community.( For the Record) Cliff Jones in the December 15th 2004 letter required letters from the adjacent homeowners, however the developer did resubmit plans on March 8th without addressing this requirement at all. 4 months the developer had to address this item with the property owners...and not one call was ever made. I would hope this is not another compromise the Redevelopment office is making solely to the benefit of one builder that will affect hundreds of homeowners forever. I'm still in the process of putting together a detailed analysis of non compliance with the project in question and will be sending it out soon. There are other large issues of concern which have not yet been brought up, but will be outlined in detail in my letter. All of the items in question are required development standards set forth in the Development standards set forth in the Redevelopment Master Plan. A large Opposition has been formed, many of whom I'm sure will be in contact with your office very soon. Sincerely Michael Bovenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: >Hi Michael. Thanks for the letter. As I mentioned previously, we will >continue to work with the property owner and developer to see if we can >address your issues in a productive way. We know there will be conflicts >because the Village Redevelopment Area has different standards than >other properties in the area. But, we hope to be able to find some compromises. We have not yet prepared our recommendations on the >project. We will be trying to ensure that the project does meet all of >the applicable development standards, and will review your comments to >see if we can address them in the proposed design. We believe the >project can add value to the area and can substantially enhance the >area. We just need to see if there are reasonable solutions to your >issues and concerns. Qliff Jones - RjgjjOj^gsjtj^^ >Thanks again for taking the time to prepare your comments. I will meet >with Cliff and developer representatives to discuss your concerns. > >Sincerely, >Debbie Fountain >Housing and Redevelopment Director »»Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 03/21/05 4:02 PM >» >Hi Debbie > >Attached is a letter of opposition to the Russ Bennett project located > >on the corner of Lincoln and Oak Avenue. Another more detailed letter > >will be sent to your office later this week > >Thanks > > Michael Bovenzi > (760) 729-8986 Debbie Fountain - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed use From: Debbie Fountain To: Michael Bovenzi Date: 04/28/2005 1:52:08 PM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed use project. Hi Michael. The last correspondence in the file is dated March 28, 2005 from Cliff. A copy of the letter has been made for you and will be placed up front at our office for you to pick up at your convenience. If you have further questions about the project and its status, Cliff will return on Monday, May 2nd, and will be able to answer your questions at that time. Thanks. >» Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 04/28/05 11:01 AM >» Hi Debbie I hope your meetings went well last week. I stopped by the office Thrusday and they said you would be out until Wednesday. It was about a month and a half ago that Karnak design resubmitted the plans for the Lincoln Oak mixed use project RP-11 & CDP 04-30 I know there's a 30 day period in which the Redevelopment has to respond in writing regarding any further issues or concerns. I'm sure the letter went out to them a week or two ago actually... and I would like to request a copy of the latest preliminary review later. I would be more then happy to pick it up at the front counter, unless you woud rather send it via E mail. Anyway please let em know how and when I can obtain a copy of the latest preliminary review letter for the above mentioned project. Thanks Michael Bovenzi CC:Cliff Jones no i G'iff Jones - Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page 11 From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/03/2005 4:11:08 AM Subject: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Hi Cliff I haven't heard from anyone for a while now, so was hoping for some information and I also would like to update you as well. This is in regards to the last preliminary review letter Dated 3/28/05 that was sent To Karnak Planning and Design regarding the Lincoln Oak mixed use project. The copy Debbie made for me that I picked up at the end of April Stated on page two under Housing and Redevelopment item #2 outlined below 2. _*ltem # 2*_* As was stated Previously, staff has a concern about the proposed roof decks and the downward visability they will have into adjacent properties. Due to concerns that the Housing & Redevelopment Department has received from adjacent property owners on the project since the last submittal, staff shall require the property owner and architect to meet with the surrounding neighbors to address their concerns. Staff will require letters from Adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project. A "good faith" effort shall be made to address neighbor concerns before proceeding with the project.* This letter that was mailed to Karnak planning and Design dated March 28 2005 which had the above said written requirement to contact adjacent property owners has not been met. Here we are now with todays date of June 3rd 2005 and still there has been basically no contact, phone calls nor any request to meet with the owner Russ Bennett or Karnak Planning & Design. About 1 month ago, I did receive a copy of the east elevation which was in reference to the line of site and how it affected my property next door. This was actually extremely vague and completely unacceptable. Along with the copy of the East elevation, there was no letter or request for any meeting nor any request for a required letter from adjacent property owners documenting our opinion on the roof decks and overall project. There has also been no phone calls or messages, requesting any meeting with the owner "Russ Bennett" or Karnak Planning and Design. More then two months have passed since the Housing and Redevelopment office in writing made these required requests to Karnak Planning and Design and still not a word, nor a request from anyone to meet or give an opinion. It's when things become silent I become a little concerned, So I hope neither the owner Russ Bennett or Karnak Planning & Design have said they have tried to contact me, because they haven't...which is why I'm writing to your office. I'm in the process of putting together a detailed analysis which I will have ready in a couple of weeks. When this analysis is complete, I will mail a copy to both Yourself, Cliff Jones'and Sandy Holder. For the Record we're still in complete and total opposition of the above mentioned project for multiple reasons which will be outlined in the detailed analysis you'll receive a couple of weeks from now. I have listed below some of the major concerns all of which will be outlined in rcjlff Jones- Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page 2 j detail when the analysis is complete. 1. jDverall Height _of the project is extreme, which is severely out of scale and not at all sensative ot any existing residential or commercial neighbors and does not preserve nor enhance the existing neighborhood. Goal 4.2 also states that " establish commercial buildings whose scale and character are compatible with village residential neighborhoods. The proposed project which is 2 and 3 stories higher then anything existing in the neighborhood and is way out of scale and completely incompatible. 2. _Oak Street setback_ is completely out of line with the desired setbacks. According to the Design Manual the preferred set backs are to be at the higher end of the range which is 20 feet unless a finding can be made which warrant going to the low end of the range. Every existing structure on both Oak and Lincoln are set back a min 20 feet. Now since the proposed project received a 10 foot street vacation and they want to have a 8 foot setback, that would make their 45 foot high structure stick out 22 feet farther the any other structure, destroying the feeling of the neighbor hood, but it affects the existing neighborhood in a very negative way. So I can't see what finding could possible be made to warrant them to go to the low range of the set back. It also states in the Village Design Manual that" The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further that the permitted standard, 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. Design manual also states that" 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" Which it clearly DOES NOT , thus once again going t the lower end of the set back range is not warranted. 3. The Design Manual requires that the majority of the ground level be devoted to commercial use, when in reality almost the whole ground level is devoted to parking...not to mention the fact that the parking is not screened from view as required. The design manual stated that residential units and parking should not be placed on ground floor levels where they would displace desired retail uses or otherwise lessen active street frontage. It also states that site should be large enough to accommodate parking requirements on site or below grade, which the proposed project clearly does not. 4. _Open Space requirements_ state that 20% of the property must maintained as open space, and that the open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities. So I'm not quite sure how and why the Housing and Redevelopment Office is allowing the open space requirement to be met by using private roof decks as part of the 20% requirement which the design manual clearly states must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities. This requirement was clearly designed as part of a function for tourism support. 5._ Property Lines_ Design Manual states " Any lot proposed for non residential development which adjoins and existing residential lot shall have a solid masonry wall installed along common lot lines. As you can [GljffJongs- Lincoln Oak Mixed^Use Project PageH see according to the plan, the southern property line has a 3 foot retaining wall which will be back filled and then a wood fence on top of that. This creates a major privacy issue for our southern neighbors. Since there can only be a maximum 6 foot wall from existing grade, and with the proposed plan, there would only be a 3 foot high wood fence separating properties when both the design manual and city code require a 6 foot masonry wall to separate commercial and residential not only for sound, but for privacy. So the proposed 3 feet of fill on the southern property line is not possible at all for the above said reasons nor is it consistent with City code nor Design Manual Standards. 6. _Roof Decks _ The proposed Roof decks at approx 30 feet are a major issue and concern with adjacent neighbors. The tops of these proposed roof decks are 1 to 2 stories higher then any other surrounding structure and a complete invasion of Privacy. Management Analysis Craig Ruiz when he was with the Housing and Redevelopment Office was the assigned planner at one point in time before he left. As stated in his letter Dated June 21st 2004 to Karnak Planning and Design....it states in item 2 that the staff does not support the incorporation of roof decks on the upper level. Some how that opinion has changed with the new planner in charge as the roof decks are once again being considered. 7._ Line of Site _ Page 121 of the Housing and Redevelopment Design Manual not only states, but also has an illustration in reference to line of site from a commercial mixed use project in reference to adjacent residential. It states that placement of windows and trash areas be sensitive to adjacent residential. This will clearly not be the case with the east property line. My approved residential project which will break ground sometime in July will be adversely affected. As you can see with the proposed plan of the Lincoln Oak mixed use project, the two condos proposed on the east property line face primarily east with all windows looking into the adjacent properties back yards and windows on all levels as well. This Does Not meet the Required Standard to minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential. 8. Page 136 section 2 listed under residential of the Village Design Manual states that" Locate residential units near front property lines and orient entries to the street. It also states that Residential units and entries oriented to the street can increase the sense of neighborhood and provide more private outdoor space at rear of yard. This section also encourages front entry gardens as well as front entry porches that will provide a welcome sense of entry and give both depth and richness to street front facades. As you can see with the proposed plan, all entries are from the rear of property, they have no front entry porches or front entry gardens. This clearly was not an intended or desired design criteria for many reasons , ranging from privacy loss, line of site issues, and overall character and orientation of residential. As you can clearly see, there are many problems and concerns with the proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project. It appears that the entire project is designed without regard or reference to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which is a legal document designed and created for the purpose of developing properties within the redevelopment Zone (VR) This project is so inconsistent with design criteria and intent, it never should have been allowed to proceed as far along as it has. For the record, I'm in total opposition of the Lincoln - Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page4j| Oak Mixed Use Project because of the above referenced items and other items not listed that will be included in the detailed analysis which you'll have in a couple of weeks. Thanks Michael Bovenzi (760) 729-8986 ^ PageTg From: Cliff Jones To: Michael Bovenzi Date: 06/03/2005 8:51:06 AM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Hi Michael. Thank you for your email informing of us of your concerns with the proposed project. As was mentioned previously, we will continue to work with the property owner and developer to see if we can address your issues in a productive way. The applicant resubmitted plans on May 26, 2005. These plans are available in our office for your review. We will ensure that the project does meet all of the applicable development standards, and will review your comments to see if we can address them in the proposed design. We believe the project can add value to the area and can substantially enhance the area. However, we need to assure that there are reasonable solutions to your issues and concerns. Thanks again for taking the time to prepare your comments. Please contact me if you would like to schedule a meeting to review the proposed project. Regards, >» Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 06/03/054:10 AM >» Hi Cliff I haven't heard from anyone for a while now, so was hoping for some information and I also would like to update you as well. This is in regards to the last preliminary review letter Dated 3/28/05 that was sent To Karnak Planning and Design regarding the Lincoln Oak mixed use project. The copy Debbie made for me that I picked up at the end of April Stated on page two under Housing and Redevelopment item #2 outlined below 2. _*ltem # 2*_* As was stated Previously, staff has a concern about the proposed roof decks and the downward visability they will have into adjacent properties. Due to concerns that the Housing & Redevelopment Department has received from adjacent property owners on the project since the last submittal, staff shall require the property owner and architect to meet with the surrounding neighbors to address their concerns. Staff will require letters from Adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project. A "good faith" effort shall be made to address neighbor concerns before proceeding with the project.* This letter that was mailed to Karnak planning and Design dated March 28 2005 which had the above said written requirement to contact adjacent property owners has not been met. Here we are now with todays date of June 3rd 2005 and still there has been basically no contact, phone calls nor any request to meet with the owner Russ Bennett or Karnak Planning & Design. About 1 month ago, I did receive a copy of the east elevation which was in reference to the line of site and how it affected my property next door. This was actually extremely vague and completely unacceptable. Along with the copy of the East elevation, there was no letter or request for any meeting nor any request for a required letter from adjacent property owners documenting our opinion on 15 [CljffJones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project I__ZI"I. Page 2] the roof decks and overall project. There has also been no phone calls or messages, requesting any meeting with the owner "Russ Bennett" or Karnak Planning and Design. More then two months have passed since the Housing and Redevelopment office in writing made these required requests to Karnak Planning and Design and still not a word, nor a request from anyone to meet or give an opinion. It's when things become silent I become a little concerned, So I hope neither the owner Russ Bennett or Karnak Planning & Design have said they have tried to contact me, because they haven't...which is why I'm writing to your office. I'm in the process of putting together a detailed analysis which I will have ready in a couple of weeks. When this analysis is complete, I will mail a copy to both Yourself, Cliff Jones and Sandy Holder. For the Record we're still in complete and total opposition of the above mentioned project for multiple reasons which will be outlined in the detailed analysis you'll receive a couple of weeks from now. I have listed below some of the major concerns all of which will be outlined in detail when the analysis is complete. 1. _Overall Height _of the project is extreme, which is severely out of scale and not at all sensative ot any existing residential or commercial neighbors and does not preserve nor enhance the existing neighborhood. Goal 4.2 also states that " establish commercial buildings whose scale and character are compatible with village residential neighborhoods. The proposed project which is 2 and 3 stories higher then anything existing in the neighborhood and is way out of scale and completely incompatible. 2. _Oak Street setback_ is completely out of line with the desired setbacks. According to the Design Manual the preferred set backs are to be at the higher end of the range which is 20 feet unless a finding can be made which warrant going to the low end of the range. Every existing structure on both Oak and Lincoln are set back a min 20 feet. Now since the proposed project received a 10 foot street vacation and they want to have a 8 foot setback, that would make their 45 foot high structure stick out 22 feet farther the any other structure, destroying the feeling of the neighbor hood, but it affects the existing neighborhood in a very negative way. So I can't see what finding could possible be made to warrant them to go to the low range of the set back. It also states in the Village Design Manual that" The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further that the permitted standard, 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. Design manual also states that" 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" Which it clearly DOES NOT , thus once again going t the lower end of the set back range is not warranted. 3. The Design Manual requires that the majority of the ground level be devoted to commercial use, when in reality almost the whole ground level is devoted to parking...not to mention the fact that the parking is not screened from view as required. The design manual stated that residential units and parking should not be placed on ground floor ! Cliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project levels where they would displace desired retail uses or otherwise lessen active street frontage. It also states that site should be large enough to accommodate parking requirements on site or below grade, which the proposed project clearly does not. 4. _Open Space requirements_ state that 20% of the property must maintained as open space, and that the open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities. So I'm not quite sure how and why the Housing and Redevelopment Office is allowing the open space requirement to be met by using private roof decks as part of the 20% requirement which the design manual clearly states must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities. This requirement was clearly designed as part of a function for tourism support. 5._ Property Lines_ Design Manual states " Any lot proposed for non residential development which adjoins and existing residential lot shall have a solid masonry wall installed along common lot lines. As you can see according to the plan, the southern property line has a 3 foot retaining wall which will be back filled and then a wood fence on top of that. This creates a major privacy issue for our southern neighbors. Since there can only be a maximum 6 foot wall from existing grade, and with the proposed plan, there would only be a 3 foot high wood fence separating properties when both the design manual and city code require a 6 foot masonry wall to separate commercial and residential not only for sound, but for privacy. So the proposed 3 feet of fill on the southern property line is not possible at all for the above said reasons nor is it consistent with City code nor Design Manual Standards. 6. _Roof Decks _ The proposed Roof decks at approx 30 feet are a major issue and concern with adjacent neighbors. The tops of these proposed roof decks are 1 to 2 stories higher then any other surrounding structure and a complete invasion of Privacy. Management Analysis Craig Ruiz when he was with the Housing and Redevelopment Office was the assigned planner at one point in time before he left. As stated in his letter Dated June 21st 2004 to Karnak Planning and Design....it states in item 2 that the staff does not support the incorporation of roof decks on the upper level. Some how that opinion has changed with the new planner in charge as the roof decks are once again being considered. 7._ Line of Site _ Page 121 of the Housing and Redevelopment Design Manual not only states, but also has an illustration in reference to line of site from a commercial mixed use project in reference to adjacent residential. It states that placement of windows and trash areas be sensitive to adjacent residential. This will clearly not be the case with the east property line. My approved residential project which will break ground sometime in July will be adversely affected. As you can see with the proposed plan of the Lincoln Oak mixed use project, the two condos proposed on the east property line face primarily east with all windows looking into the adjacent properties back yards and windows on all levels as well. This Does Not meet the Required Standard to minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential. 8. Page 136 section 2 listed under residential of the Village Design Manual states that" Locate residential units near front property lines and orient entries to the street. It also states that Residential units and entries oriented to the street can increase the sense of \1 [Cjiff^oneg - Re: Lincoln Oak .Mixed Use Project neighborhood and provide more private outdoor space at rear of yard. This section also encourages front entry gardens as well as front entry porches that will provide a welcome sense of entry and give both depth and richness to street front facades. As you can see with the proposed plan, all entries are from the rear of property, they have no front entry porches or front entry gardens. This clearly was not an intended or desired design criteria for many reasons , ranging from privacy loss, line of site issues, and overall character and orientation of residential. As you can clearly see, there are many problems and concerns with the proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project. It appears that the entire project is designed without regard or reference to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which is a legal document designed and created for the purpose of developing properties within the redevelopment Zone (VR) This project is so inconsistent with design criteria and intent, it never should have been allowed to proceed as far along as it has. For the record, I'm in total opposition of the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project because of the above referenced items and other items not listed that will be included in the detailed analysis which you'll have in a couple of weeks. Thanks Michael Bovenzi (760) 729-8986 CC: Debbie Fountain •-*fCliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mjxed Use Project Page 1! From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/03/2005 1:28:20 PM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Hi Cliff These items are not just personal concerns, but serious standard deviation issues shared by all other then yourself, Debbie Fountain, and the design firm. Although I know you'll continue to work with the property owner, not only are you not addressing the issues, but your not even enforcing specific requirements as outlined in your prelininary review letter dated March 23 2005 . This project never should have been able to get his far along, and it never would have if the Housing and Redevelopmet office enforced the standards, did initial field visits, and held the the developer and designer to the requirements outlined in the past preliminary review letters. With all that has transpired in Respect to the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project, it's perfectly clear that the Housing and Redevelopment cannot ensure the developer will be required to meet current standards. What I am clear about though is the fact that now it appears that apparently Both you and Debbie Fountain seem to have some kind of personal Agenda with this project, and the fact that you think the project can add value to the area and substantially enhance the area is not the issue or concern. As I have stated before and I believe I've been crystal clear. The project DOES NOT meet current development standards on numerous major issues, in fact I feel the project is so massive and overbearing it will actually hurt property values and the standard of living to all adjacent neighbors and adversely affect the feel of the Village. I must say that I'm becoming a little frustrated and I'm being taken for stupid. WHY? because your not even able to answer simple questions and you've chosen to become extremely vague. It's perfectly clear Both you and Debbie want the project and are putting me on the back burner hoping I'll go away. Here's a question, with neither You or Debbie Fountain being a resident in the city of Carlsbad what do you care what the village looks like when your long gone ? So your vested interest isn't as a resident or homeowner, but as an employee of the Housing and Redevelopment who primarily is concerned with a paycheck.the least you could do is enforce the development standards which is why your there and what your getting paid to do. I'll tell you why I'm upset, this letter that you just sent me Today on June 3rd 2005 isn't even your words and not only are you not listening, but not answering or responding to me personally as proof of this, here's a copy of a letter Debbie Fountain sent to me way back on March-21-05 3 months ago . Hmmm could it be any more boiler plate ????? It's clear now you have absolutely no respect or concerns for local homeowners and can't even respond to simple questions, and ofr some reason which could only be personal, the Housing and Redevelopment Department is on their own agenda with no regard or proper enforcement of current standards. Anyway Here's the letter Debbie Fountain sent me 3 months ago, compare it to the one you just sent me today. Unfortunately you're playing me for stupid. I'm telling you right now the opposition will be very large, and very intense and no way it's going to get approved by the design review board, not only are you wasting the developers time, but money as well. Please step up to the plate to fulfill your obligations to enforce the standards. I know it won't [CNffJones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project "pjgie~2 j happen though as I'm finally discoverd I'm speaking to deaf ears. *Debbies Letter 3 Months ago* Hi Michael. Thanks for the letter. As I mentioned previously, we will continue to work with the property owner and developer to see if we can address your issues in a productive way. We know there will be conflicts because the Village Redevelopment Area has different standards than other properties in the area. But, we hope to be able to find some compromises. We have not yet prepared our recommendations on the project. We will be trying to ensure that the project does meet all of the applicable development standards, and will review your comments to see if we can address them in the proposed design. We believe the project can add value to the area and can substantially enhance the area. We just need to see if there are reasonable solutions to your issues and concerns. Thanks again for taking the time to prepare your comments. I will meet with Cliff and developer representatives to discuss your concerns. Sincerely, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director * Your Letter Today* Cliff Jones wrote: >Hi Michael. Thank you for your email informing of us of your concerns >with the proposed project. As was mentioned previously, we will >continue to work with the property owner and developer to see if we can >address your issues in a productive way. The applicant resubmitted >plans on May 26, 2005. These plans are available in our office for your > review. > >We will ensure that the project does meet all of the applicable development standards, and will review your comments to see if we can >address them in the proposed design. We believe the project can add >value to the area and can substantially enhance the area. However, we >need to assure that there are reasonable solutions to your issues and >concerns. > >Thanks again for taking the time to prepare your comments. Please >contact me if you would like to schedule a meeting to review the > proposed project. > > Regards, »»Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 06/03/05 4:10 AM >» >Hi Cliff rCliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page 31 >l haven't heard from anyone for a while now, so was hoping for some information and I also would like to update you as well. This is in >regards to the last preliminary review letter Dated 3/28/05 that was >sent To Karnak Planning and Design regarding the Lincoln Oak mixed use > >project. The copy Debbie made for me that I picked up at the end of >April Stated on page two under Housing and Redevelopment item #2 >outlined below > >2. *ltem # 2*_* As was stated Previously, staff has a concern about >the~ >proposed roof decks and the downward visability they will have into >adjacent properties. Due to concerns that the Housing & Redevelopment > >Department has received from adjacent property owners on the project >since the last submittal, staff shall require the property owner and >architect to meet with the surrounding neighbors to address their >concerns. Staff will require letters from Adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall project >prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project. A > >"good faith" effort shall be made to address neighbor concerns before > >proceeding with the project.* > >This letter that was mailed to Karnak planning and Design dated March >28 >2005 which had the above said written requirement to contact adjacent >property owners has not been met. Here we are now with todays date of > >June 3rd 2005 and still there has been basically no contact, phone >calls nor any request to meet with the owner Russ Bennett or Karnak > >Planning & Design. About 1 month ago, I did receive a copy of the >east elevation which was in reference to the line of site and how it >affected my property next door. This was actually extremely vague and >completely unacceptable. Along with the copy of the East elevation, >there was no letter or request for any meeting nor any request for a >required letter from adjacent property owners documenting our opinion >on >the roof decks and overall project. There has also been no phone calls > >or messages, requesting any meeting with the owner "Russ Bennett" or >Karnak Planning and Design. More then two months have passed since the > >Housing and Redevelopment office in writing made these required >requests >to Karnak Planning and Design and still not a word, nor a request from > >anyone to meet or give an opinion. It's when things become silent I >become a little concerned, So I hope neither the owner Russ Bennett or > >Karnak Planning & Design have said they have tried to contact me, >because they haven't...which is why I'm writing to your office. (•Cliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page 4 j > I'm in the process of putting together a detailed analysis which >will have ready in a couple of weeks. When this analysis is complete, I >will mail a copy to both Yourself, Cliff Jones and Sandy Holder. For >the Record we're still in complete and total opposition of the above >mentioned project for multiple reasons which will be outlined in the >detailed analysis you'll receive a couple of weeks from now. I have >listed below some of the major concerns all of which will be outlined >detail when the analysis is complete. >1. Overall Height _of the project is extreme, which is severely out >of~ >scale and not at all sensative ot any existing residential or commercial neighbors and does not preserve nor enhance the existing >neighborhood. Goal 4.2 also states that " establish commercial >buildings whose scale and character are compatible with village residential neighborhoods. The proposed project which is 2 and 3 >stories higher then anything existing in the neighborhood and is way >out >of scale and completely incompatible. >2. _Oak Street setback_ is completely out of line with the desired >setbacks. According to the Design Manual the preferred set backs are to >be at the higher end of the range which is 20 feet unless a finding can >be made which warrant going to the low end of the range. Every >existing >structure on both Oak and Lincoln are set back a min 20 feet. Now since >the proposed project received a 10 foot street vacation and they want >to >have a 8 foot setback, that would make their 45 foot high structure >stick out 22 feet farther the any other structure, destroying the >feeling of the neighbor hood, but it affects the existing neighborhood >in a very negative way. So I can't see what finding could possible be >made to warrant them to go to the low range of the set back. It also >states in the Village Design Manual that" The project is in a location >where adjacent buildings are set back further that the permitted >standard, 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. Design manual also states that" 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" Which it dearly DOES NOT , thus once again going t the lower end of the set >back range is not warranted. >3. The Design Manual requires that the majority of the ground level be iCHffJones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project "I Page 51 >devoted to commercial use, when in reality almost the whole ground >level >is devoted to parking...not to mention the fact that the parking is not > >screened from view as required. The design manual stated that residential units and parking should not be placed on ground floor >levels where they would displace desired retail uses or otherwise >lessen >active street frontage. It also states that site should be large enough > >to accommodate parking requirements on site or below grade, which the > >proposed project clearly does not. > >4. _Open Space requirements_ state that 20% of the property must >maintained as open space, and that the open space must be devoted to >landscaped pedestrian amenities. So I'm not quite sure how and why the > >Housing and Redevelopment Office is allowing the open space requirement to be met by using private roof decks as part of the >20% requirement which the design manual clearly states must be devoted to >landscaped pedestrian amenities. This requirement was clearly designed > >as part of a function for tourism support. > >5._ Property Lines_ Design Manual states " Any lot proposed for non residential development which adjoins and existing residential lot >shall >have a solid masonry wall installed along common lot lines. As you can > >see according to the plan, the southern property line has a 3 foot retaining wall which will be back filled and then a wood fence on top > >of that. This creates a major privacy issue for our southern neighbors. > >Since there can only be a maximum 6 foot wall from existing grade, and > >with the proposed plan, there would only be a 3 foot high wood fence separating properties when both the design manual and city code require > >a 6 foot masonry wall to separate commercial and residential not only >for sound, but for privacy. So the proposed 3 feet of fill on the >southern property line is not possible at all for the above said reasons >nor is it consistent with City code nor Design Manual Standards. > >6. _Roof Decks _ The proposed Roof decks at approx 30 feet are a > major >issue and concern with adjacent neighbors. The tops of these proposed > roof decks are 1 to 2 stories higher then any other surrounding >structure and a complete invasion of Privacy. Management Analysis Craig > >Ruiz when he was with the Housing and Redevelopment Office was the Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page6| >assigned planner at one point in time before he left. As stated in his >letter Dated June 21st 2004 to Karnak Planning and Design....it states >in item 2 that the staff does not support the incorporation of roof >decks on the upper level. Some how that opinion has changed with the >new planner in charge as the roof decks are once again being >considered. >7._ Line of Site _ Page 121 of the Housing and Redevelopment Design >Manual not only states, but also has an illustration in reference to >line of site from a commercial mixed use project in reference to >adjacent residential. It states that placement of windows and trash >areas be sensitive to adjacent residential. This will clearly not be >the >case with the east property line. My approved residential project which >will break ground sometime in July will be adversely affected. As you >can see with the proposed plan of the Lincoln Oak mixed use project, >the >two condos proposed on the east property line face primarily east with >all windows looking into the adjacent properties back yards and windows >on all levels as well. This Does Not meet the Required Standard to >minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential. >8. Page 136 section 2 listed under residential of the Village Design >Manual states that" Locate residential units near front property lines >and orient entries to the street. It also states that Residential units >and entries oriented to the street can increase the sense of >neighborhood and provide more private outdoor space at rear of yard. >This section also encourages front entry gardens as well as front entry >porches that will provide a welcome sense of entry and give both depth >and richness to street front facades. As you can see with the proposed >plan, all entries are from the rear of property, they have no front >entry porches or front entry gardens. This clearly was not an intended >or desired design criteria for many reasons , ranging from privacy >loss, >line of site issues, and overall character and orientation of residential. >As you can clearly see, there are many problems and concerns with the >proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project. It appears that the entire >project is designed without regard or reference to the Carlsbad Village >Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which is a legal document >designed and created for the purpose of developing properties within jCljffJonp - Re: Lincoln OakMJxglUse£jrgject Page 7 j >the >redevelopment Zone (VR) This project is so inconsistent with design > >criteria and intent, it never should have been allowed to proceed as >far >along as it has. For the record, I'm in total opposition of the Lincoln > >Oak Mixed Use Project because of the above referenced items and other >items not listed that will be included in the detailed analysis which >you'll have in a couple of weeks. > >Thanks > > Michael Bovenzi > (760) 729-8986 Paael From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> Date: 06/04/2005 5:36:19 PM Subject: Request For Plans Housing & Redevelopment I'm formally requesting at this time a copy of a complete set of the most recent plans of the Lincoln Oak mixed use Project, since the Designer Karnak Planning and Design and the Owner has failed to contact anyone including myself regarding the above said project, even though they were required by your department to not only personally meet, but required to get letters from all adjacent property owners as well. Unfortunately there has been no good faith effort which was also required of the Designer Karnak according to the Housing and Redevelopment Departments letter dated March 28th 2005 in fact which was a requirement needed before the project would be allowed to proceed.. Please let me now when I will be able to pick a copy up. If cost is an issue, I would be more then happy to pay for the printing. If by law I'm not allowed to have my own copy of the above mentioned plans I would like to come in this week along with my representative to review the plans in private.so please contact me immediately so I can make the proper arrangements. Also if you notice item #3 in the same letter to Designer Karnak dated 3-28-05 the item states * " #3 As stated previously, staff has concerns about the combination retaining Wall fences please be aware that the combination of retaining wall fences along property lines shall not exceed six feet as measured from the exterior of the property. Please show the proposed fencing on top of the retaining wall and indicate the highest point of the combination retaining wall/fence. Show the fence on cross sections A-A and B-B. Please note that the building department requires a minimum fence height of 36 inches from the interior of the property. *_ln response) _*_* According to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual under District 9 tourism support area section 2 page 117 under other Miscellaneous Requirements " Any lot proposed for non-residential development which adjoins an existing residential lot shall have a SOLID MASONRY WALL INSTALLED ALONG COMMON LOT LINES " This does seem crystal clear actually because a mixed use project does propose non residential development. There's no Grey area here. It does propose non residential, therefore it must have a SOLID MASONRY WALL INSTALLED ALONG COMMON lot lines. It's not very hard to figure out what there intent was regarding this required standard. Obviously it's sound privacy, and line of site, taking it a step further I must add that a 3 foot build up supported by a 3 foot retaining wall leaves a maximum of 3 feet of allowable wall on top of that. A 3 foot separation between properties in allowable under section 21.45 of the Carlsbad municipal code however according to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual 1*3(0 :iiff Jooes - Request For Plans ~" Page 21 which takes preference, it reads that there must be Solid Masonry Wall installed Along Common Wall lines. One would venture to Assume it was a 6 foot wall, otherwise it would make no difference and the intent of the requirement is for the protection of the adjacent property owner. So, a retaining wall /fence cannot be allowed and there must be a separation between common lot lines with a 6 foot solid masonry fence to protect the adjacent apartment from noise, line of site from the entries along the south property line that should never have been allowed to be there anyway, and sound. The Housing and Redevelopment department has an obligation not only to service the developer which your doing a great job doing, but also to protect the adjacent homeowners and to protect existing neighborhoods from new development that doesn't reinforce the Village character, whose scale isn't compatible with existing Village neighborhoods, where there hasn't been design sensitivity to the surrounding area, where heights are compatible with surrounding buildings and to protect existing homeowners and neighborhoods from buildings that obstruct views and corridors by being allowed to go to the low end of the set back range when the high end of the range is desired especially when the low end range finding has is 100% unwarranted. Thanks Michael Bovenzi (760) 822-3026 CC: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> i Cliff Jones - Re: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project Page 11 From: Cliff Jones To: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> Date: 06/06/2005 9:04:38 AM Subject: Re: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project Dear Michael, It is the Housing & Redevelopment Department's understanding that Russell Bennett and Robert Richardson of Karnak Planning and Design have met with you previously to discuss your concerns regarding the proposed project. However, from your most recently submitted emails it is apparent that you still have concerns with the project. Therefore, I am scheduling a meeting with you, Russell Bennett, Karnak Planning & Design, Debbie Fountain, and myself in an attempt to address your concerns. Please contact me by phone to let me know what days and times work best for you. In the meantime, if you would like to review the most recent plan submittal the plans are available at the Housing & Redevelopment Department for your review. You may schedule a time for you and your representatives to come in and review the plans in our conference room. Regards, Cliff Jones City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department Phone: (760)434-2813 Fax: (760)720-2037 cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us CC: Debbie Fountain - Re: Linajsjyiixed Use Project Page 1 From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/06/2005 10:43:08 AM Subject: Re: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project I met with Robert Richardson on a multiple occasions to resolve some issues that were of concern. At one point I only had a couple of concerns and when those weren't addressed it sent me a message that what I was asking for was going in one ear and out the other. I did finally schedule a meeting with Russ Bennett to express my concerns as well. We had a good conversation, but the fact remains that were still not seeing eye to eye. I must also add, that the meeting I had with Russ Bennett and the meetings I had with Robert Richardson were at least and probably more then a month or two prior to your letter dated 3-28-05 requireing meetings and letters of all parties. I must also say that I'm only one of 3 parties and 30 owners that would be considered adjacent homeowners. You have Dennis to the south who shares the same concerns as I do, and the condos across the street who also share the same concerns as I do as well, not to mention everyone else that's up in arms in the neighborhood that are homwowners but not adjacent. Both Robert and Russ Bennett according to your letter are required to Contact all adjacent homeowners as well, and not just myself. If it wasn't for my heavy concerns regarding this project and my putting the effort forth to meet with Robert Richardson Richardson and or Russ Bennett, they never would have contacted me even though you required it as they haven't contacted the other owners. Also not only have they failed to meet the requirement to meet with adjacent homewowners, but I'm 99% sure they have no letters from anyone concerning their opinions on the project, thus they have completely failed in terms of this required good faith effort. I would be happy to meet with all of the above said parties anytime so just schedule it and I'll be there. I think Wednesday , Thurs or Fri would be best as I need a couple of days to see the new submittal and to collect my thoughts and concerns. I'm not anti development at all, in fact I would like to see something nice that compliments the neighborhood and Village in a positive way. We would all like to see a nice development at the proposed site, however if your going to play the game, then play the game by the written rules or don't play at all. The proposed Development is over the edgeand beyond the rules in terms of the development standards and what should be allowed. Anyway I would like for you to Schedule a meeting with all the concerned parties. I do respect both Russ and Robert and have nothing against You or Debbie either Cliff. This is not directed at anyone personally at all, but infact a focus on the enforcement of the standards and relates entirely to business. I do hope a meeting may bring us all to a mutual resolve and understanding. Cliff Jones wrote: >Dear Michael, > >lt is the Housing & Redevelopment Department's understanding that >Russell Bennett and Robert Richardson of Karnak Planning and Design have >met with you previously to discuss your concerns regarding the proposed >project. However, from your most recently submitted emails it is >apparent that you still have concerns with the project. Therefore, I am Jones-Re: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project scheduling a meeting with you, Russell Bennett, Karnak Planning & >Design, Debbie Fountain, and myself in an attempt to address your >concerns. Please contact me by phone to let me know what days and times >work best for you. In the meantime, if you would like to review the >most recent plan submittal the plans are available at the Housing & Redevelopment Department for your review. You may schedule a time for >you and your representatives to come in and review the plans in our Conference room. > > Regards, >Cliff Jones >City of Carlsbad >Housing & Redevelopment Department >Phone: (760)434-2813 >Fax: (760)720-2037 >cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us CC: <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 30I ^ j Cliff "Jones - Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project '. Page 11 From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/09/20052:41:21 PM Subject: Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project Debbie I wanted to confirm that I did get your message early this week regarding the meeting that was going to be set up between the Owner Russ Bennett, Robert Richardson, the Redevelopment staff and myself. I would hope that Sandy Holder would also be able to attend. You mentioned that Cliff was going to be setting up the meeting and he would contact me regarding the date..I haven't heard from Cliff yet, but hopefully he's been in contact with the necessary parties and it will coordinating a date soon. I do have a feeling though that Karnak and Bennett might be reluctant to meet since both of them are close and still I haven't heard from anyone in your office regarding a meeting date.. I do know that Russ Bennett is out of town from time to time out of the country and may be difficult to contact...but hopefully he's around but I still have my doubts about them agreeing to attend a meeting. I do feel that I'm not getting much cooperation by either the Redevelopment staff or Karnak Planning and Design regarding this issue. I've recently been in touch with the City Managers recently addressing my concerns of the above mentioned project in regards to lack of cooperation by all parties, and the extreme oversight of the Housing and Redevelopment Design Manual and Master Plan. They mentioned that they'll be in contact with your office soon to set up a meeting with with Staff, a representative from the City Managers Office and Myself. As I've mentioned before I have one professional Analysis of the project done a couple of months ago. The findings were consistent with my concerns. I have however hired another professional planning company to review the plans and Redevelopment Master plan and Design Manual. The idea is to give another objective detailed anlaysis of the obove mentioned project, which is the Analysis that will be completed in a couple of weeks or sooner. Thanks Michael Bovenzi CC: Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> [CHffTories-Lincoln Oak Analysis " Page 11 From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 07/19/2005 11:06:45 PM Subject: Lincoln Oak Analysis To Sandy, Debbie, Cliff Here's the analysis of the Lincoln Oak mixed use project put together by Hofman Planning & Associates. It's also very important for me to express that when I approached Hofman Planning & associates, I asked if they would put together an (Objective Analysis) of the above mentioned project. They were specifically asked to prepare a detailed objective analysis based on the requirements set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which we all know is a legal document. My extensive review of the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual raised many concerns which I've been addressing for over a year now with the redevelopment staff. All items I've been addressing and re addressing with staff I believe to be critical design element requirements that not been followed. The basic response I always get form the Redevelopment staff is (we would like to address your concerns). The reality of the situation is, none of the concerns which I define as Legal Design requirements have really been addressed. I know we recently had the meeting with Staff, the Designer and myself per the direct written requirements set forth by staff, however the requirement, required the owner Russ Bennett to be there as well. I was assured in writing by Cliff Jones that Russ Bennett would be present, however he did not attend, thus this requirement was not fulfilled even though staff had required both the owner and Designer to meet with adjacent property owners and to receive the opinions in writing before the project would be allowed to proceed. I'm still the only adjacent property owner to give you my opinion in writing, however I've spoken with Dennis Bauern recently and he mentioned he Had a meeting with Cliff Jones last week in which he clearly stated that he was opposed to the entire project. I must add that Dennis was never contacted by either the Designer nor owner, thus the required meetings with Dennis as an adjacent property owner have not been met, but the project still continues forward. Let's not forget the 30 adjacent property owners to the North, noone has contacted any of then either as of July 20th 2005. So basically to add this up, I'm the only one of 32 property adjacent property owners that has met with the Designer even though the Redevelopment Office required the owner and Designer to meet with all adjacent property owners. So in percentages it's 3% of adjacent property owners that have actually met with the owner and developer. Now, since the owner Russ Bennett wasn't at the meeting the percentage goes form 3% to 0%. Putting this into perspective, this extremely important requirement that both the owner and designer meet with adjacent property owners and receive in writing their opinions..has been met 0% . The project however has been allowed to move forward even though meetings and letters from adjacent property owners documenting our opinions were required in order for the project to proceed. The Redevelopment Staff Clearly lacks the ability to enforce not only what they've required of the Owner and Designer through the preliminary process, but the Complete oversight and lack of enforcement of the City of Carlsbads Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which is A Legal Document requiring all new developments within the Redevelopment Zone to follow 100% there I Cliff Jones - Lincoln Oak Analysis ~Page 21 obviously seems to be some kind of hidden agenda. Debbie Fountain told me in the last meeting with the Designer that there are other projects that don't meet these required standards and that she's setting a new precedence. I thought that was a very bold statement, since Debbie Fountains position requires her to enforce the Development Manual. So some projects meet the requirements and some don.t ???? my first thought is that there is favoritism, second would be that there is complete lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Design Manual and Master Plan, and my third question is why? If I had to guess, I would say to Financially justify the existence of the Redevelopment office which is basically unnecessary and useless in approving or plan checking projects within the redevelopment zone, especially when the City of Carlsbad at Faraday has a huge planning staff with plenty of well seasoned professional planners whom could easily add the few projects from the Redevelopment zone to their hundreds if not thousands of current projects. When the Meeting between myself Robert Richardson, Cliff Jones. Debbie Fountain, Ron Alvarez and Michael of Karnak ended, Robert and Michae were looking down at the Design Manual and reading the cover like they've never seen it before. The thought was ohhhhhhh great, here we have a Designer Robert Richardson Illegally using Paul Longtons Architectual stamp, Robert probably doesn't have a copy of the Development Manual, we have a new Planner in the Redevelopment Office who hasn't the experience to read plans and Debbie Fountain who appears to have her own personal agenda. Anyway enough said, here's the attachement of the objective analysis. Now according to our conversation Last week Sandy, I was to send to you the objective analysis, you mentioned a senior planner within the Faraday office would do an analysis of the analysis relative to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and submitted plans.Once the Analysis of the Analysis is complete which you mentioned would be about 3 weeks, a meeting would be set up between myself and staff to discuss the findings and go through all items one by one. Thanks Michael Bovenzi 133 Project Review - Mixed Use Redevelopment Project SE Corner of Oak and Lincoln Based on: Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual Project Location: Context and Compatibility Zoning is VR (Village Redevelopment); General Plan is V (Village) Beach Area Overlay Zone is adjacent to this Redevelopment parcel Site is within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment area. Tourism Support is land use theme for District 9. Site is surrounded by non-Redevelopment residential properties zoned R-3. Land use compatibility inside and outside the Redevelopment area, as defined by the site's perimeter, is a major focus of the Redevelopment Manual along with pedestrian-oriented projects. Proposed Use: • Mixed Use Project: Retail (1,900 sq. ft) and related parking • Six (6) condominium units and related parking • Project review based on exhibits provided by client dated 12.11.03. • Review included City letter re: RP 04-11 provided by client, dated 3.28.05. Development Standards: Compliance Review 1. Permitted Uses in District 9: Page 41 of the Manual charts permitted uses by district. District 9 allows Mixed Use projects (residential &. commercial uses) with the specific requirement that "the ground floor of all approved mixed use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses". The project does not appear to be consistent with this provision. The 1,900 square foot retail shell building and related parking would share the ground level of the site with the residential structure and parking. The ground floor is not devoted to commercial uses. This is significant since Multi-Family residential projects alone are not permitted by the Manual as land uses within District 9, reinforcing the tourism support vs. residential focus of the district. 2. 20% Open Space/Landscaped Pedestrian Amenity: Compliance with this requirement needs to be clearly depicted on the project site plan and landscape plans. The area calculation and provision of this required amenity should also be summarized in the Site Data table on the exhibit cover sheet. This requirement is outlined on page 117 of the Manual, which does not appear to allow privatized roof decks to meet this standard. The intent is to provide enhanced and landscaped pedestrian circulation from public rights of way to, and through, a project site. 134 3. Setbacks: A range of setbacks are allowed, although any setback less than the maximum noted must be supported by the findings listed in the Manual: (1) no adverse impacts on surrounding properties; (2) the reduced setback will assist in meeting Redevelopment goals and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district involved, and; (3) the reduced setback results in a visually appealing project that reinforces the Village character of the area. The site's location on the edge of the Redevelopment boundary, and the isolated nature of the Redevelopment zoning on this particular block, make compatibility critical, and requires necessary findings to justify reduced setbacks. 4. Building Coverage: Similar to Setbacks, Building Coverage is allowed a range (60-80%) and any proposal for more coverage than the 60% minimum must make similar findings as noted above for reduced setbacks (no adverse offsite impacts, helps to meet Redevelopment goal, and assists in creating visually appealing project for the Village area). Justifying increased building coverage more than the 60% minimum requires necessary findings. 5. Height Limit: On cross sections and grading plans, clearly depict existing grade to verify building height measurement consistent with 21.04.065 and the Manual. Building height is typically measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive (lower). The VR zoning height limit is super ceded by the more restrictive height limits of the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The Manual specifically notes the ability to approve Redevelopment projects at lower building heights for compatibility and to reduce impacts to adjacent properties (page 98). 6. Roof Deck Heights: the proposed building heights combined with the proposed roof deck heights to create building mass and bulk that is out of character and scale with the adjacent and approved beach area residences. The project proposes the flat area of the roof deck at 30' above grade (building height allowed to 450 whereas the adjacent properties are limited to 24' for the floor heights of rood decks with building height limited to 30'. 7. Parking: What parking standard is applied ? Retail is 1:300 but 1:200 is proposed (medical offices?). Also, 3 residential guest spaces are required but only 2 are proposed. Guest parking spaces are not distinct from retail parking spaces. No separation or distinction may lead to intrusive element of retail parking for residential units. Have compact car spaces been considered as an alternative for some of the required spaces? Parking appears to dominate use of ground level at expense of commercial uses. 8. Storage Area: clearly calculate compliance and depict on Site Data table. Areas calculated for storage also need to be correspondingly depicted on site and/or floor plans. For example, is item #7 (noted with a 7 within a diamond shape) on Sheet 2 noted for storage also proposed as part of the required storage calculation? Design Guidelines: Compliance Review Multi-Family Dwellings 1. For multi-family projects, the ground level should not be used for parking or units so that retail and other uses create active street frontages. Noted on #1 on page 67. 2. Page 67, #2 further notes that multi-family sites should be large enough to accommodate parking on-site or below grade. Given the coverage proposed for the site, and the use of the ground level for uses inconsistent with #1 above, subterranean parking that is truly submerged below grade would lessen visual impacts and be more supportable. Basic Design Principles 1. Page 119 notes the following which are not fully developed within the project as proposed: (3) Development shall be small in scale; (5) All development shall have a strong relationship to the street; (6) Strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of ground floor facades; (8) Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design Site Planning 1. Page 120, #2: Benches and low walls are noted for public domain interface and pedestrian circulation amenity. A corner lot such as the subject site has opportunity to combine this design element with the 20% open space/landscaped pedestrian amenity requirement. 2. Page 121, #5: Privacy loss from primary orientation of condo units onto adjacent properties is not encouraged versus the orientation to the project interior and street frontage.. 3. Page 121, #6: off-street courtyard opportunities are encouraged and perhaps can be considered for the project. ID 4. Page 121, #7: an abundance of landscaping should be emphasized, and combined with the 20% standard. Parking and Access 1. Page 124, #9: Avoid buildings over ground level parking. The project is fundamentally inconsistent with this design criteria element. 2. Page 124, #10: Park underground whenever possible. The extent of this project's underground parking needs review against existing grade and proposed grading. 3. Page 124, #11: Enhance entry driveways with concrete treatments. Misc. Design Comments • Trash Bin location: trash bins need to be accessible for servicing and screened as much as possible from public/streetside viewpoints. Ideally, a review can be made by Coast Waste Management with a follow-up letter indicating their ability to service the site/access the trash bins as shown on a referenced site plan. Page 140 of the Manual also requires that the visual impact of trash collection areas from projects be minimized. • Streetscene/Compatibility: need to review Building Elevations in combination with adjacent existing or approved Elevations next to project site. This is also requested by the City comment dated March 28, 2005 (item #6). • Privacy/Unit Orientation: the fundamental design of the project is such that primary unit orientation for the private, condominium units is outward to adjacent properties to the east and south vs. internal and streetside (Oak and Lincoln) orientation. This is counter to Design criteria noted on page 121 re: privacy and unit orientation when compatibility is a project factor. • Site Plan: should depict existing and proposed curb lines and property lines to reflect the frontage dedications on Oak and Lincoln Streets. • Site Plan: Site Data table on cover sheet should outline standards and summarize compliance: coverage, parking, height, setbacks, storage, etc and also note all zoning, General Plan and Redevelopment District Area designations. 131 • Cross-Sections: Provide a North/South section on East side of project; and also East/West section that goes into adjacent, approved project to the east to assess compatibility, mass, bulk and the absence or presence of significant impacts to adjacent properties. Also - depict existing grade to assess subterranean extent of the parking area. • Landscape Manual: compliance with tree sizes and types as applicable? • Architectural Style: good for Village but has related bulk, setback, coverage issues. • Retail Deck: why is the retail deck not depicted on the Roof/Deck Exhibit on Sheet A-3? • Site Plan: Similar to the comment re: Elevations and Streetscene review, show adjacent existing or approved parking areas, major trees, and building footprints within 100' of the site's property lines. This 100' distance around the project is typically a required application checklist item for discretionary permits issued by the City including Redevelopment Permits. • Elevation Exhibit A-6: what is the gap shown on South Elevation? Is it for signage? If so, should a project-wide Sign Program or exhibit be part of the formal application? • Retaining Wall/Fence Heights: the combination of any retaining wall and fences should not exceed 6 feet in height per city policy as also noted in the March 28 City letter (item #3). • Landscape Plan: the application's landscape plan should clearly depict (1) the 20% open space requirement/landscaped pedestrian amenity, (2) Public right of way vs. private property lines to show setbacks, and (3) Sign Program info/sign locations. • Stormwater Compliance: any features needed for compliance should be noted on plans as appropriate • Mixed Use Project: a "non-residential" project per page 117 of the Manual includes mixed use projects; and a requirement to provide a solid masonry wall between the mixed project and adjacent residential uses. • Title 24 Compliance: the project may benefit from a review for compliance. 7.19.05 iff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Analysis Page 1 From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 07/24/2005 11:44:36 PM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Analysis Sandy Holder, Debbie Fountain, Cliff Jones My concerns for more then a year now have been that the current plans on the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project were not designed or plan checked per the required Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual. All of the guidelines that were overlooked I've been addressing for some time now, including setbacks, height, building coverage, roof deck height, parking, Landscaped pedestrian amenities, perimeter wall heights and Line of site in terms of the privacy issue concerning adjacent properties. Building and Real estate is something that I've been exposed to since I was a child since my father was a builder and my mother owned her own Real estate office. I'm extremely familiar with development standards, how to read them, how to apply them and how to micro analyze plans. The Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual by all means is crystal clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Any deviation from the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual is not only wrong, but certainly illegal since it's a legal document and intended to be enforced 100%. The objective Analysis from Hofman Planning and Associates basically proves that all issues that I've been bringing up for well over a year are not concerns, but serious deviations from the Design Manual that will not be tolerated. You mentioned that the plans will be revised as appropriate, however there are so many major issues with the project that deviate from the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the only real alternative is to scrap the project and start from scratch. This would include orienting the project both west towards the ocean and North towards the Village and away adjacent residential, reduce the overall height of the structure as a whole by at least 10 feet including the roof decks which should not have a floor higher then 24 feet from natural grade, parking needs to be and is required to be below grade within the definition of a basement clearly outlined within the citys development standards, all of the setbacks need to be at the high end of the range and nowhere between, however there is an exception....the setback on Oak since it's a street side setback should not be considered a side yard setback but a front yard setback and should also be at 20 feet, especially since the 10 ft street vacation puts the building out way farther then existing residential and in fact if the setback was at 20 feet on Oak it would still be 10 feet farther out then any other existing residential structure, which is still way too much so 20 feet should be the absolute minimum. Building coverage needs to be at the low end of the Range or 60 % . The current coverage of approx 72% as stated, but the plans appears to be wrong and it may be closer to 78% or the high end of the range which is completely unacceptable, the wall lines on both the east and south property lines need to be 6 feet, not 3 feet retaining with a 3 foot safety railing...but a full six feet from natural grade for both sound and privacy and the 20% of landscaped Pedestrian Amenities does not allow for this space to serve any private space, especially since the project within the tourism support zone section 9 , which according to the Redevelopment implementation plan is a pedestrian oriented envirement. I have in Writing from current and former Carlsbad planners - Re: Lincoln Oak Analysis and staff that the intent was always public and not private space and it should be enforced as public and not private space. Basically the plan does not work and there should not be any revision. The Designer Karnak has clearly submitted plans that don't follow the standards, followed by Redevelopment office that clearly would have allowed the project to move forward even though it doesn't meet the standards. If it wasn't for myself bring light to the situation basically the neighborhood have been ruined forever. It brings me to wondering, if there is any favoritism or special deals that are being made with developers and high level city officialbehind the scenes. If I had to guess I would say yes, because for a project to have such blatant non conforming guideline deviations, it's certainly being pushed through by someone for some reason, and it does not in any way shape or form benefit the neighborhood, the village, the citizens of Carlsbad or the tourists, to use a couple of examples. I've been hearing rumors that high level city officials including City Council Members have secretly been working with Lennar corporation to rezone land out by Lego Land, that is zoned only for agriculture, so they can bring more residential to "connect the city", something about centre city parkway, which would relate to Dollars I would guess. I could be wrong, so don't quote me on this, but I'm hearing alot of information including names of these officials and council members. Does that mean that the City Council is Controlled by the City ? if that was the case, it sure seems wrong, kind of like a jury that is controlled by the Judge. That would take any and all objective opinions out of the picture making the situtation fixed without the possibility of an objective vote or public opinion. Anyway, I'm not sure this is actually true, so don't quote me on this...but if it is true, and they do end up rezoning the land to residential I guess they would have to ammend the master plan. If they did, then maybe they could rezone the Lincoln Oak mixed use project to R3 R-H taking it out of the Redevelopment Arena....which it should be anyway. I also have another question for both Debbie Fountain and Sandra Holder. The question is regarding the property on the Corner of State and Laguna which is Also specifically outlined on Page 85 of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual as special opportunity* ( D ). *lt clearly shows that this specific site was intended for multi family residential with ground floor Retail, a restaurant and parking to be below grade. I only see Condos there with Parking above grade. Why is this site so clearly outlined as special Opportunities residential mixed use project within the redevelopment zone not being built to required standards ????? who was in charge of approving, plan checking and recommending this project ?????? I wonder how many other projects have been allowed to move forward and be built that deviate from the required development standards ??? if this is the case, there is a tremendous amount of liability that falls on the burden of the City. Should the Lincoln Oak mixed use project be allowed to move forward without being completely redesigned to meet the all current standards as Required by the City of Carlsbads Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual that I outlined above, the City of Carlsbad and Redevelopment Office will be held liable for all damages incurred. We're talking about millions of dollars in Realstate that will be adversely affected forever, primarily because there has been an intentional oversite of the Required Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Regards i-Cliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Analysis Page3| Michael Bovenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: >Thank you, Michael, for the analysis. As Sandy mentioned to you, >Redevelopment staff will complete its review of your analysis and the >project plans will be revised as appropriate. The plans will then be >submitted to Sandy for her to engage a third party review of the plans >to determine consistency with the Village Master Plan. A meeting will be >scheduled with you once the review is complete. > »»Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 07/19/05 11:06 PM >» > To Sandy, Debbie, Cliff > > Here's the analysis of the Lincoln Oak mixed use project put >together by Hofman Planning & Associates. It's also very important >for >me to express that when I approached Hofman Planning & associates, I >asked if they would put together an ( Objective Analysis) of the >above >mentioned project. They were specifically asked to prepare a detailed > >objective analysis based on the requirements set forth in the Carlsbad > >Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which we all know > >is a legal document. My extensive review of the Redevelopment Master >Plan and Design Manual raised many concerns which I've been addressing > >for over a year now with the redevelopment staff. All items I've been >addressing and re addressing with staff I believe to be critical design > >element requirements that not been followed. The basic response I >always >get form the Redevelopment staff is (we would like to address your >concerns ). The reality of the situation is, none of the concerns which > >l define as Legal Design requirements have really been addressed. I >know >we recently had the meeting with Staff, the Designer and myself per the > >direct written requirements set forth by staff, however the requirement, >required the owner Russ Bennett to be there as well. I was assured in >writing by Cliff Jones that Russ Bennett would be present, however he >did not attend, thus this requirement was not fulfilled even though >staff had required both the owner and Designer to meet with adjacent >property owners and to receive the opinions in writing before the >project would be allowed to proceed. I'm still the only adjacent >property owner to give you my opinion in writing, however I've spoken >with Dennis Bauern recently and he mentioned he Had a meeting with 1M\ [Cliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Analysis Page4l >Cliff >Jones last week in which he clearly stated that he was opposed to the >entire project. I must add that Dennis was never contacted by either >the >Designer nor owner, thus the required meetings with Dennis as an >adjacent property owner have not been met, but the project still >continues forward. Let's not forget the 30 adjacent property owners to > >the North, noone has contacted any of then either as of July 20th 2005. > >So basically to add this up, I'm the only one of 32 property adjacent >property owners that has met with the Designer even though the > Redevelopment Office required the owner and Designer to meet with all >adjacent property owners. So in percentages it's 3% of adjacent > property >owners that have actually met with the owner and developer. Now, since > >the owner Russ Bennett wasn't at the meeting the percentage goes form >to 0%. Putting this into perspective, this extremely important requirement that both the owner and designer meet with adjacent >property >owners and receive in writing their opinions.. has been met 0% . The > project however has been allowed to move forward even though meetings >and letters from adjacent property owners documenting our opinions were > >required in order for the project to proceed. The Redevelopment Staff >Clearly lacks the ability to enforce not only what they've required of > >the Owner and Designer through the preliminary process, but the >Complete >oversight and lack of enforcement of the City of Carlsbads >Redevelopment >Master Plan and Design Manual, which is A Legal Document requiring all > >new developments within the Redevelopment Zone to follow 100% there >obviously seems to be some kind of hidden agenda. Debbie Fountain told > >me in the last meeting with the Designer that there are other projects > >that don't meet these required standards and that she's setting a new >precedence. I thought that was a very bold statement, since Debbie >Fountains position requires her to enforce the Development Manual. So >some projects meet the requirements and some don.t ???? my first >thought is that there is favoritism, second would be that there is >complete lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Design >Manual >and Master Plan, and my third question is why? If I had to guess, I >would say to Financially justify the existence of the Redevelopment >office which is basically unnecessary and useless in approving or plan > >checking projects within the redevelopment zone, especially when the >City of Carlsbad at Faraday has a huge planning staff with plenty of >well seasoned professional planners whom could easily add the few >projects from the Redevelopment zone to their hundreds if not thousands Mo! |Z|fTJcwes - Re: Lincoln Oak Analysis Page's| >of current projects. When the Meeting between myself Robert Richardson, >Cliff Jones. Debbie Fountain, Ron Alvarez and Michael of Karnak ended, >Robert and Michae were looking down at the Design Manual and reading >the >cover like they've never seen it before. The thought was ohhhhhhh >great, >here we have a Designer Robert Richardson Illegally using Paul Longtons >Architectual stamp, Robert probably doesn't have a copy of the development Manual, we have a new Planner in the Redevelopment Office >who hasn't the experience to read plans and Debbie Fountain who appears >to have her own personal agenda. Anyway enough said, here's the >attachement of the objective analysis. Now according to our conversation >Last week Sandy, I was to send to you the objective analysis, you >mentioned a senior planner within the Faraday office would do an >analysis of the analysis relative to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master >Plan and Design Manual and submitted plans.Once the Analysis of the >Analysis is complete which you mentioned would be about 3 weeks, a >meeting would be set up between myself and staff to discuss the >findings >and go through all items one by one. > Thanks > Michael Bovenzi -lift Jones - Special Opportunity D Page Tl From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <choll@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <jgaru@ci.Carlsbad.ca.us>, <Rharl@ci.carlsbad.ca.cu> Date: 07/28/2005 8:14:15 AM Subject: Special Opportunity D Ray Pachett, Joe Garuba, Ron Ball, Sandra Holder, Debbie Fountain, Cliff Jones, The New condo project currently under Construction on the Comer of State and Laguna is Listed on page 85 of The Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual as a Special Opportunity ( D) It's clearly listed and illustrated as a mixed use Project as Ground floor Retail, residential above, below grade parking, and a restaurant. The Designated Zoning and illustration clearly depict a property that appears not to standards. Projects Zoned like this is exactly what the village area needs for tourism support as the number of visitors continues to increase every year. By allowing the current project under construction to get approved without holding them to the Standards is another example of either favoritism, special behind closed door deals, or the new precedence that is being set by the Redevelopment office. The Lincoln Oak mixed use project currently under review is also one of these properties that is located in the village proper which is so important to the image of the village to be built to standards as the Ground floor that must be devoted to retail along with the 20% of Landscaped pedestrian amenities that will create a pedestrian oriented envirement so crucial to the development of our wonderful village. It clearly appears that there are special deals being with projects being approved that aren't even close to the standards. 1st is the Lincoln Oak mixed use project which is such a mess and benefits noone except the builder and lines the pocket books of the redevelopment office and City of Carlsbad which I basically put in the same category. There is absolutely to tourism no benefit nor does it aid to tourism support which we all no is key to a successful village envirement. Every adjacent neighbor opposes the project because it contains multiple blatant design standard over site issues, which further enforces my opinion that the City of Carlsbad is making special Deals with Developers to line its own pocket book at the expense of destroying existing neighborhoods, no tourism support and let's not forget the Legal manual also known as the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which is a document required by Law to be followed in the approval process of new projects. 2nd we all know that that new Anastasi project down town falls way way short of the listed and required Development standards. Another example of the City lining it's pocket at the expense of all others. I know the owner of the project Anastasi made tens of millions of Dollars and made a clean getaway, but the property site in the middle of the village could have been so wonderful with courtyards, landscaped pedestrian amenities, and some ground floor retail other then the plate glass windows with limited retail space along Carlsbad Blvd. What a wonderful opportunity that was what's the expression ( pissed away) Due to the lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. [Cjjffjiones- Special Opportunity D Page 2] 3rd the Project on the corner of State and Laguna currently under construction. Another blown opportunity that lines the pocketbook of the city, and puts a new feather in the cap of the Redevelopment office. The project clearly as listed on Page 85 in the Carlsbad Redevelopment master plan and design manual as special opportunity project and required to be a mixed use project. So while the city lines their pockets and the Redevelopment staff puts another feather in their cap for a job they think is well done. The Carlsbad redevelopment Village Master Plan and Design Manual (which is a Legal Manual) has little or no influence on these recent projects...! wonder how many other projects don't meet the standards. Who gives the Staff the right to re write Zoning Laws. Really as a 25 year citizen it makes me sick to see our village without defense. The Very people who were hired to protect the Village, maintain the integrity and follow the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design manual for the benefit of all are failing. It starts at the Top. Sandra Holder is the Director who is completely removed of daily activities within the Redevelopment office and has little or no idea and does not follow along with projects currently under review, nor does Sandra have any idea if current projects meet the Standards. Well, the Captain is responsible for the ship but unfortunately the captain is away form the ship tucked away in the Faraday office completely removed form the Redevelopment office to the point that when I called about a few months to complain about the Lincoln Oak mixed use project Sandra Holder had not even seen the Plans or reviewed the plans EVER. So in my opinion Sandra Holder lacks the Guidance that is her responsibility as the director of the Redevelopment office. Either Direct of move on, but as far as I'm concerned the village is being destroyed under your direct guidance and either you don't know or you don't care. I think it's alot of both actually...as long as the paycheck in coming in right ???? Debbie Fountain Who Heads the Redevelopment Office is Clearly on her own agenda to set a new (precedence) well that's the word she used to describe her lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment master plan and design Manual. Debbie clearly has her own agenda, isn't following the design standards required by law , even when her very position was created for her to do so. Which brings me to the Question, why even have a Redevelopment office. I know they have a few responsibilities that are needed, but as far as plan checking new projects and deciding whether the projects will be approved or denied based on their own personal agenda and setting a new (precedence) the redevelopment office is Failing. Yes, completely failing in terms of Plan checking new projects. Why even bother if Your not going to Follow the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Really what's the point. Debbie Fountain runs the office and has direct say in what projects get approved. So either she hasn't the ability to read and apply the manual or she just doesn't care what's getting approved. As long as She can justify the existence of the Redevelopment office. To Justify properly would be to do your Job, which is 100% enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan And design Manual ( Legal Manual ) you job is and never will be to set a new precedence which is to approve projects based on you own personal agenda. Cliff Jones, Nice Guy, intelligent, but extremely green and Lacks the knowledge and ability to properly plan check projects. It's crystal clear to me that on a few different occasions when I was in the Redevelopment office to [ojjffjones- Special Opportunity D PageSl discuss the Lincoln Oak mixed use project....he couldn't read the plans properly. This is why the City offices at Faraday have senior planners and beginning planners. It takes years of experience to work you way up to a high level or senior planner. It's through this experience that the knowledge is gained which allows one to properly plan check. So why if the Redevelopment office has basically only one planner (Cliff) who lacks the experience to plan check even plan checking at all ????????????? when there's probably 20 Or 30 planners at the Faraday office who have the required knowledge and experience necessary to get the job done right. I have this theory as to why, because Debbie Fountain has her own Agenda Does what she wants, approves what projects she wants, gives special favors to some developers and others not. Debbie clearly does not Follow the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual which is a legal document. Debbie Fountain has a responsibility to enforce 100% all of the Standards in the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual, is that what happens when your in a position of Power for a long period of time ??? you come to the point that you think that you can re write the Law ??? well that's what's happening here and unless the Carlsbad Master plan is ammemded. No one has the right to set a new Precedence. Regards Michael Bovenzi Property Owner Carlsbad Village Proper - Carlsbad RedeyelgprngntJ^aster Plan PageTI From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <Rharl@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <jgaru@ci.Carlsbad.ca.us>, <choll@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 07/28/2005 8:21:18 AM Subject: Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan Ray Pachett, Joe Garuba, Ron Ball, Sandra Holder, Debbie Fountain, Cliff Jones, The New condo project currently under Construction on the Corner of State and Laguna is Listed on page 85 of The Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual as a Special Opportunity ( D ) It's clearly listed and illustrated as a mixed use Project as Ground floor Retail, residential above, below grade parking, and a restaurant. The Designated Zoning and illustration clearly depict a property that appears not to standards. Projects Zoned like this is exactly what the village area needs for tourism support as the number of visitors continues to increase every year. By allowing the current project under construction to get approved without holding them to the Standards is another example of either favoritism, special behind closed door deals, or the new precedence that is being set by the Redevelopment office. The Lincoln Oak mixed use project currently under review is also one of these properties that is located in the village proper which is so important to the image of the village to be built to standards as the Ground floor that must be devoted to retail along with the 20% of Landscaped pedestrian amenities that will create a pedestrian oriented envirement so crucial to the development of our wonderful village. It clearly appears that there are special deals being with projects being approved that aren't even close to the standards. 1st is the Lincoln Oak mixed use project which is such a mess and benefits noone except the builder and lines the pocket books of the redevelopment office and City of Carlsbad which I basically put in the same category. There is absolutely to tourism no benefit nor does it aid to tourism support which we all no is key to a successful village envirement. Every adjacent neighbor opposes the project because it contains multiple blatant design standard over site issues, which further enforces my opinion that the City of Carlsbad is making special Deals with Developers to line its own pocket book at the expense of destroying existing neighborhoods, no tourism support and let's not forget the Legal manual also known as the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual which is a document required by Law to be followed in the approval process of new projects. 2nd we all know that that new Anastasi project down town falls way way short of the listed and required Development standards. Another example of the City lining it's pocket at the expense of all others. I know the owner of the project Anastasi made tens of millions of Dollars and made a clean getaway, but the property site in the middle of the village could have been so wonderful with courtyards, landscaped pedestrian amenities, and some ground floor retail other then the plate glass windows with limited retail space along Carlsbad Blvd. What a wonderful opportunity that was what's the expression ( pissed away) Due to the lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. |Cljff Jones -Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan Page2| 3rd the Project on the corner of State and Laguna currently under construction. Another blown opportunity that lines the pocketbook of the city, and puts a new feather in the cap of the Redevelopment office. The project clearly as listed on Page 85 in the Carlsbad Redevelopment master plan and design manual as special opportunity project and required to be a mixed use project. So while the city lines their pockets and the Redevelopment staff puts another feather in their cap for a job they think is well done. The Carlsbad redevelopment Village Master Plan and Design Manual (which is a Legal Manual) has little or no influence on these recent projects...! wonder how many other projects don't meet the standards. Who gives the Staff the right to re write Zoning Laws: Really as a 25 year citizen it makes me sick to see our village without defense. The Very people who were hired to protect the Village, maintain the integrity and follow the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design manual for the benefit of all are failing. It starts at the Top. Sandra Holder is the Director who is completely removed of daily activities within the Redevelopment office and has little or no idea and does not follow along with projects currently under review, nor does Sandra have any idea if current projects meet the Standards. Well, the Captain is responsible for the ship but unfortunately the captain is away form the ship tucked away in the Faraday office completely removed form the Redevelopment office to the point that when I called about a few months to complain about the Lincoln Oak mixed use project Sandra Holder had not even seen the Plans or reviewed the plans EVER. So in my opinion Sandra Holder lacks the Guidance that is her responsibility as the director of the Redevelopment office. Either Direct of move on, but as far as I'm concerned the village is being destroyed under your direct guidance and either you don't know or you don't care. I think it's alot of both actually...as long as the paycheck in coming in right ???? Debbie Fountain Who Heads the Redevelopment Office is Clearly on her own agenda to set a new (precedence) well that's the word she used to describe her lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment master plan and design Manual. Debbie clearly has her own agenda, isn't following the design standards required by law, even when her very position was created for her to do so. Which brings me to the Question, why even have a Redevelopment office. I know they have a few responsibilities that are needed, but as far as plan checking new projects and deciding whether the projects will be approved or denied based on their own personal agenda and setting a new (precedence ) the redevelopment office is Failing. Yes, completely failing in terms of Plan checking new projects. Why even bother if Your not going to Follow the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Really what's the point. Debbie Fountain runs the office and has direct say in what projects get approved. So either she hasn't the ability to read and apply the manual or she just doesn't care what's getting approved. As long as She can justify the existence of the Redevelopment office. To Justify properly would be to do your Job, which is 100% enforcement of the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan And design Manual ( Legal Manual ) you job is and never will be to set a new precedence which is to approve projects based on you own personal agenda. Cliff Jones, Nice Guy, intelligent, but extremely green and Lacks the knowledge and ability to properly plan check projects. It's crystal clear to me that on a few different occasions when I was in the Redevelopment office to discuss the Lincoln Oak mixed use project....he couldn't read the plans fCliff Jones - Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan Page 3] properly. This is why the City offices at Faraday have senior planners and beginning planners. It takes years of experience to work you way up to a high level or senior planner. It's through this experience that the knowledge is gained which allows one to properly plan check. So why if the Redevelopment office has basically only one planner (Cliff) who lacks the experience to plan check even plan checking at all ????????????? when there's probably 20 Or 30 planners at the Faraday office who have the required knowledge and experience necessary to get the job done right. I have this theory as to why, because Debbie Fountain has her own Agenda Does what she wants, approves what projects she wants, gives special favors to some developers and others not. Debbie clearly does not Follow the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual which is a legal document. Debbie Fountain has a responsibility to enforce 100% all of the Standards in the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual, is that what happens when your in a position of Power for a long period of time ??? you come to the point that you think that you can re write the Law ??? well that's what's happening here and unless the Carlsbad Master plan is ammemded. No one has the right to set a new Precedence. Regards Michael Bovenzi Property Owner Carlsbad Village Prope 1 Gliff Jtfnes - lincoln oak mixed use project ~ iPage"T'l From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 08/01/2005 6:50:39 AM Subject: lincoln oak mixed use project Debbie & Cliff *1 .* I was wondering if there's any additional talks or discussions with either Robert Richardson or Russ Bennett Regarding the Lincoln Oak mixed use project. ?? If so, I would like a copy of any new preliminary review letters or correspondence. *2. *What is the current status on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project ?? *3.* Sandra Holder mentioned in one of her last E mails that the objective analysis I submitted from Hofman and associates was going to be reviewed by a high level official within the Carlsbad City Planning Department along with a review of the plans and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. *A.* is that currently being done ?? *B*. Will I still be contacted when that review is complete as promised by Sandra Holder with a meeting that will be set up to go through the issues one by one ??? * 4*. who was in Charge of Plan checking the Anastasi Development in the Village down town and who specifically recommended the project ? *5. *How did the project under construction on the corner of State and Laguna be allowed to get built since the Zoning specifically outlined in The Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual as* Special Opportunity D *a mixed use project with required retail, Parking below Grade and a restaurant ?? *A*. How Did it get approved ?? *B*. Who specifically did the Plan Checking ??? *C*. Who specifically allowed the project to move forward without the project meeting the Zoning requirements.????* 6. I would also like a current list of all new projects located within the Redevelopment Zone that are still in the workings and have not yet been approved. Names of the Jobs and the addresses and any preliminary review letters or correspondence with owners, representatives, Architects or Planners. 7.1 would also Like to review the plans on a project that is on Carlsbad Blvd Just south of 7-11 and North of Pine on the West side of - lincoln oak mixed use project Page 2| Carlsbad Blvd. I beleive the owner is Barry Blue. I would like to get a copy of any preliminary review letters and I would like to know the current status on the Project. I did ask some specific questions in my E -mail last week that were never answered. If there's nothing to hide then I don't see why there would be any problems. I would appreciate all above questions to be ansewerd along with items 6 and 7 . Regards Mike Bovenzi CC: <choll@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <Rharl@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <ron@rdadesigns.com> ..in. .in I...... Page ft From: Debbie Fountain To: Cliff Jones; Michael Bovenzi; Sandra Holder Date: 08/01/2005 8:42:18 AM Subject: Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Michael. We are still working with Robert and Russ on the Lincoln and Oak Project, and meeting with adjacent property owners. There is no new correspondence at this time. Once we complete our review and the third party review is complete on the Lincoln and Oak project, a meeting will be scheduled with you to discuss the findings. At this time, we do not have an anticipated date for the meeting with you. On all of the other previous and current projects you mentioned in this and your previous e-mail, the project files are all available in our office for your review. Let me know when you would like to come in and review the files. We will reserve our conference room for you. You are welcome to go through each project file on your own. Thanks. >» Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 08/01/05 6:50 AM >» Debbie & Cliff *1.* I was wondering if there's any additional talks or discussions with either Robert Richardson or Russ Bennett Regarding the Lincoln Oak mixed use project. ?? If so, I would like a copy of any new preliminary review letters or correspondence. *2. *What is the current status on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project ?? *3.* Sandra Holder mentioned in one of her last E mails that the objective analysis I submitted from Hofman and associates was going to be reviewed by a high level official within the Carlsbad City Planning Department along with a review of the plans and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. *A.* is that currently being done ?? *B*. Will I still be contacted when that review is complete as promised by Sandra Holder with a meeting that will be set up to go through the issues one by one ??? * A*, who was in Charge of Plan checking the Anastasi Development in the Village down town and who specifically recommended the project ? *5. *How did the project under construction on the corner of State and Laguna be allowed to get built since the Zoning specifically outlined in The Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual as* Special Opportunity D *a mixed use project with required retail, Parking below Grade and a restaurant ?? *A*. How Did it get approved ?? *B*. Who specifically did the Plan Checking ??? ."Be: lincoln oak mixed jsiprpject PageTj *C*. Who specifically allowed the project to move forward without the project meeting the Zoning requirements.???? * 6. I would also like a current list of all new projects located within the Redevelopment Zone that are still in the workings and have not yet been approved. Names of the Jobs and the addresses and any preliminary review letters or correspondence with owners, representatives, Architects or Planners. 7.1 would also Like to review the plans on a project that is on Carlsbad Blvd Just south of 7-11 and North of Pine on the West side of Carlsbad Blvd. I beleive the owner is Barry Blue. I would like to get a copy of any preliminary review letters and I would like to know the current status on the Project. I did ask some specific questions in my E -mail last week that were never answered. If there's nothing to hide then I don't see why there would be any problems. I would appreciate all above questions to be ansewerd along with items 6 and 7 . Regards Mike Bovenzi CC: Cindee Hollingsworth; Randee Harlib; ron@rdadesigns.com 553 PageT From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <Rharl@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 08/01/2005 8:19:19 PM Subject: Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Debbie Fountain, Cliff Jones, Sandra Holder as far as meeting with adjacent property owners, in my discussions recently with my neighbor Dennis Bauern who's the adjacent property owner to the south, apparently he came in and had a meeting with cliff a couple of weeks ago, and he is alos opposed to the entire project for multiple reasons as well, all of the issues stemming from lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. The property owners to the North are aware of the proposed property and in fact the homeowners association has appointed one individual to represent the association with their view. This is months now after you required the Designer Karnak and owner Bennett to meet with adjacent property owners which they still haven't. I'm sure that since you mentioned that your meeting with adjacent property owners, you would know who the association member who represents the adjacent property to the north is. If you don't jsut ask and I would be happy to give you his name and Number. Also a couple of questions that still remain unanswered even though I have asked twice now are 1. the property currently under construction on the corner of state and Laguna which according to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual is a special opportunity property D as listed on page 85 of the development standards, the question is once again, who plan checked and approved that project ?? ( specific name ) and why was it approved as a residential project only, when it is currently zoned as a mixed use project ???. 2. Who was specifically incharge of plan checking the Anastasi Development in the middle of Down town, and why was it allowed to be approved when it clearly did not meet the Zoning requirements ???? I would appreciate some names and contact information regarding the two properties I listed above and the names of who was in charge of Plan checking the properties and who approved them as well. Regards Michael Bovenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: >Michael. We are still working with Robert and Russ on the Lincoln and >Oak Project, and meeting with adjacent property owners. There is no new correspondence at this time. Once we complete our review and the third >party review is complete on the Lincoln and Oak project, a meeting will >be scheduled with you to discuss the findings. At this time, we do not >have an anticipated date for the meeting with you. > >On all of the other previous and current projects you mentioned in this [Cliff Jongs - Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Page 21 >and your previous e-mail, the project files are all available in our >office for your review. Let me know when you would like to come in and >review the files. We will reserve our conference room for you. You are >welcome to go through each project file on your own. > >Thanks. »»Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 08/01/05 6:50 AM >» >Debbie & Cliff > >*1.* I was wondering if there's any additional talks or discussions >with >either Robert Richardson or Russ Bennett Regarding the Lincoln Oak >mixed use project. ?? > >lf so, I would like a copy of any new preliminary review letters or Correspondence. > >*2. *What is the current status on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project >*3.* Sandra Holder mentioned in one of her last E mails that the >objective analysis I submitted from Hofman and associates was going to > >be reviewed by a high level official within the Carlsbad City Planning > >Department along with a review of the plans and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. > >*A.* is that currently being done ?? > >*B*. Will I still be contacted when that review is complete as promised > >by Sandra Holder with a meeting that will be set up to go through the > >issues one by one ??? > >* >4*. who was in Charge of Plan checking the Anastasi Development in >the Village down town and who specifically recommended the project >*5. *How did the project under construction on the corner of State and > >Laguna be allowed to get built since the Zoning specifically outlined > >in The Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual as* > >Special Opportunity D *a mixed use project with required retail, >Parking below Grade and a restaurant ?? I Cliff Jorvss - Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Page 31 >*A*. How Did it get approved ?? > >*B*. Who specifically did the Plan Checking ??? > >*C*. Who specifically allowed the project to move forward without the > >project meeting the Zoning requirements.???? >* >6. I would also like a current list of all new projects located >within >the Redevelopment Zone that are still in the workings and have not yet > >been approved. Names of the Jobs and the addresses and any preliminary > >review letters or correspondence with owners, representatives, >Architects or Planners. > >7.1 would also Like to review the plans on a project that is on >Carlsbad Blvd Just south of 7-11 and North of Pine on the West side of > >Carlsbad Blvd. I beleive the owner is Barry Blue. I would like to get a > >copy of any preliminary review letters and I would like to know the >current status on the Project. > > > I did ask some specific questions in my E -mail last week that were >never answered. If there's nothing to hide then I don't see why there >would be any problems. I would appreciate all above questions to be >ansewerd along with items 6 and 7 . > >Regards > > Mike Bovenzi CC: <jgaru@ci.Carlsbad.ca.us>, <ron@rdadesigns.com> 6(0 [ClifNones - Re: lincolnoak mixed use £rpject Page if From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 08/03/2005 1:00:06 PM Subject: Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Debbie, For the record, there is no project Architect. Robert Richardson from karnak is not an Architect. Paul Longton whos stamp was on the plans is an Architect, but in my recent discussions with Paul Longton ( Architect) he was un aware that Robert Richardson was using his stamp and infact was supposed to be in touch with Robert from karnak and your office to tell you that. State Law requires that any one designing a project that includeds commercial to be a licensed Architect. Robert from Karnak is not an Arcitech, therefore there is no project Architect which is required by California State Law. I'm not sure what other project issues your working on as the entire project as a whole has major design Flaws which basically means they should scrap the project and start from the beginning. I also have another objective Analysis from another large planning firm that mirrors the one that Hofman and associates did. I will share that at a later time if it becomes necessary, but it's not my job to plan check projects. I also received an additional detailed Analysis regarding some other important issues regarding the project that are State law that have been completely overlooked which I will share at a later time should it become necessary. Also someone better check with the UCC building code book as well, because there are a couple of other major issues ( State Laws) that affect the design that have also been completely over looked which I will share at a later time should it become necessary. Bottom line is, is that the Housing and Redevelopment Office staff does not have the proper training or expertise to conduct thorough plan checks and they should all be done at the City of Carlsbads Faraday office. The other items I mentioned change the project in a way that make it not possible according to the current plan currently on record but noone in your office has a clue what they are, even though they are isssues regarding State Law that have been completely overlooked by ALL which further demonstrates that the Carlsbad Redevelopment office is unable to perform proper plan checks not to mention the fact that the Development Standards for the Village aren't being enforced and to a great extent overlooked. Regards Michael Bovenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: >Staff and the project architect have met with the HOA rep for the >Monterey Condos. Cliff met with Dennis. We are working on project issues >raised during these meetings. > >On the other projects you mentioned, they met the development standards >and the land use requirements. They were recommended for approval by >staff and the Design Review Board, and then ultimately approved by the >Housing and Redevelopment Commission (City Council) following public Cliff Jones-Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Page 2] >hearings. As mentioned in my last e-mail, you are welcome to review all >of the project files to obtain any additional information you require. »»Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcg)obal.net> 08/01/05 8:19 PM »> >Debbie Fountain, Cliff Jones, Sandra Holder >as far as meeting with adjacent property owners, in my discussions >recently with my neighbor Dennis Bauern who's the adjacent property >owner to the south, apparently he came in and had a meeting with cliff >a >couple of weeks ago, and he is alos opposed to the entire project for >multiple reasons as well, all of the issues stemming from lack of enforcement of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and >Design Manual. The property owners to the North are aware of the >proposed property and in fact the homeowners association has appointed >one individual to represent the association with their view. This is >months now after you required the Designer Karnak and owner Bennett to >meet with adjacent property owners which they still haven't. I'm sure >that since you mentioned that your meeting with adjacent property >owners, you would know who the association member who represents the >adjacent property to the north is. If you don't jsut ask and I would be >happy to give you his name and Number. >Also a couple of questions that still remain unanswered even though I >have asked twice now are >1. the property currently under construction on the corner of state and >Laguna which according to the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and >Design Manual is a special opportunity property D as listed on page 85 >of the development standards, the question is once again, who plan >checked and approved that project ?? ( specific name ) and why was it >approved as a residential project only, when it is currently zoned as a >mixed use project ???. >2. Who was specifically incharge of plan checking the Anastasi >Development in the middle of Down town, and why was it allowed to be >approved when it clearly did not meet the Zoning requirements ???? >l would appreciate some names and contact information regarding the two >properties I listed above and the names of who was in charge of Plan >checking the properties and who approved them as well. > [Cliff Jones- Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Page 3| >Regards > Michael Bovenzi > Debbie Fountain wrote: > > > »Michael. We are still working with Robert and Russ on the Lincoln and »Oak Project, and meeting with adjacent property owners. There is no >new > > »correspondence at this time. Once we complete our review and the » » >third > > »party review is complete on the Lincoln and Oak project, a meeting »be scheduled with you to discuss the findings. At this time, we do » » >not > > »have an anticipated date for the meeting with you. » »On all of the other previous and current projects you mentioned in » » >this »and your previous e-mail, the project files are all available in our »office for your review. Let me know when you would like to come in >and > > »review the files. We will reserve our conference room for you. You » » >are > > »welcome to go through each project file on your own. » »Thanks. rciiff Jones- Re: !.incojn_oa_k_mixeduse project Page4] >»»Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 08/01/05 6:50 AM >» »Debbie & Cliff » »*1 * | Was wondering if there's any additional talks or discussions »with »either Robert Richardson or Russ Bennett Regarding the Lincoln Oak »mixed use project. ?? » »lf so, I would like a copy of any new preliminary review letters or »correspondence. » »*2. *What is the current status on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project »*3.* Sandra Holder mentioned in one of her last E mails that the »objective analysis I submitted from Hofman and associates was going >to> > »be reviewed by a high level official within the Carlsbad City Planning »Department along with a review of the plans and the Carlsbad »Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. » »*A.* is that currently being done ?? » »*B*. Will I still be contacted when that review is complete as » » >promised > > »by Sandra Holder with a meeting that will be set up to go through the »issues one by one ??? I (oD : lincoln^oakjTijj^d use project Page 5] »* »4*. who was in Charge of Plan checking the Anastasi Development in »the Village down town and who specifically recommended the project »*5. *How did the project under construction on the corner of State » » >and > > »Laguna be allowed to get built since the Zoning specifically » » >outlined > > »in The Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual » » >as* > > »Special Opportunity D *a mixed use project with required retail, »Parking below Grade and a restaurant ?? » »*A*. How Did it get approved ?? » »*B*. Who specifically did the Plan Checking ??? » »*C*. Who specifically allowed the project to move forward without » » >the »project meeting the Zoning requirements.???? »* »6. I would also like a current list of all new projects located »within »the Redevelopment Zone that are still in the workings and have not >yet > > »been approved. Names of the Jobs and the addresses and any » » preliminary »review letters or correspondence with owners, representatives, »Architects or Planners. <o\ 1 Cliff Jones - Re: lincoln oak mixeduseproiect ' Page 61 »7. 1 would also Like to review the plans on a project that is on »Carlsbad Blvd Just south of 7-1 1 and North of Pine on the West side >of > > »Carlsbad Blvd. I beleive the owner is Barry Blue. I would like to get » » >a »copy of any preliminary review letters and I would like to know the »current status on the Project. »l did ask some specific questions in my E -mail last week that were »never answered. If there's nothing to hide then I don't see why there »would be any problems. I would appreciate all above questions to be »ansewerd along with items 6 and 7 . » »Regards » » Mike Bovenzi »* CC: <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <RharI@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <jgaru@ci.Carlsbad.ca.us>, <ron@rdadesigns.com>, <mwyatt@san.rr.com> fCliffJones^RerLiricoin'"C)ak Mixed Use Project Page 1 j From: Debbie Fountain To: Michael Bovenzi Date: 09/30/2005 10:59:55 AM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Michael, attached are the meeting notes from the meeting on September 19, 2005 regarding the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project. As Sandra Holder indicated to you during the meeting, we subsequently met with the property owner and project designer to share your concerns and the suggested design changes from Michael Holzmiller. They are currently considering those suggestions. Thank you for sharing your concerns. You will receive notice of the future public hearings on this project and will be provided the opportunity to share any ongoing concerns with both the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. As mentioned to you, the attached notes with the reports and correspondence you submitted that day as well as all of your previous correspondence on this project will be made part of the public record on the project. Both the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will be provided with copies of these records prior to their action on the project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad CC: Cliff Jones; JoeGaruba; Sandra Holder i(o2> jCliffJones^ReniincblnOak Mixed UseJPRoject From: Debbie Fountain To: Cliff Jones; Michael Bovenzi; Sandra Holder Date: 08/19/2005 11:07:52 AM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use PRoject Michael. Thanks for the request for an update on the Lincoln and Oak Project. The project remains under study by our third party. We have contracted with Michael Holzmiller, the recently retired Planning Director for Carlsbad, to prepare the neutral review. At this time, it is anticipated that we will meet with you sometime during the second or third week of September to discuss the findings and our intended direction on this project. No new plans have been submitted to date by the property owner. There is also no new corresondence to share with you. You will be contacted at a later date in order for us to schedule a meeting with you for September to discuss the third party review. Thanks. >» Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 08/18/05 9:48 PM >» Sandy, Cliff, Debbie I was wondering how the in house analysis on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use project is coming along, since it's been 3 or four weeks now since I submitted the objective analysis of the project. If it's public information, I was wondering who might be in charge of doing this particular Analysis. Also, when I was in to see some plans a week or 2 ago, I asked Cliff what was the latest with the Lincoln Oak Mixed use project. He said Robert Richardson was working on some new plans, or some revisions that were supposed to be submitted sometime soon. I was wondering if those plans have been submitted ? and if there's any more recent preliminary review letters that have been sent to the Owner or Designer. If so I would like a copy of any further communication between the Designer or owner and The Carlsbad Redevelopment office. Regards Michael Bovenzi CC: Joe Garuba I Cliff Jones - Lincoln Oak Mixed Use PRoject ; ZIZI Page 1J From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 08/18/2005 9:48:15 PM Subject: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use PRoject Sandy, Cliff, Debbie I was wondering fiow the in house analysis on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use project is coming along, since it's been 3 or four weeks now since I submitted the objective analysis of the project. If it's public information, I was wondering who might be in charge of doing this particular Analysis. Also, when I was in to see some plans a week or 2 ago, I asked Cliff what was the latest with the Lincoln Oak Mixed use project. He said Robert Richardson was working on some new plans, or some revisions that were supposed to be submitted sometime soon. I was wondering if those plans have been submitted ? and if there's any more recent preliminary review letters that have been sent to the Owner or Designer. If so I would like a copy of any further communication between the Designer or owner and The Carlsbad Redevelopment office. Regards Michael Bovenzi CC: <jgaru@ci.Carlsbad.ca.us> fc JiffJ ones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project PageT| From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> To: Debbie Fountain <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 10/30/2005 10:23:13 PM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Redevelopment Staff l"ve been extremely busy with my approved project and working on other projects as well, so it has taken me some time to respond to the minutes from the meeting at the Faraday office on September 19th. I really do appreciate the Fact that Michael Holzmiller was able to attend the meeting, however I was told prior to the meeting by both Sandra Holder and Debbie Fountain that Michael Holzmiller was was going to be putting together a third party analysis and that I would be able to receive a copy once it was completed. Now if Michael Holzmiller is an independent contractor I would tend to think that he doesn't work for free, and as an independent contractor he would be paid by the city for the analysis of the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project. It just seems a little strange that there was no analysis in writing and what there is in writing is from the minutes taken at the meeting. Now the minutes from the meeting I do find very interesting, however much of the information discussed in the meeting was not in the meeting notes you have provided and some of the meeting notes have been changed in favor of the Housing and Redevelopment Office and a few of my comments have been conveniently miss quoted as well. I must say that I do find it extremely concerning that the in house analysis has been completed by an individual who still retains an office at the city of Carlsbad and a person whom is on a first name basis and possible friendship level with the other directors. If the Housing and Redevelopment Office wanted a true analysis of the project it would have sub contracted an outside source where in house influence would not have the possibility of being a factor. Which is exactly what I did when I went to a 2 separate neutral 3rd parties to obtain an analysis on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project. As we know Paul Klukus from planning systems did the first one, and Bill Hofmann and Eric Munoz completed the second extensive neutral analysis. I did Supply a copy to Staff at the September 19th meeting of the Hofman and Associated Analysis. It was said that this information would be added as record for the meeting, however this Analysis has been conveniently omitted from the record for whatever reason. I would venture to say because it's extremely accurate, extremely detailed and from a company that is very well respected. I do know the City of Carlsbad does have a very large, well trained, well respected and very well run Planning Department. One of the functions of the planning department is to plan check new projects to determine if they meet current standards as well as local city codes. It takes many years for the senior planners to get to their position through hard work, consistently gaining knowledge as the years progress. Which brings me to the question as to why the redevelopment office even plan checks projects in the first place. It's not one of the intended functions of the Redevelopment Office, nor is there really anyone there with enough experience to plan check projects thoroughly. No offense to Cliff Jones, but Cliff is a very smart young man but new with the Redevelopment office. If he had been hired on with the Planning i Cliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mjxed Use Project "Page 21 Department, he would be a junior planner and would not be plan checking projects on his own, if any at such an early stage in his career. It was clear in my meeting with Cliff that he's very intelligent, hard working and determined, but due to his lack of experience un able to read plans properly. The problem this creates is projects that don't meet current standards. It's my opinion that all new projects within the entire City should be plan checked by the City of Carlsbads Planning Department and Not the Redevelopment Staff. Getting Back to the Meeting on September 19th I made a statement about the Elevators in the Proposed Project. Once a lift is added it opens up the doors to Title 24 part 2 accessibility standards. I said in the Meeting that within the City of Carlsbad there appears to be No one person trained on this issue. I wanted to put lifts in my project, but couldn't because of the accessibility issues. I asked the City about this and was told it was not their position to plan check title 24 part 2 and not their responsibility to research it for me either. THe meeting Notes say that I" questioned the experience of the inspectors" which is not what I said actually, I said that there is noone within the city of Carlsbad that is trained on Title 24 part 2....which in reality we know to be true. It brings me to the question as to how a project that falls short of these State Required Laws is being recommended by staff. It's because Redevelopment Staff is not trained in Title 24 part 2 California State Law. Now if Redevelopment Staff was, it would be clear that the project based on these items alone doesn't work and would have to be completely designed, but hey might as well approve a project that doesn't work, and then let it go to Esgil so they can tell us that. Then well redesign the entire project so it now becomes the project that was not approved in the first place. For the Record Michael Holzmiller said in the meeting "the 20% landscape pedestrian amenities DID NOT meet the standards and that the private roof decks should not be allowed to be used as credit to meet those standards. Michael Holzmiller also said " he felt that the set backs should be held to the maximum of the setbacks" So now basically what we do know is that Hofman and Associates, Planning Systems, Michael Holzmiller other senior Planning staff, and Licensed Architects all Agree that the Project Does Not Meet the open 20% landscaped pedestrian ammenties open space requirements, and the project because of the adverse affect the proposed project has on existing residential the setbacks should be held to the maximum. These two items alone Change the entire project making it crystal clear that the project does not work, yet the redevelopment staff continue to support it. I also mentioned in the meeting Sept that the Required meetings with the Design and Owner with adjacent property owners have never taken place. Sandra Holder said that meetings were not required, However in the March 28 2005 letter from Cliff Jones to Designer Robert Richardson page 2 item 2 clearly states that *" Staff shall require the property owner and Architect to meet with surrounding neighbors to address their concerns. Staff will require Letters from adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final determination of the project." *To this \(6\ ~Ciiff Jones - Re: Lincoln Qakjyjjxed Use„Project Page 31 date this requirement form staff has still not been met. There's approximately 32 adjacent property owners none of which have ever been contacted by the owner or Designer, so how could staff make a final decision based on this criteria if it's never been met, and there has been absolutely no good faith effort by the owner or designer to meet this "requirement ...required by staff *For the record, the designer of the project Robert Richardson is a Designer and _*NOT*_ a licensed Architect. In fact he was illegally using the architectural stamp (_Punishable by both fine and prison_) of licensed Architect Paul Longton until Paul found out confronted Karnak. Karnak did stop the illegal activity immediately, however it's actually still written on the plans, and if you take a closer look you'll see. California state law section 5536a is a law outlawing a designer into entering into a contract with a landowner of a project that requires a licensed Architect. A building of more then four units, more then 2 stories, or with a commercial component also require a licensed Architect. Robert Richardson is not a licensed Architect and is in violation of not just one, but all 3. Section 5537 which is also California State Law also Requires that A licensed Architect is to have direct input and oversee the entire design phase of a project if theres a designer who's not licensed involved with the design phase of a project that is required have a licensed Architect of record. Robert Richardson of Karnak is in Violation of both of the California State Laws both of which are punishable by fines and prison. To have a licensed Engineer Stamp the project for Karnak does not release Richardson from the other state law violations and in fact is another state law violation, record. Since Licensed Architects have to go through very extensive educational process that requires both a great deal of time, study and literally thousands of hours of work experience to legally be allowed to design a project of more then 4 units, one of more then 3 stories, and one that contains a commercial element it would be fair to say that they have earned the right to design these structures because they they understand that from the inside out with a Architectural license that proves that. A license cannot be bought but is earned, giving an individual the right to design these types of buildings. Richardson of Karnak lacks the knowledge, ability and state required License to even submit these plans to the Redevelopment office for Review, not to mention is a violation of California State Law....but I'm sure that staff is aware of that.. It's probably one of the reasons that the project is so screwed up in the first place, would you have a nurse perform open heart surgery, would you have a cab driver land a jet liner...think about it, it's the same principal. The requirements are not there and there's State laws in Force to protect that. Staff is knowingly overlooking state law. So to knowingly overlook state laws seems to be very familiar with the fact that the development standards as well as local municipal codes have been knowingly overlooked by staff as well. Now even with all of the issues concerning this project, opinions of adjacent property owners, state law violations, development standard and municipal code deviations, Michael Holzmillers opinions on setbacks open space and orientation, Hofmans analysis, Planning systems Analysis, the title 24 part 2 analysis.Staff does realize that not one issue of many over the last year has been delt with and in fact not one single issue ifClff Jdhes - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project ""Ill-Ill.... Page 41 or requirement has been enforced to be corrected and yet you would still recommend a project that has been proven by all others to Just Not Work ? I suppose if a Department _Director_ was a position that was to be voted on by the general public every 2 years it would be an entirely different situtation, because either you would follow the rules or you would be voted out. I imagine if they started that this year, there would be quite a turn over and for all the right reasons I'm sure. No sense in dreaming I guess, but in reality there's absolutely no checks and balances and now the personal agenda of one Director who's not even a citizen of the city of Carlsbad will have an adverse on the entire neighbor hood for forever to come. Regards Michael Bovenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: >Michael, attached are the meeting notes from the meeting on September >19, 2005 regarding the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project. As Sandra >Holder indicated to you during the meeting, we subsequently met with the >property owner and project designer to share your concerns and the >suggested design changes from Michael Holzmiller. They are currently Considering those suggestions. > >Thank you for sharing your concerns. You will receive notice of the >future public hearings on this project and will be provided the >opportunity to share any ongoing concerns with both the Design Review >Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. > >As mentioned to you, the attached notes with the reports and correspondence you submitted that day as well as all of your previous correspondence on this project will be made part of the public record on >the project. Both the Design Review Board and the Housing and >Redevelopment Commission will be provided with copies of these records >prior to their action on the project. > >lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. > >Sincerely, >Debbie Fountain 1(0°) c'lTff-Jon'e's'- Re: LincolnTOak Mixed Use Project Page 51 >Housing and Redevelopment Director >City of Carlsbad CC: <jgaru@ci.Carlsbad.ca.us> ISIiff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak MbcedJ^eproject From: Debbie Fountain To: Cliff Jones; Michael Bovenzi; Sandra Holder Date: 10/31/2005 10:02:33 AM Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Michael. As we mentioned in our meeting all of your correspondence, including the information provided below, will be forwarded to the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission for their consideration as they review the major redevelopment permit for the Lincoln and Oak project. You will receive a notice of the hearing so that you may attend and provide any additional information you would like to. As Director, I do not make the final decision on this project. It will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The Board will make a recommendation to the Commission. The Commission has final approving authority. >» Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> 10/30/05 10:23 PM >» Redevelopment Staff l"ve been extremely busy with my approved project and working on other projects as well, so it has taken me some time to respond to the minutes from the meeting at the Faraday office on September 19th. I really do appreciate the Fact that Michael Holzmiller was able to attend the meeting, however I was told prior to the meeting by both Sandra Holder and Debbie Fountain that Michael Holzmiller was was going to be putting together a third party analysis and that I would be able to receive a copy once it was completed. Now if Michael Holzmiller is an independent contractor I would tend to think that he doesn't work for free, and as an independent contractor he would be paid by the city for the analysis of the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project. It just seems a little strange that there was no analysis in writing and what there is in writing is from the minutes taken at the meeting. Now the minutes from the meeting I do find very interesting, however much of the information discussed in the meeting was not in the meeting notes you have provided and some of the meeting notes have been changed in favor of the Housing and Redevelopment Office and a few of my comments have been conveniently miss quoted as well. I must say that I do find it extremely concerning that the in house analysis has been completed by an individual who still retains an office at the city of Carlsbad and a person whom is on a first name basis and possible friendship level with the other directors. If the Housing and Redevelopment Office wanted a true analysis of the project it would have sub contracted an outside source where in house influence would not have the possibility of being a factor. Which is exactly what I did when I went to a 2 separate neutral 3rd parties to obtain an analysis on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project. As we know Paul Klukus from planning systems did the first one, and Bill Hofmann and Eric Munoz completed the second extensive neutral analysis. I did Supply a copy to Staff at the September 19th meeting of the Hofman and Associated Analysis. It was said that this information would be added as record for the meeting, however this Analysis has been conveniently omitted from the record for whatever reason. I would venture to say because it's extremely accurate, extremely detailed and from a company that is very well respected. I do know the City of Carlsbad does have a very large, well trained, well respected and very well run Planning Department. One of the functions of the planning department is to plan check new projects to determine if they meet current standards as well as local city codes. It n\ i Sliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page 21 takes many years for the senior planners to get to their position through hard work, consistently gaining knowledge as the years progress. Which brings me to the question as to why the redevelopment office even plan checks projects in the first place. It's not one of the intended functions of the Redevelopment Office, nor is there really anyone there with enough experience to plan check projects thoroughly. No offense to Cliff Jones, but Cliff is a very smart young man but new with the Redevelopment office. If he had been hired on with the Planning Department, he would be a junior planner and would not be plan checking projects on his own, if any at such an early stage in his career. It was clear in my meeting with Cliff that he's very intelligent, hard working and determined, but due to his lack of experience un able to read plans properly. The problem this creates is projects that don't meet current standards. It's my opinion that all new projects within the entire City should be plan checked by the City of Carlsbads Planning Department and Not the Redevelopment Staff. Getting Back to the Meeting on September 19th I made a statement about the Elevators in the Proposed Project. Once a lift is added it opens up the doors to Title 24 part 2 accessibility standards. I said in the Meeting that within the City of Carlsbad there appears to be No one person trained on this issue. I wanted to put lifts in my project, but couldn't because of the accessibility issues. I asked the City about this and was told it was not their position to plan check title 24 part 2 and not their responsibility to research it for me either. THe meeting Notes say that I" questioned the experience of the inspectors" which is not what I said actually, I said that there is noone within the city of Carlsbad that is trained on Title 24 part 2....which in reality we know to be true. It brings me to the question as to how a project that falls short of these State Required Laws is being recommended by staff. It's because Redevelopment Staff is not trained in Title 24 part 2 California State Law. Now if Redevelopment Staff was, it would be clear that the project based on these items alone doesn't work and would have to be completely designed, but hey might as well approve a project that doesn't work, and then let it go to Esgil so they can tell us that. Then well redesign the entire project so it now becomes the project that was not approved in the first place. For the Record Michael Holzmiller said in the meeting "the 20% landscape pedestrian amenities DID NOT meet the standards and that the private roof decks should not be allowed to be used as credit to meet those standards. Michael Holzmiller also said " he felt that the set backs should be held to the maximum of the setbacks" So now basically what we do know is that Hofman and Associates, Planning Systems, Michael Holzmiller other senior Planning staff, and Licensed Architects all Agree that the Project Does Not Meet the open 20% landscaped pedestrian ammenties open space requirements, and the project because of the adverse affect the proposed project has on existing residential the setbacks should be held to the maximum. These two items alone Change the entire project making it crystal clear that the project does not work, yet the redevelopment staff continue to support it. I also mentioned in the meeting Sept that the Required meetings with the i Gliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project ZZjPage 3] Design and Owner with adjacent property owners have never taken place. Sandra Holder said that meetings were not required, However in the March 28 2005 letter from Cliff Jones to Designer Robert Richardson page 2 item 2 clearly states that *" Staff shall require the property owner and Architect to meet with surrounding neighbors to address their concerns. Staff will require Letters from adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final determination of the project." *To this date this requirement form staff has still not been met. There's approximately 32 adjacent property owners none of which have ever been contacted by the owner or Designer, so how could staff make a final decision based on this criteria if it's never been met, and there has been absolutely no good faith effort by the owner or designer to meet this "requirement ...required by staff *For the record, the designer of the project Robert Richardson is a Designer and _*NOT*_ a licensed Architect. In fact he was illegally using the architectural stamp (_Punishable by both fine and prisonj of licensed Architect Paul Longton until Paul found out confronted Karnak. Karnak did stop the illegal activity immediately, however it's actually still written on the plans, and if you take a closer look you'll see. California state law section 5536a is a law outlawing a designer into entering into a contract with a landowner of a project that requires a licensed Architect. A building of more then four units, more then 2 stories, or with a commercial component also require a licensed Architect. Robert Richardson is not a licensed Architect and is in violation of not just one, but all 3. Section 5537 which is also California State Law also Requires that A licensed Architect is to have direct input and oversee the entire design phase of a project if theres a designer who's not licensed involved with the design phase of a project that is required have a licensed Architect of record. Robert Richardson of Karnak is in Violation of both of the California State Laws both of which are punishable by fines and prison. To have a licensed Engineer Stamp the project for Karnak does not release Richardson from the other state law violations and in fact is another state law violation, record. Since Licensed Architects have to go through very extensive educational process that requires both a great deal of time, study and literally thousands of hours of work experience to legally be allowed to design a project of more then 4 units, one of more then 3 stories, and one that contains a commercial element it would be fair to say that they have earned the right to design these structures because they they understand that from the inside out with a Architectural license that proves that. A license cannot be bought but is earned, giving an individual the right to design these types of buildings. Richardson of Karnak lacks the knowledge, ability and state required License to even submit these plans to the Redevelopment office for Review, not to mention is a violation of California State Law....but I'm sure that staff is aware of that.. It's probably one of the reasons that the project is so screwed up in the first place, would you have a nurse perform open heart surgery, would you have a cab driver land a jet liner...think about it, it's the same principal. The requirements are not there and there's State laws in Force to protect that. Staff is knowingly overlooking state law. So to knowingly overlook state laws seems to be very familiar with the fact that the development standards as well as local municipal S Cliff Jones - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project '7... Page 41 codes have been knowingly overlooked by staff as well. Now even with all of the issues concerning this project, opinions of adjacent property owners, state law violations, development standard and municipal code deviations, Michael Holzmillers opinions on setbacks open space and orientation, Hofmans analysis, Planning systems Analysis, the title 24 part 2 analysis.Staff does realize that not one issue of many over the last year has been delt with and in fact not one single issue . or requirement has been enforced to be corrected and yet you would still recommend a project that has been proven by all others to Just Not Work ? I suppose if a Department _Director_ was a position that was to be voted on by the general public every 2 years it would be an entirely different situtation, because either you would follow the rules or you would be voted out. I imagine if they started that this year, there would be quite a turn over and for all the right reasons I'm sure. No sense in dreaming I guess, but in reality there's absolutely no checks and balances and now the personal agenda of one Director who's not even a citizen of the city of Carlsbad will have an adverse on the entire neighbor hood for forever to come. Regards Michael Bdvenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: >Michael, attached are the meeting notes from the meeting on September >19, 2005 regarding the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project. As Sandra >Holder indicated to you during the meeting, we subsequently met with the >property owner and project designer to share your concerns and the >suggested design changes from Michael Holzmiller. They are currently >considering those suggestions. > >Thank you for sharing your concerns. You will receive notice of the >future public hearings on this project and will be provided the opportunity to share any ongoing concerns with both the Design Review >Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. > >As mentioned to you, the attached notes with the reports and correspondence you submitted that day as well as all of your previous correspondence on this project will be made part of the public record on I Cliff Jonjss - Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Page5| >the project. Both the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will be provided with copies of these records >prior to their action on the project. > >lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. > >Sincerely, > Debbie Fountain > Housing and Redevelopment Director >City of Carlsbad CC: Joe Garuba P5 Tiff Tlnnes - CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US Page1 j From: <bauemj@aol.com> To. ' <Housing@[205. 142.1 09. 13]> Daie. 09/1 8/2005 9:40:38 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Housing and Redevelopment. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Attn: Cliff Jones Subject' Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project Drawing: RPO4-11 CDP04 CT 05 03 I am writing this email because i am unable to attend your 9/19/05 project evaluation due to schedule contraints and wanted to memorialize our discussion upon my recent review of the subject project. First I want to say I very much appreciate the challenge you face in converting old delapidated areas into new and useful development, however the subject project very negatively affects my property which directly borners the development to the south. My 5 unit building is a two-story apartment building and each units' living room is oriented to the north. The close proximity, height and southwesterly orientation of the new planned units both living rooms and bedrooms will have the new owners looking into my resident's living rooms. As owners and planners we should not let this happen for it will simply create future problems for both building owners There are other items of concern but this is the most critical. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, it is best to reach me by phone at 760-433-7523. Dennis Bauern dennis bauern 3149 coachman court oceanside, ca. 92056 us ; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; FunWebProducts; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 70.181.146.175 1to January 13, 2006 To Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, I have received no notice but understand that a meeting is being scheduled to consider the property development north of my property on 3134 Lincoln Street in Carlsbad. Last year I met with your staff to discuss my concerns for the adjoining property plans and subsequently sent an email memorializing my concerns. I have not heard anything from either of these contacts so am sending this letter to make sure you understand my concerns. As I indicated previously, the planned development is not neighbor friendly and will only cause reduced value and increased conflict because the new units' southwest oriented family rooms are looking into my existing units' family rooms. By orienting the family rooms to a northwest facing orientation will benefit both properties. I cannot imagine any owner of new condominiums wanting a view into my units' family rooms and it will be difficult to rent my units with this orientation. Secondly the height of the new building is nearly a floor higher than my building and is definitely not consistent or sensitive to the neighboring building. The redevelopment criteria that is being applied clearly does not take the new development neighbors into consideration. In my early discussions with your staff, I was lead to believe that you would not approve any plans without addressing the neighboring building owners major concerns. This does not appear to be the case for I have had no feedback from my meeting or email. Therefor, this leads me to have only one approach to the new development... and that is to recommend the project not be approved. My home phone number is 760-433-7523 if you want to discuss this matter. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Dennis Bauern Cliff Jones - Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project Page 1 From: Cliff Jones To: bauernj@aol.com Date: 01/18/2006 4:31:20 PM Subject: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project Dear Dennis, I received your letter today dated January 13, 2006. The Design Review Board will receive a copy of your letter documenting your concerns with the proposed Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project and I will share your concerns with the board at the Design Review Board meeting on January 23, 2006. I did share your concerns with the developer after our meeting on July 12, 2005. Unfortunately, the windows along the south elevation were not removed as they are needed for exiting purposes and the applicant felt as though the natural light afforded by these windows benefitted the project as a whole. The applicant did raise the level of the wall in between your property and the subject project in order to prevent persons from being able to look down into your property. If you have any questions about the project or would like to see the plans before the Design Review Board meeting please feel free to contact me. Regards, Cliff Jones City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department Phone: (760)434-2813 Fax: (760)720-2037 cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us cPLANNING SYSTEMS LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION January 13,2005 MikeBovenzi BOVENZI PROPERTIES 343OakAve. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: WORK AUTHORIZATION Dear Mr. Alcorn: / Pursuant to your request PLANNING SYSTEMS hereby submits a work authorization for professional services associated with advice, consultation and investigation regarding the proposed Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project located adjacent to the BOVENZI property, in Carlsbad. Based on our conversation of January 12, 2005, we will review and investigate the information provided, contact and discuss with the City Redevelopment Department, and advise BOVENZI PROPERTIES on how to influence the project process so that the proposed Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project is consistent with BOVENZI desires for the neighborhood. PLANNING SYSTEMS will address the concerns with title City on a time and materials basis, not to exceed $1,000.00. PLANNING SYSTEMS invoices monthly. Costs such as printing or reproduction work will be provided as necessary at cost plus 15%. Invoice payment is due 30 days net. Either party may terminate this agreement with five days written notice. If any action, proceeding or arbitration arising out of or relating to this contract is commenced by either party to this contract tine prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the other party, in addition to any other relief that may be granted, the reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the action, proceeding or arbitration by the prevailing party. If this arrangement is acceptable please sign one of the two originals included and return to PLANNING SYSTEMS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide assistance. ( (3 fo Paul J. KlukaLAMNING SYSTEMS ~~ ~~ Date Mike Bovenzi, B0vlENZI PARTNERS ,-•.•..;-•••- Date 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net n °i , A*«5 > Date Ms. Deborah Fountain Director CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2965 Roosevelt St. Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30 LINCOLN AND OAK MLXED USE PROJECT Dear Ms. Fountain: Attached to this letter please find a petition of signatures of property owners and residents in the vicinity of the above-referenced proposed project. We are taking this opportunity to make you aware that we find ourselves in OPPOSITION to the project. The reasons for our opposition are as follows: 1. Height - The project has been designed to the maximum height limit, and further includes roof decks for recreation purposes on the top of the structures. These features result in buildings that are severely out of scale and perspective with the much lower structures in the neighborhood, will result in a significant loss of privacy to neighboring lots, and is contrary to the Village Redevelopment Design Manual requirement for common landscaped recreation areas and landscaped pedestrian amenities. 2. Oak St. Setback - The setback proposed along Oak St. is significantly less (approximately 50% of) than the setback for all existing and planned residential units along Oak St. We believe that this reduced setback will result in a tight, enclosed and unattractive streetscape along our street. It certainly will not enhance the existing residential area. 3. Intensity of Project - The Village Design Manual guidelines recommend that projects include landscaping amenities and contain a strong pedestrian orientation. It is our conclusion that the project possesses minimal landscaping and does not contain the required strong pedestrian orientation. The project is clearly not in compliance with the Carlsbad Landscape Manual requirement for a minimum 20% landscaped open space. 4. Retaining Walls - The project proposes up to 8-foot retaining walls along the south property line. Presumably an additional wall or fence (as required by the Design Manual) will be placed on the top of this retaining wall. We conclude that the visual impact of this high wall face from the adjacent property and from Lincoln St. will be sorely unattractive. This retaining wall is a result of the chosen product and the requirement for rear pedestrian entry to the units. An alternative building design (including perhaps a reduction in the size of the units) could eliminate these impacting walls. Again, these walls are a good indicator of the project proponent's over-building of the property. ISO Project Review - Mixed Use Redevelopment Project SE Corner of Oak and Lincoln Based on: Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual The following report was prepared by a planning consultant hired by Mr. Michael Bovenzi, adjacent property owner. Redevelopment staff's response to each of the consultant's compliance review comments is provided in italics following each issue. Project Location: Context and Compatibility Zoning is VR (Village Redevelopment); General Plan is V (Village) Beach Area Overlay Zone is adjacent to this Redevelopment parcel Site is within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment area. Tourism Support is land use theme for District 9. Site is surrounded by non-Redevelopment residential properties zoned R-3. Land use compatibility inside and outside the Redevelopment area, as defined by the site's perimeter, is a major focus of the Redevelopment Manual along with pedestrian-oriented projects. Proposed Use: • Mixed Use Project: Retail (1,900 sq. ft) and related parking • Six (6) condominium units and related parking • Project review based on exhibits provided by client dated 12.11.03. • Review included City letter re: RP 04-11 provided by client, dated 3.28.05. Development Standards: Compliance Review 1. Permitted Uses in District 9: Page 41 of the Manual charts permitted uses by district. District 9 allows Mixed Use projects (residential & commercial uses) with the specific requirement that "the ground floor of all approved mixed use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses". The project does not appear to be consistent with this provision. The 1,900 square foot retail shell building and related parking would share the ground level of the site with the residential structure and parking. The ground floor is not devoted to commercial uses. This is significant since Multi-Family residential projects alone are not permitted by the Manual as land uses within District 9, reinforcing the tourism support vs. residential focus of the district. Staff Response: The Village Master Plan does require that the ground floor of all approved Mixed Use projects be devoted to commercial uses and it is also true that Multi-Family projects alone are not permitted. However, Staff cannot require m all new Mixed Use development projects to have parking below grade resulting in 100% of the ground floor developable area devoted to a commercial use. Nowhere within the municipal code nor in any city policy is it stated that a business with a commercial component must contain all parking below grade. It is common for commercial and parking to both be located at the ground floor within District 9. Furthermore, from an economical perspective, the project location would not warrant a 100% tourist serving commercial use (retail) on the ground floor since the property is setback far from the Carlsbad Boulevard commercial corridor and surrounded by residential uses. Lastly, a thorough examination of the location of the property reveals that many surrounding uses are residential and/or zoned R-3. Given the surrounding residential uses around the property, along both Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street, a mixed-use project with a small commercial component will be more sensitive to the surrounding residential uses than a mixed-use project with a large commercial component (equal to the full ground floor use). 2. 20% Open Space/Landscaped Pedestrian Amenity: Compliance with this requirement needs to be clearly depicted on the project site plan and landscape plans. The area calculation and provision of this required amenity should also be summarized in the Site Data table on the exhibit cover sheet. This requirement is outlined on page 117 of the Manual, which does not appear to allow privatized roof decks to meet this standard. The intent is to provide enhanced and landscaped pedestrian circulation from public rights of way to, and through, a project site. Staff Response: The Village Master Plan states "A minimum of 20% of 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 landscape 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 Village Master Plan clearly states that roof gardens/patios and balconies count towards the open space requirement. In a residential project in the Village the intent of the open space requirement is to provide landscaped amenities for not only pedestrians but also residents to enjoy. The proposed roof gardens/patios are amenities that will increase the attractiveness and overall value of the project, and provide valuable recreational/open space for the future residents. 3. Setbacks: A range of setbacks are allowed, although any setback less than the maximum noted must be supported by the findings listed in the Manual: (1) no adverse impacts on surrounding properties; (2) the reduced setback will assist in meeting Redevelopment goals and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district involved, and; (3) the reduced setback results in a visually appealing project that reinforces the Village character of the area. The site's location on the edge of the Redevelopment boundary, and the isolated nature of the Redevelopment zoning on this particular block, make compatibility critical, and requires necessary findings to justify reduced setbacks. Staff" Response: Compatibility is an important feature of the proposed project design. This can be seen in the applicant's decision to locate the commercial component of the project at the corner of the site farther away from the adjacent residential uses and to visually screen the proposed parking. According to the Village Master Plan, the desired setback within the range is at the top of the range. However, a project may be set below the top of the range if three specific findings are made by the authorizing body/official. The findings required in order to allow a reduction in the setbacks at a level below the maximum are detailed below. First, the reduced setbacks will allow for a project that assists in meeting Redevelopment goals and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use district 9. GOAL 1, The proposed project helps to Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping, Working, and Living Environment through the following objectives: The project will remove a physical blighting structure that currently exists on the property; the project will improve the condition and appearance of the current Village housing stock; and the project will limit the amount of commercial development in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods through the limited amount of commercial space proposed for the project. GOAL 2, The proposed project will Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area through the following objectives: The project minimizes pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along the street by providing sidewalks; and the project helps to achieve the objective of establishing additional sidewalks within the Village. GOAL 3, the proposed project will help to Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the Village through the following objectives: The proposed project will help to increase the intensity of development within the Village; and the project will help to encourage Mixed Use development projects within the Village. GOAL 4, the proposed project will Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area through the following objectives: The proposed project will reinforce the Village character with appropriate site planning, architectural design and signage guidelines and standards; the project will help establish a commercial building whose scale and character are compatible with the adjacent Village residential neighborhood; and the project will help to encourage design diversity and a design that is sensitive to development within the area. Goal 5, the proposed project will provide signage which is supportive of commercial vitality and a unique Village image. Second, the reduced setbacks will result in a visually appealing project that reinforces the Village character of the area. The reduced standards will assist in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the streets and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more appealing, which is a primary goal of the Village Design Guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Third, the reduced setbacks will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The justification for this finding is detailed below. Justification for the (north) side yard setback: The required setback range for the (north) side yard setback along Oak A venue is 5-10 feet. The proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range, set within the middle of the range (7'-7r). By reducing the setback 2'-5" from the desired 10' setback at 7-7" the developer is able to achieve a basic design principle of the Village Master Plan, that is that the reduced setback will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated contained entirely within the structure. Furthermore, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of the building since other portions of the building are setback further and stepped back at upper levels. Lastly, the setback range is similar to the standards for other properties along the north side of Oak Avenue that are in V-R District 1 with a front yard setback of 0-10 feet. Justification for the (south) side yard setback: The required setback range for the (south) side yard setback is 5-10 feet. The proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range, set at 7 feet. By proposing a reduced setback of 7 feet the developer is able to achieve a basic design principle of the Village Master Plan, that is that the reduced setback will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated contained entirely within the structure. Furthermore, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of the building, allowing for the upper levels of the building to be stepped back from the ground floor level to a maximum of 17' 6" from the south side yard property line. Justification for the (west) front yard setback: The required setback range for the (west) front yard setback along Lincoln Street is 5-20 feet. The proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range, set at a minimum of 8' 3" from property line and to a maximum of 13' 7". As mentioned previously, the reduced setback will allow for the developer to achieve a Basic Design Principle of the Village Master Plan, allowing the parking to be visually subordinated contained entirely within the structure. Additionally, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of the building allowing for the upper levels of the building to be stepped back. Justification for the (east) rear yard setback: The required setback range for the (east) rear yard setback is 5-15 feet The proposed project clearly falls within the required setback range, set at a minimum of 7' from the property line. As mentioned previously, the reduced setback will allow the developer to include the parking within the building itself achieving a Basic Design Principle of the Village Master Plan which is parking shall be visually subordinated. Additionally, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of the building allowing for greater building articulation along the east elevation and the building to be stepped back at upper levels. In conclusion, the reduced setbacks will help to create a project that is not only visually appealing but achieves a basic design principle of creating a project that has parking that is visually subordinate and that is setback similarly to the standard of other properties that fall within the V-R zoning along Oak Avenue. Additionally, the proposed project is in a location that has varying setbacks along the streets (Site Planning Design Guidleine: Varying setbacks help to create visual interest along streets within the Village providing a desired informality and diversity of appearance) and therefore, the reduced setback will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Lastly, the proposed project is consistent with the design guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area and the reduced setbacks include great articulation on all sides of the building, therefore, making the project design interesting and visually appealing. 4. Building Coverage: Similar to Setbacks, Building Coverage is allowed a range (60-80%) and any proposal for more coverage than the 60% minimum must make similar findings as noted above for reduced setbacks (no adverse offsite impacts, helps to meet Redevelopment goal, and assists in creating visually appealing project for the Village area). Justifying increased building coverage more than the 60% minimum requires necessary findings. Staff Response: The findings required in order to allow an increase in the building coverage to a level closer to the maximum are detailed below. First, the increased building coverage will allow for a project that assists in meeting Redevelopment goals and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use district 9. GOAL 1, The proposed project helps to Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping, Working, and Living Environment through the following objectives: The project will remove a physical blighting structure that currently exists on the property; the project will improve the condition and appearance of the current Village housing stock; and the project will limit the amount of commercial development in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods through the limited amount of commercial space proposed for the project. GOAL 2, The proposed project will Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area through the following objectives: The project minimizes pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along the street by providing sidewalks; and the project helps to achieve the objective of establishing additional sidewalks within the Village. GOAL 3, the proposed project will help to Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the Village through the following objectives: The proposed project will help to increase the intensity of development within the Village; and the project will help to encourage Mixed Use development projects within the Village. GOAL 4, the proposed project will Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area through the following objectives: The proposed project will reinforce the Village character with appropriate site planning, architectural design and signage guidelines and standards; the project will help establish a commercial building whose scale and character are compatible with the adjacent Village residential neighborhood; and the project will help to encourage design diversity and a design that is sensitive to development within the area. Goal 5, the proposed project will provide signage which is supportive of commercial vitality and a unique Village image. Second, the increased building coverage will result in a visually appealing project that reinforces the Village character of the area. The increased cover will assist in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the streets, adjacent properties, and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more appealing, which is a primary goal of the Village Design Guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Third, the increased building coverage will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The required building coverage within District 9 is 60- 80%. The proposed building coverage is 72.6%. The proposed building coverage clearly falls within the required building coverage range, set close to the middle of the range. The reduced building coverage will allow the developer to locate the parking within the building itself achieving a Basic Design Principle of the Village Master Plan, which is parking shall be visually subordinated. The increased coverage will allow for greater building articulation along all elevations, will allow for the upper portions of the building to stepped back, and helps encourage an architectural design that emphasizes variety and diversity. The proposed building coverage will provide a building which hides the required parking areas, is attractive and has a strong street presence, and has a project design that is visually appealing, interesting, and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 9. Therefore, staff finds that the building coverage is consistent with the desired standard. 5. Height Limit: On cross sections and grading plans, clearly depict existing grade to verify building height measurement consistent with 21.04.065 and the Manual. Building height is typically measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive (lower). The VR zoning height limit is super ceded by the more restrictive height limits of the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The Manual specifically notes the ability to approve Redevelopment projects at lower building heights for compatibility and to reduce impacts to adjacent properties (page 98). Staff Response: Developments within the Village Redevelopment Area with the VR zoning are not subject to the restrictions of the Beach Overlay Zone. Since the proposed project is located over a parking structure, the V-R zoning (District 9) allows for the maximum building height to be set at 45 feet and requires a 5:12 roof pitch. The proposed buildings roof decks are set at approximately 30 feet. With the required 5:12 roof pitch and the necessary entrances to the roof deck, the roof lines extend to a maximum height of 36 feet at portions and to a maximum height of 41 feet at other portions. However, a large majority of the mass of the building is set at a maximum of 36 feet which is set well below the maximum permitted height of 45 feet. 6. Roof Deck Heights: the proposed building heights combined with the proposed roof deck heights to create building mass and bulk that is out of character and scale with the adjacent and approved beach area residences. The project proposes the flat area of the roof deck at 30' above grade (building height allowed to 450 whereas the adjacent properties are limited to 24' for the floor heights of roof decks with building height limited to 30'. Staff Response: The proposed roof decks/patios are in compliance with the requirements of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan. Other projects in the near vicinity have been approved with roof decks/patios as part of the design of their projects. Other properties along the north side of Oak A venue that are in V-R District 1 are also permitted to have roof decks/patios above a height of 24', therefore the proposed roof deck/patio height is not out of character with existing or future development potential within the Village. Additionally, the proposed location of the roof decks/patios on the building site were carefully chosen in order to reduce and/or eliminate impacts on surrounding development while still providing valuable recreational and open space for future residents of the building. The roof decks/patios have been designed so that residents cannot look into neighboring properties to the east and south. Ever effort was made to maintain privacy. There is an inherent conflict between properties inside and outside the Village Redevelopment Area. Properties inside the Village Redevelopment Area have less restrictive design standards than those adjacent with R-3 or other zoning designations. Staff does not believe that the bulk and mass of the proposed development are out of character for the Village. However, opinions can differ on compatibility with developments outside the Village area. 7. Parking: What parking standard is applied ? Retail is 1:300 but 1:200 is proposed (medical offices?). Also, 3 residential guest spaces are required but only 2 are proposed. Guest parking spaces are not distinct from retail parking spaces. No separation or distinction may lead to intrusive element of retail parking for residential units. Have compact car spaces been considered as an alternative for some of the required spaces? Parking appears to dominate use of ground level at expense of commercial uses. Staff Response: The parking standards are set forth within the Village Master Plan. The requirement for a Condominium use is 2 standard spaces per unit with 1 being covered with guest parking calculated at .5 spaces per unit up to 10. The applicant proposes 6 condominiums, which equates to a requirement of 15 parking spaces (12 spaces for the 6 units and 3 guest parking spaces). The applicant is proposing the parking for each of the 6 residential units to be contained within 6 individual 2-car garages in order to visually screen the parking. Three guest parking spaces are provided for visitors of the residential tenants and these spaces will be marked as such. The requirement for the 1,913 square foot retail component of the Mixed Use project is 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area which equates to 6 parking spaces with one required to be ADA accessible. The applicant is providing 7 retail parking spaces (1 space greater than what is required). These parking spaces are provided to the south of the retail space and visually screened from the street by the building walls. With regards to the question whether compact car spaces have been considered; compact car spaces are difficult to maneuver cars into and therefore were not encouraged for this development. They, however, can be used per the Village Master Plan. As mentioned previously, a Mixed Use project with a small commercial component at the subject property is more sensitive to the surrounding residential uses than a Mixed Use project with a large commercial component. Therefore, staff does not feel it would be appropriate to require the commercial component to be increased to cover the entire ground floor, and require the paring to be placed underground. 8. Storage Area: clearly calculate compliance and depict on Site Data table. Areas calculated for storage also need to be correspondingly depicted on site and/or floor plans. For example, is item #7 (noted with a 7 within a diamond shape) on Sheet 2 noted for storage also proposed as part of the required storage calculation? Staff Response: The applicant is aware of the storage area requirement pursuant to the Planned Development Ordinance. The applicant has provided the dimensions of the storage area in order to clear up any ambiguity. The development complies with the storage requirements. Design Guidelines: Compliance Review Multi-Family Dwellings 1. For multi-family projects, the ground level should not be used for parking or units so that retail and other uses create active street frontages. Noted on #1 on page 67. Staff Response: The page number referenced relates to considerations for a provisional Multi-Family use, not a permitted Mixed Use development. Furthermore, the page referenced is not an actual "Design Guideline" and should not be part of this "Design Guidelines: Compliance Review" section. 100% Multi-Family uses are not permitted within Land Use District 9 and therefore the location and development criteria referenced does not apply to the project. However, Mixed Use developments are a permitted use in Land Use District 9. Permitted Uses are those that are "permitted by right because they are considered consistent with the vision and goals established for each district within the Village boundaries" and therefore are not subject to provisional use location and development criteria. Nevertheless, if the location and development criteria referenced on page 67 were examined in relation to the Multi-Family component of the proposed project "Residential units and parking should not be placed on ground floor levels where they would displace desired retail uses or otherwise lessen active street frontage" the project meets the aforementioned criteria. First, the second and third floor residential units and the associated parking on the ground floor level do not displace desired retail uses. The proposed location of the retail use has been placed at the far northwest corner of the site in order to reduce conflict with adjacent residential uses (existing or proposed). An active [commercial] street frontage and the associated retail uses are not encouraged near the edges of the property lines where adjacent permitted residential units are located and does not make for good site planning from a land use compatibility standpoint. Therefore, the applicant chose to locate the parking on the ground floor level at locations which do not displace a desired retail use location and would minimize the impact of an active [commercial] street frontage upon adjacent residential uses. 2. Page 67, #2 further notes that multi-family sites should be large enough to accommodate parking on-site or below grade. Given the coverage proposed for the site, and the use of the ground level for uses inconsistent with #1 above, subterranean parking that is truly submerged below grade would lessen visual impacts and be more supportable. Staff Response: As mentioned previously, the page number referenced relates to considerations for a provisional Multi-Family use, not a permitted Mixed Use development. Additionally, the page referenced is not an actual "Design Guideline" and should not be part of this "Design Guidelines: Compliance Review" section. Nevertheless, if the location and development criteria referenced on page 67 were examined in relation to the Multi-Family component of the proposed project "Sites should be large enough to accommodate parking requirements on-site or below grade", the project meets the aforementioned criteria. First, the proposed project is on a .402 acre parcel and proposes only 6 dwelling units. This equates to 14.9 dwelling units per acre, which is less than the general plan range for surrounding properties of 15-23 dwelling units per acre. With a low project density and only 6 dwelling units the related parking requirements for the residential component of the project is easily provided for on the site. Furthermore, the parking is visually screened, contained within individual garages and within the structure walls. It is not a practice of the City or Redevelopment Agency to require below grade parking. In this particular case, staff does not believe that the entire ground floor should be used for commercial purpose. It also cannot be used for residential purpose. Therefore, the at grade parking and proposed commercial are appropriate for the ground floor of this development. Basic Design Principles 1. Page 119 notes the following which are not fully developed within the project as proposed: (3) Development shall be small in scale; (5) All development shall have a strong relationship to the street; (6) Strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of ground floor facades; (8) Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design. Staff Response: The proposed project is in scale with existing and recently approved projects within the Village. The proposed project carefully balances a proper scale and proportion with the surrounding development while also encouraging Basic Design Principles of encouraging development intensity and encouraging an architectural design that emphasizes variety and diversity. The proposed project will have a strong relationship to the street with the commercial component of the project fronting approximately two-thirds of the street frontage along Oak Avenue and a little over a third of the street frontage along Lincoln Street in order to create an active street frontage. The remaining portion of the properties street frontages along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street will allow for entering and exiting of the project site and provide an ample setback for adjacent properties as well as a buffer between the commercial component of the project and the adjacent residential uses. Landscaping is an integral feature of the proposed project. Landscaping is strategically located and will help buffer and enhance the attractive design of the building. Landscaping is personalized to the project site and provided all along the edges of the property in order add richness and visual interest while providing an additional buffer between adjacent uses. Landscaping is further maximized along pedestrian frontages in order to enhance the overall character of the neighborhood and add color and richness to the building and the street(s). Site Planning 1. Page 120, #2: Benches and low walls are noted for public domain interface and pedestrian circulation amenity. A corner lot such as the subject site has opportunity to combine this design element with the 20% open space/landscaped pedestrian amenity requirement. Staff Response: Low walls are part of the site planning of the proposed project. Low walls are provided at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue directly in front of the commercial component of the project where shoppers and pedestrians will be able to best access this amenity. A proposed fountain compliments the low wall amenities altogether providing a wonderful place for brief relaxation. 2. Page 121, #5: Privacy loss from primary orientation of condo units onto adjacent properties is not encouraged versus the orientation to the project interior and street frontage. Staff Response: The proposed residential units are designed so that the spaces that would receive the most use (family room, kitchen, and roof decks/patios) are oriented towards the street in order to maintain privacy. The living rooms and master bedrooms of 4 of the 6 units are located at locations that are close to adjacent residential units. However, every effort was made in designing the project to maintain privacy. Windows along the south and east elevations are necessary for exiting in case of an emergency, for allowing natural light to enter the rooms, and to help enhance the visual appearance of those elevations. 3. Page 121, #6: off-street courtyard opportunities are encouraged and perhaps can be considered for the project. Staff Response: Off-street courtyards, while although encouraged within the Village, are not required or encouraged for every project. The purpose of off- street courtyards within the Village is to provide opportunities for businesses such as art galleries, restaurants, and retail stores to be located off these courtyards. A commercial courtyard in a predominately residential neighborhood does not make for good site planning. However, it should be noted that the attractive entry courtyard for this project will provide a useful pedestrian amenity and could be used for commercial displays. \Q 4. Page 121, #7: an abundance of landscaping should be emphasized, and combined with the 20% standard. Staff Response: Landscaping is an integral component of the project design and is provided on both the ground level and on the first floor roof decks. Landscaping is personalized to the project site and provided all along the edges of the property in order to add richness and visual interest while providing an additional buffer between adjacent uses. Landscaping is further maximized along pedestrian frontages, including visible roof decks, which will enhance the overall character of the neighborhood and add color and richness to the building and the street(s). Parking and Access 1. Page 124, #9: Avoid buildings over ground level parking. The project is fundamentally inconsistent with this design criteria element. Staff Response: The page referenced refers to a "Design Guideline" and not an actual "Basic Design Principle". The Basic Design Principle related to parking within the Village states "parking shall be visually subordinated" but does not state parking must be provided below grade. However, the proposed project design is still consistent with the intent of Parking and Access Design Guideline #9 because a significant portion of the ground floor of the building is provided for a commercial component and much of the ground floor parking is visually screened. Since the parking is visually screened, the parking on the ground floor does not detract form the appearance of the building. 2. Page 124, #10: Park underground whenever possible. The extent of this project's underground parking needs review against existing grade and proposed grading. Staff Response: As mentioned previously, the page referenced refers to a "Design Guideline" and not an actual "Basic Design Principle". The Basic Design Principle related to parking within the Village states "parking shall be visually subordinated"but does not state parking must be provided below grade. 3. Page 124, #11: Enhance entry driveways with concrete treatments. Staff Response: Driveway entries are enhanced with concrete treatments. Misc. Design Comments • Trash Bin location: trash bins need to be accessible for servicing and screened as much as possible from public/streetside viewpoints. Ideally, a review can be made by Coast Waste Management with a follow-up letter indicating their ability to service the site/access the trash bins as shown on a referenced site plan. Page 140 of the Manual also requires that the visual impact of trash collection areas from projects be minimized. Staff Response: Larry Stevens of Coaste Waste Management has reviewed the proposed plans and indicated that he does not foresee any problems with servicing the trash area at the proposed location if the project is approved (refer to email correspondence dated 2/25/2005). Furthermore, the proposed trash location was chosen in order to minimize the visual impacts upon neighboring properties by locating the trash area within the building itself, minimizing the visual impact of the trash area. Due to concerns received from the neighbor to the east about the vent location of the trash area, the venting outlet was moved to the top of the structure to reduce any potential impacts to adjacent uses. • Streetscene/Compatibility: need to review Building Elevations in combination with adjacent existing or approved Elevations next to project site. This is also requested by the City comment dated March 28, 2005 (item #6). Staff Response: These elevations were requested and provided by the applicant prior to city receipt of this analysis. • Privacy/Unit Orientation: the fundamental design of the project is such that primary unit orientation for the private, condominium units is outward to adjacent properties to the east and south vs. internal and streetside (Oak and Lincoln) orientation. This is counter to Design criteria noted on page 121 re: privacy and unit orientation when compatibility is a project factor. Staff Response: The proposed res/dent/a/ units are designed so that the spaces that would receive the most use (family room, kitchen, and roof decks) are oriented towards the street The primary entrance for residents to the building is through the staircases located next to the ground floor garages. These entrances are more convenient, and therefore will be more likely to be utilized by the future residents of the building than the entrances to the building located along the south and east. • Site Plan: should depict existing and proposed curb lines and properly lines to reflect the frontage dedications on Oak and Lincoln Streets. Staff Response: This information is provided on the plans. • Site Plan: Site Data table on cover sheet should outline standards and summarize compliance: coverage, parking, height, setbacks, storage, etc and also note all zoning, General Plan and Redevelopment District Area designations. Staff Response: This information is provided on the plans. • Cross-Sections: Provide a North/South section on East side of project; and also East/West section that goes into adjacent, approved project to the east to assess compatibility, mass, bulk and the absence or presence of significant impacts to adjacent properties. Also - depict existing grade to assess subterranean extent of the parking area. Staff Response: Cross sections of proposed developments in relation to existing development or approved development were not required for this development The applicant has gone to great lengths to address project compatibility by plotting adjacent existing and proposed development on proposed plan elevations and meeting with property owners to address concerns of the project. Staff does not feel these cross sections are necessary. Existing grade is clearly depicted. • Landscape Manual: compliance with tree sizes and types as applicable? Staff Response: The City of Carlsbad's Landscape Consultant reviewed the proposed landscape plans and the applicant has made changes as appropriate. • Architectural Style: good for Village but has related bulk, setback, coverage issues. Staff Response: This statement is a matter of opinion and is not directly related to development standards or design guidelines. However, staff agrees that the architectural style is "good for [the] Village." • Retail Deck: why is the retail deck not depicted on the Roof/Deck Exhibit on Sheet A-3? Staff Response: Sheet A-3 depicts features above the third floor level, which includes roof lines and roof decks. The first floor roof decks are depicted on sheet Al.O. Note that no "retail decks" are proposed. Access through the commercial space of the building to the roof is required in order to service HVAC units and not intended for commercial tenant use. • Site Plan: Similar to the comment re: Elevations and Streetscene review, show adjacent existing or approved parking areas, major trees, and building footprints within 100' of the site's property lines. This 100' distance around the project is typically a required application checklist item for discretionary permits issued by the City including Redevelopment Permits. Staff Response: These items are included on the site plan. • Elevation Exhibit A-6: what is the gap shown on South Elevation? Is it for signage? If so, should a project-wide Sign Program or exhibit be part of the formal application? Staff Response: Signage information is depicted on sheet AS1.1. Actual signage will be approved as part of a separate permit. • Retaining Wall/Fence Heights: the combination of any retaining wall and fences should not exceed 6 feet in height per city policy as also noted in the March 28 City letter (item #3). Staff Response: Fence heights may be permitted to exceed six feet within the required side and rear yard setbacks if approved by the Planning Director pursuant to Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 5. Within the Village Redevelopment zone the Housing & Redevelopment Director acts as the Planning Director. Therefore, fence heights may exceed six feet, if appropriate. • Landscape Plan: the application's landscape plan should clearly depict (1) the 20% open space requirement/landscaped pedestrian amenity, (2) Public right of way vs. private property lines to show setbacks, and (3) Sign Program info/sign locations. Staff Response: (1) Information regarding open space is provided on cover sheet. (2) Property lines are clearly depicted. (3) Related signage information is provided for on sheet AS1.1. • Stormwater Compliance: any features needed for compliance should be noted on plans as appropriate Staff Response: These items are included on the site plan. • Mixed Use Project: a "non-residential" project per page 117 of the Manual includes mixed use projects; and a requirement to provide a solid masonry wall between the mixed project and adjacent residential uses. Staff Response: A solid masonry wall is provided. • Title 24 Compliance: the project may benefit from a review for compliance. Staff Response: The Building Department has reviewed the plans for compliance with Title 24. A more detailed review will be completed at the time of building permit application and submission of full construction drawings. 7.19.05 ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared by: Michael Holzmiller Planning Consultant Retired Carlsbad Planning Director INTRODUCTION As requested by the Community Development Director, I have analyzed the mixed use project proposed on the property located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. This analysis is based on my personal and professional opinions, judgment and observations. In order to complete this analysis, I visited the site and surrounding neighborhood, I reviewed a set of the proposed plans and I reviewed the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual to determine compliance of the proposed project with the Plan. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS l.USE-The project does constitute a mixed use project within the context of the Village Master Plan. I believe the location and extent of the commercial component is appropriate and I feel having some residential portions of the project on the ground floor immediately adjacent to neighboring residential uses makes sense in order to buffer the commercial component. In my opinion, the project complies with the Master Plan which requires the ground floor of mixed use projects to be "devoted" to commercial uses. 2.INTENSITY-The proposed project is an intense development, perhaps overly intense for the existing neighborhood which presently consists primarily of single and two-story residential structures and a single-story commercial building across the street. However, the area is in transition, the project is located in the Tourism Support District which is one of the more intense districts in the Master Plan and where intensity of development is encouraged and the project is very similar in intensity to a number of other mixed use projects recently approved by the city. The density of the project is 14.89 dwelling units per acre which is about the mid-range of density for most attached dwelling unit developments in the city and, therefore, probably not the source for the perceived intensity of the project. However, the units are large for that density with at least half of the units containing more than 3,000 sq. ft. of interior floor space. Determinations on intensity are usually judgmental calls because different people, including different planners working for the same city, have varying opinions on what is too intense. Perhaps, some of the suggestions made in this analysis under the specific findings section can help in addressing the intensity issue. 3.DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-The Village Master Plan contains development standards and I could find only one instance where non-compliance with a standard is open to interpretation and that involves the requirement to provide 20% open space. This is discussed in more detail in the specific findings section of this analysis. Otherwise, my review determined that the project meets all standards. Some of these standards provide for ranges but the city has been given the authority without violating any legal standard to \0t1 approve the project at any point within the range. The fact that the project is proposed at the mid to upper end of the range for most of the standards probably is the basis for the concern about overall intensity noted above but it does not mean that the development standards are being violated. As long as the city can make the findings contained in the Master Plan, the standards are being properly enforced. 4.DESIGN-The Village Master Plan also contains also contains design "guidelines" a number of which are subjective and open to personal opinion and interpretation. I personally and professionally feel that the project complies with the overall intent and in most cases, the specific wording of the design guidelines. I believe a fine job has been done with the proposed architecture with a lot of relief and interesting elements and that it is consistent with the desired "village" architectural style approved on other projects in the Redevelopment Area. Any suggestions made in the specific findings section of this analysis are only meant to address the perceived intensity and neighborhood compatibility issue and not the architectural design of the proposed project. ' SPECIFIC FINDINDS AND OBSERVATIONS 1 .Section n of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual contains allowable land uses by District. The proposed project is located in District 9 which allows residential use if it part of a mixed use project also containing commercial. The project does qualify as a mixed use project. The Master Plan further states that "the ground floor of all approved mixed use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses". I believe the key term here is "devoted". Does that mean that the entire ground floor space(100%) must be commercial. In my opinion, that is not the case and devote means that a substantial commercial component must be located on the ground floor. If you subtract out the two required driveways on Oak and Lincoln, the commercial component comprises over two-thirds of the building frontage along the two streets. Since the proposed project is immediately bounded by residential on the east and south, I think a better planning approach is not to have 100% of the ground level for commercial use and instead have, as the project proposes, an edge of the residential component next to the east and south property line. If it is desirable to increase the frontage of commercial, a suggestion would be to further extend the commercial space along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue, to the edge of each one of the driveways. 2.Section n of the Master Plan also contains universal standards for all development in the Redevelopment Area. The importance of this part of the Master Plan needs to be noted. For all development standards where a range has been established by the Master Plan rather than a specific standard, the city has the authority to allow a project to be approved anywhere in the range upon the making of findings related to the project. These findings are listed on pages 97 and 98 of the Master Plan. Approving a project at the maximum or the minimum of the range does not constitute a deviation, variance or violation of the standards. District 9 which the proposed project is located in has a range for development standards relating to building coverage and building setbacks. 3.Section n of the Master Plan provides development standards based upon the District in which the proposed project is located. The Lincoln and Oak mixed use project is located in District 9 which is established as a Tourism Support Area thereby requiring a commercial component to the project but also containing standards that allow a more intense development than permitted in some of the other districts. The individual development standards for District 9 include setbacks, open space, building coverage, building height and parking and these can be found on page 117 of the Master Plan. An analysis of the project and compliance with these standards follows: A.Setbacks-The project proposes a minimum 8'3" setback along the front yard setback on Lincoln Street. The Master Plan allows for a range of 5' to 20'. Therefore, the proposed project meets the setback standard with the required findings. It is my professional opinion, however, that while the lower end of the range is appropriate for the commercial component that the maximum 20' setback be required the residential component (the side of the residential garages) located next to the southern property line. This would provide more compatibility and a better buffer for the neighboring properties. The same reasoning would apply to requiring the maximum setback for the residential component (again the side of the garages) located on the street sideyard along Oak Avenue adjacent to the easterly property line. The proposed setback at this location also presently meets the standard with the required findings however compatibility could be enhanced with an increased setback. Finally, the Master Plan allows a range of 5' to 10' for the side yard and 5' to 15' for the rear yard. The project proposes 7' for both. I think that is acceptable if a masonry wall is constructed along these property lines, the windows in the upper stories are treated to create privacy for adjoining properties and the setbacks are increased for the sides of the residential garages along both street frontages as discussed above. B.Open Space-The Master Plan requires a minimum of 20% of the property to be maintained as open space. The project proposes to meet this standard by providing a public, hardscaped area next to the entrance to the commercial part of the project and by counting the private decks. The use of private decks to meet the open space requirement is open to professional and practical interpretation. It is my professional opinion that the private decks should not be counted and that any open space used to meet this requirement should be available to the general public or at least, in common, to all the residents of the project. For example, if a deck was provided for common use by all the residents of a project even though it was not for general use by the public, I believe it should count toward the open space requirement. However, an open space feature that could only be privately used by one occupant should not be counted. It is my suggestion that additional, non-private open space (approximately 4%) be provided in the project. It would also be my suggestion to delete the low level walls that enclose a portion of the public, hardscaped area in front of the commercial entrance and that just benches be provided to make this more area more visually open and available for public use. C.Building Coverage-The project is proposed at the higher end of the allowable building coverage and this meets the standard if the city makes the required findings. D.Building Height-The Master Plan permits building heights to 45' in District 9 and the elevations for the project show that the project complies with this standard. Most of the surrounding residential projects are two-story and do not exceed 35'in height. However, given the requirement for the subject project to provide a commercial component on the ground floor, I believe that three stories with the additional height allocation is warranted. I would suggest that every effort be made make the southerly and easterly elevations as compatible as possible with adjoining properties through the use of such things as enhanced landscaping and walls and the special treatment of upper story windows. \QCJ E.Parking Requirements-The project meets the parking standards contained in Chapter 6 of Section II of the Master Plan. 4.The final part of Section n of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual that I analyzed for conformance of the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project was the Design Guidelines. Not all the guidelines are applicable and many are open to subjective judgment and personal opinion. The guidelines are not development standards that apply in the same way to every project and a proposed project is not expected or legally* required to comply with every guideline because they are not all applicable. However, based on my review, I believe the proposed project is in overall compliance with the intent and/or the specific wording of the applicable guidelines as follows: A.The Design Guidelines begin withlO basic design principles for which the city must be satisfied that the project applicant "has made an honest effort to conform to". The 10 principles are listed on page 119 on the Village Master Plan. I believe a substantial and acceptable effort has been made to conform to £11 the applicable design principles. One design principle worth noting since the overalljproject appears to be intense in relation to the surrounding neighborhood is Principle #4 which states "Intensity of development shall be encouraged." Conformance with this principle provides a basis for the city to make the findings required for development standards relating to building coverage and setbacks. This principle needs to be balanced, however, with the fact that the neighboring properties to the south and east are not in the Village Redevelopment Area and not subject to this design principle and, therefore, design features need to be incorporated to buffer and make compatible the intensity of development. B.Most of the specific Design Guidelines relate to architectural design and, as a mixed use project, the applicable ones include building forms, roof forms, building facades, and commercial storefronts. Conformance was found with the following architectural guidelines: (a).Building forms-The elevations of the building provide for variety and diversity, the upper levels are stepped back and simple building forms consistent with the "village" architecture of other newer buildings in the Redevelopment area are used. (b).Roof forms-Sloping, gable roofs with dormers are proposed. (c).Building facades-Facade projections and recesses are prpvided and all sides of the building are visually treated with surface ornamentation and other detail elements. (d).Commercial storefronts-Most of the elevation of the commercial component of the project is devoted to window space with very little blank wall space. There is one other section of the Design Guidelines that is worthy of some discussion. This relates to the design of parking. The guidelines encourage below grade or underground parking for commercial and large residential projects whenever it is feasible. Although I believe it would be ideal if underground parking could be used for this project in order to enhance compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, it has been my experience that the city has never forced a project applicant to provide underground parking if the project can otherwise meet all of the city's parking and other development standards. Underground parking is usually proposed when it is the applicant's own desire to provide it or because it is essential to developing the project in conformance with the city's parking requirements and other development standards. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS The conclusion of my analysis is that the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual (a)with the exception of my personal, professional interpretation of the 20% open space standard and (b)if the city makes the required findings for building coverage and building setbacks. Based on my analysis, the following suggestions for project revisions are offered for staff consideration: 1.Increase the public open space component of the project by approximately 4%. 2.Extend the commercial space along Lincoln Street and Oak Street to the edge of the access driveway on each street. 3.Increase the setback for the residential component (sides of garages) to the maximum of the range adjacent to the southerly and easterly property lines. 4.Eliminate the low level wall that encloses a portion of the public open space area in front of the commercial entrance and replace with a few benches. These suggestions will require revisions to the proposed plans for the project. It is my feeling that the revisions could be accomplished by reducing the size (square footage) of a couple of the units. 30\ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES WITH ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: JANUARY 23, 2006 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Heineman called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Heineman asked Board Member Marquez to lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Chairperson Heineman proceeded with the roll call of Board Members. Present: Board Members: Julie Baker Tony Lawson Sarah Marquez Michael Schumacher Chairperson: Courtney Heineman Absent: None Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain Assistant Planner: Cliff Jones Engineer: David Rick Assistant City Attorney: Jane Mobaldi APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the November 21, 2005 meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA There were no comments from the audience. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Heineman asked Ms. Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, to present the item on the agenda tonight. Ms. Fountain stated the first item on the agenda is a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the Lincoln and Oak mixed-use project. Tonight Cliff Jones, our Assistant Planner in Housing and Redevelopment, assisted by Dave Rick from Engineering, will make the presentation. Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner, stated the applicant, Karnak Planning and Design, has requested a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit and a Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six condominium units and 1,913 square feet of 103 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 2 of 24 retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. The Proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation that is greater then $150,000. The project also requires the approval of a Tentative Tract Map because it involves separate ownership of the residential units. In addition, the project is required to process a Coastal Development Permit because it is located within the coastal zone. In accordance with the redevelopment permit procedures, the three permits are being brought forward for recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The subject property is located at the corner of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue at the edge of the VR zoning boundary. The VR zoning boundaries are depicted in yellow on the screen above. The subject property totals 17,514 square feet with building frontage along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The existing structures on the property include one single-family residence and a surf shop. The structures are in various stages of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed building. The project is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, to the east construction recently began on a five-unit condominium project, the property to the north contains a condominium project called the Monterey, and the project to the west of the proposed project across Lincoln are commercial uses. As mentioned previously, the application is for a proposed three-story, 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six condominium units with roof decks/patios and 1,913 square feet of retail space. The three-story building consists of two stories of residential condominiums located over above ground parking and retail space. The six units vary in size from 4,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The building has a pleasant architectural design incorporating decorative materials such as travertine and decorative black awnings in order to enhance the street scene at the corner. The residential condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper levels of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and solid iron railings. The residential portion of the project is significantly set back from the street in order to reduce the massing of the building along Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominant feature of the corner. Vehicle access to the site is to be provided off of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the Village. The proposed project is within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Mixed-use projects are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 9. Permitted uses are defined as those, which are permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. The Village Master Plan stipulates that the ground floor of all approved mixed- use projects in District 9 must be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. Since retail space is proposed along portions of the frontage of Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue, closest to the travelers and tourists along Carlsbad Boulevard Coastal Highway, staff concludes that the project complies with this requirement. The remainder of the site is occupied by setbacks, residential storage space, access points, and required parking. Staff believes the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 9 through the following actions: • The project provides for a desirable use; • It may serve as a catalyst for future development; • It provides for the development of an underutilized lot; • It helps to attract additional tourist serving uses by providing additional retail close to Carlsbad Boulevard; • It increases the pedestrian circulation in the village through the additional new sidewalk; • It is compatible with the surrounding residential area; DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 of 24 • It increases the number, quality and diversity of housing types. The proposed project also meets all the required development standards outlined within the Village Master Plan. The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping, not only on the ground floor, but also on the balconies and private roof garden/patios. The Village Master Plan requires a minimum of 20% of the property to be maintained as open space. The project provides for a total of 7,438 square feet of open space, which represents 42.5% on the site and is therefore consistent with the open space requirement. Landscape and hardscape on the ground floor alone equates to 16.3% of the site and the roof decks, patios and balconies encompass the remaining 26.2%. It is noteworthy that the Village Master Plan and Design Manual allows for private roof decks/patios and balconies to be calculated in the 20% open space requirement. This open space calculation is unique to the Village Redevelopment Area. This method of calculating open space has been used on past redevelopment projects within the Village and allows for the intensity of development that is encouraged within the downtown Village Redevelopment Area. The building coverage of the proposed project is set within the middle of the range at 72.6% and is appropriate for a mixed-use development project. The increased building coverage will allow the developer to locate the parking within the building itself to screen the parking from view. In addition, the proposed building coverage allows the developer to construct a building that has a retail component close to the street. The necessary findings to allow the increased building coverage are contained within the report to the Design Review Board. Within Land Use District 9 the maximum height of the project is 45 feet for any size project, with residential or commercial space located over a parking structure. The project proposes a maximum height of 41 feet for architectural roof towers contained within the middle of the building that are necessary for access to the roof decks/patios. However, the remainder of the building is set at a building height of 36 feet. Staff finds the building height of the project is in compliance with the established standard set below the permitted maximum height of 45 feet. Adequate parking is also provided for the proposed project through the use of six two-car garages for residents and three guest parking spaces as required. Ample parking is provided for the retail use through six standard spaces and one accessible space. The project provides for a total of 22 parking spaces, which is one space greater then the 21 spaces required, and therefore meets the parking requirements. In Land Use District 9 the permitted setbacks are as follows: • The front yard setback is 5 to 20 feet; • The side yard setbacks are 5 to 10 feet; • The rear yard setback is 5 to 15 feet. All the proposed building setbacks fall within the standard range or are very close to the middle of that range. The front yard setback of the building and the street side yard setback are proposed close to the street in order to create a strong retail presence at the corner and to attract visitors from Carlsbad Boulevard. The upper levels of the residents are setback further from the street in order to reduce the massing of the building at that corner. Permitted side yard setbacks for the adjacent properties are shown on the screen above in order to demonstrate setback compatibility with the R3 zoning. The necessary findings to allow the reduced setbacks, which are still within the setback range, are contained within the report to the Design Review Board. In addition to the Development Standards set forth for the Village Master Plan, the planned development ordinance provides development standards for recreation space, lighting, utilities, recreational vehicle DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 4 of 24 storage, tenant storage space, and antennas. The project was found to comply with each of these development standards and design criteria of the planned development ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with the desired village scale and character for the relatively dense urban neighborhood desired by the Master Plan, providing an appropriate density and intensity of development. The ground floor of the building has a strong relationship to the street and is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue, enhancing the pedestrian orientation of the Village and enhancing the retail space of the corner. Upper levels of the building are setback from the street in order to provide architectural relief along the upper level building planes. The project incorporates several design features to achieve the desired village character including: • The first floor is enriched with travertine; • An attractive fountain is provided on the ground level at the corner of the site, in order to enhance the first floor facade; • Low lying walls to sit on are incorporated at the corner of the site around a decorative fountain; • The building incorporates various sized windows and decorative glass block windows with decorative trim; • The second and third floor balconies have tempered glass balcony railings; • There are various building recesses; • The project has decorative cherry colored doors; • The project proposes tile roofing with a 5 and 12 roof pitch as required; • The building has varied building colors. The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the building and parking is visually subordinate contained within the building itself. The proposed project has received substantial public comment from the property owner who is constructing the building immediately east of the proposed development, Mr. Michael Bovenzi. Mr. Bovenzi is opposed to the subject project because he does not believe the project meets the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As noted in the report to the Design Review Board, it is staff's opinion that the project is consistent with all standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The project requires no variances from the standards and is consistent with the land use requirements for the property. Staff has also met with the property owner located immediately to the south, Mr. Dennis Bauern, to discuss the proposed project. Mr. Bauern informed staff that his concerns for the proposed project were the units' windows at the south of the building would have downward visibility into his apartment project. Mr. Bauern also had concerns about the wall height along the south elevation and asked that the south wall be raised in order to prevent persons from being able to look down into his units. Also Mr. Bauern expressed to staff that he would like to see an increased setback along the south elevation. Staff also met with the secretary to the Board of the Monterey Condominiums to the north of the proposed project, Ms. Nancy Kaupp. Ms. Kaupp informed staff that she shared the plans with the board of the Monterey and that the board did not have any major concerns with the proposed project. She mentioned the board thought the block was one of the worst in the village and they were happy to see the corner redeveloped. Written public comment that has been received on the proposed project has been included as an attachment to the report to the Design Review Board. The Housing and Redevelopment Department conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 5 of 24 Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary finding for this environment determination is included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an underutilized lot will increase property taxes and this increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, it is anticipated the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing structures through the elimination of a blighted structure and construction of a quality multi-family residential project. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project. Development of this site is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Board Member Lawson stated he did get a briefing with staff to get some additional background on this project. One of the items that needs clarification is the concern one of the adjacent neighbors brought up regarding the walling around the south and eastern property lines. Could you elaborate a little bit on that because that does warrant additional clarification if possible? Mr. Jones said staff has received some concern from the property owner to the south and the east with regards to the wall heights. The way the project is proposed currently the site is a maximum of three feet higher on the proposed project's side and rear. In between a commercial project and a residential project in the village area; a solid masonry wall is required. The applicant has proposed a nine-foot wall as seen from the property to the south and the property owner to the east. The purpose of the six-foot masonry wall on top of the three-foot retaining wall is for visual screening as a person is walking along the proposed project so they cannot see down into the adjacent properties. We had discussion with the property owner to the south and he had a preference to have the six-foot wall on top of the three-foot retaining wall in order to maintain some sort of privacy along that elevation. That was also done along the eastside elevation as well. Board Member Lawson commented that procedurally as he understands it, we have a situation here, which is not unlike many places throughout the city where you have different land uses adjacent to one another. So there are different standards on one side of the property line versus the other. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any requirement to create some hybrid standard because of what is adjacent to the other side of your property line. Is there any requirement for purposes of creating transition that is within the code? Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, said this property is located in the Redevelopment Area, and it is adjacent to other properties that have residential zoning only. That does create a situation where you have properties adjacent to the site where they have totally different regulations. They have more restrictive height limits on them then the Village Area. There isn't anything within the Master Plan or the Municipal Code that would state you have the ability to create some alternate codes. Obviously, you don't have to go to the maximum the codes will allow, and actually as Cliff showed, in this project on several cases they didn't go to all of the maximums they would have been allowed on the site. It does create some inherent conflicts so we try to work with the property owner and the applicant to address those issues the best we can. We understood when the project came in there was some conflict because it was immediately adjacent to these residential properties, but this is not unusual for the Redevelopment Area. We actually have other locations within the Redevelopment Area that have a similar type of situation where they are immediately adjacent to residential properties that have different requirements. It is something, as a staff member, we try to work through the best we can and try to address those conflicts the best we can in terms of trying to get more articulation or try to enhance the privacy with the walls. There really isn't the ability at the Board level to start setting different standards for DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 6 of 24 the area. The standards are what they are, but there is some ranges in the Redevelopment Area and it does allow some additional height on it. Board Member Baker asked if the difficulty wasn't necessarily because it is next to residential, but that the sites in white are subject to City of Carlsbad Planning Department regulations where the yellow sites are Redevelopment regulations, which are different? Ms. Fountain said that is correct. The Village Redevelopment Area has it's own Master Plan document, which sets forth the standards for the Village Area. Any time that it is not stated in the Master Plan what a standard is, then we would go to the Municipal Code. The properties that are outside the Redevelopment Area are subject to the Municipal Code and whatever those standards are as well as any additional overlays that might be in the area like the beach overlay zone or some others that might put some more restrictive standards on them. Chairperson Heineman asked if all the areas in white are subject to the Municipal Code and the areas in yellow are subject to the Redevelopment Code? Ms. Fountain said correct. Robert Richardson with Karnak Planning and Design, 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad. He is here representing his client, Russell Bennett and Earl Miller. We have tried to work with the neighborhood as best we can by meeting with our neighbors. On the south wall we did have it lower, and then he expressed an interest in bringing it up, so we brought it up. Then we also looked at every window on the south wall and analyzed where our windows were on an angle and we placed palm trees so someone standing in the window would have to see through the palm tree before they could see into the apartment to the south. We were very concerned about that. On the east property, our retaining wall and our land was actually lower in some cases then the property to the east. At the last minute we were given the working drawings, which lowered their grade 2 Vz feet below where they were, which developed a concern for us. Otherwise, our wall was right on the money. They have taken that house out and by doing so, they ended up cutting it deeper than the preliminary grading plans that was used for the public hearing. Mr. Richardson continued they were concerned about the roof decks. We pulled them all to the center of the building. There was some concern about visibility of our decks to the people around us on both sides. They have been pulled down in the line of site. We did some line site drawing. You can't even see our next-door neighbor. You can only see two or three lots out away from us. You would actually have to climb out and crawl down to the edge of the roof to look down into the project next door. We have tried to give privacy. Also, to our neighbor to the east we did include raising up a small screen wall on the east side so the two units on the east would not have any opportunity of a view to the east. We have tried hard to work with the neighborhood. We've tried to do something real quality to where it is a very expensive building. The residential units are first class. Two of the units will be occupied by the owners at a really high end with elevators. It is exciting to see something of this caliber coming into the Village, and you will see more of it in the future. Cliff has done a good job and has been very thorough. Board Member Lawson said he understands each of the units, with the exception of unit number 4, takes utilization of the deck above the commercial and a portion of the garage. Is that correct? Mr. Richardson answered yes. Board Member Lawson continued by asking if unit number 4 only has a roof deck? Mr. Richardson said it does have a small deck on the main roof deck as well as the one up on top. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 7 of 24 Board Member Lawson asked if there was one tucked further back into the corner? Mr. Richardson said right it is on the far side. Board Member Baker asked about the corner and if Mr. Richardson could explain the concept with the fountain and the low wall on the corner of Oak and Lincoln. Mr. Richardson said they were asked to make it a public people space and more of a retail space. So we put low seat walls and we did the fountain and the fountain wall is also a seat wall. We would have added more to it, but there is a lot of utilities. On the south side of the front entrance way we did early sketches and it looked even bigger and then we started plotting all the transformers, underground vaults on that corner, there is a lot there so we tried to leave enough landscape around it and pull it a little bit to the north corner of that. It doesn't look perfectly balanced but that is mainly because of the utilities. We tried to keep a nice buffer. The travertine tile look and beautiful corners goes all the way across the front and then we carried it past the driveways all the way to the end of the building so the whole entire front has a retail look about it that feels strong and solid. Only the two units with beautiful curved balconies come out. Everything else is pulled behind it. We also plotted shadows in the summer and in the winter. Board Member Lawson asked about the retail use. Have you targeted or had discussion as to what type of retail use you anticipate? Mr. Richardson said there have been several considerations. There has been some inquiry about putting in a small bookstore. It's too early to know for sure yet. We have tried to make it as visible as possible. Board Member Schumacher asked about the grade that is three feet of fill? Is that right? Mr. Richardson said no. Board Member Schumacher said he is wondering if related to the wall on the south side and the east side. Did the site get raised at all or is it level? Mr. Richardson said no. The only site that moved was the east side, which is 2 Vz feet more then actually in the plan. They have cut that out. That old house that was sitting on there was sitting on a knoll and they took all that out and they brought it down. At the last minute we had our civil engineer replot that grade. Board Member Schumacher asked if the finished grade of fifty some feet is the same or equal to the lot on the south? Will that be level? Mr. Richardson said no. The neighbor to the south wanted the six-foot wall to come up three more feet so he has more privacy. Board Member Marquez asked if the adjacent property owners already have existing walls in place on their property separating this one? Mr. Richardson answered there is a wood fence on the south side. Right now it's bougainvilleas, weeds and tall grasses to where it is like a jungle. Board Member Marquez asked if it is true that the owner to the east just put up a block wall approximately six foot high? Mr. Richardson said he hasn't seen the new wall. If it has been in the last week, I haven't been there. Board Member Marquez said she just drove by today. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 8 of 24 Chairperson Heineman opened public testimony and he has eight requests to speak. The requests are for Ron Alvarez, Don Johnson, Peter Dreifuss, Dennis Sharp, Dennis Bauern, Joanne Sharp, Michael Bovenzi, and Sandra Bovenzi. Each speaker has five minutes to make their comments. Those comments should be addressed to the Board, not to the staff, not to the applicant or the public. After we receive all testimony from everyone who wishes to speak, we will ask the appropriate person to respond to all questions. Please speak into the microphone clearly, state and spell your last name and give us your address for the record. We ask as new speakers come up, please not repeat what others have said. My name is Ron Alvarez and I live at 354 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad. I am a designer in the City of Carlsbad and have been a resident since 1986. I started some of the first design projects for redevelopment, and I didn't have much to go by with standards and design, and I relied upon the Council to give me direction. With much painstaking design submittals and such, we ran into lots of problems because there was only a very small select group of people giving me information. There was basically no origin or basis at the beginning of this Redevelopment Zone. Now we have a manual of standards and parameters. I have looked through those. I had a meeting with the designer of this project that we are speaking about. I talked directly with Deborah Fountain who is present and Cliff Jones who is present. I had some concerns because I didn't feel the design standards were being met. The start of the project, I felt should have started with a subterranean or complete submerged garage, which would have put to bed a lot of these wall height issues, height of buildings, building setbacks, privacy and site line issues. I will quote what Deborah Fountain said. She said, "setting a new trend" maybe that was the word she used, "when we have a design manual to go by, we have a guide." When there is too much project-to-project basis of what everyone thinks, that's not what I use in designing. I have been designing since 1985 with many, many projects in the City and outside of the City. I was really taken back by that because I will have new projects that my clients are hiring me at this time to work with the redevelopment. To make a long story short, I am a little taken back by that. One of the biggest things about this project, I thought, was if I was to design this, I would put a subterranean garage completely submerged so I could put a fully contained retail space which is what I think this new $90,000 study is going to be, correct? It is based upon a greater need for retail space within the cities. It is maybe not done yet. We'll find out when that comes about. That is what I would have done with that project to start with, which would have reduced the heights of the building, reduced these walls heights, reduced all these things that are going to be addressed after I speak. The design parameters needed to start with fully submerged parking garages maximizing retail space. To make my point clear, as a designer I would have not even presented a project as we see here today. It would have been fully submerged parking, out of line of site; we would have less of a height, which would have been a little more balanced to the community. It is way too tall for the community if you look at it from a standpoint of all the surrounding areas. Finally it would have given you a much different picture then what we have today. I think it is a little too overbearing and it doesn't even fit with redevelopment, as far as architectural standards are concerned if you look in that guideline, which is what we work with. I will be working with it, and hopefully they will be working with me in regards to what is supposed to be set forth in that guideline when I bring in projects, because I don't want to have to come here and present a project to the Board and have everyone say it is too big, it's too tall, it's too this because I wasn't sensitive as a designer. Thank you for listening to me. Hopefully you will take into account this project and re-evaluate it for what it is. My name is Don Johnson and I currently live in Oceanside but I lived at the 3140 Lincoln Street in Carlsbad, which is two houses down from this project. I lived there for about 30 years and my mom still lives in that property since about 1925. My reason for speaking is that I will at some point be the inheritor of the property, and I do not really like the idea of a property that is that large and of an oppressive height, which does not fit the rest of the character of the neighborhood. Nothing else that is visible from my mother's property is more then two stories. It does not seem to me that height is necessary. In addition, when the two-story complex next to my mom was put up, the solar reflections caused the heating in the summer on my mom's property to get to a point where it is oppressive. I suspect the same thing will happen to the two-story complex to the north of us with the reflections from the new project. a\o DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 9 of 24 Peter Dreifuss, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008. I have lived in the City of Carlsbad for 13 years and have enjoyed it. This is the constitution for the City of Carlsbad for construction and new development and what Mr. Jones read earlier, he must have a different manual then I do. If you wish to change what is in this constitution, you can't Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Dreifuss what is the name of the manual? Mr. Dreifuss said it is the Redevelopment Master Plan. He continued that if the Master Plan is changed, you can't do it on a whim. You have to do it by law and do it in a proper way. It has to be done in a legal way. This Master Plan states inside it is a legal document. The standards are clear. The intent is clear. It is an approved Master Plan. It was never meant to be just interpreted. The Redevelopment staff has approved this current project because Debbie Fountain has said we are going to set a new precedent. Well I am a co-developer of the property just east of this, the new condos that are going up that just broke ground. I am sure they were trying to set a new precedent recently in Carlsbad when they approved the most ugliest project that Carlsbad has ever seen adjacent or across the street from the military academy, the retail space with the condo's on top of it. That is probably the ugliest thing that I have ever seen in a city. I am sure that if Debbie Fountain was about to have a 40-foot high building that blocked all of her views built right next to her 20-foot high residence, that she would just rejoice. But wait, I don't think she even lives in Carlsbad. The redevelopment staff basically are non-residential directors who have done no oversight review. The reports, which they have submitted to the Design Board contain outright lies and deception. The Board should not have a predetermined point of view on this proposed project, and the Board has the responsibility to be objective and to not take the staff's report at any way near accurate or truthful. We will show you some of the inconsistencies in the staff report. Mr. Dreifuss continued that they do not blame the Design Review Board for allowing this project to come this distance, but we do blame the incompetence of the development staff. The current designer of this proposed project is Mr. Karnak. We originally hired Mr. Karnak to do our project, which is right next door. He accepted our $15,000 as initial payment. He represented himself as an architect. Mr. Karnak is not an architect, but a draftsman. We found out he was not licensed in the State of California to design. He was not licensed within his industry to build a five-unit project, more or less a six-unit project. He must be an architect to design anything that is five units or more. Not only has he designed more then five units, but the sixth unit is illegal. This project only allows for four condo units by the Master Plan. If you do your calculations, it comes to 4.6 units is what is allowed. He has put in six units. Mr. Karnak is not licensed to do the current project by California law and risks having some problems by doing so. In a recent set of submitted plans to the City, not his most recent but in a recent set to the City of Carlsbad, he shows an architectural stamp that has been illegally affixed to those documents. Not only has Mr. Karnak drawn a plan, which allows two more condominiums than allowed by law, but has done so in an improper way. Joanne Sharp, 1230 Umatilla, Del Mar, CA 92014. She is part of Sharp Design Consultants. My husband, Dennis, and I have reviewed these plans in regards to access for persons with disabilities. I would like to talk a little bit about that and give the Board some background. On March 13, 1991, the housing provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 became effective in all state, city and county jurisdictions that had not adopted regulations more stringent than that act. The California Building Industry Association petitioned California's Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt the federal regulations and to combine into one document the more stringent requirements of the existing state regulations. On December 9, 1992, the California Building Standards Commission approved the forum regulation adoption with an effective date of July 15, 1993, which incorporated them into Title 24 of the California Building Code. Providing an environment where person's with disabilities can have the same access to and ability to use housing that others enjoy is both a worthwhile goal and the law. The regulations were developed to provide for the safety and welfare of persons with disabilities as residents and visitors of apartment buildings, condominiums and timeshare units. The state regulations require adaptations for newly constructed, privately funded apartment buildings having three or more units, condominium buildings containing four or more units, and privately funded shelters intended as a residence for homeless persons. An adaptable building is one that is accessible in terms of entry and DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 10 of 24 circulation. That is a person using a wheelchair must be able to enter the unit, move around, have a bathroom and a sleeping area that is accessible and usable. The unit must also be constructed so that it can be adapted to meet specific needs of a person with disabilities for items such as grab bars, lowered counters, etc. In other words, constructed in a way they can add things that are specific to their needs. The regulations require that multifamily buildings have units that are adaptable to meet the needs of mobility and sensory impaired persons. Ms. Sharp added as a background about her and her husband, they received more then 250 hours of official training on all state and federal disabled access regulations. They also provide disabled access consultant services to government entities, businesses and individuals in their efforts to comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, California's Title 24, which are the disabled access regulations included in our state building code, and other state and federal regulations dealing with access for persons with disabilities. We have done extensive fieldwork since 1993. We volunteer on several committees advising on disabled access including the City of San Diego Community Services, Citizen's Review Committee on ADA and Disability, the City of San Diego Facilities Access Review Subcommittee, the City of San Diego Access Law Technical Group, and Scripps Park Project in La Jolla. In 2004,1 am very proud to say, that a Sharp Design Consultant was awarded a certificate of excellence in appreciation by the City of San Diego for Outstanding Performance and Lasting Contribution. Board Member Baker asked Ms. Sharp how she is involved in this project? Ms. Sharp said they were asked by Mr. Bovenzi to review the plans for accessibility and to give him our opinion on if we felt there were any problems with the project. Board Member Baker asked if she was hired as a consultant? Ms. Sharp said yes, that's correct. My husband will speak more about specific things in the plans. Board Member Lawson asked while evaluating the project, are you comparing it then to the immediate project to the east, the Bovenzi project. I am wondering, the things that you are suggesting this is deficient in, the adjacent property complies with all those same areas? Ms. Sharp answered no. We are basing our opinions strictly on the Federal and State standards that exist for accessibility in privately funded, multifamily housing. We are not looking at any other project, only this one. Dennis Sharp, 1230 Umatilla, Del Mar, CA 92014. My wife and I both have been doing this since 1992. The plans I see here that I have reviewed, the designs lack an understanding of accessibility. The accessibility means independent living so that if you are in an apartment, not everybody can afford a full- time attendant. You should be able to get in and out by yourself and do your laundry or whatever. The way this is designed, that can't be done. The bathroom is not accessible, no details to show otherwise. The common areas are not accessible, and by code, they should all be accessible. In some of these places you just can't get to where you need to go because there is no connection. When I say path of travel, it means to get from one place to another. For the path of travel for the apartments to the trash does not exist for a wheelchair. The driveway is not set up for people who use wheelchairs or drive vans. It is the wrong matrix. The van accessibility parking is both wrong. Signage is required and I see none. In the commercial unit, there is one entrance and a second one, but you can't have an entrance with steps. It all has to be accessible. It should have a ramp. I hope I am not getting too aggressive here, because it is hard to be nice when you are saying all these things. The location of the pedestrian curb ramps are confusing because I see them at different locations. There are new federal regulations coming out that say you must have 48 inches, not counting the curb; that is minimum. If there is any street furniture, you have to go further then that; I don't see that happening here. In fact, this is too small. Furniture means a post, any kind of device that is in the cement you have to add 48 inches in addition to it, not landscaping, but hardscape; they don't have that. If this project is approved and later on it is discovered it is wrong, the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 11 of 24 City will have to pay to fix it. This has happened all over California. It is a big problem in Sacramento. It is a big problem in San Diego, but it is up to you people. I just don't think you have had the training to know that if this is done incorrectly because technically that has to be put in according to your laws. If it is not put in right, who is going to pay to fix it? That means if somebody falls and gets hurt, you are covering that. What my wife and I have done a great deal in San Diego is to stop this because it costs too much and the taxpayers are paying for it. Petco had a situation where it was going to cost the City of San Diego over $200,000 for one walkway that was wrong. We caught them in time to have them fix it. The contractor was there and said, you did it wrong and fix it and they did. Now if we hadn't done that, it would have gone through, somebody could have fallen and sued and won. It is that simple. Get it while it is right. So if you don't tell them what you want, you are not going to get it. This shows a lack of understanding of what a wheelchair does. I encourage the building because it has a lot of wonderful things, but it will not accommodate a wheelchair, and I think there is good tax credits here, but they are not going to be available to this project. Sandra Bovenzi, 300 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008. I have been a resident of Carlsbad for 22 years. I am not anti-development, but I am a firm believer in development of the greater good for the people of Carlsbad. The Carlsbad bible, which everyone keeps referring to, was created by a qualified Carlsbad staff and also subcontracted outside support as well. The book should be adhered to and followed to the letter. On our project, which is to the east of the project we are talking about tonight, we have had to follow everything to the letter. I think everyone else should follow it to the letter as well. A perfect example of abuse by a mixed-use project, I'm not against a mixed use project, I think it certainly does have some wonderful qualities to it, but the perfect example of a project gone array is the Anastasi project, which is right across the street from the Coldstone Creamery. That is a real eyesore. It is terrible because we had the opportunity to create a wonderful pedestrian area. Yes we did get our retail in, but that is all there is. It butts right up almost to the street. If a car were to jump the curb, you'd wipe out probably all the people on the sidewalk, but there are no trees, there is no vegetation, there are no benches, it is not a pedestrian area; it is to get from point A to point B. I think it is a real eyesore to Carlsbad and it is sad because it is a new project. I am afraid this mixed-use project that is going in next to us is heading in the same direction. Because it is a massive project and it is two to three stories higher then anything in the area. The whole block, which is a larger then average block, is all residential, and this is a mixed use project, which is fine, I have no problems with that, but I think they should have been more sensitive like the gentleman, Ron, said they should be more sensitive to the area. Ms. Bovenzi continued by referring to the manual; the project that is underway is massive and contrary to the book here to Goal 4.2 in the manual which clearly states "established buildings whose scale and character who are compatible with the residential neighborhoods and Goal 4.5, which required design sensitivity to surrounding development;" this project does not. I feel the proposed project is a kind of a nightmare for Carlsbad, and I think if we are going to put in a mixed-use property, we should get it right the first time. Board Member Marquez asked Ms. Bovenzi what she felt about the improvements that are presently existing on the subject site? Ms. Bovenzi said it is an abomination. It is two to three stories higher Board Member Marquez interjected that she is talking about what is presently there today. Right now, the little house and the boarded up building. How do you feel about those improvements that are there now? Ms. Bovenzi answered that a mobile home would look better than what is there. Board Member Schumacher asked if Ms. Bovenzi's project has been approved? Is that right? Ms. Bovenzi said yes, we are underway. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 12 of 24 Board Member Schumacher asked if that is 30 feet high? Did you get any resistance from the neighbors when your project was approved? Ms. Bovenzi answered no; none whatsoever. Michael Bovenzi, 343 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92018. I have been a resident for close to 20 years. First I wanted to discuss the wall issue. On the south property line we are showing an existing grade of 49 feet. They are proposing a 53.5 finished surface, which is almost level to that, which is a 4 Vz foot fill. The fill is not a 3 foot fill as proposed; it is a 4 1/a foot fill with a 6 foot solid concrete wall on top of there, which means Mr. Bauern to the south is going to have a wall that is a better part of 11 feet bordering his property line. Myself, to the west here, I just put in a brand new perimeter wall on both the west and the east. The west with the adjacent property. Mike Grimm, Senior Planner, who is my project planner, who is was very specific when I spoke with him last week; do not build your wall higher then 6 feet from existing grade. I was out there all day every day making sure this wall was not higher then 6 feet in height. That is not because of my site; that is because you don't have an affect on your neighbor. Mr. Bovenzi continued, when you get down to Policy 21 written by Michael Holtzmiller regarding perimeter walls, it says: In a required side yard, total height shall not exceed 6 feet. He clearly states a 4 foot retaining wall and a 5 foot fence would not be permitted because the total exceeds 6 feet. Starting with Craig Ruiz, back in 2004, he was the assistant planner on the project, stated that the retaining wall shall not exceed 6 feet as measured from the exterior from the property. Cliff Jones, December 15 wrote the same thing, staff has concerns about combination wall/fences, being aware that the fences along the property line shall not exceed 6 feet. Cliff Jones also said the same thing on March 28th and he also quoted the same thing on "June 24th in the preliminary review letters to Robert Richardson. I asked many times for the preliminary review letters. I was only given one or two, and I did find another three of them in the City of Carlsbad last week. They also wanted in writing from Dennis Bauern what the walls were going to be; they want his opinion and they never got his written opinion on the walls. The problem with the walls and then the village redevelopment is, they want the wall as a 6 foot buffer, solid masonry wall, for privacy and sound. It is pretty simple. If you can't build up the lot, that means the entries for all the units along the east and the south have to be at grade level. The entries are not at grade level. Did they have a challenging lot here? No. There was no challenge. What they could have done, which they didn't do, was they could have put the parking below grade because it says in the manual, the ground floor shall be devoted to commercial uses. Now the 12 thousand or so six hundred square feet, which defines the ground floor, the 1,900 square foot retail combined with the parking for the commercial is less then 25% of the ground floor. That by definition of devote, which means commit all to, is far from the definition. When you get into parking, the ground floor of all mixed-use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses, avoid buildings which devote significant portions of the ground floor space to parking uses, and they have devoted 75% of the ground floor to parking uses. It would have been really easy to put the parking three or four feet below grade, which it easily could have done, because the lot has a natural slope of. approximately four feet and all the entries to the adjacent properties would have been at grade level. Mr. Bovenzi said as far as the setbacks, the setbacks on both Lincoln and Oak, the buildings stick out 20 feet farther on Oak Avenue and 18 feet farther then anything on Lincoln Avenue. Not only are they going up 4 Vz stories, but the building sticks out 20 feet farther on both sides, and they claim there is no adverse affect on existing residential. Not only do you lose the line of site down both Lincoln and Oak for the entire block, we have loss of sun, we have loss of view, and you lose your ocean breeze. That is an adverse affect. Dennis Bauern, 3149 Coachman Court, Oceanside, CA 92056. My wife, Jeannie, and I own the building to the south at 3134 Lincoln Street. We are here because we have problems with the development. Let me just say, clearly what is there now is a blight and something needs to be done so there is no doubt in all of our minds that much improvement can come from that area. However, we are very developer friendly, to be honest. We have five units to the east of us going up, and the reason we have no comment and have no problems is the setbacks are to the maximum and we have no loss of privacy for a five-unit DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 13 of 24 building. Our building is two stories, 18 foot tall, three units on the top and two on the bottom. They are all with the living and family room facing the north, which would be facing right into the south facing side of the new development. The biggest concern we have is, and I think the map up here earlier showed it, the redevelopment has 270 degrees around an existing set of zone requirements. This means the developers have a real responsibility to be very sensitive about the surrounding environment. In my opinion, they really weren't in this case. First of all, 41 feet or 35 to 40 feet and we are at 18 feet. Secondly, even with the southwest facing four units, rather than have them face south for the living and family room, they have them southwest facing. That still looks into our properties. It seems to me with our five units facing north, their four units facing southwest, we are going to have a conflict. When the developer is gone, we are going to have people owning those properties. Our tenants are going to be in there and it is going to be a conflict. If we could have had at least upfront involvement with the acclimation of which direction it was facing, facing over Oak made just a whole lot of sense. The properties could have faced out over Oak. Even if we look into the back of the unit, we have the privacy. So the orientation of the building from the start is a concern. The height is the second concern. The setbacks I saw earlier were 5 to 10 feet. I believe the recommended is 7 feet. Between our property and this new development is probably not going to be over 18 or 19 feet apart. That is very tight and very close for a surrounding area. I believe for those three reasons and just the simple fact that the insensitivity to the surrounding area I don't believe was taken into account. The first I became aware of this was about June or July of last year at which time I met with Cliff Jones, and I took him through some of our concerns. The bottom line is if this were acclimated or at least oriented in a different fashion, we could deal with the height. We did agree in a meeting I had with him, I said we've got to do something about this orientation, the height, and then the ingress, egress, because everything is on our side. To be sensitive to the developer, I said if we could increase at least the wall, then they are not looking over into our living rooms when they are walking into their units. I look at what this is resulting in, and I just think we are going to have long-term problems with our five residents and their four owners of their units with people looking into each other. They can put palm trees in there, they can put walls higher that are above code, but I really don't think that is a good long-term fix for that area. Those are my concerns. Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Bauern how old his building is? Mr. Bauern said it is about 40 years old. Chairperson Heineman closed the public hearing. He asked staff, Mr. Rick and Mr. Jones, to respond to the questions. Mr. Cliff Jones asked if there was a particular question they would like him to start with. Chairperson Heineman told him wherever he wants to start. There were a number of questions raised. Mr. Jones started with the comment made about requiring underground parking. There actually isn't a requirement for underground parking. There is a design guideline that talks about how parking should be screened from public view. But there isn't anything in the Master Plan or municipal code that requires parking to be provided below grade. As one of the basic ten design principals, parking is to be visually screened and the structure surrounds the parking area so it is achieving that basic design principal. Mr. Jones continued with regard to providing underground parking, which would make the entire ground site be a retail space, staff felt as though it would create a compatibility issue with the adjacent residential uses having such a large commercial space there at that corner space. In addition, it may be difficult to lease a space that large as well, which could lead to undesirable tenants locating in the commercial space there at the ground floor if the entire ground floor were devoted to a retail use. As with regards to height, as the Board already knows, if a project is located over parking, the permitted building height is up to 45 feet. The subject project has a building height at a maximum of 41 feet. However, the majority of the structure is set at 36 feet. With the comment with regards to the project being 2 to 3 stories taller then DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 14 of 24 anything on this street, the project is actually three stories with roof decks, so it actually is not 2 to 3 stories taller then anything on the block. There are a number of two-story structures on the block. Mr. Jones said in regard to the comment about Title 24 accessibility. The Title 24 review, the detailed review, is done at the time that the detailed construction plans are submitted. For the purposes of receiving the redevelopment permit and related coastal development permit and tentative map, we do not require detailed construction plans at this time. The applicant was made aware of the concern about the Title 24 requirements and staff was assured they had met with our building plan check consultant for the Title 24 compliance. Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Jones what the Title 24 compliance is. Is that the handicapped? Mr. Jones answered correct. He said those were the major issues that I heard. There might be additional issues that I would be more than happy to respond to. Mr. David Rick, Engineering, said he could verify some of the grade changes that have occurred with respect to the wall. Mr. Richardson responded regarding Ron Alvarez talking about line of site and putting parking underground. We didn't put our parking underground. It is semi-underground, but it is out of sight to where we have walls and we have garages. Our garages are garages that have roll up doors and there is beautiful entry ways with lighting and pavement so that even though it is underground, it is going to have a look and feel like an entryway instead of a backdoor. We feel most of the time they will come in that way than the other way. The issue about being a licensed architect, I am not a licensed architect. I am a planner. I have been in the business for thirty some years. I have had staff up to 17,18 people. I've done all kinds of work up to a ten-story building. I have two architects that are outside consulting staff, a structural engineer and no project that I have ever done had to be signed and stamped by an architect. We do the planning and no way are we cheating anything or trying to do anything other then the right way of doing it. This town would not allow it anyway. As far as the ADA issues, when this project started over a year ago, this building was designed and since then there has been some changes. This last summer there was a change with Title 24 and ADA so there are a few issues that have been pointed out tonight that have to be addressed. Mike Bovenzi's projects would not meet the new standards that we are being judged by tonight. He got in and had his plans in plancheck before the cut off for that. Mr. Richardson continued with the comments about how massive the building is. This exhibit here is 30 feet and he is higher up on the street then we are and it is going up hill. He is at 30 feet, but if you look at that exhibit and also at this other one covered up, Mike Bovenzi's project, his windows and our windows are within a couple feet of each other. His project looks down on the lot going down Lincoln, the side of it. They impact the neighbors every bit as much as we do, and it is sad to see that now that he has his high building, he is complaining that we are doing the same thing. As far as the wall down on the south property line, it was tapered, it was low, and if you look at the grades one spot or the other, as you will see in the elevations, it tapers down with the grade. The south property line changes from the curb line and it goes up almost four feet, so the wall and the grades along our building taper down with it to where we did not carry the grade level all the way out. We originally had it at 6 feet from his existing grade and that's when we asked to increase it only by that 3 feet. I feel for the gentleman to the south property. We have tried to be instrumental; I know it well. My daughter lived in a downstairs unit so I have been there a hundred times or more while she lived there so I was very sensitive to it. I feel like our windows are at an angle to them, we have the buffering trees and we plotted so I think it has a lot less impact. It is also not the main part of the house. The main part of the house is facing towards those patio decks on the north side so that is a secondary use in that building. Chairperson Heineman commented that Mr. Richardson mentioned that the handicapped access laws have been changed or were changed at the time you were finishing the plans, is that correct? DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 15 of 24 Mr. Richardson answered yes, right. The various codes that Ms. Sharp brought up have changed. Chairperson Heineman asked if he does plan to change the plans? Mr. Richardson said if we don't change the interior of this building, it will never get built. Sometimes we have more corrections on ADA then we do on structural or architectural. Chairperson Heineman confirmed that Mr. Richardson is planning to make corrections to be code? Mr. Richardson said you have to be. Board Member Lawson asked Mr. Richardson regarding him speaking of the southern property line and for that matter even the eastern property line, as I am understanding the plans, the setback from the property line is from the extreme of the building edge, which happens to be the corner points of the pop- out windows, correct? Yet, the main flat portion of the building is setback even further from that. About how much further is that additional setback? Mr. Richardson answered it is approximately five feet. Board Member Lawson continued that the perception of looking at this facing at you, then actually there is a significant amount of this being recessed even further back from the property line than the eight feet or whatever is set here. With respect to the wall along there, I would like to get clarification from staff first; that has to do with the retaining wall. There was comment made earlier that the six foot walls are intended for visual blocking and sound. I was not aware that sound was a built in requirement for those walls. Can you clarify that? Mr. Jones answered that for any type of commercial property that is located adjacent to a residential use, it is written in the Master Plan that a solid masonry wall be provided. Typically it is for privacy and sound from the commercial use for the adjacent residences. Board Member Lawson asked when you speak of sound, is it hit with requirements of certain decibel readings and that level of compliance? Mr. Jones said no, not that particular wall. Board Member Lawson commented it is intended in concept that everyone recognizes that a solid masonry wall is going to provide better sound buffering, but it is not to require a certain precise dropage of decibel readings. Mr. Jones said that is correct. Board Member Lawson said based upon that clarification, he doesn't have the question for Mr. Jones. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, added there were a lot of comments on the Manual being the bible, etc., and the standards have to be strictly followed, but I think it is important to understand that in terms of development standards in many cases there are ranges. For instance, on the height, even though you have parameters, the development can fit within those parameters at different points in the range. So that isn't set in stone. Likewise, when you are talking about policies such as compatibility with surrounding development and sensitivity to the neighborhood and compatibility in skill and character, those types of decisions are by their very nature discretionary and that is why the Board is here, to make those decisions and to make determinations based on the evidence and the presentation as to whether or not those developments are in keeping with the neighborhood. It is not something that is black and white and you can always definitively say, this is okay and this is not okay. There are guidelines, there are standards, but within those standards, there is often discretion for the Board. dp DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 16 of 24 Board Member Schumacher asked about the wall between the subject property and the one to the east. Also the one to the south as well. The project to the east is getting a six foot wall as well? Are they required to put in a six foot wall also? Mr. Richardson said yes. Their grade has been a little bit of a moving target to where we designed our original grade to the proposed grade that he had within his project. It sounds like we know now our engineer checked with the drawings and also worked with David Rick in Engineering, they gave us the new grades. It has been dropped considerably, two and a half feet, which has also now changed for us. At the last minute David Rick and Cliff Jones called us and we did an overnight design with the civil engineer changing our grade on the east wall so that the drawings you have were accurate to the new as- built condition that was set up by the grading plans that were used for the grading. If it is more then two and half feet, I wonder if their grading meets the intent of their original design. I am shocked that it changed that much. Normally Engineering is really tough on us. Once we do the grades like we have here now, they are going to be really tough on us when we come back for a grading permit. It is interesting it dropped so far. Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Richardson about the property to the east that had a finished grade that was the same as your existing finished grade. Now he has put up a six foot masonry wall, correct? Then you are going to bring your finished grade up three feet, correct? Then put another six-foot masonry wall on top of that? Is that what you are doing? Mr. Richardson answered no. Our original grade was actually below his grade. Our grade on the east side was actually below him to where we were originally. Board Member Marquez asked if he lowered his? Mr. Richardson said yes, he lowered his grade. Board Member Marquez commented she noticed there is about a two foot difference between his grade now and your existing grade. But now you are bringing your existing grade up another three feet with a retaining wall? Is that true? Mr. Richardson asked David Rick to answer that. David Rick said the grade on the subject property is being raised anywhere between about a half foot to two feet. Board Member Marquez asked if that was where it is presently? Mr. Rick answered right, on the southeast corner. Depending on where you take the grade, it has a variation. Board Member Marquez asked what kind of separation is going to be between these two walls separating the properties? Mr. Rick said he doesn't know the exact measurement, but it is anywhere between no more then a foot, based on Mr. Bovenzi's plan and comparing with the subject property. Board Member Marquez said Mr. Bovenzi put a wall cap on top of his nice masonry wall. I am wondering how close the applicant's wall is going to be to that and how that is going to look. Mr. Rick said that is a good question. I don't know how far that cap stretches out because I don't have that detail in front of me. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 17 of 24 Board Member Marquez guessed about three inches on each side. Mr. Richardson said originally it was set up that we had offered to even put the wall up for him and then he got ahead of us and so he put his wall up separate from our's. Of course, his needs to be completely on his property. Board Member Marquez agreed and then said your footing will have to be designed differently because it is a retaining wall. Mr. Richardson answered absolutely. His footing should be engineered to be completely on his side. Board Member Lawson just wanted to make this clear. So we are going to have a wall and a foot between basically two walls? Mr. Richardson said no, our's is a property line wall. You can only put it within an inch of the property line. So we need to find out from Mike Bovenzi where he put his wall. Whether he put it right on the property line or a distance in. Our wall cannot go over our property line, either the footing or the wall or the cap, nothing can go over that wall, and it has to be completely self-designed to carry our loads, our design, and anything that is against him. Like right now, if he is above us and he has a wall with a footing, our wall has to be engineered to take his footing so his soil pressure is coming towards us, we have to engineer for that. Board Member Baker commented how odd that is going to be to have two walls with dead space in between that will fill up with trash and weeds. Isn't there a way to share the wall? Make this work? Mr. Jones said with regards to what the Board would like to see the finished wall appear as, the Design Review Board has the discretionary approval to make a recommendation for what they would like to see the wall height as. If that means having additional separation for the wali height, that could be done or keeping the wall height very close, maybe up to that point where the walls meet at a higher point, that could be proposed as well. Mr. Rick clarified that he did some measurements and the subject property wall is six inches from the property line, and it appears that from Mr. Bovenzi's plan, that wall is also six inches according to the plan from the property line. Chairperson Heineman said then there would be a foot gap between them? Mr. Rick answered right, a foot gap. Board Member Baker has a question for Mr. Jones. One of the speakers, Mr. Dreifuss, said this project is over the amount of units that is allowed. Could you give the audience a brief explanation about the growth control plan. Mr. Jones said the City does have a Growth Management Ordinance, and the range within the RMH designation that this property is receiving is 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The growth management control point restricts that to 11.5 dwelling units per acre. I believe that is where they were getting that lower calculation for the number of units. However, if certain conditions are made by the Board, the number of units could be increased over that growth management control point. Those conditions are included in the Design Review Board Resolution. They are related to certain types of public improvements already being there in place and those findings have been found in the Design Review Board Resolution. It is up to the Board to adopt it. It is also noteworthy that this project as it is proposed, is at a density of 14.89 dwelling units per acre. Within the Redevelopment Area, you can actually dedicate a higher density based upon project compatibility. So the project could have received a RH zoning designation. However, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 18 of 24 it wouldn't meet the general plan because it would be less then the 15 to 23 dwelling units per acre. So the project did receive an RMH density designation. Chairperson Heineman reiterated then it is in compliance. Mr. Jones said correct. Ms. Mobaldi interjected with regard to the question about the wall; Ms. Fountain and I have been discussing it. I believe the manual requires that you have a masonry wall in between residential and commercial development, and it seems to me that there is already one there even though it is on the adjacent property, that you are meeting that requirement. At least as to the east side and perhaps on the south if there is no masonry wall, you would have to have this developer install one there. Chairperson Heineman said he thinks that is the answer to the wall. Mr. Jones said the additional height was proposed for screening, but a six-foot wall could be proposed. Ms. Mobaldi said the Board can also consider other things for screening, assuming the wall is already there, additional landscaping and that sort of thing in terms of screening if you feel that is necessary. They wouldn't have to have necessarily two walls. Board Member Marquez said the property owner to the east, his wall will not retain the soil they are going to back up against it. The extra three feet they are putting up against it so the applicant has to construct a wall. Now are you saying that wall will just extend three feet over the retaining wall that is retaining the soil because that is part of finished grade, that retaining wall, and you have to go six feet up over that so that is nine feet of masonry wall? Ms. Mobaldi said she is not addressing this from an engineering standpoint, so I don't have an understanding of that. Board Member Marquez questioned still needing two walls. Ms. Mobaldi said you may feel you need two walls. I am just saying that the Manual says there needs to be a masonry wall between the commercial and the residential. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to have two, one on each property. I was just trying to answer Board Member Baker's question about the wall. Board Member Marquez thought maybe we could have the two walls married at the ends so that we wouldn't have the foot separation. We'll talk about that when we get to our discussion. Board Member Lawson reiterated what he was hearing Ms. Mobaldi say that there is the potential that however you get to this pad elevation that is equivalent to the perimeter, which is approximately three feet of additional retaining, but above and beyond that point, that remaining wall doesn't necessarily have to be masonry wall if there already is a masonry component along the property line. Am I making any sense with that? Ms. Mobaldi said that is a legitimate interpretation, yes. Board Member Lawson said then it may be open for an alternative material that if the asthetics issue of be it 9 feet or 11 feet, or whatever it is, there is an opportunity to either be working with a different material, whether it be wood fencing or something else that the owner is willing to put there instead of continuing a masonry wall along that boundary line. That would be up to them if they want to proceed further with this project. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 19 of 24 Chairperson Heineman commented it is not the Board's decision. ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Lawson, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 302, recommending approval of RP 04-11 and adopt Design Review Board Resolution 303 recommending approval of CDP 04-30 and adopt Design Review Board Resolution 304 recommending approval of CT 05-03 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Board Member Lawson wanted to know how we can put in a request to try to get the wall issue resolved or whether or not we really even need to. Because understanding the process by which this project moves forward, we are just providing a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission which is an additional public hearing process. Between now and then the applicant may explore alternatives on how to address some of the discussions that have surfaced here this evening. Is there any need to add anything else into that because I personally hope this issue with the wall around the perimeter will be addressed. Chairperson Heineman said he could add that into the motion by saying, "With the understanding that the question of the wall will be settled by staff and developer." Does that sound good Ms. Mobaldi? Ms. Mobaldi said she doesn't know what "settled" means but, I think they could come up with some recommendations for how to resolve that in light of the Board's concern about the double walls. Chairperson Heineman said then we can say, "With the understanding that they will come up with a settlement." Board Member Lawson commented that he knows there was a lot of heartburn and frustration here this evening with those who have expressed their concerns, and I sympathize with them. I have been through something similar when you have adjacent land uses where the codes are slightly different. It is a question of why aren't the rules that I operated under the same for the guy across the street or next door. When those are not always the same, it can be quite frustrating, but I find staff has done a remarkable job to prove compliance with their codes. I have no reason to think there is any smoke in mirrors to try and get around those codes, and with that in mind, I am very supportive and I do like the design. While I've been on this Board, I have been waiting to see something that I thought looked like this and I am impressed with it. I might not reflect the sentiments of the audience that is here, however what I have seen over the years, and I was born and raised here and go back a number of generations beyond, but this is what I was hoping we would see more of while I have been on the Design Review Board. With that in mind, I am very supportive of this project. Board Member Baker said she supports the project. She does have sympathy. I think Mr. Lawson said it very well. It is difficult when there are different land uses right next to each other. I think the properties to the east and the south develop under the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code and these are under Redevelopment Code. I haven't heard anything at the public hearing tonight that would lead me to think this project doesn't comply with the Design Standards. That being said, it is difficult to make any findings that it isn't compatible with the neighborhood. I think because of the retail, it does have to be closer to the street. Some speakers made reference to the Anastasi project. Retail is close to the street. You walk down State Street, you walk down Grand and they are close to the street with the sidewalk right there. That is something we have been trying to encourage in the village; the 24-hour live/work sort of thing. I think this project will go a ways to help create that atmosphere. I agree with the wall, it seems redundant to have two walls right next to each other with some dead space in between so I would like for the engineer and the applicant and the property owner to the east to try to come to some resolution on how that can happen so we don't have a double wall, one higher, one lower, dead space in between; that just makes no sense. "dfci DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 20 of 24 Board Member Marquez commented that she is a Village resident and has been for 23 years continually and lives not too far away from this project. The beach bungalow, I am afraid, that I occupy is an endangered species in the Village and it looks like there will be more and more of this type of development coming into town. I think this is a high quality design. I felt very happy with it, and I was very glad to see the tourist serving commercial aspect of the development. I am in total support of the project. I understand a little bit about construction and know about how walls have to be engineered and whatnot so I know this is going to be a challenge for staff, but we will leave it to them. Board Member Schumacher said he doesn't have anything much more to add then what has already been said. I like the project. I think it wasn't maximized in every way. They could have gone a little taller, they could have gotten some more retail in there, and I appreciate that. I think the setbacks on the second level offer some relief architecturally and pull it back away from the street. They could have elected to not do that and get more square footage and then they would have sacrificed the design, but they didn't. I think it is a good model. Chairperson Heineman commented he thinks it is an outstanding project. I think we will be proud of it. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Ms. Fountain presented the next item which is referred to as Madison Square and it is another Major Redevelopment Permit. Again, Cliff Jones, our Assistant Planner in Housing and Redevelopment, will do the presentation with assistance from Dave Rick. Mr. Jones said the applicant and part owner, Bruce Baker, is requesting a Major Redevelopment permit for the construction of a 6,234 square foot, three-story, four-unit condominium located at 2737 Madison Street in Land Use District 1 for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Representing Mr. Baker today is his architect, Judson Pittam. The proposed project requires a Major Redevelopment Permit because it involves new construction that has a building permit valuation that is greater then $150,000. In accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the Major Redevelopment Permit is being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board and final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The subject property is located on the west side of Madison Street, south of Laguna Drive at the intersection of Arbuckle Place and Madison Street. The subject property is currently vacant totaling 8,248 square feet with frontage along Madison Street. According to City records, the last known use for the site was a detached 768 square foot single-family dwelling unit, which was in a state of deterioration. The property owner, at the time, not seeing any value in the structure, demolished the unit in 1994 in order to make the property more marketable. To this date, the lot has remained vacant. The proposed project is bordered by a post office, not only to the south, but behind to the west as well. To the north of the proposed project is a residential use. To the east, across Madison Street, exists a residential use. The proposed development application is for a three-story, four-unit condominium project totaling 6,234 square feet. There are two floor plans for the proposed units. Floor plan one totals 1,514 square feet and floor plan two totals 1,603 square feet. Each unit has three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Vehicular access to the covered resident and guest parking is provided off of Madison Street. Residents may access the units through the garage or at the entries along the southside elevation. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual includes the regulations governing development within the Village. The proposed project is within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Multi-family residences DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 21 of 24 are classified as provisional uses within Land Use District 1. Considerations that must be addressed to assess the appropriateness of this particular provisional use are on the screen above and are as follows: • The multi-family residential use is appropriate to the site and adjacent development; • The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the on-site parking without adversely affecting the visual environment of the Village. Staff concludes that the proposed project complies with both of these considerations. First, the multi- family use is consistent with many of the surrounding, adjacent residential uses along Madison Street. Second, the site is adequate in shape and size for the proposed multi-family use and has parking that is visually subordinate within the garages and will therefore, not affect the visual environment of the Village. Staff feels the multi-family residential use is appropriate for the surrounding predominantly residential area as it would add to the residential character of Madison Street and the Village area and the use complies with the vision and related goals of the district. Staff believes the proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for Land Use District 1 through the following actions: It provides for a desirable use; The project may serve as a catalyst for future development; The project provides for the development of a vacant lot; The project is compatible with the surrounding residential character of the area; and The project increases the number, quality and diversity of housing types in the Village. The proposed project meets all of the required development standards outlined within the Village Master Plan. The project provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping through reduced building coverage. The building height of the project is in compliance with the established standards set just below the permitted maximum height. Adequate parking is provided for the residential units through the use of two-car garages and two covered guest parking spaces as required. In Land Use District 1, the required front yard setback is 0 to 10 feet, and the side yard and rear yard setbacks have no minimum or no maximum requirement. The proposed project falls within these required setback ranges. The front yard setback is set at 10 feet after a 10 foot street dedication. The south side yard setback is 16 feet, 7 inches. The north side yard setback is 3 feet, 1 inches, and the rear yard setback is set at 11 feet. The proposed setbacks are therefore consistent with the setback requirements for Land Use District 1. In addition to the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the planned development ordinance provides development standards for recreational space, lighting, tenant storage space, utilities, recreational vehicle storage, and antennas. The project was found to comply with each of the development standards and design criteria of the planned development ordinance as well. The proposed project is also consistent with the design principles outlined in the Village Design Manual. The project provides for: • An overall informal character in design; • The development has a strong relationship to the street; • The building is enriched with architectural features and details such as various sized windows with decorative trim, composition wood shingle roofing with a 5 and 12 roof pitch, simulated wood siding, varied building recesses, second and third floor balconies, and varied building colors; • The project also provides for an abundance of open space and landscaping along all sides of the building; • Parking is visually subordinate contained within garages and/or covered guest parking. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 22 of 24 The following two slides show the proposed building's architectural design and mature landscaping from the front and the rear elevations and from the north and south side elevations as viewed from the adjacent properties. The Housing and Redevelopment Department has conducted an Environmental Review of the project pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary findings for this environmental determination are included in the attached Design Review Board Resolution. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First the redevelopment of what was previously an underutilized, vacant lot will result in increased property taxes, and this increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, it is anticipated the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area; either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings through the elimination of a blighted, vacant lot and construction of a quality multi-family residential project. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project. Development of the site is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan. Board Member Lawson asked for clarification on understanding along the northern property line. Specifically I am looking at the tentative map and the tentative map indicates that entire area between the building and the property line is a concrete drainage swale. Am I reading that correctly first of all? Mr. Rick said that is correct. Board Member Lawson continued with that exhibit if you go to cross section C, it looks like the separation, they are offering a dimension of 2.4 feet, to what would be the stem wall that would be for the structure itself. Is that correct? Mr. Rick said yes. Board Member Lawson said with that in mind, I am going back to the building elevations where if you look at the west elevation of the structure, which is sheet A3, the base of the building there, which seems to be elevating up from the structure then as it climbs up higher from the ground, it pops out even further back towards the property line. My question is I am unclear as to if you think about all of that second and third floor, how far it really is setback from the property line and whether or not that is truly useable space along that north side if it is consumed with a concrete drainage channel. Could you provide some clarification on that? Based upon the way I am reading the dimensions here that the majority of this building, if you are looking at it from the neighbor's property and you are looking over a fence, which is at the property line, then the majority of that entire building is actually even closer than the three foot from the property line as well as the fact that it is being utilized for landscape, does it meet landscape the open-space requirements along there if it has this concrete drainage device? Mr. Rick said in regards to the width of the pop out, I just measured it to scale and it was about a half of a foot; 6 inches. Chairperson Heineman commented that it looks more like 10 feet. Mr. Rick said unless I am not understanding you. Board Member Lawson asked if he had the building elevation? DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 23 of 24 Mr. Jones said yes he does. With regards to the open space calculation, the proposed project is at 27.7% and the swell, if I recall, was calculated as not part of the open space, but I can't say a hundred percent sure, but it wouldn't affect the overall open space calculation at 27.7%. Board Member Lawson said the reason he brings this up is when we were doing the Escrow Transfers project, there were some concerns of being able to drain out along those properties and still when you are trying to convey that water along that distance, to be able to truly utilize it for landscape purposes I know is an extreme challenge. Maybe that can be addressed by the applicant or the representative, but I was wanting to get clarification from staff as to how they were treating that and looking at that. Mr. Jones said the setback area at the swell area was calculated when you are looking at it from a bird's eye view. It would be the three feet, one inch. Chairperson Heineman commented that it certainly looks like it is more then ten inches. Mr. Jones said that is correct, it is. Board Member Lawson said what he is referring to is in the lower exhibit and the lower left-hand corner. The wall comes up from the ground and then it goes up, I am speculating somewhere in the neighborhood, of 6 to 7 feet and then it starts to curve out. Then the rest of the building goes on up. I am just trying to understand where we find that three-foot setback. Mr. Jones answered the setback would be from the higher point that is closer to the property line. Board Member Lawson asked if that would be the case? Mr. Jones said correct. Board Member Lawson said it is not clear when he compares it to the civil drawing. Mr. Jones said that is something he can fix on the proposed plans. With the side yard setback, there is no minimum or maximum setback so with that portion the project still does meet the standards if the Board wants to recommend approval. Board Member Lawson asked whether it is three feet or two feet it is still correct? Mr. Jones answered that is correct. Judson Pittam, 2810 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008. He has lived in Carlsbad for several years. I am speaking for the applicant, Bruce Baker, who is the owner of the property and my client. I would like to clarify the issue of the drainage swell. We first started on this project almost two years ago, and it has taken a long time to get to this point. We have had input from the Redevelopment Department and a lot of input from the Engineering Department, Mr. Van Pesky at the City of Carlsbad. A lot of time has been spent between Mr. Van Pesky and our Civil Engineer from San Diego resolving the drainage on this property. We knew we had a problem to begin with because the lot was basically flat. A flat lot poses problems that lots with natural drainage do not. The swell there is concrete and it actually drains to the rear of the property and around the building to the driveway, and the reason for that is because the runoff on the north side of the building, the roof falls in that side yard setback and there is not enough room at the front of the building to have any kind of retention to keep the water from flowing into the street too fast in case of a heavy downpour. So therefore, the Engineering Department of this City and the Civil Engineer resolved this by reversing the flow to the rear of the property, and it is at a 1% slope which is paved. Now it could have been at 2% and planted. However, it would have raised the grade considerably at the front of the building, and everybody agreed we would pave it and the landscape architect has provided plots with plants in that area. It was never intended to be a walking area, but there is landscaping there, which DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 24 of 24 will grow up between the building and the adjoining properly to the north. As far as the setback is concerned, the setback is three feet, one inch, all the way up from the ground to the roof, except for where it steps back at the balcony area and some more at the third floor level. I would also like to point out that in the design of the building, the second floor level is approximately twice the area of the third floor level. We tried to scale it down so it would read more as a two-story building then a three-story building, and I think we have accomplished that. Chairperson Heineman asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak that hasn't submitted a request to speak? Seeing none, public testimony is closed. ACTION: Motion by Board Member Baker, and duly seconded by Board Member Marquez, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution 305, recommending approval of RP 04-24 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Heineman, Baker, Lawson, Marquez, and Schumacher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report by the Director of Housing and Redevelopment. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Special Meeting of January 23, 2006, was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director PATRICIA CRESCENTI Minutes Clerk LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT MEETING NOTES September 19, 2005 Faraday Building 1635 Faraday, Carlsbad, CA City of Carlsbad Staff Sandy Holder, Director of Community Development Joe Garuba, Management Analyst, City Manager's Office Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner, Housing and Redevelopment Independent Contractor Michael Holzmiller Public Present Sandy Bovenzi Mike Bovenzi Peter Dryfus Regarding the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project Mike Bovenzi began with his concerns of the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project. Mr. Bovenzi's initial concerns are: • The height of the project • The orientation or privacy of the project. • The setbacks. He began working with the Redevelopment Department with Craig Ruiz, who sent him a copy of the preliminary review letter. Because of the roof decks, there is a loss of privacy so he does not support the roof decks. He is not anti-development. His issues from day one are: • Height - which doesn't match the existing residential neighborhood. The property height is over 40 feet (42 or 43 feet). It is a 33 or 34-foot high structure, with the roof deck as a 4th story. • There are setbacks on all sides that are proposed less than 10 feet. It also fronts Oak Avenue and the range given in the manual should be held to the high end of the range. The building is 22 feet farther out than any structure on Lincoln or Oak. The line of sight is a huge issue. The mixed use should be sensitive to existing residential units. There is a privacy loss. In the Design Manual, 20% of the site should be devoted to landscape pedestrian amenities. It is 2,000 square feet shy of that. Also in the manual, the ground floor should be devoted to commercial uses. The ground floor is parking and a small percentage is commercial. Page 1 The west, east and south property line have stairway entries. There is only a six-foot high fence; 3 feet is a retaining wall and three feet is safety railing. People enter the walk in at waist level looking into the neighbor's backyards. The manual says commercial mixed use should have a six-foot solid masonry wall. The backyard and side yard setbacks fall lower then the desired range. The high is 15 feet and the low is 5 feet; this property is 7.5 feet. He had two analyses done, which he handed out a copy to those present. He wanted to put lifts from the garage to the first level, but when he spoke to the Building Department, they had problems with this. Two units on each corner have lifts. The roof decks are a major issue with respect to the Redevelopment Master Plan standards. No roof deck height is listed. The residences on Lincoln and Oak are 50% single story buildings. His proposed building is tallest at 30 feet. Next door is a building that is 18 feet and across the street one is 24 feet. The proposed building is one to three stories higher. It does not match existing residences. The Village Master Plan states that 392 cubic feet of storage must be accessible from the outside of each individual unit. In this building, there isn't any storage. According to the Universal Building Code, any third level, if it is more than 500 square feet, must have a secondary access. He spoke with Lori Rosenstein, who is now Lori Naylor, who sent him a letter stating that landscaped pedestrian amenities are public not private space. In the Implementation Plan, landscaped pedestrian amenities is cited as a public area. He spoke with two different planners, which he did not name, and Ron Ball in the City Attorney's office. They all agreed with him. Ron Ball said "it sounds right." Sandy Holder reiterated the major points: • Use of proper commercial and parking on ground floor. • Intensity of the project. • Interpretation of the Development Standards' heights, setbacks, loss of privacy, parking and roof deck heights. Michael Holzmiller looked at three sections of the Master Plan: • Permitted uses • Development standards • Design He did not look at the building codes. The Design Manual is subjective and open to personal opinions. The analysis Hofman did was more of a personal opinion analysis. Page 2 USE: • Mixed use projects meet the use provisions o He felt the project's commercial component complied with the Master Plan. The ground floor is devoted to commercial. The commercial component represents about 2/3 of frontage. It is recommended that 100% not be used as frontage. The commercial component could be expanded a little. What is proposed is a good compromise. • Intensity of project o This project is an intense project and in the Design Manual intensity is encouraged. This is an issue for this specific project because it is on the border of a residential neighborhood. Overall, the finding is that this is an intense project and encouraged by the Master Plan. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - Michael's opinion is that open space should be public and that the project does not comply with that opinion about open space requirement. Decks next to units are being considered meeting the requirement. However, Michael Holzmiller felt that private individual decks should not be included in that open space. • Setbacks - The ranges are contrary to analysis from Hofman. If the City Council makes the findings, they can make it allowable. As a suggestion for compatibility, setback could be increased to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. • Parking - They provide one more space than they need to. • The height is 45 feet, which is permitted. Most of the building is three stories, but is within the requirements. The commercial component on the ground floor is permitted with two stories of residential above that. Residential properties adjoining this property have different height and density standards. • Density - Fourteen dwelling units per acre are allowed. The overall density is close to everything else approved in that area. DESIGN STANDARDS - There are about 100 design guidelines in the Master Plan. All are different and may not apply. No project must comply with all 100 design guidelines. Refer to page 119 in the Design Manual, Basic Design Principles. Architecturally, the project does fit into the Village design. It has complied with the Design Standards in just about every case that is applicable. Possible revisions - Setbacks and open space may be increased by reducing the size of the units, not the number of units. If the size of units is reduced, the setbacks could be increased. Sandy Holder commented that the stairs are a Building Code issue. Michael Holzmiller - From a property owner's standpoint, you want your orientation to be outward to take advantage of being close to the beach. You need the window and wall treatment to enhance privacy with a three story next to a two story and facing outward. This project does have an outward orientation. Sandy Holder asked if there were any other areas that needed to be discussed? Mike Bovenzi commented with the roof deck, the building is four stories. The roof deck heights adversely affect the privacy. Joe Garuba asked if it is a 42-foot structure. Michael Holzmiller said it is 42 feet high at the highest points for the roof deck access towers. The permitted height is 45 feet where residential or an office is over a parking structure. The project does not violate the height requirement. Mike Bovenzi They are using a buildup grade, which adds an additional three feet. It is 40 feet and higher on the southern property line. Sandy Holder asked if there was an issue with measuring the grade? Michael Holzmiller said it is measured from every point of the building and the finished grade becomes the point of measurement. Sandy Holder said staff will take a look at that. Mike Bovenzi said he would like a maximum of setbacks that don't intrude. This building sticks out 22 feet further then any other building. They could have put parking below the grade. Michael Holzmiller said the City cannot mandate someone to do underground parking. It is nice to encourage, but cannot be mandated. The City has never forced a property owner or developer to build underground parking. Mike Bovenzi commented they have an option to pay an In-Lieu fee. Sandy Holder said it is not the City's practice. The parking should be on site. Debbie Fountain said west of the railroad tracks they cannot participate in the City's In-Lieu Fee Parking Program. Mike Bovenzi said with underground parking, raised walks don't become an issue. Again Michael Holzmiller said underground parking is not a City requirement. Mike Bovenzi said the entries have a six-foot wall with a three-foot buildup. Anyone walking into the project will have the wall waist high. They should lower the entries with a solid masonry wall to separate between residential and commercial. Both stories are looking into each other's windows. With the way the project is currently proposed, Mr. Bovenzi will have a huge financial loss due to his privacy loss on at least 3 units. Page 4 Again, his issues are: • Privacy loss • Setbacks • Roof decks Sandy Holder explained that staff will discuss these issues with the developer. Then there will be a public hearing where you will be notified that you may attend and share your concerns. Michael Holzmiller said except for interpretation for open space, the Development Standards have been complied with. There are compatibility issues that could potentially be addressed with some of his suggestions. But, the project does not violate the development standards as set forth in the Master Plan. It may not be compatible or be too intense or it would be better with subterranean parking. Because the project is on the edge of a neighborhood with different standards and lower intensity, there are some conflicts. Sandy Holder explained if the developer chooses to go forward, they have the right. There will be a public hearing. Mike Bovenzi said this project has an adverse affect, in his opinion, on the neighborhood. He doesn't have much time to explain this to the City Council when only given 5 minutes. Sandy Holder said that the notes of this meeting will be part of the public record. She also said that staff will meet with the Building Department to go over the access issues. Mike Bovenzi questioned the experience of the inspectors. Sandy Holder assured him the building inspectors are well trained. Esgil is an expert in the field. Mike Bovenzi questioned who he should contact. Sandy Holder indicated that staff would contact him and provide a copy of the notes from the meeting. Mike Bovenzi provided several letters and reports for additional information. Copies of these items are attached to these notes. Page5 ATTACHMENT 1 pP RE: Landscaped Pedestrian Ammenitics l^fffi -frt*y/-w D /20// Subject: RE: Landscaped Pedestrian Amraeiuties D&" ^' From: "Lori Naylor" <taaylor@cosb.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:06:36 -0700 To: "Michael Bovewi" <ibuikihomes@sbcglobat.net> Michael, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, i was on vacation last week. To answer your question, "landscaped pedestrian amenities" does refer to public versus private sp^co. These c<tn include lot»-lying walls for flirting, benches, courtyards, landscape planters, pedestrian pathways, etc. 1 hope this helps. Lori Naylor Principal Planner City of Suiona Beach _, -' 858-720-2444 ^ „ Kraal 1; -Original Message : Michael Bovenzi .. Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:08 W. fo: Lori Maylor Subject: Landscaped Pedestrian Awmeniti-ee Hi tori, I'm having some trouble defining a planning terns commonly uaed and 1 ..„ was wondering if you could give your opinion as to the weaning. The phrase is { landscaped Pedestrian Amenities) so in the development standards it says that 20% of the property mast be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities. What wcnild you venture to think that weans. I've dons alot of checking regarding this phrase, and in th« cities I'v« looked up , combiaed with all literature I've researched, the aseaning I cosne up with is that it refers to public space and not private space. If I had to define it based on the material I've seen it would be public access, gateways and corridors. Anyway I know you've t»esa doing this for years not only in Carlsbad, but, now in Solana Beach, your professional opinion as to what yon think it moans would be greatly appreciated. Michael Bovenzi lofl MS/2005 S:20 AM Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2 A SHARP DESIGN Consultants 1230 Umatlila SriwtM Mar, Calffomla 92014 Phone/Fax aS8-7StOSS5 E-mail dfsharp«*3<Mp|!l3.net Mike Bovenzi 343 Oak Ave, Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-729-8986 ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.iiet July) 6,2005 Dew Mr. Bovenzi, Enclosed is our report resulting from a review and analysis of plans for the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project located at 3112 Lincoln St, Carlsbad, CA 92008. The plans we received from you are dated November 30,2003, with owner listed as Russell Lee Bennett and developer listed as Karnak Planning & Design, Paul Longton, Architect and Robert Richardson, Planner. We have reviewed the plans, per your request, for access compliance for persons with disabilities, using The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, California Multi-Family Disabled Access Regulations, Title 24 of the California State Building Code, and the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 to make our findings. fn our opinion, there are features of the design as presented that do not meet required standards for access for persons with disabilities, especially those for parking and accessible route of travel We hope you will share this information with the City of Carlsbad in the most appropriate manner, since the possibility of city liability may exist if the project is built as planned. In view of recent major lawsuits involving multi-family projects (one of which is in Carlsbad)* we suggest that great care be token with the design of new projects to ensure they meet or go beyond the minimum requirements of the law. Sincerely, *See enclosed copy of San Diego Union-Tribune article, June 26,2005 Page? ATTACHMENT 3 Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project: Plan Review for Access by Persons With Disabilities A Sharp Design Consultants July 2005 General The project is a building with a combination of public retail space including parking, Mid six multistory dwelling units with private garages and guest parking. Multistory Dwelling Units An access feature in the form of a residential elevator has been incorporated into the design of two of the units. These elevators provide access from their garage level to the first and second floors of the two units, in this case, the first level above the garage now becomes the "ground floor" of the two units, and since it is accessible, the regulations for "accessible and adaptable" ground floor units should apply. Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Section 1102A. 13 Definition "Groundfloors are any floors containing a building entrance on an accessible route. When the first floor containing duelling units is a floor above grade, all units on that floor are considered grotmdjloor units and shall be accessible and adaptable," Title 24, CCR, Section U07M Exception "When an elevator serves a story of a multistory unit, such story shall he accessible and shall contain an accessible and adaptable Bathroom or Powder Room usable to a person in a wheelchair," Each of.the accessible units has a bathroom on the first floor served by its elevator. No dimensions or details were given for these bathrooms, but they appear to be unusable by someone in a wheelchair. No indication is given of the 30* X 48" clear space required at each bathroom facility. Another question raised by the two accessible units is that they appear to have no access to the common walkway serving the other units, fa general, all common areas must be accessible to accessible unite, Title 24, CCK, Section 110SA Public or Common Use Areas "All public and common use areas that serve adaptable dwelling units shall be accessible." Also, it appears that the only accessible entrance to the two units is through the garage and residential elevator; the main entrance to the units is only accessible by stairs. This creates a situation where a resident of the accessible unit who uses a wheelchair must always enter and leave through the building garage and driveway, even when not traveling by car. There appears to be no separation of safe pedestrian path of travel from Page 8 the accessible entrance on the unit that is separate from the vehicular way entering the common parking area of the building, See Title 24, CCR Section 1J07A.2.1 Accessible Route of Travel "When a building, or portion of a building is required to be accessible or adaptable, an accessible route oftravelmv.it be provided to all portions of the bvilding, to accessible building entrances and between the building and the public way." Definition: Accessible Route of Travel: Is a continuous unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and spaces in an accessible building or facility that can be negotiated by a person with a severe disability using a wheelchair and thai is also safe for and usable by persons with other disabilities, and that is also consistent with the definition of "path of travel". Definition: Path of Travel: A passage that may consist of walks and sidewalks, curb ramps and pedestrian ramps, lobbies, corridors, elevators, other improved areas, or a necessary combination thereof, that provides free and unobstructed access to and egress front apartictilar area or location for pedestrians and/orwheelchair• users. Definition: Vehicular Way: A route intended for vehicular traffic, such as a street, driveway or parking lot. Public Retail Space and Parking This part of the project must comply with Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Accornodations) and the 200 J California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume I. Parking The one van-accessible public parking space has the access aisle located on the wrong side. The access aisle lacks the required "NO PARKING" stencil in the aisle. There are no details showing the required signage for accessible parking. See Title 24, CCR, Section 1J29B, Accessible Parking Required, L129B.4.1, !J29B.4.2t andADA4,L2(5)(b) Accessible Route The retail space "shell" shown on the plan has aft entrance/exit on the north side in addition to the main entrance at the corner. This north entrance appears to be on a route that changes level by means of steps in the path of travel. An accessible path of travel from the public way must be provided to this entrance. See Title 24, CCR, Section 1133B, General Accessibility for Entrances, Exits and Paths ofTravel We noted that the plan sheet CGP-1 shows a * ramp" offset from the center of the comer sidewalk. There is no detail provided, but it appears that if this is a pedestrian curb ramp, it is non-compliant A compliant pedestrian curb ramp is required at each comer of street Page 9 intersections and where a pedestrian way crosses a curb. Curb ramps shall have detectable warnings extending the full width and depth of the curb ramp, See Title 24, CCR, Section 1127B, Curb Ramps, ADA 4.29.2 Conclusion In our opinion, tbis project is an example of a missed opportunity. Tine principles of Universal Design could have been incorporated into the design from the beginning, and could have been done with little additional difficulty or expense. This would benefit the City of Carlsbad by increasing the stock of housing available to and usable by persons with disabilities, and add market value to all of the proposed dwelling units. As our population continues to age, the demand for accessible housing continues to increase. The desire of homeowners to be able to age in place is growing, and is already putting accessible housing at a premium. Wise developers and public entities are taking advantage of this trend and reaping the resulting benefits. Dennis Sharp A Sharp Design Consultants Page 10 ATTACHMENT 4 Date Ms, Deborah Fountain Director CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2965 Roosevelt St. Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30 LINCOLN AND OAK. MIXED USB PROJECT Dear Ms. Fountain: Attached to this letter please find a petition of sij^iatures of properly owners and residents in the vicinity of the above-referenced proposed project. We are taking this opportunity to make you aware that we find ourselves in OPPOSITION to the project. The reasons for our opposition are as follows: 1. Height - The project has been designed to the maximum height limit, and further includes roof decks for recreation purposes on the top of the sbnuotures. These features result in buildings that are severely out of scale and perspective with the much lower structures in the neighborhood, will result in a significant loss of privacy to neighboring lots, and is contrary to the Village Redevelopment Design Manual requirement for common landscaped recreation areas and landscaped pedestrian amenities. 2. Oak .St. SetbaA - The setback proposed along Oak St is significantly less (approximately 50% of) than the setback for all existing and planned residential units along Oak St. We believe that this reduced setback will result in »tight, enclosed and unattractive streetscape along our street. It certainly will not enhance the existing residential area. 3. Intensity of Project - The Village Design Manual guidelines recoiwnend that projects include landscaping amenities and contain a strong pedestrian orientation. It is our conclusion that the project possesses minimal landscaping and does not contain the required strong pedestrian orientation. The project is dearly not in compliance with the Carlsbad Landscape Manual requirement for a minimum 20% landscaped open space. 4- .SSaiMQgJWajJs.. - The project proposes up to 8-fooi retaining walls along the south property line. Presumably an additional wall or fence (as required by the Design Manual) will be placed on the top of this retaining wall. We conclude that the visual impact of this high wall face font the adjacent property and from Lincoln St. will be sorely unattractive. This retaining wall is a result of the chosen product and the requirement for rear pedestrian entry to the units. An alternative building design (including perhaps a reduction in the size of the units) could eliminate these impacting walls. Again, these walls are a good indicator of the project proponent's over-building of the property. Pa8e" We have been in contact with the developer's representatives in order to make them aware of our concerns with the project. Unfortunately the developer has indicated his unwillingness to take our concerns seriously. Minor effort at design changes here and there have not m our opinion, resulted in improvements in the areas of concern articulated atwve. We are reasonable people and believe that the landowner has rights to develop his property. And we encourage him to do so, but it must be within the context of the Village Design Manual guidelines. It is our collective conclusion that the project is simply too dense, too massive, with too large of units, on too small a property, and is not in compliance with the Design Manual in several respects, particularly those referenced above. We can provide a detailed analysis of this non-compliance if requested We wanted to make you aware of our concerns at this relatively early stage of development processing, in order that our concerns may be addressed if City Slaff desires. We are prepared to provide an organized presentation in opposition at the public hearings for the project. Sincerely, Mike Boverwi 343 Oak Ave Carlsbad, €a 92008 (760) 729-8986 Page 12 RECEIVED 3 - MAR 23 ... .._..] 2006 Legall ••> ec- l! IS! ues All Receive For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL- AsstCMJ/jCAj£cC S Date 3-24 City Manager designer For the Record I filed a legal complaint with the State of California this week Regarding Karnak Design. Fact Robert Richardson of Karnak Design is not a licensed Architect. He is Designing the Lincoln Oak Mixed use project. The attached sheets containing state law relate to state violations. (Fact) Four years ago we hired Karnak to design our project and he Claimed to be an Architect. 6 months and 15,000 later after he had done basically nothing we fired him. Only recently did we discover that he was not an architect. (Fact) Karnaks original submittals for Lincoln Oak contain an Architect Paul Longtons State Stamp. Paul is Actually my Architect and when I told him this he immediately went to Robert Richardsons office. Needless to say the Stamp was no longer used. (I have the plans if you would like to see them) He then had no stamp for months, then recently an engineers stamp that is unsigned appeared. The paper trail explains it all though. (Fact) The new condos just completed at 3416 Garfield that took 3 years to build. Why, because Robert Richardson told the owner he was an Architect to get the Job and apparently screwed up so many things the job was hatted for long periods of time. CT- 01-111 attached the plans and you can see the applicant name as Karnak Architecture I'm not sure how the plans got through planning, the building department and esgil corporation, (illegal) (Fact) He Lied to the design Review board when he told them that I graded my property 2 feet lower then I should have and that he had to make emergency overnight adjustments to his plan which justify the extreme wall heights. ( See attachment from my Licensed surveyor.. .I'm within 2 inches. (Fact) The Redevelopment Department Required Mr Richardson and property owner Russ Bennett in good faith to meet with adjacent property owners and to get their opinions in writing before the Redevelopment office would make a decision. Not 1 meeting ever took place with Richardson, the property owner or any adjacent property owners 28 property owners to be exact ( bad Faith ) Richardson Lied to the Design review board when he said that the property owner offered to pay for our wall. The real facts are, Mr Richardson of Karnak Design is not a licensed Architect nor has he ever been one not only is he deceiving the general public, but deceiving the City. I filed a legal complaint with the State license Board this week after I had an extensive conversation with the code violation department who will pursue this matter. Once he's sited, there could be the possibility of an internal investigation according to the State License board. The City of Carlsbad has the obligation to enforce State laws, however How would you know it had been broken. ( Copy of letter to Debbie Fountain last summer I told her see attachment) Mr. Russ Bennett property owner, probably never would have hired Richardson to design his project, especially since State Law Prohibits an unlicensed person for entering into a contract for a project in which they are not allowed to design by law. The City of Carlsbad Knowing that Richardson is operating without a license and in clear violation of State Law on this project not to mention 2 other projects that we know about, shares a certain amount of liability. Ignoring State law and allowing an unlicensed person to operate freely within the planning , building, and engineering departments on multiple Jobs that Require a State license may, cause some additional liability issues not in favor of the city. Really, why is the City force feeding the neighborhood this Nightmare of a project, especially in lieu of all the public information provided, including private analysis, Development standard violations, an unlicensed Architect, a junior planner going un supervised according to city policy on a major development permit, 10 foot perimeter walls in violation of policy 21 not to mention all the other violations that will be brought up at the meeting. Council has the obligation to do what's right enforce the standards, enforce state law, and protect the citizens that ultimately voted you into office. Is it to much to but to do the right thing. Is it possible for once that a project in the Redevelopment Zone has issues. Re: lincoln oak mixed use project Subject: Re: lincoln oak mixed use project From: Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobaLnet> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:59:45 -0700 To: Debbie Fountain<Dfoun@cLcarlsbad.ca.us> CC: shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us, Cliff Jones <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, Rharl@ci.carlsbad.ca.us, jgaru@ci.Carlsbad.ca.us, ron@rdadesigns.com, mwyatt@san.rr.com Debbie, For the record, there is no project Architect. Robert Richardson from karnak is not an Architect. Paul Longton whos stamp was on the plans is an Architect, but in my recent discussions with Paul Longton ( Architect) he was un aware that Robert Richardson was using his stamp and infact was supposed to be in touch with Robert from karnak and your office to tell you that. State Law requires that any one designing a project that includeds commercial to be a licensed Architect. Robert from Karnak is not an Arcitech, therefore there is no project Architect which is required by California State Law. I'm not sure what other project issues your working on as the entire project as a whole has major design Flaws which basically means they should scrap the project and start from the beginning. I also have another objective Analysis from another large planning firm that mirrors the one that Hofman and associates did. I will share that at a later time if it becomes necessary, but it's not my job to plan check projects. I also received an additional detailed Analysis regarding some other important issues regarding the project that are State law that have been completely overlooked which I will share at a later time should it become necessary. Also someone better check with the UCC building code book as well, because there are a couple of other major issues ( State Laws) that affect the design that have also been completely over looked which I will share at a later time should it become necessary. Bottom line is, is that the Housing and Redevelopment Office staff does not have the proper training or expertise to conduct thorough plan checks and they should all be done at the City of Carlsbads Faraday office. The other items I mentioned change the project in a way that make it not possible according to the current plan currently on record but noone in your office has a clue what they are, even though they are isssues regarding State Law that have been completely overlooked by ALL which further demonstrates that the Carlsbad Redevelopment office is unable to perform proper plan checks not to mention the fact that the Development Standards for the Village aren't being enforced and to a great extent overlooked. Regards Michael Bovenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: Staff and the project architect have met with the HOA rep for the Monterey Condos. Cliff met with Dennis. We are working on project issues raised during these meetings. On the other projects you mentioned, they met the development standards and the land use requirements. They were recommended for approval by staff and the Design Review Board, and then ultimately approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission (City Council) following public hearings. As mentioned in my last e-mail, you are welcome to review all of the project files to obtain any additional information you require. Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> .08/01/05 8:19 PM >» I of 5 3/22/2006 10:39 UNLICENSED PERSONS LIMITED TO THE DESIGN OF Multiple dwellings containing no more than four dwelling units of wood frame construction not more than two stories and basement in height. Not more than four dwelling units per lot. (See State Law Below) Garages or other structures appurtenant to dwellings, of wood frame construction not more than 2 stories and basement in height. (See State Law Below) CALIFORNIA STATE LAW BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE UNLICENSED PERSONS § 5537 Exemptions; Dwellings, Ganges, Agricultural and Ranch Buildings; Supervision of Licensed Architect or Registered Engineer Required (a) This chapter does not prohibit any person from preparing plans, drawings, or specifications for any of the Mowing: (1) Single-family dwellings of woodftame construction not more than two stones and basement in height. (2) Multiple dwellings containing no WOK than four dwelling units of woodframe construction not more than two stones and basement in height. However, Ibis paragraph shall not be construed as allowing an unlicensed person to design multiple clusters of up to four dwelling units each to form apartment or condominium complexes where the total exceeds four units on any lawfully divided lot. (3) Garages or other sttudures appurtenant to buM^ more than two stones and basement m height. (4) Agncdtural and raini buildings of wwdfran^ an undue risk to the public health, safety, or welfare is involved. (b) If any portion of any structure exempted by this section deviates from substantial compliance with conventional framing requirements for woodframe construction found in the most recent edition of Tide 24 of die California Code of Regulations or tables of limitation for woodframe construction, as defined by the applicable building code duly adopted by the local jurisdiction or Ae state, the building official having jurisdiction shall require die preparation of plans, CALIFORNIA STATE LAW BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE ARCHITECTS PRACTICE ACT § 5582 Aiding Unlawful Practice The fact that the holder of a license has sided or abetted in the practice of architecture any person not authorized to practice architecture under the provisions of this chapter, constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. § 55S2.1 Signing Other's Plans or Instruments: Permitting Misuse of Name (a) The fact that the holder of a license has affixed his or her signature to plans, drawings, specifications, or other instruments of service which have not been prepared by him or her, or under his or her responsible control constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. (b) The fact that the holder of a license has permitted his or her name to be used for the purpose of assisting any person to evade the provisions of this chapter constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. § 5527 Injunction Whenever any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or which •mil constitute an offense against this chapter, the superior court of the county in which the offense lias occurred or is about to occur, on application of the board, may issue an injunction or other appropriate order restraining such act or practice. The proceedings authorized by tins section shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. § 5536 Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect; Misdemeanor (a) It is' 3 misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), of by impnsoraneat in a county jat! cot exceeding one year, or by both, that fine and imprisonment, for any person who is cot licensed to practice architecture under this chapter, to jk^tic« architectBre Wi this state, to use any term' otofusffigly sauilar to tfe wo«i arcfeiteeta to'use &e sbaois of a licensed aretnleeC as. f^o%;ife$'ii^ctK^''S53Cl);'or to advertise or put out any sign, card, or other device feat might indicate to the public that he or she is an architect that he or she is qualified to engage in the practice of architecture, or that lie or she is an architectural designer. (b) It is- a assdeaieanor, punishable as specified m st&division (a), for any.^ssoft'.tifis-'is-Bj^.li^a^d.-to1 practice architecture nadertbab chapter to affix a stamp <*r seal vftutk bears ike legend ^Staite of Cslifi3a3aia." op^swtfe or symbols that represent of imply thai the person is so licensed by the state to prepare plans, specifications, or instruments ef service. (c) It is a misdemeanor, punishable as specified in subdi\isioa (a), for any person to advertise or represent that he or she is a "registered building designer" or is registered or otherwise licensed by the state as a building designer. § 5536.1 Signature and Stamp oil Plans and Documents; Unauthorized Practice; Misdemeanor (a) All persons preparing or being in responsible control of plans, specifications, and instruments of service for others shall sign those plans, specifications, and instruments of service and all contracts therefor, and if licensed under this chapter shall affix a stamp, which complies with subdivision (b), to those plans, specifications, and instruments of service, as evidence of the person's responsibility for those documents. Failure of any person to comply with this subdivision is a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 5536. Tins section shall not apply to employees of persons licensed under this chapter while acting within the course of their employment. (b) For the purposes of this chapter, any stamp used by any architect licensed under this chapter shall be of a design authorized by the board which shall at a minimum bear the licensee's name, his or her license number, the lesend "licensed architect" and the legend "Stare of California." and which shall provide a means of indicating the renewal date of the license. (c) The preparation of plans, specifications, or mstrumeats of service for any building, except the buildings described in Section 5537. by any person who is not licensed to practice architecture in tins state, is 3 misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 5536. (d) The board may adopt regulations necessary for the implementation of this section. RECEIVED Coastal COASTAL LAND SOLUTIONS 573 Second Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Ph (760) 230-6025 Fax (760) 230-6026 December 2,2005 City of Carlsbad - Public Works Engineering Construction Management and Inspection 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Pad Certification for CT 04-18 - 335 Oak Avenue To Whom It May Concern: This letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced property. I hereby state that the pad elevation was measured on December 1,2005. The following list provides the pad elevation as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Per Plan 47.1' Pad Elevation Per Field Measurement 46.9' If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, i C. EnglerClLS. 7959 COASTAL LAND SOLUTIONS, INC. Lincoln Oak Mixed Use The point I was trying to make at the city Council meeting last night was the fact that the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project still to this day has not been plan checked properly which is especially clear if you have read the neutral Analysis form Bill Hofinan and Eric Munoz from Hofrnan Planning and Associates and Paul Klukus from Planning systems. The city of Carlsbad Class Specification with the job title Assistant Planner is attached if you would like to reference it. Cliff Jones ( Assistant Planner ) of the Housing and Redevelopment Department is not a qualified planner and is at the entry level of the professional planning series (see attachment) Although all of the preliminary letters have Van Lynch on them, in my discussions with Mr. Lynch, he never cracked open the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. He said it wasn't his job to do so and that his job was to review the plans to make sure that they were consistent with section 21.45 of the Carlsbad municipal code only. So back to the question as to who is checking Cliff Jones (assistant planners ) work ???? Exactly No one. According to the City of Carlsbad Cliff Jones (Assistant Planner) his position reports to a Senior Planner or Principal Planner. SO who has he been reporting to???? No one Debbie Fountain, Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Department has many responsibilities, however Debbie Fountain is not a Senior Planner or Principal. What I'm saying is that no-one is perfect nor are they expected to be so. I for one have made many mistakes, however I acknowledge my mistakes and make every effort to correct the decisions that I have made that are in error. The Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project is foil of plan check mistakes that I have been bringing to their attention for well over a year now however I have handfuls of E mails from both Cliff Jones and Debbie Fountain saying " we will continue to work with the developer regarding your concerns " Have they made any changes?? No... well actually they did make one change, the perimeter wall went from 6 feet to almost 11 feet on the southerly property line and 9 feet high on the easterly line. At the Design Review Board Meeting, they told Cliff Jones and the Designer that they had to get together with the two property owners to solve the wall issue. Have they ??? No I did contact Cliff Jones Regarding this a few weeks ago since no-one contacted me and he said that he has been meaning to call me Ok, Right.. .whatever. We had a rather lengthy phone conversation regarding the walls, and he said that they are not going to change the walls, but that I can recommend some plants along the property line. As you can see, the Housing and Redevelopment is not even holding accountable the wall height issue which was required by the design review board. (its all in the minutes if you would like a copy) So here we are with a project that has not been plan checked properly with major design issues like Retaining Walls Heights, Building Set Backs, Building Coverage, Privacy Loss to Adjacent residential, Open space defined as Landscaped Pedestrian amenities, Ground floor parking, height, and required meetings that never took place, a designer who is illegally designing the structure according the State Laws of California , title 24 for access and a assistant planner who even according to the city is supposed to report to a Senior or Principal Planner which hasn't happened. I'm spending a great Deal of money, much of which is going to the city of Carlsbad for multiple uses. Not only on my current project, but phase 2 next door to my existing project. It would only seem fair that any Developments whether they are mine, the person down the street, or the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use project, but it's only fair that all Developments meet the criteria outlined in the standards regardless of the Zone. The Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project does not meet development standards and some major plan check errors has been made. These mistakes are going to cost me a great deal of money and will substantially lower the resale value of my currently approved project not to mention the effect this will have on the adjacent property to the south. We are not anti Development by any means and we do know a project will be built, However all that we ask is that the current project meet the design standards as they were intended. I strongly feel that the extreme financial burden this places on adjacent properties is a potentially liable situation for the city. It doesn't have to be so. All I'm asking is the Council to make the right decision and either make the developer correct some of the major design standard deviations or at the least, have the project properly plan checked by qualified individuals. Approval of the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project sends a clear view to citizen's and neighbors that the very council that we voted in to office is not looking out for our best interest. I would like to think that's not true and would very much like to think that Council is looking after our best interest for my confidence as well as many others has not yet be lost. Regards Michael Bovenzi CITY OF CARLSBAD CLASS SPECIFICATION JOB TITLE; ASSISTANT PLANNER DEPARTMENT; PLANNING DEPARTMENT BASIC FUNCTION; Under direction, to perform entry-level professional work of moderate difficulty related to current and/or advance planning, and redevelopment programs; and to do related work as assigned. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: This is the entry level of the professional planner series. This class may be distinguished from the next higher class of Associate Planner by the level of difficulty and complexity of work performed, and the level of independent work skills required. Incumbents in this class perform a variety of professional tasks of moderate difficulty with a minimum of supervision. Work is normally reviewed on completion and for overall results. KEY RESPONSIBILITIES; (These are representative duties and the emphasis on certain duties will vary depending on the job assignment.) Review and analyze development proposals. Conduct environmental review for development proposals. Prepare, and may present staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. Coordinate review and analysis of development proposals with other City departments. Conduct basic research and prepare detailed reports and studies. Confer with engineers, lawyers, contractors, architects, realtors, and the general public regarding code interpretation and project conditions. Analyze and summarize compiled data and present them in the form of reports, tables or statistical analysis. Conduct field inspections. Assistant Planner, Page 3 of 3 Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with City officials and employees, the general public and representatives of other agendas. Properly interpret and make decisions in accordance with state, federal and municipal planning laws, and department policies and procedures. EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION; Any combination equivalent to experience and education that could likely provide the required knowledge, skill- and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills and abilities would be: One year of professional or paraprofessional planning related work experience. Equivalent to a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university, with major work in planning, architecture, geography, public administration, community development, urban design or related field. A master's degree in planning, public administration, business administration or related field is desirable. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid California Driver's License may be required for some positions. PHYSICAL STANDARDS; Positions in this class are typically situated in a standard office environment resulting in little exposure to the weather and requiring no unusual physical abilities. General Employee Salary Schedule General Employees Salary Ranges Benefits City of Carlsbad General Employee Benefits Assistant Planner, Page 2 of 3 Assume responsibility for moderately complex projects or significant portions of complex projects involving land use, population structure, economic activities, housing, transportation and related subjects. Represent the City on various planning technical committees. Assist in the coordination of program activities with other City departments and divisions, and with outside agencies. Assist in the training of, and assume lead responsibility over, one or more interns, paraprofessionals, aides or technicians. Provide information to the general public at the development processing counter. REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS; This position reports to a Senior Planner and/or Principal Planner and does not supervise. QUALIFICATIONS: Knowledge of; Basic principles of current planning. Site planning and architectural design. Basic relationships among federal, state and local planning programs. Current literature, information sources, and research techniques in the field of urban planning. Skills in; Public contact. Report preparation and presentation. Short and long range planning. Ability to; Communicate dearly and concisely, orally and in writing. Collect and analyze data and develop complex plans and reports. Learn and apply computer applications. Resource Development Corporation CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING 2410 Stromberg Circle, Carlsbad, CA 92008 TEL: (760) 942-1106 FAX: (760) 730-3059 Email: brian@rdc2000.com March 27, 2006 Page 1 of 2 City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project RP 04-11, CDP 04-30, CT 05-03 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, All Receive-Agenda Item # "L-- For lie Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Asst CMj/CA >/CC Date 3/Zy City Manager 8OEOSEO^E MAR CITYO CITYCL 2 8 2006 F CARLSBADERK'S OFFICE "- \ Ul To I am the Civil Engineer of record for the project presently under construction immediately adjacent to the east of the above referenced project (Ocean Mist Condominiums, CT 04-18, CDP 04-36) owned by Sandra Bovenzi and represented by Michael Bovenzi. At the request of my clients, I have reviewed the project conceptual plans for the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project and have specifically looked at the proposed ground level elevations proposed on the plans as represented on the Tentative Map and Conceptual Grading Plan. Mr. Bovenzi requested my review of the plans and elevations specifically to review with him his concern that the finish floor and ground level grades are higher than necessary for the project to function with respect to drainage and sewer issues, and that the higher elevations create un-necessary privacy issues for the adjacent properties to the east and south. I am very familiar with the existing conditions at the Bovenzi site and the adjacent surrounding properties. My firm has provided and recent aerial topographic survey of the project site and surrounding properties as a normal part of our design efforts for the Bovenzi and I have personally visited the adjacent properties. I have provided grading and drainage design for the Bovenzi project, including designing finish grades, storm drain elevations and sewer elevations for that project. As a result of my specific knowledge of the Bovenzi site and my review of the proposed referenced project, I agree with Mr. Bovenzi's opinion that the Lincoln/Oak project is designed at elevations that are higher than necessary by at least two feet and possibly as much as three feet. The Ocean Mist project was designed to keep the yard grades along the westerly boundary at or near the existing ground elevations adjacent to the Lincoln/Oak project. Surface drainage (including storm water management features) and sewer elevations function well with the yards at these elevations. In my opinion, based on my limited review of the Lincoln/Oak plans, that project could be lowered so that the exterior spaces along the westerly and southerly boundaries could be maintained at or near the existing grades, rather than three feet above as indicated on the concept plans. Stair steps to Lincoln Avenue at the southwesterly corner and Oak Avenue at the northeasterly corner could be eliminated or minimized, and surface drainage could be achieved at a minimum slope to a high point at the southeasterly corner very near the existing elevation and the adjacent Ocean Mist project yard elevations. This would cause two favorable results: 1) the adjacent grades along the Lincoln/Oak easterly boundary would be lowered enough so that the proposed 6 foot privacy fence would provide a real 6 foot privacy barrier rather than a three foot barrier as proposed that would look directly into the Ocean Mist westerly yards; and 2) the proposed 9 foot fence along the southerly boundary would be reduced to about 6 feet high. March 27, 2006 Page 2 of 2 It had been my intention to appear in person at the scheduled March 28, 2006 hearing to make these comments in person and to be available to answer questions regarding these issues, and I wish I could do so as Mr. Bovenzi has requested. I have a commitment to meet with a group of parents planning the Carlsbad High School Band's upcoming trip to Washington DC and for this reason I cannot attend the Redevelopment Commission hearing. I would urge the Commission to take one of two actions with respect to these issues: 1) either reject the staff's proposed approval of the project and request that the applicant re-design the project so that the proposed lower level grades are much closer to the existing grades, or 2) postpone your possible approval of the project so that the applicant can specifically explain why the apparently higher elevations are necessary and give Mr. Bovenzi a chance to review those issues with me. As always, I respect your dedication to the quality of life and development in the City of Carlsbad and as a City resident I appreciate your time and effort very much. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Brian Donald Project Engineer PROOF OF PUBLIC TION (2010 & 2011C.C.P.) This space is f the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: thMarch 17in,2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California Proof of Publication of '8MSH§®Si%6RB? •w^v- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad- Housing & Redevelopment Commission willhold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers,1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at6:00 PM on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, to consider ap-proval of a request tor a Major Redevelopment Permit(RP 04-11). Coastal Development Permit fCDP 04-30),and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) to allow the con-struction of a mixed-use development project consisting,of.six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet ofretail space on the property located at 3112 LincolnStreet and 325 Oak Avenue (APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15) in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are-••-.•-. :_..!! i » **„„,! tK« rt,,Kli^ haarinn |f you h3V6 ""iff report,Redevel- uwvelopment wcunTn,,w,,i vSuite B"Carlsbad, CA 92008 As a result of the environmental review under the Cali-fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Envi-ronmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbadthe Housing & Redevelopment Department has deter. --. ,.-.»» :—, ;„ ^^,^nr,r;^ihl ovomnl frnnri the pursuant to econ oas an infill development project. The Housing & Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval othe publivelopmen ommissonthe environmental determination during hearing. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment PerCoastal Development Permit, and/or Tentative TCoastal Development i-«niiii anwui lo,,,u,,.^ ......Map in court, you may be limited to raising, only those Byou or someone else raised at the public hearing>ed in this notice or in written correspondence de-to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office, 1200Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE NO.: RP04-1 1/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 CARLSBAD HOUSING &REDEVELOPMENTA*\aXU10C*U-k*l 7thThis 17 , Day of March, 2006 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Stephen & Sherryl Ford 3869 Woodvale Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Bernard & Marina Goldstein 160 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phyllis M Hall 4046 Garfield St Carlsbad, CA 92008 Gofat Lie 160 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Gofat L L C 160 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Gofat L L C 160 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Bernard & Marina Goldstein 160 Tamarack Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Thomas D & Lucinda Vigne 3880 Hibiscus Cir Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert L & Elaine Nielsen 355 Carlsbad Villagedr A Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert L Nielsen 525 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Glenn L Goldman 2653 Roosevelt St D Carlsbad, CA 92008 Robert L Nielsen 525 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Albert & Sandra Bovenzi 3668 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad Inn L L C 5900 Pasteur Ct 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad Inn L L C 5900 Pasteur Ct 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ocean Mist Lie 343 Oak Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Eric L & Darlene Fink 347 Pine Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Roxanne A Cuba 341 Pine Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dana K Grace 335 Pine Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Grant Holdings L L C 7173ObeliscoCir Carlsbad, CA 92009 Gary C & Debra Cruse 7927 Code Carolina Carlsbad, CA 92009 Mccabe 6489 Franciscan Rd Carlsbad, CA 92009 Sarah Rogers 2912 Avenida Valera Carlsbad, CA 92009 Butchko *M* 2763 Victoria Ave Carlsbad, CA 92010 David K & Beverly Woodward 3413CorvallisSt Carlsbad, CA 92010 Lance B & Kathleen Schulte 7386 Escallonia Ct Carlsbad, CA 92011 Daniel & Colleen Soto PO Box 353 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Fletcher POBox 1925 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Rose Laski PO Box 2686 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Mark Stone PO Box 4485 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Southland Corp PO Box 711 Dallas, TX 75221 Mildred B Guernsey 1232NdAve607 Salt Lake City, UT84103 Paul & Guste Eriksen 1201 W860N Provo, UT 84604 Russell Lee Bennett L L C 6039 E Mariposa St Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Daniel Wiehle 2148 S Pearl Dr Camp Verde, AZ 86322 David & Peggy Mccullough 25 Vaquero Cir Sedona, AZ 86351 Michael T Marshall 5256 Pizzo Ranch Rd La Canada Fli.CA 91011 Trent 2429 Windward Cir Westlake Village, CA 91361 Orexciv L L C 12411 Ventura Blvd Studio City, CA 91604 Orexciv L L C 12411 Ventura Blvd Studio City, CA 91604 Thomas D & Marie Bitonti 536 N Mission Dr San Gabriel, CA91775 Thomas Bitonti 536 N Mission Dr San Gabriel, CA91775 Thomas D & Marie Bitonti 536 N Mission Dr San Gabriel, CA91775 Vera G Morin 10952 Morning Star Dr La Mesa, CA 91941 Swanson A & Lavon Ritter 4060 Syme Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Steven & Margaret Macpherson 1277 Forest Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Bradshaw 4376 Horizon Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Frank E & Patricia Maldonado 4213 Beach Bluff Rd Carlsbad, CA 92008 Frank E & Patricia Maldonado 4213 Beach Bluff Rd Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dorothy K Johnson 3140 Lincoln St Carlsbad, CA 92008 Inciyan 3076 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92008 Patrick A & Pascale Lucier 3080 Lincoln St 5 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Judy A Mikovits 3080 Lincoln St 14 Carlsbad, CA 92008 David & Camille Derk 3080 Lincoln St 18 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sue Hockett 3080 Lincoln St 24 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Stephen & Maria Frost 3080 Lincoln St 26 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sami R & Tania Nassar *B* 3217GarfieldSt Carlsbad, CA 92008 James A Demott 3259 Lincoln St Carlsbad, CA 92008 California Property Brokers Ltd 3324 Seacrest Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Matthew Hall 2604 El Camino Real 334 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Bennett Russell Lee L L C 951 Neptune Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 Scott D & Linda Cordes *M* 315 S Coast Highway 101 U106 Encinitas, CA 92024 John T & Cathy Krajewski 230 S Orange Ave Fallbrook, CA 92028 Thomas F & Gayle Hodges 19988 Lake Dr Escondido, CA 92029 San Katrina L L C 7136 Vista Del Mar Ave La Jolla, CA 92037 Virginia L Gipner 1508 Mountain View Ave Oceanside, CA 92054 Dennis R & Jean Bauern 3149 Coachman Ct Oceanside, CA 92056 Voertman 3341 Terrace Ln Oceanside, CA 92056 Beatrice H Nelson 287 Robin Ln Oceanside, CA 92057 Suder *B* 13820 Eagles Nest Sta Poway, CA 92064 Charlotte L Thatcher PO Box 5000 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Harry Mellano PO Box 100 San Luis Rey, CA 92068 Harry M & Sharon Mellano PO Box 100 San Luis Rey, CA 92068 Margaret I & Stanley Potter 856 Seabright Ln Solana Beach, CA 92075 Stanley G & Margaret Potter 856 Seabright Ln Solana Beach, CA 92075 Cypress Cove Apts L P 1322 Scott St 201 San Diego, CA92106 Eugene H Siegel 5553 Trinity Way San Diego, CA 92120 Wga Pine Avenue 9252 Chesapeake Dr100 San Diego, CA92123 Milton Wyatt 17160 BoteroDr San Diego, CA92127 Bill & Julianne Deen 11808 Rancho Bernardo Rd 123-1 San Diego, CA 92128 Julianne Deen 11808 Rancho Bernardo Rd 123-1 San Diego, CA92128 Nancy L Kaupp-Warner 30175 Via De La Mesa Temecula, CA 92591 Gary A Cringan 30195 Via DeLa Mesa Temecula, CA 92591 Baumgartner PO Box 1333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Suzanne Heyne 998 Church St 23 Ventura, CA 93001 Tr Lopez 3718 San Remo Dr Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Jeffery Haag 820 Park Row 416 Salinas, CA 93901 Estelle Dunham 1956 Heidelberg Dr Livermore, CA 94550 Johns 6565 Birch Dr Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Quinn A Krekorian 5950 SW Elm Ave Beaverton, OR 97005 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® OCCUPANT 201 OAKAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY OCCUPANT 3134 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5160® OCCUPANT A 335 OAKAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 341 OAKAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 3160 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 336PINEAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 3076 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 354 OAKAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 1 3080LINCOLNST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 2 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 3 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 4 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 6 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 7 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 8 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 9 3080LINCOLNST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 10 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 11 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 12 3080LINCOLNST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 13 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 15 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 16 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 17 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 18 3080LINCOLNST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 19 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 20 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 21 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 22 3080LINCOLNST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 24 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 25 3080LINCOLNST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ^ A via AW AH3AV-OD-008-L 9O9iS »ueqe6 a| zes||ijn^0 i =1 Ron-vac a la aftminswiiiiiB iiniccairlnii Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® OCCUPANT 26 3080LINCOLNST CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® OCCUPANT 27 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 28 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 29 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 30 3080 LINCOLN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 avasiuvo 6ZIS N_lQQNQ08Qe_ iNVdnooo ,»091S iNVdnooo 800S6 VO 1OOMI1 080C nooo avasidvo nwanooo^-\ 0> AMlAV-OSHMW-l aniripi afimrvw P la afipunnnnup NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, to consider approval of a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04- 11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) to allow the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue (APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15) in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Cliff Jones in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008. As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Housing & Redevelopment Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. The Housing & Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and/or Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 PUBLISH: March 17, 2006 CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ^',x %W> S\ Vs x,-\ f% \ /^ X\ ,-^-- / \ -• vf /' X K/^xX^X x,,.-' ;x\\ s^'s SITE LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, to consider approval of a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04- 11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) to allow the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue (APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15) in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Cliff Jones in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008. As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Housing & Redevelopment Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. The Housing & Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and/or Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 PUBLISH: March 17, 2006 CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION S/TE LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, to consider approval of a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 04-11), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-30), and Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-03) to allow the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue (APN: 203-260-14 & 203-260-15) in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact Cliff Jones in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. You may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008. As a result of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Housing & Redevelopment Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. The Housing & Redevelopment Commission will be considering approval of the environmental determination during the public hearing. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and/or Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE NO.: RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 PUBLISH: March 17, 2006 CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SITE LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 iRay Patchett-Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, and Michael Bovenzi A11 _ . Page 1:-~*- •• ,^^^**~^^ . ..,...,,,,ws..,.,.,^r..,,.....»,.......,,;...^..,.,....:... ..a For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL From: Debbie Fountain C^V.*"* Asst CM 1^CA To: Ray Patchett Date^lCitv ] Date: 01/31/2006 3:50:12 PM Subject: Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project, and Michael Bovenzi Hi Ray. Because Mr. Michael Bovenzi has already tried to make contact with you and will probably"be making contact with the City Council, I wanted to provide you with some information on the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use project that was recommended for approval last week by the Design Review Board. Mr. Bovenzi is not happy with the project and has been fighting it throughout the permit processing. He was not happy that staff and the DRB recommended approval of the project. He does not believe that it complies with the Village Master Plan and should not be approved by the Commission. CVtCL»£tt. b-^-<J&f^S-fc^^^^j^^^*"^^""1 ^— * -^v ^^ JF f^ /3 The proposed project is a mixed use project on the corner of Lincoln and Oak. Itcon^fets ofo» condominium units and 1913 square feet of retail space. It is located within the Village Redevelopment Area. It is on the boundaries of the Village area, and therefore has adjacent properties that are outside the' boundaries and not subject to the same standards. Mr. Bovenzi's property is located immediately adjacent and to the east of the subject property. Mr. Bovenzi is currently constructing a 5 unit condominium projecfyj TVvfl. and had to comply with standards that are more restrictive than the Village Area. ^* M*u*'ir 02,1 CM It is staffs opinion that the project complies with the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan. No variances are required for the project, and they did not propose to build to the maximums allowed. Mr. Bovenzi does not agree with staff. Due to Mr. Bovenzi's strong opposition to the project and ongoing accusations that Redevelopment Staff is not competent to review the project, Sandy requested that Michael Holzmiller complete an independent review of the project to determine if it complies with the standards. Mr. Holzmiller concluded within his report that the proposed project does comply with the development standards and design guidelines for the Village. Mr. Bovenzi does not agree with Michael's analysis either. I believe the issue comes down to compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood rather than a standards compliance issue. Compatibility is more of a discretionary type of issue which can have many varying opinions. Staff worked with the property owner/developer to design a project which took into consideration the adjacent properties. But, Mr. Bovenzi is in complete disagreement on this issue. The Design Review Board was asked to consider the compatibility in their review. The Board was unanimous in their decision to recommend approval of the project and felt that it would be a needed improvement to the area and ultimately be of benefit to the neighbors. The project will be presented to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission within the next 30 days or so for action. Mr. Bovenzi, his mother, his stepfather, Ron Alvarez, Dennis Bouarin (adjacent property owner to south), and one other person who is currently a resident of Oceanside (but lived in the subject neighborhood at one time) all spoke in opposition to the project. A consultant also spoke on ADA compliance (which is not actually reviewed at the entitlement stage). The consultant was hired by Mr. Bovenzi to indicate that the project was not in compliance with new ADA requirements. I believe they will all be present again at the hearing before the Commission to oppose the project and offer their negative evaluation of staffs skills and abilities. Let me know if you would like any additional information on this matter. Thanks. CC: Joe Garuba; Sandra Holder p%5^K;P,?*?'*• CITY OF CARLSBADHOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING SYSTEMS LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION to o •, ,March 22, 2006 nA <>., fr ^ee^S'rt£Mi».Ms. Deborah Fountain ""' e'-: Director CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2965 Roosevelt St. Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED USE PROJECT Dear Ms. Fountain: It has come to my attention that Mike Bovenzi has provided you with a portion of some information that my office had provided him at his request, and is inferring that this information constitutes Planning Systems' criticism of the proposed development project referenced above. Please be advised that we were hired by Mr. Bovenzi in January 2005 to counsel him regarding how to best influence the entitlement process so that the referenced project (which is evidently located next door to the Bovenzi residence) design would be more acceptable to him. To this end, per his request, we provided him with a 1V4 page draft letter which he could consider sending to the City over his signature. This draft letter articulated a list of his concerns, and indicates a desire on his part to be involved in the public process. Unfortunately, it is apparent that Mr. Bovenzi has instead characterized this draft letter as a planning analysis of the project conducted by Planning Systems. This is not what the draft letter is, or was intended to be. I note also that Mr. Bovenzi evidently did not provide the City with the second page of the draft letter, which emphasizes that a mutually cooperative approach to influencing the design is desired by Mr. Bovenzi. Please note that Planning Systems does not have any specific objections to the proposed project. Feel free to share this letter with the City Council if you believe helpful in understanding Planning Systems' minor role with this project. PaulJ.Klukas Director of Planning cc: Tom Hageman 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net February 23, 2006 TO: CITY MANAGER VIA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MICHAEL BOVENZI INFORMATION ON LINCOLN AND OAK PROJECT At the request of Michael Bovenzi, the attached information is forwarded to you for distribution to the City Council. This information shares Mr. Bovenzi's concerns about the proposed Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use project which was recently recommended for approval by staff and the Design Review Board. Staff is currently preparing the necessary report to present this project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. It is anticipated that the project will be presented for Commission consideration on March 21 or 28, 2006. Staff shared with Mr. Bovenzi that all of his written documentation would be submitted to the Commission at the time the project is presented for consideration. Mr. Bovenzi, however, believes that the Commission needs more time to review his information and asked that it be provided immediately. Because staff is continuing to work on the masonry wall design for the project at the request of the Design Review Board, a report for the Commission has not yet been finalized. However, in an effort to provide a brief summary of the project and issues raised by Mr. Bovenzi, the attached brief bullet point report has been prepared for Commission review. The information provided by Mr. Bovenzi is also attached. Recently, Mr. Bovenzi indicated that the Design Review Board was not provided with full size plans or the information he provided for their review. Therefore, he does not believe that they appropriately considered his information in their decision. This is not true or correct. All of the written documentation provided by Mr. Bovenzi, including e- mails, reports and written correspondence, was copied and provided to each Board member with the staff report on the project. Mr. Bovenzi also prepared sealed packages of information which were also distributed to the Board. Each Board member acknowledged that they received the information provided by Mr. Bovenzi. All of Mr. Bovenzi's information has been made part of the public record. If any additional information is required at this time on this matter, please let me know, lanks. IE FOUNTAIN LINCOLN AND OAK PROJECT Village Redevelopment Area Project Description; • Located on Southeast corner of Lincoln and Oak; located inside Redevelopment Area boundaries in District 9 (tourist serving commercial); adjacent properties to east and south are outside redevelopment area boundaries (R-3 Zoning). • 17,514 square foot lot; .40 acre • 6 condominium units; 3211 sf to 4,535 sf in size. • 1913 sf of retail and parking at first floor; ground floor must be retail. • Project meets the development standards set forth within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Project Issues identified by adjacent Neighbor(s): • Adjacent property owner to east (Michael Bovenzi) does not believe project meets development standards set forth in Village Master Plan and Design Manual. • Mr. Bovenzi indicated that he obtained Planning Consultant reports which he believes indicate that the project does not meet the development standards. He also obtained a consultant report on ADA compliance and does not believe the project complies. • Primary issues for Mr. Bovenzi: 1) entire ground floor is not devoted to commercial; 2) project does not provide 20% open space; 3) the setbacks should be increased; 4) the building coverage should be reduced; 4) height should be reduced; 5) parking should be provided completely underground; 6) height of perimeter wall exceeds 6ft; 7) lack of privacy for his new homebuyers (building 5 unit condo project on adjacent property); 8) incompatibility with adjacent properties; and, 8) non-compliance with ADA requirements. • Adjacent property owner to South (Dennis Bauern) has concerns about privacy for his tenants due to height of building, placement of windows, and elevated walkway on south side; owns and operates a 2 story - 5 unit apartment complex. Third Party Peer Review; • Staff believes that the project meets all of the development standards and is appropriate for the area. However, due to Mr. Bovenzi's concerns, Michael Holzmiller, Planning Consultant, was hired to complete a third party peer review of project for City/Agency. • Mr. Holzmiller's report indicates that project meets all of the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. He did indicate that the 20% open space requirement is open to interpretation. His professional opinion was that all 20% of the open space should be provided in public spaces, not private. • Mr. Holzmiller's suggestions for enhanced compatibility: 1) Increase public open space at ground level of project by 4%; 2) Extend the commercial space to edges of both driveways; 3) Increase the setback for residential components at sides of garages only to maximum of range; 4) Eliminate low lying wall that encloses a portion of the public space in front of commercial and replace with a few benches. • Suggestions shared with Developer; some changes made as result of suggestions. Developer also made several other changes to address neighbor concerns. Staff Conclusions; • Project is consistent with development standards and design guidelines set forth in Village Master Plan and Design Manual, including interpretation of 20% open space requirement. • Developer did not develop to all of the allowed maximums; sensitivity to neighbors. • Efforts made to address neighbor concerns: limited retail to reduce impact to neighborhood; parking completely enclosed to reduce visibility and minimize noise impacts; required roof patios to be designed so that residents would not have view into adjacent neighbor backyards; no balconies on east or south side; increased wall height on south side (9 to 11 ft) at request of property owner; eliminated wall on east side and replaced with enhanced landscaping; no variances from standards required. Development Standards Comparison/Summary: Village Master Plan Standard Front Yard Setback: 5 to 20 feet Side Yard Setbacks: 5 to 10 feet Rear Yard Setback: 5 to 15 feet Building Coverage: 60% to 80% Building Height: 45 feet with 5:12 roof pitch Open Space: 20% of property/project Parking: 2.5 per residential unit; 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor space for retail; 21 total spaces required. Density: 8 to 1 5 dwelling units; RMH designation; 11.5 growth management control point; 4.62 permitted but may exceed with granting of a density increase. Proposed Project 8'3" 7' (north) to 7'7" (south) 7' 72.6% 41 feet for stairs to roof; 36 feet for all remaining building 42.5% includes permitted landscape and hardscape (roof decks, balconies and patios) 6 two car garages, 3 guest parking spaces, 6 retail parking spaces and 1 accessible space 22 total parking spaces provided 6 units proposed which equals 14.89 units per acre and is within the density range. Density increase proposed to allow project to exceed GMCP. Consistent with adjacent residential zoning which allows 15-23 dwelling units per acre, with a GMCP of 19. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE PROJECT INFORMATION FROM MICHAEL BOVENZI Subject: Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project From: "Debbie Fountain" <Dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Mon, 3 1 Oct 2005 1 0:02:33 -0800 To: "CfiflTJones" <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, "Sandra Holder" <shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> CC: "Joe Garuba" <Jgaru@ci.carlsbad.ca,us> Michael. As we jnesiioiMBd in -oor meeting all of your correspondence, including the .inforattati-oa prsvlderi-tjKtow, will l>e :f oxvaxeted to the Desicpr Review Beard -and Housing and "Redevelopment Commission for their consideration _as ±hey j Lincoln- and- Oalr proj-ect. You, wilL receive a notice of the- hearing so that j^oJJ- jna-y a-ttaad-.^sad px-o^icie- any aaiiS±33Bfflai.3:alsa3Ha1-ixm -ytffl like tjEfc. 3^ Efeg«c:tarT X do not make -fftg:. frnaT ftepfasfana on tMs It will be reat±&i*e&: Jaf-*&&Z&t&&gmtiatartm*>&aKai . 'The Board will make a Fe&saiiir&mtes*- '>j "" to ±he -tSsinnnts-sion. Tfter. CSsiffliissfeir-fiss final approving authority. I I I Michael Bovenzi <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal . net> 10/30/05 10:23 PM >» Redevelopment Staff I"ve been extremely busy with my approved project and working on other projects as well, so it has taken me some time to respond to the minutes from the meeting at the Faraday office on September 19th. I really do appreciate the Fact that Michael Holzmiller was able to .attend the meeting, however I was told prior to the meeting by both Sandra Holder and Debbie Fountain that Michael Holzmiller was was going to be putting together a third party analysis and that I would be able to receive a copy once it was completed. Now if Michael Holzmiller is an independent contractor I would tend to think that he doesn't work for free, and as an independent contractor he would be paid by the city for the analysis of the Lincoln Oak Mixed use Project. It just seems a little strange that there was no analysis in writing and what there is in writing is from the minutes taken at the meeting. Now the minutes from the meeting I do find very interesting, however much of the information discussed in the meeting was not in the meeting notes you have provided and some of the meeting notes have been changed in favor of the Housing and Redevelopment Office and a few of my comments have been conveniently miss quoted as well . I must say that 1 do find it extremely concerning that the in house analysis has been completed by an individual who still retains an office at the city of Carlsbad and a person whom is on a first name basis and possible friendship level with the other directors. If the Housing and Redevelopment Office wanted a true analysis of the project it would have sub contracted an outside source where in house influence would not have the possibility of being a factor. Which is exactly what I did when I went to a 2 separate neutral 3rd parties to obtain an analysis on the Lincoln Oak Mixed use 2/22/20f Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Project. As we know Paul Klukus from planning systems did the first one, and Bill Hofmann and Eric Munoz completed the second extensive neutral analysis. I did Supply a copy to Staff at the September 19th meeting of the Hofman and Associated Analysis. It was said that this information would be added as record for the meeting, however this Analysis has been conveniently omitted from the record for whatever reason. I would venture to say because it's extremely accurate, extremely detailed and from a company that is very well respected. I do know the City of Carlsbad does have a very large, well trained, well respected and very well run Planning Department. One of the functions of the planning department is to plan check new projects to determine if they meet current standards as well as local city codes. It takes many years for the senior planners to get to their position through hard work, consistently gaining knowledge as the years progress. Which brings me to the question as to why the redevelopment office even plan checks projects in the first place. It's not one of the intended functions of the Redevelopment Office, nor is there really anyone there with enough experience to plan check projects thoroughly. No offense to Cliff Jones, but Cliff is a very smart young man but new with the Redevelopment office. If he had been hired on with the Planning Department, he would be a junior planner and would not be plan checking projects on his own, if any at such an early stage in his career. It was clear in my meeting with Cliff that he's very intelligent, hard working and determined, but due to his lack of experience un able to read plans properly. The problem this creates is projects that don't meet current standards. It's my opinion that all new projects within the entire City should be plan checked by the City of Carlsbads Planning Department and Not the Redevelopment Staff. Getting Back to the Meeting on September 19th I made a statement about the Elevators in the Proposed Project. Once a lift is added it opens up the doors to Title 24 part 2 accessibility standards. I said in this Meeting that within the City of Carlsbad there appears to be No one person trained on this issue. I wanted to put lifts in my project, but couldn't because of the accessibility issues. I asked the City about this and was told it was not their position to plan check title 24 part 2 and not their responsibility to research it for me either. THe meeting Notes say that I " questioned the experience of the inspectors" which is not what I said actually, I said that there is noone within the city of Carlsbad that is trained on Title 24 part 2....which in reality we know to be true. It brings me to the question as to how a project that falls short of these State Required Laws is being recommended by staff. It's 2 of 6 2/22/2006 8:01 AM Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project because Redevelopment Staff is not trained in Title 24 part 2 California State Law. Now if Redevelopment Staff was, it would be clear that the project based on these items alone doesn't work and would have to be completely designed, but hey might as well approve a project that doesn't work, and then let it go to Esgil so they can tell us that. Then well redesign the entire project so it now becomes the project that was not approved in the first place. For the Record Michael Holzmiller said in the meeting "the 20% landscape pedestrian amenities DID NOT meet the standards and that the private roof decks should not be allowed .to be used as credit to meet those standards. Michael Holzmiller also said " he felt that the set backs should be held to the maximum of the setbacks " So now basically what we do know is that Hofman and Associates, Planning Systems, Michael Holzmiller other senior Planning staff, and Licensed Architects all Agree that the Project Does Not Meet the open 20% landscaped pedestrian ammenties open space requirements, and the project because of the adverse affect the proposed project has on existing residential the setbacks should be held to the maximum. These two items alone Change the entire project making it crystal clear that the project does not work, yet the redevelopment staff continue to support it. I also mentioned in the meeting Sept that the Required meetings with the Design and Owner with adjacent property owners have never taken place. Sandra Holder said that meetings were not required, However in the March 28 2005 letter from Cliff Jones to Designer Robert Richardson page 2 item 2 clearly states that *" Staff shall require the property owner and Architect to meet with surrounding neighbors to address their concerns. Staff will require Letters from adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final determination of the project." *To this date this requirement form staff has still not been met. There's approximately 32 adjacent property owners none of which have ever been contacted by the owner or Designer, so how could staff make a final decision based on this criteria if it's never been met, and there has been absolutely no good faith effort by the owner or designer to meet this Requirement ...required by staff *For the record, the designer of the project Robert Richardson is a Designer and _*NOT*_ a licensed Architect. In fact he was illegally using the architectural stamp ( Punishable by both fine and prison ) of licensed Architect Paul Longton until Paul found out confronted Karnak. Karnak did stop the illegal activity immediately, however it's actually still written on the plans, and if you take a closer look you'll see. 3 of 6 2/22/2006 8:01 AM Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project California state law section 5536a is a law outlawing a designer into entering into a contract with a landowner of a project that requires a licensed Architect. A building of more then four units, more then 2 stories, or with a commercial component also require a licensed Architect. Robert Richardson is not a licensed Architect and is in violation of not just one, but all 3. Section 5537 which is also California State Law also Requires that A licensed Architect is to have direct input and oversee the entire design phase of a project if theres a designer who's not licensed involved with the design phase of a project that is required have a licensed Architect of record. Robert Richardson of Karnak is in Violation of both of the California State Laws both of which are punishable by fines and prison. To have a licensed Engineer Stamp the project for Karnak does not release Richardson from the other state law violations and in fact is another state law violation, record. Since Licensed Architects have to go through very extensive educational process that requires both a great deal of time, study and literally thousands of hours of work experience to legally be allowed to design a project of more then 4 units, one of more then 3 stories, and one that contains a commercial element it would be fair to say that they have earned the right to design these structures because they they understand that from the inside out with a Architectural license that proves that. A license cannot be bought but is earned, giving an individual the right to design these types of buildings. Richardson of Karnak lacks the knowledge, ability and state required License to even submit these plans to the Redevelopment office for Review, not to mention is a violation of California State Law....but I'm sure that staff is aware of that. . It's probably one of the reasons that the project is so screwed up in the first place, would you have a nurse perform open heart surgery, would you have a cab driver land a jet liner...think about it, it's the same principal. The requirements are not there and there's State laws in Force to protect that. Staff is knowingly overlooking state law. So to knowingly overlook state laws seems to be very familiar with the fact that the development standards as well as local municipal codes have been knowingly overlooked by staff as well. Now even with all of the issues concerning this project, opinions of adjacent property owners, state law violations, development standard and municipal code deviations, Michael Holzmillers opinions on setbacks open space and orientation, Hofmans analysis, Planning systems Analysis, the title 24 part 2 analysis.Staff does realize that not one issue of many over the last year has been delt with and in fact not one single issue 4 of 6 2/22/2006 8:01 AM Ke: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project or requirement has been enforced to be corrected and yet you would still recoimnend a project that has been proven by all others to Just Not Work ? I suppose if a Department Director was a position that was to be voted on by the general public every 2 years it would be an entirely different situtation, because either you would follow the rules or you would be voted out. I imagine if they started that this year, there would be quite a turn over and for all the right reasons I'm sure. No sense in dreaming I guess, but in reality there's absolutely no checks and balances and now the personal agenda of one Director who's not even a citizen of the city of Carlsbad will have an adverse on the entire neighbor hood for forever to come. Regards Michael Bovenzi Debbie Fountain wrote: Michael, attached are the meeting notes from the meeting on September 19, 2005 regarding the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project. As Sandra Holder indicated to you during the meeting, we subsequently met with the property owner and project designer to share your concerns and the suggested design changes from Michael Holzmiller. They are currently considering those suggestions. Thank you for sharing your concerns. You will receive notice of the future public hearings on this project and will be provided the opportunity to share any ongoing concerns with both the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. As mentioned to you, the attached notes with the reports and correspondence you submitted that day as well as all of your previous correspondence on this project will be made part of the public record on the project. Both the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will be provided with copies of these records prior to their action on the project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. 5 of 6 2/22/2006 8:01 AM Re: Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project Sincerely, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad 6 of 6 2/22/2006 8:01 AM A SHARP DESIGN Consultants : 1230 Umartlla Sn**t Del Mar, California 92014 . . Phone/Fax 8S&-7S&OSSS E-mail djshaipdl'adelphla.net MikeBovenzi 343OakAve. " '•'";•. .".,•./'• ••'•:• .•.-"•:V,'v'- .• •"• •••'•', •'' .;'' ' - •' Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-729-8986 ..•:.'..-:' • -:-'^\ ..'•'•'. . . ,••;•••••'.;'< -'•> '.:';• • '.; :.-.•.•;.->..'•; • ibuildhotnes@sbcgiobal.net ; ; July 16,2005; ^ ' .'.-•. ': "V-' •••"''-:;: /'••.> ''>"• • •:• ''V 'V- - .'Dear!Mr.Bpyenzi> -^ :^;-:''."...; ;-:\, • ••'..'•• • • .:'-,.'';.:"''..;; ..';;",•; :',;-:-^ .••',/;;.!.•.;••'- :-.'.;:':.; ?'•'."'., Enclosed is our report resulting from a review arid analysis of plans for the Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project located at 3112 Lincoln Si; Carlsbad, CA 92008. the plans we received from you are dated November 30,2003, with Owner listed as Russell Lee ! Bennett and developer listed as Karnak Planning & Design, iPaiil Ldrigton, Architect and Robert Richardson, Planner, i ; ' "v We have reviewed the plans, per your request, for access compliance for persons with .; disabilities, using "The Americans With Disabilities^ Act of 1990, California; Multi-Family Disabled Access Regulations, Title 24 of the California State Building Code, and the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 to make our findings. In our opinion, there are features of the design as presented that do not meet required standards for access for persons withdisabilities^especially^ those for parking arid accessible route of travel We hope you will share this information with the City of Carlsbad in the most appropriate manner, since the possibility of city liability may" exist if theproject is built as planned.;, ; • , . In view of recent major lawsuits involving multi-family projects (one of which is in Carlsbad)* we suggest that great care be taken with the design of new projects to ensure they meet of go beyond the minimum requirements of the law. Sincerely, *See enclosed copy of San Diego Union-Tribune article, June 26, 2005 Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project: Plan Review for Access by Persons With Disabilities A Sharp Design Consultants July2005 General ':',V ••" '' ' .''"•. •.'••• ••-'/.•:' ' •• :•:,;/.';'.'': •' "•-••;; .7- : l •''] •••':•. ;''; ••• '•••'•• The project is a building with a combinati On of public retail space including parking, and six multistory dwelh'ng unite ^W^ :';v\: /:'.;.;•; •-: -.'..••. •1;--: '/;.;>.••'• An access feature in the forhi of a residehljal eleya^ design of two of the unjtsJThese elevators provide access frbni their garage level to the first and second floors of the two units. In this case, the first level above the garage nbvy becomes the "ground floor* of the twb units, and since it is accessible, the reguiations for "accessible and adaptable" ground floor unite slftuld Title i4f California Code cfRe^ati<ms;Secti<)h 1102AJ3 Definition "Qround floors are any floors containing a building entrance on an accessible route. When the first floor containing dwelling units is a floor above grade, all, imits on that floor are considered ground floor units andshallbe accessible and adaptable." Title 24, CCR, Section U 07 A'6 Exception v ^ ; "When an elevator serves a stoty of a multistory unit, such story shall be accessible and shall contain an accessible (and 'Adaptable 'Bathroom or -Powder Room usable to a person - in a wheelchair." : ^ -.-'••'':.•'. ""•.••"' :'•../. :--\:-'\ •••. '-, r-'^.-.;.V -.;. ^., -.•;'•• ^:^;-'.'- > ";••:•' '.'.•/";./ Each of.the accessible units has a bathroom ori i the ;. first floor serveid by ite elevator. No dimensipiis or details were given for these bathrooms,, but they appear to be unusable by someone in a wheelchair. No indication is given of the 30" !:X 48" clear space required at each bathroom facility. Another question raised by the two accessible units is that they appear to have no access to the common \yalkway serving the other units. In general, all common areas must be accessible to accessible unite. Title 24, CCR, Section 1105A Public or Common Use Areas ; ' • "All 'public and [common use areas thai 'serve adaptable dwell ing units shall be accessible." ' ''•': './.,.'.,'.•''••. ••-•:'.'/ ' ' •" ' ' •• '••••• •' • •.-• f ••'. ••'. ' •• '• Also, it appears that the only accessible entrance to the two units is through the garage ., and residential elevator; the main entrance to the units is only accessible by stairs. This creates a situation where a resident of the accessible unit who uses a wheelchair must always enter and leave through the building garage and driveway, even when not traveling by car. There appears to be no separation of safe pedestrian path of travel from the accessible entrance on the unit that is separate from the vehicular way entering the common parking area of the building. See Title 24, CCR, Section 1107A.2.1 Accessible Route of Travel "When a building, or portion of a building is required to be accessible or adaptable, an accessible route of travel must be provided to all portions of the building, to accessible building entrances and between the building and the public \vay." Definition: Accessible Route of Travel: Is a continuous unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and spaces in an accessible building or facility that can be negotiated by a person with a severe disability using a wheelchair and that is also safe for and usable by persons with other disabilities, and that is also consistent with the definition of "path of travel". Definition! Path of Travel: : ; A passage that may consist of walks and sidewalks, curb ramps and pedestrian ramps, • . lobbies, corridors, elevators, other improved areas, or a necessary combination thereof that provides free and unobstructed access to and egress from a particular area or • location for pedestrians and/or wheelchair wers./ Definition: .Vehicular Way: •;'••'••-'.. '•' '''...',• ••/:' ;.>V^V/-^'-'-;'- '-.:':• '.'-'.' •''•''. I ' M V .'— :•''•'.' A route intended for vehicular traffic, such as a street, driveway 6r parking lot, Public Retail Space and Parking This part of the project must comply with Title IE of the Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Accomodations) arid the 200] California Building Code; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1. ; ; : - Parking •'•'•;' .-.'. ;'.'/ '."•.;•• •'•y:'-. /. '^•;/-.-.1;'.-. '.•• :••".>.;-..•..•:•"•• ',.-.' :'•'•;'• /• •'.",• .; . '•;' The one van-accessible public parking space has the access aisle located on the wrong sideV The access aisle lacks the required "NO PARKING" stencil in the aisle. There are no details showing the required signage for accessible parking; . ; ; . 'See Title 24, CCR, Section 1129B, Accesible Parking Required, JJ 293.4 aridADA 4.J.2(5)(b): :• ; ^v \-^ -, '••:^: ,/..'.:^.^. .: -.-\--'-f:V:^\-'' : '•- '•"• ' . ' Accessible Route • •••-^ . ':'.\:'_ 'f::-/. ,'.' ';- ' /..'• :v;. .:'. ' •'• •:•.;. •• ';•. _ • ;;. '"•• /'. .' ,••"'•' • '•. •-• •. .'-;,y .';'' '-,''"••. The retail space "shell": shown on the plan has an entrance/exit oil the north side in addition to the main entrance at the corner. This north entrance appears to be on a route that changes level by means of steps in the path of travel. An accessible path of travel from the public way must be provided to this entrance. See Title 24, CCR, Section J133B, General Accessibility for Entrances, Exits and Paths of Travel '/:••'• •• . . . . '.-. ' . '.' ' . ;.' '".- ':• '••:; ' :' •'. , '.. . ' • We noted that the plan sheet CGP-1 shows a "ramp" offset from the center of the corner sidewalk. There is no detail provided, but it appears that if this is a pedestrian curb ramp, it is non-compliant. A compliant pedestrian curb ramp is required at each corner of street intersections and where a pedestrian way crosses a curb. Curb ramps shall have detectable warnings extending the full width and depth of the curb ramp. See Title 24, CCR, Section JJ27B, Curb Ramps, ADA 4.29.2 Conclusion : In our opinion, this, project is an example of a missed opportunity. The principles of '., Universal Design could have been incorporated into the design from the beginning, and - could have been done with little additional difficulty or expense. This would benefit the City of Carlsbad by increasing the stock of housing available to and usable by persons with disabilities, and add market value to all of the proposed dwelling units, : As our population continues to age, the demand for accessible housing continues to > • •" ihcrease. The desire of homeowners to be able to age in place is grooving, and is, already ; ''•: putting Accessible housing ; at & premium. Wise ^develppers and public entities are taking ; advantag^ of this trend and reaping the resulting benefits. ;;:'/.; ; • ; " i • A Shiarp Desi^i Cohsultahts Hofman Planning Associates Planning Fiscal Services Environmental June 14, 2005 Mr. Michael Bovenzi 343 Oak Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES REGARDING PROJECT REVIEW Dear Mr. Bovenzi: Hofman Planning Associates is pleased to submit this proposal for services regarding project review of a pending redevelopment permit. Attached is Exhibit "A" which describes the tasks necessary to complete the project. Please review at your convenience and call me if you have any questions or concerns. Please remember that this is a time and materials contract and we will only charge for the actual work performed. If you concur with this proposal, please sign both copies and send a copy to our office. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES BILLHOFMAR President I concur with the terms of this proposal as stated herein. MICHAEL0OVENZI Attachment 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK The following is a list of tasks that Hofman Planning Associates will perform to assist with reviewing a pending redevelopment permit for a project located on the southeast corner of Lincoln and Oak Avenue. This contract is strictly on a time and materials basis for planning services rendered by HPA and specifically authorized by the client. Retainer of 50% ($600) will initiate work. TASK 1: Review of the subject project relative to applicable codes and design objectives including the Village Redevelopment Design Manual. TASK 2: An itemized letter summarizing the project analysis will be provided to client. TASK 3: Includes a one hour meeting between HPA and city staff during project review. TASK 4: Includes a site visit by HPA. COST: Not to exceed $1,200 without consent of client. Project Review - Mixed Use Redevelopment Project SE Corner of Oak and Lincoln Based on: Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual Project Location: Context and Compatibility Zoning is VR (Village Redevelopment); General Plan is V (Village) Beach Area Overlay Zone is adjacent to this Redevelopment parcel Site is within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment area. Tourism Support is land use theme for District 9. Site is surrounded by non-Redevelopment residential properties zoned R-3. Land use compatibility inside and outside the Redevelopment area, as defined by the site's perimeter, is a major focus of the Redevelopment Manual along with pedestrian-oriented projects* Proposed Use: • Mixed Use Project: Retail (1,900 sq. ft) and related parking • Six (6) condominium units and related parking • Project review based on exhibits provided by client dated 12.11.03. • Review included City letter re: RP 04-11 provided by client, dated 3.28.05. Development Standards: Compliance Review 1. Permitted Uses in District 9: Page 41 of the Manual charts permitted uses by district. District 9 allows Mixed Use projects (residential & commercial uses) with the specific requirement that "the ground floor of all approved mixed use projects shall be devoted to commercial uses". The project does not appear to be consistent with this provision. The 1,900 square foot retail shell building and related parking would share the ground level of the site with the residential structure and parking. The ground floor is not devoted to commercial uses. This is significant since Multi-Family residential projects alone are not permitted by the Manual as land uses within District 9, reinforcing the tourism support vs. residential focus of the district. 2. 20% Open Space/Landscaped Pedestrian Amenity: Compliance with this requirement needs to be clearly depicted on the project site plan and landscape plans. The area calculation and provision of this required amenity should also be summarized in the Site Data table on the exhibit cover sheet. This requirement is outlined on page 117 of the Manual, which does not appear to allow privatized roof decks to meet this standard. The intent is to provide enhanced and landscaped pedestrian circulation from public rights of way to, and through, a project site. 3. Setbacks: A range of setbacks are allowed, although any setback less than the maximum noted must be supported by the findings listed in the Manual: (1) no adverse impacts on surrounding properties; (2) the reduced setback will assist in meeting Redevelopment goals and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district involved, and; (3) the reduced setback results in a visually appealing project that reinforces the Village character of the area. The site's location on the edge of the Redevelopment boundary, and the isolated nature of the Redevelopment zoning on this particular block, make compatibility critical, and requires necessary findings to justify reduced setbacks. 4. Building Coverage: Similar to Setbacks, Building Coverage is allowed a range (60-80%) and any proposal for more coverage than the 60% minimum must make similar findings as noted above for reduced setbacks (no adverse offsite impacts, helps to meet Redevelopment goal, and assists in. creating visually appealing project for the Village area). Justifying increased building coverage more than the 60% minimum requires necessary findings. 5. Height Limit: On cross sections and grading plans, clearly depict existing grade to verify building height measurement consistent with 21.04.065 and the Manual. Building height is typically measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive (lower). The VR zoning height limit is super ceded by the more restrictive height limits of the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The Manual specifically notes the ability to approve Redevelopment projects at lower building heights for compatibility and to reduce impacts to adjacent properties (page 98). - 6. Roof Deck Heights: the proposed building heights combined with the proposed roof deck heights to create building mass and bulk that is out of character and scale with the adjacent and approved beach area residences. The project proposes the flat area of the roof deck at 30' above grade (building height allowed to 45*) whereas the adjacent properties are limited to 24' for the floor heights of rood decks with building height limited to 30'. 7. Parking: What parking standard is applied ? Retail is 1:300 but 1:200 is proposed (medical offices?). Also, 3 residential guest spaces are required but only 2 are proposed. Guest parking spaces are not distinct from retail parking spaces. No separation or distinction may lead to intrusive element of retail parking for residential units. Have compact car spaces been considered as an alternative for some of the required spaces? Parking appears to dominate use of ground level at expense of commercial uses. 8. Storage Area: clearly calculate compliance and depict on Site Data table. Areas calculated for storage also need to be correspondingly depicted on site and/or floor plans. For example, is item #7 (noted with a 7 within a diamond shape) on Sheet 2 noted for storage also proposed as part of the required storage calculation? Design Guidelines: Compliance Review •) Multi-Family Dwellings 1 1. For multi-family projects, the ground level should not be used for parking or units so that retail and other uses create active street frontages. Noted on #1 on page 67. 2. Page 67, #2 further notes that multi-family sites should be large enough to accommodate parking on-site or below grade. Given the coverage proposed for the site, and the use of the ground level for uses inconsistent with #1 above, subterranean parking that is truly submerged below grade would lessen visual impacts and be more supportable. Basic Design Principles 1. Page 119 notes the following which are not fully developed within the project as proposed: (3) Development shall be small in scale; (5) All development shall have a strong relationship to the street; (6) Strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of ground floor facades; (8) Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design Site Planning 1. Page 120, #2: Benches and low walls are noted for public domain interface and pedestrian circulation amenity. A corner lot such as the subject site has opportunity to combine this design element with the 20% open space/landscaped pedestrian amenity requirement. ;•. 2. Page 121, #5: Privacy loss from primary orientation of condo units onto ftfljacent properties is not encouraged versus the orientation to thei project Interior and street frontage. 3. Page 121, #6: off-street courtyard opportunities are encouraged and can tie considered for the project. 4. Page 121, #7: an abundance of landscaping should be emphasized, and combined with the 20% standard. Parking and Access 1. Page 124, #9: Avoid buildings over ground level parking. The project is fundamentally inconsistent with this design criteria element. 2. Page 124, #10: Park underground whenever possible. The extent of this project's underground parking needs review against existing grade and proposed grading. 3. Page 124, #11: Enhance entry driveways with concrete treatments. Misc. Design Comments • Trash Bin location: trash bins need to be accessible for servicing and screened as much as possible from public/streetside viewpoints. Ideally, a review can be made by Coast Waste Management with a follow-up letter indicating their ability to service the site/access the trash bins as shown on a referenced site plan. Page 140 of the Manual also requires that the visual impact of trash collection areas from projects be minimized. • Streetscene/Compatibility: need to review Building Elevations in combination with adjacent existing or approved Elevations next to project site. This is also requested by the City comment dated March 28, 2005 (item #6). • Privacy/Unit Orientation: the fundamental design of the project is such that primary unit orientation for the private, condominium units is outward to adjacent properties to the east and south vs. internal and streetside (Oak and Lincoln) orientation. This is counter to Design criteria noted on page 121 re: privacy and unit orientation when compatibility is a project factor. » Site Plan: should depict existing and proposed curb lines and property lines to reflect the frontage dedications on Oak and Lincoln Streets. > Site Plan: Site Data table on cover sheet should outline standards and summarize compliance: coverage, parkirej, height, setbacks, storage, etc and also note all zoning, General Plan and Redevelopment District Area designations. • Cross-Sections: Provide a North/South section on East side of project; and also East/West section that goes into adjacent, approved project to the east to assess compatibility, mass, bulk and the absence or presence of significant impacts to adjacent properties. Also - depict existing grade to assess subterranean extent of the parking area. • Landscape Manual: compliance with tree sizes and types as applicable? • Architectural Stvle: good for Village but has related bulk, setback, coverage issues. • Retail Deck: why is the retail deck not depicted on the Roof/Deck Exhibit on Sheet A-3? • Site Plan: Similar to the comment re: Elevations and Streetscene review, show adjacent existing or approved parking areas, major trees, and building footprints within 100' of the site's property lines. This 100' distance around the project is typically a required application checklist item for discretionary permits issued by the City including Redevelopment Permits. • Elevation Exhibit A-6: what is the, gap shown on South Elevation? Is it for signage? If so, should a project-wide Sign Program or exhibit be part of the formal application? • Retaining Wall/Fence Heights: the combination of any retaining wall and fences should not exceed 6 feet in height per city policy as also noted in the March 28 City letter (item #3). • Landscape Plan: the application's landscape plan should clearly depict (1) the 20% open space requirement/landscaped pedestrian amenity, (2) Public right of way vs. private property lines to show setbacks, and (3) Sign Program info/sign locations. • Stormwater Compliance: any features needed for compliance should be noted on plans as appropriate • Mixed Use Project: a ^non-residential" project per page 117 of the Manual includes mixed use projects; and a requirement to provide a solid masonry wall between the mixed project and adjacent residential uses. • Title 24 Compliance: the project may benefit from a review for compliance. 7,19.05 PLANNING I SYSTEMS LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION January 13,2005 Mike Bovenzi BOVENZI PROPERTIES 343OakAve. . Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: WORK AUTHORIZATION Dear Mr. Alcorn: • •> . • / Pursuant to your request PLANNING- SYSTEMS hereby submits a work authorization for, • professional services associated with advice, consultation and investigation regarding the proposed Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use Project located adjacent to the BOVENZI property, in Carlsbad. Based on bur conversation of January 12,2005, we wfll review and investigate the information provided/contact arid discuss with the City Redevelopment Department, and advise BOVENZI PROPERTIES on how to influence the project process so that the proposed Lincoln & Oak Mixed Use project is consistent with BOVENZI desires for the neighborhood. ' PLANNING SYSTEMS will addjress the concerns with the City on a tiine and materials basis, not to exceed $1,000.00. • PLANNING SYSTEMS invoices monthly. Costs such as printing or reproduction work will be provided as necessary at cost plus 15%. Invoice payment is due 30 days net. Either party may terminate this agreement with five days written notice. If any action, proceeding or arbitration arising but of or relating to this contract is commenced by either party to this contract the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the other party, in addition to any other relief that may be granted, the reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the action, proceeding or arbitration by the prevailing party. If this arrangement is acceptable please sign one of the two originals included and return to PLANNING SYSTEMS. Than* you for the opportunity to provide assistance. "11 G SYSTEMS Date ' 1-3JL-4S Mike Bovenzi, B0VENZI PARTNERS '•- Date 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net '/V Date Ms. Deborah Fountain Director CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2965 Roosevelt St. Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: RP 04-11 and CDP 04-30 LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED USE PROJECT Dear Ms. Fountain: Attached to this letter please find a petition of signatures of property owners and residents in the vicinity of the above-referenced proposed project. We are taking this opportunity to make you aware that we find ourselves in OPPOSITION to the project. The reasons for our opposition are as follows: 1. Height - The project has been designed to the maximum height limit, and further includes roof decks for recreation purposes on the top of the structures. These features result in buildings that are severely out of scale and perspective with the much lower structures in the neighborhood, will result in a significant loss of privacy to neighboring lots, and is contrary to the Village Redevelopment Design Manual requirement fen- common landscaped recreation areas and landscaped pedestrian amenities. 2. Oak St Setback - The setback proposed along Oak St. is significantly less (approximately 50% of) than the setback for all existing and planned residential units along Oak St. We believe that this reduced setback will result in a tight, enclosed and unattractive streetscape along our street. It certainly will not enhance the existing residential area. 3. Intensity of Project - The Village Design Manual guidelines recommend that projects include landscaping amenities and contain a strong pedestrian orientation. It is our conclusion that the project possesses minimal landscaping and does not contain the required strong pedestrian orientation. The project is clearly not in compliance with the Carlsbad Landscape Manual requirement for a minimum 20% landscaped open space. 4. Retaining Walls - The project proposes up to 8-foot retaining walls along the south property line. Presumably an additional wall or fence (as required by the Design Manual) will be placed on the top of this retaining wall. We conclude that the visual impact of this high wall face from the adjacent property and from Lincoln St. will be sorely unattractive. This retaining wall is a result of the chosen product and the requirement for rear pedestrian entry to the units. An alternative building design (including perhaps a reduction in the size of the units) could eliminate these impacting walls. Again, these walls are a good indicator of the project proponent's over-building of the property. LINCOLN AND OAK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT MEETING NOTES September 19,2005 Faraday Building 1635 Faraday, Carlsbad, CA City of Carlsbad Staff Sandy Holder, Director of Community Development Joe Garuba, Management Analyst, City Manager's Office Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner, Housing and Redevelopment Independent Contractor Michael Holzmiller Public Present Sandy Bovenzi MikeBovenzi Peter Dryfus Regarding the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project Mike Bovenzi began with his concerns of the Lincoln and Oak Mixed Use Project. Mr. Bovenzi's initial concerns are: • The height of the project • The orientation or privacy of the project. • The setbacks. He began working with the Redevelopment Department with Craig Ruiz, who sent him a copy of the preliminary review letter. Because of the roof decks, there is a loss of privacy so he does not support the roof decks. He is not anti-development. His issues from day one are: • Height - which doesn't match the existing residential neighborhood. The property height is over 40 feet (42 or 43 feet). It is a 33 or 34-foot high structure, with the roof deck as a 4th story. • There are setbacks on all sides that are proposed less than 10 feet. It also fronts Oak Avenue and the range given in the manual should be held to the high end of the range. The building is 22 feet farther out than any structure on Lincoln or Oak. The line of sight is a huge issue. The mixed use should be sensitive to existing residential units. There is a privacy loss. In the Design Manual, 20% of the site should be devoted to landscape pedestrian amenities. It is 2,000 square feet shy of that. Also in the manual, the ground floor should be devoted to commercial uses. The ground floor is parking and a small percentage is commercial. Pagel The west, east and south property line have stairway entries. There is only a six-foot high fence; 3 feet is a retaining wall and three feet is safety railing. People enter the walk in at waist level looking into the neighbor's backyards. The manual says commercial mixed use should have a six-foot solid masonry wall. The backyard and side yard setbacks fall lower then the desired range. The high is 15 feet and the low is 5 feet; this property is 7.5 feet. He had two analyses done, which he handed out a copy to those present. He wanted to put lifts from the garage to the first level, but when he spoke to the Building Department, they had problems with this. Two units on each corner have lifts. The roof decks are a major issue with respect to the Redevelopment Master Plan standards. No roof deck height is listed. The residences on Lincoln and Oak are 50% single story buildings. His proposed building is tallest at 30 feet. Next door is a building that is 18 feet and across the street one is 24 feet. The proposed building is one to three stories higher. It does not match existing residences. The Village Master Plan states that 392 cubic feet of storage must be accessible from the outside of each individual unit. In this building, there isn't any storage. According to the Universal Building Code, any third level, if it is more than 500 square feet, must have a secondary access. He spoke with Lori Rosenstein, who is now Lori Naylor, who sent him a letter stating that landscaped pedestrian amenities are public not private space. In the Implementation Plan, landscaped pedestrian amenities is cited as a public area. He spoke with two different planners, which he did not name, and Ron Ball in the City Attorney's office. They all agreed with him. Ron Ball said "it sounds right." Sandy Holder reiterated the major points: • Use of proper commercial and parking on ground floor. • Intensity of the project. • Interpretation of the Development Standards' heights, setbacks, loss of privacy, parking and roof deck heights. Michael Holzmiller looked at three sections of the Master Plan: • Permitted uses • Development standards • Design He did not look at the building codes. The Design Manual is subjective and open to personal opinions. The analysis Hofman did was more of a personal opinion analysis. Page 2 USE: • Mixed use projects meet the use provisions o He felt the project's commercial component complied with the Master Plan. The ground floor is devoted to commercial. The commercial component represents about 2/3 of frontage. It is recommended that 100% not be used as frontage. The commercial component could be expanded a little. What is proposed is a good compromise. • Intensity of project o This project is an intense project and in the Design Manual intensity is encouraged. This is an issue for this specific project because it is on the border of a residential neighborhood. Overall, the finding is that this is an intense project and encouraged by the Master Plan. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-Michael's opinion is that open space should be public and that the project does not comply with that opinion about open space requirement. Decks next to units are being considered meeting the requirement. However, Michael Holzmiller felt that private individual decks should not be included in that open space. • Setbacks - The ranges are contrary to analysis from Hofman. If the City Council makes the findings, they can make it allowable. As a suggestion for compatibility, setback could be increased to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. • Parking - They provide one more space than they need to. • The height is 45 feet, which is permitted. Most of the building is three stories, but is within the requirements. The commercial component on the ground floor is permitted with two stories of residential above that. Residential properties adjoining this property have different height and density standards. • Density - Fourteen dwelling units per acre are allowed. The overall density is close to everything else approved in that area. DESIGN STANDARDS - There are about 100 design guidelines in the Master Plan. All are different and may not apply. No project must comply with all 100 design guidelines. Refer to page 119 in the Design Manual, Basic Design Principles. Architecturally, the project does fit into the Village design. It has complied with the Design Standards in just about every case that is applicable. Possible revisions - Setbacks and open space may be increased by reducing the size of the units, not the number of units. If the size of units is reduced, the setbacks could be increased. Sandy Holder commented that the stairs are a Building Code issue. Michael Holzmiller - From a property owner's standpoint, you want your orientation to be outward to take advantage of being close to the beach. You need the window and wall treatment to enhance privacy with a three story next to a two story and facing outward. This project does have an outward orientation. Sandy Holder asked if there were any other areas that needed to be discussed? Page3 Retaining Walls The retaining walls proposed for the Lincoln Oak mixed use project are an extremely sensitive issue and do not conform to Carlsbad municipal codes, and are in direct violation to policy # 21 ( See Attachment) The retaining walls in question run along the entire easterly property line, and along the entire southerly property line. The proposed retaining walls have an extreme adverse impact for the adjacent property directly to the East and also have an extreme adverse impact for the adjacent property to the South. The height of these walls have been condemned by Craig Ruiz in writing, Cliff Jones in writing, and Senior Carlsbad Planner Van Lynch in writing. Starting with the adjacent property directly to the east, the proposed 93 foot retaining wall runs along almost the entire easterly property line. The proposed wall has a two foot build up from existing grade, with a 6 foot solid masonry privacy wall on top of that. Total retaining wall height on the easterly property line is 8 feet in height. Please see attachments of notes to designer by Craig Ruiz, Cliff Jones and Van Lynch. The problem is that the total retaining wall cannot exceed more then 6 feet in height from ( natural Grade) The reason for the 6 foot height limitation is so the adjacent neighbor isn't boxed in with a 8 foot wall on their side. If they did only go 6 feet in total which their not proposing, then everyone walking along the easterly property line to access the units to and from the front door would be walking along the wall at waist height, looking downward and directly into the private back yards and directly into the bottom floor living area of the adjacent condo units. Section 2 page 121 specifically has a illustration regarding this. ( See Attachment) Which states minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses. Also section 2 page 117 ( see attachment) clearly states that any lot proposed for non residential which adjoins an existing residential lot shall have a solid masonry wall installed along common lot lines. The Lincoln Oak Mixed use project does propose non residential The reason and intent for the 6 foot solid masonry wall is to serve as a buffer for both sound and privacy. Since city codes do not allow walls over 6 feet in height form natural grade, and a 6 foot solid masonry wall is required as a sound and privacy buffer, the entry for each proposed unit needs to be at natural grade. It's not possible to achieve this with the current plan. The problem is actually much worse on the Southerly property line. The retaining wall along the Southerly property line runs along the entire property line of 145 feet. The proposed wall is 10 feet in height with 4 feet retaining with a required 6 foot wall on top of that. This means that the property adjacent to the south will have on their side a 10 foot high barrier wall along the entire property line which is not allowed and has been condemned in writing by Craig Ruiz, Cliff Jones and Senior Carlsbad Planner Van Lynch. Once again, in order to have a required 6 foot solid masonry wall for privacy and sound and the feet that a wall height cannot exceed more then 6 feet in height form natural grade...what is proposed is not possible. Poor site planning is the reason, and especially since all of the above mentioned planners in writing have told them this in the preliminary review letters since 2004. Craig RuizJe'tter to Designer Dated(^ne2lf2004yn Page 3 item 12 quotes ZTpTeasebe aware that the combinafioTTretaining wall fence shall not exceed 6 feet as measured from the exterior of the property. Presently a six foot fence is shown on top of a three foot retaining wall, whichjsjmacceptable. ( see attachment) Cliff Jones Jbtter to designer datedjteceaaber 15 2004xrage 2 item 3 quotes "stated in the June 21st 2004 letter, staff has concerns about combination retaining wall fences. Please be aware that the combination retaining wall fence along the southerly property line shall not exceed 6 feet in height as measured from the exterior of the property line, thus reducing the heights of the walkways and reducing the height of the retaining wall. ( See attachment ) Cliff Jonesjrrelim letter to designei^iarchJZS, 2005'page 2 item 3 quotes 3. As stated previously staff has concerns about combination retaining wall/fences.PIease be aware that the combination retaining wall and fences along property lines shall not exceed six feet in height as measured form the exterior of the property. Please show the proposed fencing on top of the retaining wall and indicate the highest point of the combination retaining wall/fence. Show the fence on cross sections AA-BB. Please not that the building department requires a minimum fence height of 26 inches from the interior of the property. ( see attachment ) Cliff Jonesjjrelim letter to designeiuune 24th 2005,jfage 2 hem 2 quotes. are already aware, a typicaRoTnlillolfiw approval of the project will be that the proposed project shall have a solid masonry wall installed along common wall lines, (since the proposed project has a non residential component). The height of the walls is an issue still to be discussed with the property owner to the south. This discussion must occur before staff can make a final recommendation of the project. ( see attachment ) I also had a discussion Friday Jan 13* 2006 with Van Lynch and the Carlsbad Planning Department and he agreed and stated that the proposed retaining wall fence should not be approved, and he also mentioned that a retaining wall cannot exceed 6 feet in height from natural grade as measured from the exterior of the property. He also gave me a copy of policy 21 ( see attachment) Cliff Jones in the June 24th letter also(required ) the designer to meet with the property owner to the south ( Dennis Bauern ) and Cliff quotes that this discussion must occur before staff can make a final decision. ( in my discussion with Dennis Bauern Jan 15* 2006 less then one week before the scheduled design review board meeting Dennis has never been contacted. Conclusion) entries need to be lowered to grade because a max 6 foot retaining wall is all that's allowed per Policy 21 Carlsbad municipal code and a 6 foot high solid masonry wall is required as a buffer for both sound and privacy as Cliff also states above. The pages provided as attachments for the preliminary review letters have been removed from the total letter, however if you would like to review the prelim letters in the complete form, they have also been provided in another section. Ifl-Sls* ,J PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Policy No. _2 Effective Dale 3/12/90 DEFINITIONS 3. 4. 5. Fence - A vertical harrier or enclosure constructed of any material which supports no other load other than its own weight. Wall - A solid fence. Retaining Wall • A wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials; said materials being substantially equal to the height of the wall. The term "wall" in Section 21.46.130 of the Zone Code and other applicable sections of the code shall be interpreted to mean retaining walls in addition to solid fences. Safety Railing - An open fence not to exceed 36" in height. The said openings, between the maicriiils of which the fence is constructed must not represent less than 70 percent of the total surface of each five foot linear section when viewed perpendicular to the face of the fence. The total height of all walls, fences, retaining walls, and combination fence/retaining wails in a required setback shall not exceed the following limits: A. B. In a required front yard setback, the total height shall not exceed 42 inches. (Example • Two 42 inch retaining walls would not be permitted nor a 42 inch retaining wall and another 42 inch fence). In a required side and rear yard .setback, the total height shall not exceed 6 feet. (Example - A 4 ft. retaining wall and a 5 ft. fence wouid not be permitted because the total exceeds 6 ft). Upon approval of the Planning Director, the total height shall not exceed 6 feel in a required street side yard. Otherwise, the total height shall nol exceed 42 inches in a street side yard. (This includes all combinations of fences and retaining walls). A 36 inch safely railing is required on top of all retaining walls that exceed a height of 3 feet. The maximum height of the railing shall be 36 inches and must conform to the definition of a safety railing. APPROVED BY: MICHAEL J. ROLZf Planning Director LLER JGjif • The plans state "Number of stories 3 plus ground level*. TWs should be revised to state that the project is 3 stones with underground packing. • Please delete the references to R-3 and S3. • Please revise plans to show required setbacks as follows: Front: 5-20 feet Sidfc 5-10 feet and Rear: 5-15 feet • Please add project application numbers in upper right hand comer of ©ever sheet (RP04-11, CDP04-30 and CT04- ). • Please add the existing Zone, and General Plan Land Use Designation (Zoning Is V-R and GP is V (Village). Please remove tie Density 'aflowad' a» no density has been allocated to the property. Please list the proposed density. • Please provide the open space calculation (minimum 20% of the site). 8. Please show the approximate location of existing buildings within 10® feet &f ***** 9. Oh Page A-0, there appears to be a walkway between Space No. 2 and No. 5. At the end of the walkway ft appears there is a symbol for a door. Please clarify. 10. A-0 20'v. 24',+2'at waffs. 11. Please darify how the gate to the parking area wJH function white providing the 12. Please be aware that the combination retaining wall and fence shall not ex@e*d ate feet as measure from the exterior of the property. Presently a six-foot fence i* 13. Please show flat^r^^safT!a!W^esrl^!roof deck and flat areas associated with residential mechanical units. Also'show the slope ofthe roof -portions owr the residential first floor entries. 14. Please show location of mechanical units for retail portion of the project 15. Please correct spelling throughout the plans. 16. On sheet AS-1, please identify the accessibility parking space. 17. Please describe how the garbage area is serviced. 18. Provide a sign plan showing conceptual signage for the building along with a summary table with the following information: a. Total building street frontage; b. Total sign area allowed (1 square foot of signage per linear foot of building frontage); c. Total sign area proposed. 19. Submit a construction materials board and color samples. 20. With the notes for the elevations, provide greater details on the items noted <i.e. size, dimensions, color, product name, etc). Also, provide similar information for the other items (tile, metal grate?) which are not labeled. LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION RP04-1 1 Staff has completed a review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete at this time. The following additional items are required to find the application complete: (Please note, the issues are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.) Housing & Redevelopment: 1 . As stated in the June 21, 2004 letter A tentative map (TM) will be required for the proposed subdivision. Apply for a tentative tract map and add the assigned CT number within the upper right hand corner of the map. The TM application package can be obtained from the Planning counter in our Faraday Ave. offices. The application fee for the TM is $6,200 plus $110 per unit or lot (whichever Is greater). Please make the check payable to the "City of Carlsbad". 2. As was stated previously, staff has a concern about the proposed roof decks and the downward visibility they will have into adjacent properties. Staff will require letters from adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the on the •• ited in the June2triOl54Tenerr^ wall/fences. Please be aware that the combination retaining wall and fence along the southerly property line (shown on sheet A-5) shall not exceed six feet as measured from the exterior of the property. Staff suggests the entries of the units be brought out closer to the property line, thus reducing the heights of the walkways and ^i^fiihSJff^^ii^SiiIl^ii^^-^ilftiii , the garbage area will be serviced. 5. Please clarify whether or not monument signage wHI act as building signage for the retail space. Note that monument signage counts against overall total signage. For more signage information please contact staff. 6. Staff never received a construction materials board and color samples. Please submit a construction materials board and color samples with next submittal. Engineering: 1 Add the following note to the plans: This is a tentative tract map of a condominium project as defined in Section 1350 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The project contains a maximum of 6 airspace residential condominium units and 1 commercial retail unit". 2 Apply for a tentative tract map and add the assigned CT number within the upper right hand comer of the map. LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION RP04-11 Staff has completed a review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete at this time. The following additional items are required to find the application complete: (Please note, the issues are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.) Housing it Redevelopment: 1. Please add the assigned CT number CT05-03 to the tentative map. 2. As was stated previously, staff has a concern about the proposed roof decks and the downward visibility they will have into adjacent properties. Due to concerns that the Housing & Redevelopment Department has received from adjacent property owners on the proposed project sine the latest submittal, Staff shall require the property owner and architect to meet with the surrounding neighbors to address ttteir concerns. Staff will require tetters from adjacent property owners documenting their opinion on the roof decks and the overall project prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project. A good faith effort shall be made to address neighbor concerns befprejaroceeding with thejgrojecjL • IIIHII*M'fllifffffM.,,,,,,—ii,,,,,ii,,.,,,,.i,,,,,,,., HBBJWHP"™1'™* • —*^M"previously, staff has coTTC«fn§Ba°BoiffcornbinatJon retaining wall/fences. / Please be aware that the combination retaining wall and fences along property lines shall not exceed six feet as measured from the exterior of the property. Please show the proposed fencing on top of the retaining wall and indicate the highest point of the combination retaining wall/fence. Show the fence on cross sections A-A anqf B-B. Please note that the building department requires a minimum fence heighti inches from the intertorjaf the property. ^ .r—— ^ ,„„..., - 4. Please indicate on the landscape plans (Sheets L1.0 & L1.1) the percentages each landscaped area equates to the overall property. Please demonstrate the percentage of any and all proposed landscaped planters, open space pockej and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patio and/or outdoor eating areas and | they equate to the minimum 20% open space requirement devoted to lands pedestrian amenities. 5. Please explain why the distance between the door to the entrance of roof defck 5 to the end of the roof deck is different on sheets A5.2 & A3.0. 6. Staff never received a construction materials board or colored elevations. Plejase submit a construction materials board and color samples with next submittal. shall require the applicant to provide digital drawings depicting the elevations Staff of the proposed project with the adjacent properties in the elevations as well (including any recently approved building plans of adjacent properties). On the elevations, goof* heights shall be clearly indicated. These digital images will help to demonstrate the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. ISSUES OF CONCERN RP04-11 Housing & Redevelopment: 1. Applicant must make a good faith effort to address the adjacent neighbors concerns before staff makes a recommendation on the project. As we have previously discussed, Housing & Redevelopment staff, the applicant/property owner, and the architect will meet with adjacent property owners to the south, north, and east to discuss their development concerns if any. Housing & Redevelopment staff will attend these meetings to document issues of concern raised. The results of these meetings may result in staff requesting additional modification to the design of the pjgject to address concerns, asjleterrnined by staff tojMyappwjpriat ~2. As^b^^f^l^l^^awareT^^c^^^^ffl^p^rwaTcf the project will be thaT the proposed project shall have a solid masonry wail installed along common lot lines (since the project has a non-residential component). The height of the walls is an issue still to be discussed with the property owner to the south. This discussion must staf/^anj-nake-a-fina^recomroendat 3. ^Pleas^lndlcatethe dimensions as well as the total amount of tenant storage space for each unit. This will help to relieve any ambiguity of the amount of tenant storage space provided. A. Please provide staff with colored elevations, which depict the proposed project with the adjacent developments drawn in. 5. Staff never received a construction materials board. Please submit a construction materials board and color samples with next submittal. Engineering: The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project for compliance with the previously determined issues. The project stiff has issues that must be addressed. The following is a list of these issues: 1. All trees removed within the public right-of-way require separate approval through the General Services Division of the Public Works Department. Since a tree and a shrub/tree that is in the right-of-way are identified for removal, contact the General Services Division to begin the permit process. Provide evidence that this process has either begun or is completed. Although vour previous response letter indicated that a CODV of the application was sent with vour last submittal. I did not receive a copy. 2. Adjust the triangular site distance at the street intersection on sheet 4 of the Engineering plans and Sheet 2 of the landscape plans. The hypotenuse of the triangle shall connect at points along the street curb 25 feet from the beginning of curb return in each direction away from the intersection of Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue. The triangular area is still not properly measured from the BCR. I 1 I 1 •g -I •g*" !2 f| i* •si? 8S1 I*Jl 31. 1 !f:l:::i:,:™Sip|SliE» r m ijjii Sifwsj^htjtH1:: H S :s nfliis'ira-i Jsig^JvMj^^nC'^rilw =S;S^t ijijr'"-?^r;\* ^'ei^rir^ttT^frrt':;;^ tli*.^ I1***-J_ ._^._^.t _:..'^;:::iUHc:<vj Minimize Privacy Loss The Proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project proposes extreme privacy loss for adjacent residential. The City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual clearly states in section 2 page 121 and even shows an illustration ( minimize Privacy loss for adjacent residential) Placement of windows and trash areas should be sensitive to any adjacent residential units, outdoor dining areas or pedestrian areas. (See attachment) The proposed project does actually do the opposite and proposes Maximum Privacy Loss for adjacent residential units. For whatever reason completely unknown, the proposed projects primary orientation is outward into adjacent residential on both the easterly property line and the southerly property line. Orientation should have been outwara towards the ocean and the village but it's orientation is inward.\N.__^ As adjacent neighbors we understand that sure, a few windows will probably face inward and to not have any windows facing adjacent residential would not be realistic. However if you look at the plans, not only are we dealing with set backs that are way below the desired standard, but the primary orientation of all units is outward. Approximately $0% of the livable space orients directly into adjacent backyards and windows, which actually maximizes the privacy which is actually opposite per the development standards which require to minimize privacy loss. Once again, if Development staff would have completed a detailed on sight review...they would have figured this out more then a year ago, but since no on sight review was ever completed, this required standard has been completely overlooked and is unacceptable to adjacent neighbors. Please not in the illustration that the required 6 foot solid masonry wall is also shown which should serve as a buffer for sound and line of site. This will be discussed in more detail in the retaining wall section. ii >3 I I 3 5»l I, ?'fi i % *"OI I s-« s ga # e 11 &o * B. f cr £• s ^<*s r^c.r.^-s-^ * B."*iUlr ri*»*•iS. (.,o2£,'5I>>c,Ci»i £ij|iir)ti|r?3'58s-!-i;a«.fi-s|. Is- jj ~. t, - g g l:f?sf> "' %^rllOQ g ?• 5'5^ 8 § 6 -. ~ 3 ere Set Backs The Set back issue that has arisen regarding the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project is extremely sensitive and according to the information provided within the Carlsbad Redevelopment Master Plan and design manual, the set backs exceed the desired range and have an extreme adverse impact on the adjacent residential and the surrounding neighborhood. According to section 2 page 7 of the development standards under (Setbacks) it states In all cases where a range has been established as the appropriate setback standard within a given district, the top of the range shall be considered the desired standard. However, a reduction in the standard, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and the appropriate findings are made by an authorized official ( Please See Attachment). According to the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual as quoted above, the top of the range is what we want and what we desire. So according to the standards they want and desire the setbacks to be the as fer back as possible. The currently proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project is clearly in Violation of the wants and desires of the Village master Plan and design Manual. Since Craig Ruiz never did a on sight review and Cliff Jones did not complete an on sight review until the end of June, in which the currently proposed project was for the most part set in stone, the adverse effects regarding the set backs were never taken into consideration. I did do an intense on sight review both on height and on set backs. My set back review was for the immediate neighborhood only which included Oak street from Washington west to Lincoln, and Lincoln St. from pine Ave west to Oak. The finding is that the proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed use project will stick out 25 feet farther on average then any other structure on Oak Ave, and it will also stick out 17 feet farther then any other structure on Lincoln Avenue. So basically not only will the nearly 45 foot high structure Literally tower over the 50% single story neighborhood and 50% 2 story neighborhood, which is inconsistent according to the Goals 4.2 and 4.5 Page 1 section 7. But the project will stick out on average 25 father then any other structure on Oak and 17 feet farther then any other structure on Lincoln. Not only the height, but especially the Setbacks will have an extreme Adverse affect on the entire neighborhood. Also I might Add that if the Proposed Project was compliant with the fact that 20% must be maintained as Landscaped pedestrian amenities (which it's clearly not) we would not be having a set back issue. The non compliance of the Required Open space has given them the flexibility to decrease the setbacks well below the desired range according to the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. According to the Development Standards if the-setbacks are going to be reduced to the minimum or anywhere in between, an authorized approving body must find that. 1. the reduced standard will not have an impact on surrounding properties 2. the reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals. Not only will a reduction in the setback affect the entire view corridor of all residents on Lincoln St. and Oak Avenue, but because of the height combined with the setbacks we can all say goodbye to our wonderful afternoon sunlight, our view corridors down Oak and Lincoln and the wonderful see breeze will be halted by this near 45 foot structure which is according to the Goals and the desires of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual extremely inconsistent with the Goals, intentions, desires as well as the intended standards. Please make the rinding that the proposed project has an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Please imagine your neighbor going 2 and a half stories higher and set 25 feet farther out then your house if you lived in a tight nit community with in fill lots and how it would affect you. The affect could never be positive and could only be adverse... and in this particular case the affect is extreme. i i H- *P: a fi o\ .fc. iOjfS o> E (0 S § „ °i§-ail3s»S.]ll-fil?**' ' 1^ « .J9§^89So-ISSam. §*S^5pa ® ** s ^ ^ Q. I f .S ^ *5j!B9|'8'f^»|||fi a*^ s4a o <Nr >n I <o € £. I .S I I £ & £>o I IB. 00 >n « I & •* fr S ^S W3 co -S & f'lfjif:,'.' 3" e IH f Xiw ^\jt Esgil Plan Check Company My approved and currently under construction Ocean Mist Project CT-04-18 which is the adjacent property bordering the easterly property line of the proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed use project. Prior to my ever submitting to the city of Carlsbad for preliminary review, I had 2 separate meetings with Esgil Corp, which is the Company in San Diego who does a lot of the plan checking for the city of Carlsbad, Such as building codes, title 24 part 2 accessibility and so on. Craig Ruiz Wrote to designer Robert Richardson in the preliminary review letter Dated June 21 2004 Backside of last page under Building. The building Department has the following comments regarding the proposed Project. 1. Determine whether the garage level by definition a basement of first story for building code purposes It does not appear that the lowest level would be a basement, and therefore the building be a 3 story building. There would be several code implications if that's the determination. ( Attached ) Designer Robert Richardson Wrote Back. ( Attached ) Building Item 1 We did not feel meeting with Esgil was required. Pretty bold statement I thought, especially coming from a designer that's not even a licensed Architect and according to state Law under the Architects Practice act section 5536A and 5537.. and designer is forbidden by law to go into contract and forbidden by law to design the proposed Lincoln oak Mixed use project, punishable by a large fine and up to a year in prison. A non licensed person cannot design a project with more then 4 units or 3 stories or anything with a commercial element. ( see attachment) So the question is what did the Designer Robert Richardson Miss ? 1. the fact that the building has 2 elevators. Once you create access, the whole building has to be accessible. There is actually an analysis from Dennis Sharp Design Consultants who is a Title 24 part 2 professional. He will be speaking on Monday the 23rd on behalf of what the designer missed. But just on that item alone, the current design does not work. 2. Also Missed is that fact that the building is by code considered a 4 story building because of the interior access to the roof decks. Any 3 story building that has more then 500 feet of living space on the 3rd level must have secondary access. The 3rd level is more then 1000 feet actually and according to building code (see Attachment) there must be secondary access off of the third floor and there must also be a secondary access off of the roof decks because it's considered a fourth floor. Some Cities have adopted the international building codes, but for the most part most have not. The city of Carlsbad has not adopted the international building codes. I wanted to make sure this was all true, so I spoke with Greg Ryan in fire a few weeks ago and asked him about the secondary access off of the third floor and also the roof decks as well He specifically that Carlsbad Has Not adopted the international standards and that the proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed Use project will without exception be required to have secondary access from the third level, and secondary access off of the roof decks as well. This will change the entire Roof plan and 2nd and third floor plans as well. The secondary access as well as the title 24 part 2 handicap, are going to be huge design problems that will for the most part change the entire structure. The City of Carlsbad did recommend to the designer a meeting with Esgil to iron problems before design takes place, but as you can see in the letter from designer Robert Richardson quotes (We did not feel a meeting with Esgil was Required ) Pretty Bold statement for designer who's not even a architect, and legally not qualified according to State law to even be designing the project. ^^ 21. The plans show a roof pitch of 4:12. The required roof pitch is 5:12 or greater. Please revise accordingly. Fire: The Fire Department has completed its review of this project and shall require the following information and propose the following requirements/changes if applicant desires to proceed with this application. 1. The proposed installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be as follows, Garage and Retail areas shall be designed to NFPA 13 standards. The dwelling units shall be designed to NFPA 13-R and all concealed combustible spaces shall be protected. 2. Both 'Drop" gates shall have installed a "KNOX" key switch. 3. The fire sprinkler riser shall be placed into an accessible enclosed space. 4. UBC is going to require rated separations between the Parking garage and the retail (B) and residential (R-1) areas, however the plans submitted do not refiect these construction type changes. To discuss all Fire Department related concerns, please contact Deputy Fire Marshal Gregory Ryan at (760) 602-4663. Department has the foUowfng comments regarding the proposed project:, ^ _j was submitted, staff encourage the architect to have a preliminary "meeting with one of EsGII's~p1an checkers to reviewirie-l@RoWjrigif*Tns: i€: 'Determine whejher,the garage level is by definition a,basement,pr first story fop " Taullding code'purposesr 11:^oeVrtot^p^ear-1rratWe^bwest fevel^ould be ay* Basement, and therefore trie building would be a three story building. There wilj be several code implications if that's the determination by EsGih b. The common roof deck over the retail store would need two exits therefrom due to the size of the deck. Conceptually, one tenant could have a large number of ^ people up there and the tenant doors would not be available as an exit. It also >—' appears the tenant doors to that deck are sliders; sliders cannot be used as required exits. Please provide the results of the meeting with EsGil on these items. 2. There are concerns about retail air-conditioning equipment which may be placed on that roof deck and how it will be safed from tenants. Roof top A/C units are noisy, blower driven machines that are incongruous with adjacent residential space. Engineering: 1. On the site plan/conceptual Grading Plan, include the following data: ;\ tO<. -f/**? O^e^ /(/# u Item 16; Please refer to sheet AS1 .0 for the call-out "HC" added to the box at the required stall. Item 17; Please refer to the Prefatory Grading Plan. The parking garage floor has been held fairly level from the trash room to the western entry. The garbage service will wheel the bins from the traah room to the entry and back. A letter from .the trash service will be obtained to this end. Item 18; Please refer to the new drawing sheet AS 1.1, the Signage Development Plan, showing the proposed monument sign walls and signage placement. Exact wording and finished sign size and appearance shall; be developed prior to start of construction. Item 19; Please refer to the enclosed color board. Item 20; Please refer to the color/sample board for information on finishes. Many items shown have not yet been decided as to specifics and will be added as they are chosen. Item 21; PIMM* r»f*r u> shOTt* A4.0, «nd A4.1. Exterior Elevations. The pitch has been noted as 5"rise to 12" run as required by this revirvr. r • Item 1; Please refer to sheet Cl .0* Cover Sheet for Fire Notes reflecting this item. Item 2: Please refer to sheet Cl .0, Cover Sheet for Fire Notes reflecting mis item. Item 3; Please refer to sheet AS 1 .0, Site Plan, for fire riser shown in the Utility Room adjacent to the, Oak Street vehicle entrance. This room shall be for electrical service, fire riser and the fire alarm, control panel. Item 4; Please refer to sheet C 1 .0, Cover Sheet for Fire Notes reflecting this item. Building; Item 1; We did not feel that a meeting with EsGil was required. a) The building is a three-story building and will be required to be a 1-hour construction (see sheet Cl .Q) and we are specifying sprinklers as required by &e Fire review, hetfj #1,; above. See also sheet C 1.0 for fire notes. 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 1004.2.21004.2.5.2.3 L In other than dwelling units, a means of egress shall not pass through kitchens, storerooms, restrooms, closets or spaces used for similar purposes. L c /For SFA// In Group I, Division 1.1 Occupancies a means of - c egress shall not pass through specific-use areas as listed in Table c 3-C requiring one-hour occupancy separations. A means of egress serving other than Group H Occupancies shall not pass through rooms that contain Group H Occupancies. 1004.2.3 Access to exits. 1004.2 J.I General. Exits shall be provided from each building level. Additionally, access to such exits shall be provided from all occupied areas within building levels. The maximum number of exits required from any story, basement or individual space shall be maintained until arrival at grade or the public way. 1004.23.2 From individual floors. For the purposes of Section 1004.2, floors, stories, occupied roofs and similar designations of building levels other than basements and mezzanines shall be con- sidered synonymous. Every occupant on the first story shall have access to not less than one exit and not less than two exits when required by Table 10-A. Every occupant in basements and on stories other than the first story shall have access to not less than two exits. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Second stories hiving an occupant load less than 10 may be provided with access to only one exit. 2. Two or more dwelling units on the second story or in a basement may have access to only one exit where the total occupant load served by that exit does not exceed 10. 3. Except as provided in Table 10-A, access to only one exit need be provided from the second floor or a basement within an individual dwelling unit or a Group R, Division 3 congregate residence. 4. Where the third floor within an individual dwelling unit or a Group R, Division 3 congregate residence does not exceed 500 square feet (46.45 m2), access to only one exit need be provided from that floor. 5. Occupied roofs on Group R, Division 3 Occupancies may have access to only one exit where such occupied areas are less than 500 square feet (46.45 m2) and are located no higher than immediately above the second story. 6. Floors and basements used exclusively for the service of the building may have access to only one exit. For the purposes of this ex- ception, storage rooms, laundry rooms, maintenance offices and simi- lar uses shall not be considered as providing service to the building. No cumulative or contributing occupant loads from adjacent levels need be considered when determining the number of required exits from a given level. 1004.2.3.3 From individual spaces. All occupied portions of the building shall have access to not less than one exit or exit-access doorway. Access to not less than two exits, exit-access doorways or combination thereof shall be provided when the individual or cumulative occupant load served by a portion of the exit access is equal to, or greater than, that listed in Table 10-A. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Elevator lobbies may have access to only one exit or exit-access doorway provided the use of such exit or exit-access doorway does not require keys, tools, special knowledge or effort. 2. Storage rooms, laundry rooms and maintenance offices not exceeding 300 square feet (27.87 m2) in floor area may bVprovided with access to only one exit or exit-access doorway. C EXCEPTlONSfForSFM]:!. Every assembly building as defined c in Chapter 2 shall be provided with not less than two remotely located c **"*'A 2. In holding cells, such as are found in courthouse buildings, a A minimum of two means of egress shall be provided when the occupant £ load is more than 20. 1004.23.4 Additional access to exits. Access to not less than three exits, exit-access doorways or combination thereof shall be provided when the individual or cumulative occupant load served by the exit access is 501 to 1,000. Access to not less than four exits, exit-access doorways or com- bination thereof shall be provided when the individual or cumula- tive occupant load served by the exit access exceeds 1,000. 1004.2.4 Separation of exits or exit-access doorways. Where two or more exits or exit-access doorways are required from any level or portion of the building, at least two of the exits or exit- access doorways shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served measured in a straight line between the center of such exits or exit-access doorways. Additional exits or exit-access doorways shall be arranged a reasonable distance apart so that if one becomes blocked, the others will be available. EXCEPTION: The separation distance determined in accordance with this section may be measured along a direct path of exit travel within a fire-resistive corridor complying with Section 1004.3.4.3.1 serving exit enclosures. The walls of any such exit enclosure shall not be less than 30 feet (9144 mm), measured in a straight line, from the walls of another exit enclosure. 1004.2.5 Travel distance. 1004.2.5.1 General. Travel distance is that distance an occupant must travel from any point within occupied portions of the exit access to the door of the nearest exit. Travel distance shall be mea- sured in a straight line along the path of exit travel from the most remote point through the center of exit-access doorways to the center of the exit door. Travel distance shall include that portion of the path of exit travel through or around permanent construction features and building elements. Travel around tables, chairs, fur- nishings, cabinets and similar temporary or movable fixtures or equipment need not be considered as the normal presence of such items is factored into the permitted travel distance. Unless prohibited elsewhere in this chapter, travel within the exit access may occur on multiple levels by way of unenclosed stairways .or ramps. Where the path of exit travel includes unen- closed stairways or ramps within the exit access, the distance of travel on such means of egress components shall also be included in the travel distance measurement. The measurement along stair- ways shall be made on a plane parallel and tangent to the stair tread nosings in the center of the stairway. 1004.2.5.2 Maximum travel distance. The travel distance to at least one exit shall not exceed that specified in this section. Special travel distance requirements are contained in other sec- tions of this code as follows: 1. For atria, see Section 402.5. 2. For Group E Occupancies, see Section 1007.3. 3. For Group H Occupancies, see Section 1007.4. 4. For malls, see Sections 404.4.3 and 404.4.5. 5. [For SFM] For Group I Occupancies, see Section 1007.5. 1004.2.5.2J Nonsprinklered buildings. In buildings not equipped with an automatic sprinkler system throughout, the travel distance shall not exceed 200 feet (60 960 mm). 1004.2.5.2.2 Sprinklered buildings. In buildings equipped with an automatic sprinkler system throughout, the travel distance shall not exceed 250 feet (76 200 mm). 1004.2.5.2.3 Corridor increases. The travel distances speci- fied in Sections 1004.2.5.2.1, 1004.2.5.2.2, 1004.2.5.2.4 and 1004.2.5.2.5 may be increased up to an additional 100 feet (30 480 mm) pro vided.that the last portion of exit access leading to A h 1-113 Architects Practice Act § 5527 Injunction Whenever any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or which will constitute an offense against this chapter, the superior court of the county in which the offense has occurred or is about to occur, on application of the board, may issue an injunction or other appropriate order restraining such act or practice. The proceedings authorized by this section shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. § 5528 Consultants (a) The board may select and contract with necessary architect consultants who are licensed architects to assist it in its enforcement program on an intermittent basis. The architect consultants shall perform only those services that are necessary to carry out and enforce this chapter. (b) For the purposes of Division 3.6 (commencing with section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code, any consultant under contract with the board shall be considered a public employee. Article 3. Applkation of Chapter § 5535 Person Defined As used in this article, the word "person" includes any individual, firm, corporation, or limited liability partnership. § 5535.1 Responsible Control Defined The phrase "responsible control" means that amount of control over the content of technical submissions during their preparation that is ordinarily exercised by architects applying the required professional standard of care. § 5535.2 Partnerships with Non-Architects This chapter does not prevent an architect from forming a partnership with persons who are not architects but the name of the architect shall appear as the architect on all instruments of service and in no case may the other members of the partnership be designated as architects. § 5535,3 Corporation Responsible Control This chapter does not prevent a corporation from furnishing or supplying by contract architectural services by and under the responsible control of a licensed architect or architects. § 5536 Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect; Misdemeanor (a) It ia -a misdemeanor, punishable ^gr a. Jin* crf^t Jess than ose hundred do dollars<$5,CKX)i or by imprisonment ia a Bounty jail sot exceeding one year, arcWte ^fe»* *« .««aT4tJ£ „«„„., ~f*. !;„__„J «_C:iii. Jilii^IJ3C'3.T_;io* il*_l'-Jit^>'.< to advertise or put out airy sig^. .-_,,„- ,^,_— be or she is qualified to engage in tiiepractiee of a 5 lhat might indicate to i8w^f»rlWlw«*i (b) |t1$ a misdemeanor, puiiiariaHe,as-speci&d \insuWrwsion {i£ for any 3 architecture noder this chaptw to affix a stanipor s«al which bears the legend*, that represent or imply that the person-islsw,licensed % the state to prepare (c) It is a misdemeanor, punishable as specified in subdivision (a), for any person to advertise or represent that he or she is a "registered building designer" or is registered or otherwise licensed by the state as a building designer. § 5536.1 Signature and Stamp on Plans and Documents; Unauthorized Practice; Misdemeanor (a) All persons preparing or being in responsible control of plans, specifications, and instruments of service for others shall sign those plans, specifications, and instruments of service and all contracts therefor, and if licensed under this chapter shall affix a stamp, which complies with subdivision (b), to those plans, specifications, and instruments of service, as evidence of the person's responsibility for those documents. Failure of any person to comply with this subdivision is a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 5536. This section shall not apply to employees of persons licensed under this chapter while acting within the course of their employment. (b) For the purposes of this chapter, any stamp used by any architect licensed under this chapter shall be of a design authorized by the board which shall at a minimum bear the licensee's name, his or her license number, the legend "licensed architect" and the legend "State of California," and which shall provide a means of indicating the renewal date of the license. (c) The preparation of plans, specifications, or instruments of service for any building, except the buildings described in Section 5537, by any person who is not licensed to practice architecture in this state, is a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 5536. (d) The board may adopt regulations necessary for the implementation of this section. § 5536.27 Liability; Building Inspection* (a) An architect who voluntarily, without compensation or expectation of compensation, provides structural inspection services at the scene of a declared national, state, or local emergency caused by a major earthquake, flood, riot, or fire at the request of a public official, public safety officer, or city or county building inspector acting in an official capacity shall not be liable in negligence for any personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage caused by the architect's good faith but negligent inspection of a structure used for human habitation or a structure owned by a public entity for structural integrity or nonstructural elements affecting life and safety. The immunity provided by this section shall apply only for an inspection that occurs within 30 days of die declared emergency. Nothing in this section shall provide immunity for gross negligence or willful misconduct. (b) As used in this section: (1) "Architect1' has the meaning given by Section 5500. (2) "Public safety officer" has the meaning given in Section 3301 of the Government Code. (3) "Public official" means a state or local elected officer. § 5536.3 Natural Disasters; Damage to Residential Real Property; Release of Copy of Plans (a) In the event of damage to residential real property caused by e natural disaster declared by the Governor, if the damage may be covered by oae or more policies of insurance, any architect or other person who has prepared plans used for the construction or remodeling of the residential real property shall release a copy of the plans to the homeowner's insurer or the homeowner, or duly authorized agent of the insurer or the homeowner, upon request and verification that the plans will be used solely for the purpose of verifying the fact and amount of damage for insurance purposes. (b) No homeowner or any other person shall use any copy of plans obtained pursuant to subdivision (a) to rebuild all or any part of the residential real property without the prior written consent of the architect or other person who prepared the plans. (c) In the event prior written consent is not provided pursuant to subdivision (b), no architect or other person who has prepared plans who releases a copy of plans pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be liable to any person if the plans are subsequently used by the homeowner or any other person to rebuild all or any part of the residential real property. (d) The architect or other person may charge a reasonable fee to cover the reproduction costs of providing a copy of the plans. (e) As used in this section, "residential real property" means a single family structure, whether or not owner-occupied. § 5536.5 State of Emergency, Practice Without License or Holding Self Oat as Architect; Penalty Any person who violates subdivision (a) of Section 5536 in connection with the offer or performance of architectural services for the repair of damage to a residential or nonresidential structure caused by a natural disaster for which a state of emergency is proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Section 8625 of the Government Code, or for which an emergency or major disaster is declared by the President of the United States, shall be punished by a fine up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or for two or three years, or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by a fine up to one thousand dollars ($1000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. § 5537 Exemption); Dwellings, Garage*, Agricultural and Ranch Buildings; Supervision of Licensed Architect or Registered Engineer Required (a) This chapter does not prohibit any person from preparing plans, drawings, or specifications for any of the following: (1) Single-family dwellings of woodframe construction not more than two stories and basement in height (2) Multiple dwellings containing no more than four dwelling units of woodframe construction not more than two stories and basement in height However, this paragraph shall not be construed as allowing an unlicensed person to design multiple clusters of up to four dwelling units each to form apartment or condominium complexes where the total exceeds four units on any lawfully divided lot (3) Garages or other structures appurtenant to buildings described under subdivision (a), of woodframe construction not more than two stories and basement in height. (4) Agricultural and ranch buildings of woodframe construction, unless the building official having jurisdiction deems that an undue risk to the public health, safety, or welfare is involved. (b) If any portion of any structure exempted by this section deviates from substantial compliance with conventional framing requirements for woodframe construction found in the most recent edition of Tide 24 of the California Code of Regulations or tables of limitation for woodframe construction, as defined by the applicable building code duly adopted by the local jurisdiction or the state, the building official having jurisdiction shall require the preparation of plans, Landscaped Pedestrian Ammenities Section 2 page 117 District 9 Tourism Support Area. Under (Open Space) it states that 20% of the property must be maintained as open space. The open space must be devoted to Landscaped pedestrian amenities per the city of Carlsbad's landscape manual and no parking aisles are permitted in the open space. (See attachment for Details) The Carlsbad Implementation Plan on page 2 ( attached ) clearly defines the village as a pedestrian centered network, which it is. I've had conversations with the following individuals who agree that landscaped pedestrian amenities refers without question to public space and not private space. BUI Hofinan & Eric Munoz of Hofinan Planning agree it's definitely public and not private space, Lori Rosenstein agrees ( See attachment) Larry Black who is the City of Carlsbad Landscape plan checker agrees it's public space not private space. Michael Holzmiller agrees it is public and not private space. Paul Klukus from Planning Systems agrees it's definitely public and not private space. Id did have a conversation with City attorney Ron Ball and he thought it sounded like public space and not private space, but he would get back to me regarding the definition. The entire Village Redevelopment Zone was intended as tourism support, mixed use and tourism serving commercial. The Village implementation plan defines the village as a pedestrian centered network and the intent of the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual defines the required Open space to be landscaped pedestrian amenities. Also all of the individuals listed above clearly know that the Definition and initial intent of Landscaped Pedestrian Amenities is clearly Public and not private space. The only exception is Debbie Fountain who stated in my meeting with the Redevelopment staff that she is creating a new precedent by allowing the space as private and not public. I thought Zone changes required changes in the master plan but staff in my opinion feels they can create their own rules. The proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project has a lot footprint of 17,514 square feet x 20% which must be devoted to Landscaped pedestrian amenities = 3,524 square feet that must be open space that must be landscaped pedestrian amenities. The Proposed project has approx 1800 square feet of open space, which is about 1750 square feet shy of the requirement. The open space that is proposed even though it's half of the requirement doesn't even comply with the requirement as a Landscaped Pedestrian Amenities according to the City of Carlsbad, Landscape Manual. The Village here in Carlsbad is extremely wonderful and very beautiful, which cannot be replaced. Once all of the land here in the Village is developed it will be complete. It's Crucial that each property is developed according to the intent of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual for all residents and tourist to enjoy for generations to come. Imagine what the village would look like if there was minimal landscaped pedestrian amenities, all Redevelopment projects clashed with Village neighborhoods and properties in the Redevelopment Zone had only a 15% or so commercial application to them. Basically the Village as we know it wouldn't be and it would consist primarily of residential, which would make us no different then any other beach community. The Vision the Planners had many years ago, along with all the effort, purpose, intent and development of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, was to ensure a beautifully structured village with extremely strong pedestrian orientation, be sensitive to existing residential neighborhoods in many ways as outlined in the Manual and create an atmosphere that is a benefit to all. ____biU^Z98-6i9rrvoalslff yebebth£ % '- t 8 1f § te I '2 5 •a 2 « T;or polousinge, is permitted wity of products ouwithin this Districtth standards setManualthe Hign^ „ -2 & .a ~ £= "£ * -oas oS s o z 5 & .2 s I ^outdoor storagetrict. Displaybe permitteds consistent witithin this Desigstablished byedevelopment CodngpriorforsbalostingmustoraraeditsNavy Academy and CRetirement Hometer plan mssuanceust be approvf any peres2 ^fe W M«3 J3 rt i °S 1 B-8^1_ ra fl^i I ,a IIII'-gf.g^s S approving*and a.£? o u•3 £ "8•§D « >, co Ort .C REr'Landscaped Pedestrian Ammenities Subject: RE:! From: "Lori Naylor" <lnaylor@cosb.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jim 2005 08:06:36 -0700 To: "Michael Bovenzi" <ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net> Michael, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I was on vacation last week*^ To answer your question, "landscaped pedestrian amenities" does refer to public versus private space. These can include low-lying walls for sitting, benches, courtyards, landscape planters, pedestrian pathways, etc. I hope this helps. Lori Naylor Principal Planner City of Solana Beach 858-720-2444 —Original Message From: Michael Bovenzi [mailto:ibuildhomes@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:08 AM To: Lori Naylor Subject: Landscaped Pedestrian Ammenities Hi Lori, I'm having some trouble defining a planning term commonly used and I was wondering if you could give your opinion as to the meaning. The phrase is ( Landscaped Pedestrian Amenities) so in the development standards it says that 20% of the property must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities. What would you venture to think that means. I've done alot of checking regarding this phrase, and in the cities I've looked up , combined with all literature I've researched, the meaning I come up with is that it refers to public space and not private space. If I had to define it based on the material I've seen it would be public access, gateways and corridors. Anyway I know you've been doing this for years not only in Carlsbad, but now in Solana Beach. Your professional opinion as to what you think it means would be greatly appreciated. Michael Bovenzi ofl 12/19/2005 8:38 PM Building Coverage According to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual Mixed use projects are given a range of 60% to 80% for allowable building coverage.lt states in the manual, that wherever a range is given, the low end of the range or the most restrictive is the desired. Regarding the Lincoln Oak Mixed Use Project, according to the manual, the desired coverage is 60% which means that the per the manual and the redevelopment staff, we want (desire) the coverage to be 60% however if you exceed the desired range by going to the maximum of the range or anywhere in between, certain findings must be made. The 1st finding is that ft does not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties ( which h does) however Craig Ruiz personally told me that he never performed an on sight review, and Cliff Jones Told me personally that he never performed one either, but Cliff did finally do an on sight review finally in late June but only walked west on Oak then North on Lincoln. This review was extremely late in the process and minimal at best and long after the project was set in stone and well on it's way. The building coverage is more of a complicated issue that relates directly with open space requirements ( Landscaped Pedestrian Amenities) and it relates directly with Set backs as well. For example, if the Lincoln Oak Mixed Project had it's required open space (landscaped pedestrian Amenities. Which according to the Manual is 20% which must be devoted to Landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual, which must be dedicates to landscaped planters, open space pockets, roof gardens, balconies and/or outdoor eating areas. It also states that no parking Isles or parking spaces are permitted in this space. But if they were meeting the (open Space Requirement, then the project would have a much smaller footprint and be at or lower then the desired Coverage, Thus the Coverage would not exceed the desired range and it would not severely affect surrounding properties which it clearly does in fts present submittal. Another example of how the desired 60% lot coverage relates to other Requirements, is the set back requirements. It states (See Attachment) In all cases where a range has been established as the appropriate setback standard within a given district, the top of the range shall be considered the desired standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum or anywhere within the range may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and the appropriate findings are made by an approving official. The finding listed as the number one finding is the reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. If Craig Ruiz or Cliff Jones would have performed an on sight study they would have noticed that 1. The proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed use project sticks out on Average 24 feet further then any other structure on Oak avenue on that block, and 17 feet farther out then any other structure on Lincoln also in that block. So not only do we have a proposed structure that is almost 45 feet in height, which is on average 25 feet higher then anything structure within the direct and affected neighborhood but h sticks out 25 feet farther then any structures on Oak and 17 feet farther then structures within the same block on Lincoln. Imagine that your next door neighbor was to come in and construct a building that was 25 feet higher then your home and stick out 25 feet farther. This by all means have a extremely significant and adverse impact on our property. So It's not just the building coverage, but also the setbacks, and the required 20% landscaped pedestrian amenities that come into play in the same arena. One definitely affects the other and if they were kept to the desired standard, which is where the Redevelopment Manual desires them to be, and they had there required 20% landscaped Pedestrian amenities, then the building coverage would not be an issue and they would no doubt be well within the 60% coverage that is desired. Section 1 page seven ( see attachment) Goal 4 Goal 4.2 Establish commercial buildings whose scale and character are compatible with Village residential neighborhoods. Goal 4.5 Require design sensitivity to surrounding development within the area. The conclusion is that the project not only in Building Coverage, but in Setbacks far exceeds the desired ranges. It would not be a problem if the proposed project did not affect surrounding neighborhoods, however to exceed the ranges the finding must be made that the proposed Lincoln Oak mixed use Project Does not have an adverse impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Clearly the Structure which on average is 25 feet higher then surrounding properties and sticks out on average more then 20 feet does have an extreme adverse impact on surrounding neighborhood. Please make this finding to help save the neighborhood form this extreme development which was never the intent or the desire according to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual K1 M *7il*W K >O' g.8-3^3 DO r* C" ^ S'rS^73 ^*- CTQ«• M Iss^ s - •9 «' n § o g. .M T3 OP. ^2. §5' §•« II 03 gf toc ^\ f I I I I 619-867-9035 lstegalKSIandan.com ; ft o E«2. Maximum Height The Village Redevelopment master Plan and Design Manual does say that height is noted as a maximum, but it does also say that it may be set lower if deemed desirable for a project. Since the proposed Lincoln Oak mixed use project is literally the only property within the entire Redevelopment Zone that is surrounded by R3 residential on 3 sides ( north ) (East) (West), there couldn't be a better reason to lower the height for the following Reasons. Section 2 page 98 ( See Attachment) the maximum height of a building may be set lower if deemed desirable for a project. My discussions with Craig Ruiz when he was in charge of the project, he indicated that he never did an on sight study. Cliff Jones who is now in charge of the project also told me he never did an on sight study, even though the proposed project is 2 blocks from the redevelopment office. Cliff Jones was however seen finally doing an on sight study June 17th long after it could have become an issue. Goal 4.2 section 1 page 7 under Goals and objectives, clearly states (establish commercial buildings whose scale and character are compatible with village residential neighborhoods. See attachment Goal 4.5 require design sensitivity to surrounding development within the area. See attachment To confirm my concerns regarding the height issue I hired Planning systems to complete a neutral analysis ( Paul Klukas) and Bill Hofinan & Eric Munoz from Hofrnan Planning to do a neutral analysis. Please Review Analysis Both analysis conclude that a 43 foot high structure is clearly out of scale then the much lower structures in the neighbor hood and out of character. Please not that Eric Munoz was involved with the production of the Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and understands it's true intent. The designer Robert Richardson shows a 41 foot height j however he measured from finished grade, but height per city code is measured at which is more restrictive which puts the building at 45 feet in height. Michael Holzmiller also did an Analysis of the project recently. Which in My opinion is a serious conflict of interest. His direct involvement with Debbie fountain and Sandra holder over the years on a day to day basis in my opinion takes the neutral out of neutral and the objective out of objective. Mr. Holzmiller states in his analysis that there is nothing higher the 35 feet in the neighborhood. He might have well had said 45 or 50 feet. Because the truth is, is that the Proposed project is surrounded on 3 sides by residential that fall within the beach over lay zone which, the height limit is set at 30 feet. The proposed structure is 45 feet, but if all surrounding residential structures were at Maximum Height, the Proposed project would already be close to two stories higher. The reality is that the surrounding residential neighbor hood is much lower on average then 30 feet and actually the average is under 20 feet in height. The conclusion in reality is that the proposed Lincoln Oak Mixed use project will be 2 to 3 stories higher on average then any other surrounding structure or structures within the immediate neighborhood^ Please See Height Map attached ) Clearly the proposed project on average, is more then twice the height of surrounding structures and 3 times higher then 50% of the immediate neighbor hood which is single story. The proposed project is severely out of scale to Our Neighbor hood and contrary to the intent as outlined according to the Goals of the Village Master Plan And design Manual. Also since the proposed structure is the only property within the entire Redevelopment Zone surrounded by residential, it is a perfect opportunity to set the Maximum height lower as allowed per the manual section 2 page 98. Please not that the Roof decks are at 30 feet. Not the top of the railing, but where you stand which means that all surrounding residential properties are subjective to serious privacy loss. The eye level when standing on the roof decks will be close to 36 feet. Craig Ruiz noted this in his preliminary review before he left, that the Redevelopment Staff DID NOT support the roof decks because of the height and downward view into private backyards with a result of serious loss of privacy. When Cliff Jones took over after Craig Ruiz left, the roof deck issue went away. Pretty irresponsible since he wasn't responsible enough to do on sight study to determine the serious loss of privacy the roof decks will have on the entire neighborhood. The Map attached shows Highlighted Numbers. These Numbers represent building height in Feet. There are 22 properties within the immediate neighborhood. Of the 22 properties A. 13 or more then half are single story properties. B. And Only 4 of the properties are higher then more then 20 feet 2 of which are lower then 25 feet. C. The remaining 5 properties are 2 story under 20 feet. D. If you average the height according to 22 properties it's 15.97 feet in height. E. If you average the 22 properties by individual APN #s the height on average is just over 20 feet. F. Taking an average of the 2 averages, the average height of the 22 properties is less then 20 feet. With the average height of less then 20 feet in the immediate neighborhood the proposed Lincoln Oak mixed use project is clearly severely out of scale. Mr. Hohsmiller claims to have performed an on sight study, and states there is nothing over 35 feet. True and that's probably because the height limit in the Beach overlay Zone is 30 feet. The height is clearly not consistent with Goal 4.2 and 4.5 in the Redevelopment manual with the scale, character and sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods was never considered. Nr«§•! !i i. X c o. S.a co v £ o o-f 1 t 1 f I zo H S 1 f _(3 .O rt -^ O S £ IU E 1 1 ,1 .-s <ri r<i •s« I & £ K•3. S **? .1 Sm en c. Jj J|^•s J<*• >cs Ifr ~s>a< * u e|£ _, « -a S ^S ^2 .1* ^S • -.'„ «B CM.S a S ? I. 5 U f 1 I .-2CO .K S Jl J= <S M f 8 FS^ -, tnS „ §.f«T E t>•S 3 M> JS •815 -I!S Eb.S 385 5l u I — 00u JS I •8 "8K 1 & O M §Ji City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Application Complete Date: 6/24/2005 Staff: Cliff Jones BobWojcik Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption ITEM NO. 1 DATE: SUBJECT: January 23, 2006 I. RP 04-11/CDP 04-30/CT 05-03 - "LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE": Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a mixed-use development project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space on the property located at 3112 Lincoln Street in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 recommending APPROVAL of RP 04-11, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 recommending APPROVAL of CDP 04-30, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 recommending APPROVAL of CT 05-03 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building that has a building permit valuation greater than $150,000. This major redevelopment permit serves as the site development plan required by Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project also requires the approval of a tentative tract map because it involves separate ownership of the residential units. In addition, due to the fact that the subject site is located within the Coastal Zone, the project is required to process a coastal development permit. In accordance with redevelopment permit procedures, the three permits are being brought forward for a recommendation by the Design Review Board and for final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Design Review Board is being asked to hold a public hearing on the permits requested, consider the public testimony and staff's recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project. III.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant, Karnak Planning & Design, has requested a major redevelopment permit, coastal development permit, and tentative tract map to allow the construction of a 12,719 square foot mixed-use project consisting of six (6) condominium units and 1,913 square feet of retail space. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 2 The subject property totals 17,514 square feet and is located at 3112 Lincoln Street and 325 Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area, The existing structures on-site include one single-family residence and a commercial building containing a surf shop. The existing buildings are in a state of disrepair and are proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the new building. The subject property is bordered by a two-story apartment building to the south, commercial development to the west, condominiums to the north, and construction recently began on a 5-unit condominium project on the property to the east. The surrounding properties are predominantly multi-family with scattered commercial uses. The three-story building consists of two-stories of residential condominiums located over aboveground parking and retail space. There are six (6) units total varying in size from 3,211 square feet to 4,535 square feet. The building has a pleasant architectural design with attractive retail space on the ground floor incorporating decorative building materials such as travertine and decorative awnings to enhance the street scene at the corner. The residential condominiums located above the retail space continue the pleasing architectural design to the upper levels of the building incorporating decorative awnings, multi-paned windows, and solid iron railings. The residences are significantly setback from the street at upper levels in order to reduce the massing of the building along Oak Avenue & Lincoln Street and to make the retail space the predominate feature of the corner. Enhanced paving is provided at driveway entries and interlocking pavers are provided at the entry to the retail space. Parking for the project is screened from public view contained entirely within the structure. Each residential unit has a 2- car garage with roll up garage doors, covered guest parking is provided, and covered retail parking is provided as required. Vehicuiar access to the site is provided off of Lincoln Street and off Oak Avenue. IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the Village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate ' in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3) a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a multi-family residential use and retail use in an appropriate location within the Village. This.in turn serves to enhance and maintain the area as a residential neighborhood and encourages greater residential support opportunities in the Village. By providing more residential and retail opportunities, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment be encouraging and increasing the opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which provides the necessary customer base to attract complementary uses. The project reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area by providing needed sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue and the location of the project will provide the new residents an opportunity to walk to shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 The projects proximity to existing bus routes and mass transit will Help to further the goal of providing new economic development near transportation corridors. Furthermore, the project will provide a strong street presence with extensive architectural relief, including outdoor decks looking out over the adjacent streets and fully enclosed parking. Overall, the new residential units will enhance the Village as a place for living and working. V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as follows: Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping. Working and Living Environment. The proposed project will result in the development of new condominium units where residents will be within clear walking distance to District 1, the retail and commercial core of the Village Area and the visitor-serving commercial uses of District 9. The new residences will increase the number, quality and diversity of housing units within the Village, particularly those in proximity to transit, shopping and employment for those people seeking to reside in the downtown area. The proposed retail space will serve residents, attract tourist-serving uses, and provide additional retail close to Carlsbad Boulevard. The attractive architectural design of the project will serve to enhance the site and the surrounding area. Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The project will provide needed sidewalk improvements along Oak Avenue in order to enhance the pedestrian circulation adjacent to the project. Additionally, the proposed project will be in close proximity to both bus and rail mass transit options and will thus encourage and promote the use of mass transit, further improving vehicular circulation in the Village. Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements arid New Development in the Village. The Master Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional new development. Two of the objectives of this goal are to increase the intensity of development and to encourage mixed-use development projects in the Village. The proposed project will specifically accomplish both of these objectives. In addition, the proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Tourism Support Area (Land Use District 9) by providing for an appropriate intensity of residential development and retail development that is compatible with surrounding area. Staff sees the development of the subject property as an additional catalyst for further redevelopment along Oak Avenue. Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The project has a design that is visually appealing. The architecture of the new structure meets the requirements of the design guidelines for the Village. The new structure is three stories, and is stepped back from the property lines, which is intended to respect adjacent and surrounding properties. Construction of the proposed project will reinforce the Village character with appropriate site planning and architectural design and materials that comply with City standards - and requirements. In addition, the proposed project will establish a commercial use with scale and character that is appropriate for the neighborhood. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 4 VI. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN As set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, mixed-use projects are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goals established for the district. Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the Design Review Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment Permit Process is still required. In addition, the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual stipulates that the mixed-use aspect of the project is permitted provided that the ground floor of all approved mixed-use projects be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses. Since retail space is proposed along portions of the frontage of Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street closest to the travelers and tourist along the Carlsbad Boulevard coastal highway, Staff concludes that the project complies with this requirement. The overall vision for the development of District 9 (Tourism Support) is to accommodate a wide mix of uses with an emphasis upon facilities, goods and services to tourists and regional visitors traveling along the coast. High quality hotels, restaurants, and retail shops are emphasized and multi-family development is permitted as part of a mixed-use project. Permitted land uses in District 9 include hotels, restaurants, tourist retail, and mixed-use developments. Staff believes that the proposed project achieves this vision by providing a highly desirable mixed-use project, which, promotes tourist retail at the northwest corner of the site close to the travelers along the coastal highway, while remaining sensitive to the adjacent residential uses by providing the residential component of the project along the adjacent residential sides. The residential component of the mixed-use project helps to ensure that the south side of Oak Avenue and the residential portions of Lincoln Street remain a quality residential neighborhood. In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is located in close proximity to mass transit, parks, the beach, retail, and commercial services. The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also been determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village Redevelopment Area. Development of the subject property will serve as a catalyst for future projects and help to promote the Village Design further within District 9. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The specific development standards for new development within Land Use District 9 are as follows: Building Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front, rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 9, the required front yard setback is 5-20 feet, the required side yard setback is 5-10 feet, and the rear yard setback is 5- 15 feet. All setbacks are measured from property lines. The front yard setback of the proposed building is 8-3" feet from the front property line. The street side yard setback is set at 7'-7" and the south side yard setback is set at 7'. The rear of the building is located 7' feet from the rear property line. All of the setbacks fall within or close to the middle of the standard range. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 5 As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range is considered to be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission: 1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is to be located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. The findings required allowing a reduction in the setbacks for the front and rear at a level below the maximum and within the standard range are as follows. First, the proposed setbacks will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties as the reduced setbacks will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated and contained entirely within the structure. Visual and noise impacts to adjacent residents will be reduced by allowing the parking to be contained within the structure and allowing the associated proposed setbacks. Furthermore, the reduced standard will help to break up the mass of the building allowing other portions of the building to be setback further and stepped back at upper levels. Second, the reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the land use objectives in that the project will replace two blighted structures with a visually appealing project with a scale and character that will improve the appearance and condition of the current Village housing stock helping to stimulate property improvements and further new development in the Village. The mixed-use component of the project will help to further establish Carlsbad Village as a quality shopping and living environment and the proposed sidewalk improvements will improve access to nearby transit. Lastly, the reduced standard will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through setbacks that provide adequate space for landscape planters and decorative paving at the ground floor, and allows building recesses and relief along the various building planes. The reduced standard will assist in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting and more appealing which is a primary goal of the Village Design guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Based on these findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements set forth for Land Use District 9. Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for mixed-use projects in Land Use District 9 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 72.6% which is within the established range. The bottom of the range is considered the desired standard. However, an increase in the standard to the maximum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such an increase and the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission: 1. The increased standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The increased standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the village character of the area. The proposed building coverage is consistent with the building coverage for many of the properties within the Village. The project provides ample setbacks on both the south (side yard LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 6 setback) of 7' and the east (rear yard setback) of 7' allowing for a building coverage of 72.6%, which will not negatively impact the adjacent residential uses. First, the proposed building coverage will allow for the parking to be visually subordinated and contained entirely within the structure thereby reducing visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties. Second, the proposed building coverage standard provides for the intensification of development desired for the area and a building with a strong street presence, which assists in creating a project design that is appealing and is consistent with the objectives for Land Use District 9. Third, the proposed building coverage will assist in creating a project design that is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through building coverage that provides adequate space for landscaped planter areas, decorative paving at the ground floor, low lying walls for seating at the north west corner of the site, a decorative fountain, and allows building recesses and relief along the various building planes for architectural enhancement. Based on these findings, it is staffs position that the proposed building coverage is consistent with the desired standard. Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 9 is 35 feet with a minimum 5:12 roof pitch. Per the Village Master Plan, however, the maximum height may be increased to 45 feet for any size project where residential or commercial space is located over a parking structure. The project proposes a maximum roof height of 41 feet for architectural roof towers contained within the middle of the building that are necessary for access to the roof balconies. However the remainder and majority of the building is set at a building height of 36 feet with the required 5:12 roof pitch. The building height is in compliance with the established standard set forth in the Village Master Plan. Open Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space. The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with .the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Per the Village Master Plan (which supercedes all other regulatory documents), open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, and/or patios. Qualified open space for the proposed project includes: landscape and hardscape on the ground floor of the front, rear, and sides of the building, balconies, and private roof gardens/patios. The project provides for a total of 7,438 square feet of open space, which represents 42.5% of the site and is consistent with the open space requirement. Landscape and hardscape on the ground floor alone (excluding the private balconies and roof gardens) equates to 16.3% of the site and the roof decks/patios and balconies encompass the remaining 26.2%. Parking: The parking requirement for the multi-family portion of the project is two standard spaces per unit and 1/2 guest parking space per unit. The parking requirement for the retail portion of the project is 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor space. As a result, the parking requirement for the 6 proposed units and the 1,913 square foot retail space is 21 parking spaces [(2.5x6)=15 + (1,913/300)=6.37 = 21]. The project provides 6 two-car garages with rollup doors, 3 guest parking spaces, 6 retail spaces, and 1 accessible space for a total of 22 parking spaces (1 space greater than required). The 22 parking spaces will not be visible from the public street as the spaces are contained entirely within the structure. With the proposed parking the project satisfies the parking requirements. Residential Density: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual does not set forth specific densities in the land use districts that permit residential uses. Instead, an appropriate General Plan residential density is to be determined for each project based upon compatibility LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 7 findings with the surrounding area. Maximum project density may not exceed the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) for the applicable density designation unless a density increase or bonus is granted in accordance with Chapters 21.53 and 21,86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Appropriate findings must also be made per Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to exceed the GMCP. After considering the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area, the vision for Land Use District 9 and surrounding land uses, staff is recommending a Medium-High Density (RMH) General Plan Designation for the subject property. Justification for the RMH General Plan density designation is as follows: 1. The density is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains a variety of uses including multi-family residential, single-family residential, commercial and hotel. Application of the RMH General Plan designation on the subject property would allow for future medium-high density residential mixed-use development, which is permitted in District 9, and would be compatible with the mixture of surrounding uses in terms of size, scale, and overall density. 2. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the goals of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan by increasing the number,, quality, diversity, and affordability of housing units within this area of the Village. The medium-high density designation allows for future development that would be consistent with the development in the area and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Master Plan. 3. The RMH General Plan density designation serves to satisfy the objectives of Land Use District 9 by increasing the number of residential units in close proximity to shops, restaurants, and mass transportation (Bus & Village Coaster Station). Medium-High residential densities in close proximity to mixed-use areas with easy access to mass transportation promote greater job/housing balance and help solve regional issues such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. The RMH designation allows for a density range of 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The site area for the proposed project is .402 acres (17,514 square feet), which will accommodate 4.62 dwelling units per the GMCP. As discussed below, the project applicant is requesting a density increase to accommodate a total of 6 dwelling units. With 6 dwelling units proposed, the project results in a density of 14.89 dwelling units per acre, which is above the GMCP of the RMH density range (11-15 dwelling units per acre). In accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance specific findings regarding the availability of public facilities must be made in order to approve a density bonus above the GMCP. The proposed project complies with these findings because all necessary public improvements and facilities to accommodate the proposed development have been provided or are required as conditions of project approval. In addition, there have been sufficient developments approved in the northwest quadrant at densities below the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 8 The proposed density of 14.89 dwelling units is close to the maximum of the RMH density range. However, since many of the surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and have a corresponding density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre, approving a project of 14.89 dwelling units is not out of character for the density of the surrounding area. Justification for meeting the findings of the Growth Management Ordinance to allow a density that exceeds the GMCP has been incorporated into the attached DRB Resolution No. 302. Inclusionarv Housing Requirements: All residential projects within the Village Redevelopment Area are subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and those requirements imposed by Redevelopment Law. In accordance with Redevelopment Law, 15% of the private housing units constructed within a redevelopment area must be affordable to low and moderate income persons, of which not less than 40% (or 6% of the total units) must be affordable to very low income households. Per City Ordinance, projects of six or fewer units are eligible to pay an in-lieu fee of $4,515 per market rate unit. By paying this fee at the time of building permit issuance, the project is providing its fair share of housing affordable to lower income households and, therefore, is consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project has been conditioned to pay the in-lieu fee for the six (6) proposed residential units. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. Planned Development: The Village Master Plan includes a specific condition for residential units proposed for separate ownership which states that all such units shall .comply with the development standards and design criteria set forth by the Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. In addition to the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan, the Planned Development Ordinance provides development standards for recreational space, lighting, utilities, recreational vehicle storage, tenant storage space, refuse areas and antennas. The project was found to comply with each of the development standards and design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. The following is an analysis of how the project provides for the additional development standards set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance. Recreational Space: Private recreational space shall be provided for all planned development projects with fewer than ten (10) units through a 15'x15' patio or 120 square feet of balcony area for each unit. The proposed units each contain a minimum of 120 square feet of total balcony area and/or roof deck/patio area. With six units proposed, a total of 720 square feet of private recreational space is required for the proposed project. The proposed project provides for a total of 4,584 square feet of private recreational space and, therefore, exceeds the standard. Lighting: Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety and sufficient to minimize security problems shall be provided. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant shall be required to submit a lighting plan, subject to the approval of the Housing & Redevelopment Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. Utilities: There shall be separate utility systems for each unit. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 9 Tenant Storage Space: The Planned Development Ordinance requires separate storage space of at least four hundred eighty (480) cubic feet for each unit. If all the storage for each unit is provided in one area, this requirement may be reduced to three hundred ninety two (392) cubic feet per unit. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas that are normally part of a residential dwelling unit. Each unit has been designed to provide for a minimum of 480 cubic feet of storage space. Therefore, sufficient storage area has been designed into the units. Antennas: Individual antennas shall not be permitted. The project shall have a master cable television hookup. This condition has been incorporated into attached DRB Resolution No. 302. Parking: The Planned Development Ordinance does not trigger any additional parking requirements beyond what is required within the Village Master Plan. Therefore, the project meets the parking requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. Building Coverage. Height and Setbacks: These standards are established individually according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area. The details of these development standards were previously discussed above. VIIJ. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES All-new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. In accordance with the design review process set forth in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These design principles are: 1. Development shall have an overall informal character. 2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity. 3. Development shall be small in scale. 4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged. 5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street. 6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades. 7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details. 8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design. 9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated. 10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character. The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project provides for an overall informal character, yet maintains a pleasant architectural design. The project is consistent with the desired Village scale and character for a relatively dense urban neighborhood providing an appropriate density and intensity of development. The ground floor of the building has a strong relationship to the street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk along Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue enhancing the pedestrian- orientation of the Village. The ground floor is enriched with travertine and an attractive fountain is provided at the ground level in order to enhance the first floor facade. Upper levels of the building are setback from the street in order to provide architectural relief along the upper level LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 10 building planes. The building's architecture incorporates many of the same architectural elements found in other Village residential/commercial projects. The architectural design elements include the incorporation of various sized multi paned windows with decorative trim, travertine at the ground floor facade, aluminum and tempered glass balcony railings, varied stucco colors, tile roofing with a 5:12 roof pitch, and cherry colored doors. The project provides landscaped planter areas amongst the decorative paving at the ground floor and provides low lying walls for public seating around a decorative fountain at the north west corner of the site. Parking is visually subordinate contained entirely within the building itself. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (See Attached Exhibits). IX. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION. SEWER. WATER. RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following: Traffic and Circulation: Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 128 A Traffic study was not required because of the insignificant traffic projected. Comment: All frontage and project related roadways exist and are conditioned to be improved as needed with development of this project. Sewer: Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Sewer EDU's Required: (1) edu/dwelling x 6 dwellings = 6 EDU's One 1,964 square foot retail /1800 = 1.10 EDU's TOTAL = 7.10 EDU's Comment: Sewer facilities exist in Lincoln Street and Oak Avenue. The developer will connect into the Lincoln Street main with one 6-inch lateral serving Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. One 6 inch lateral connecting to the. Oak Street main will service Unit 5 and 6. A separate 6" sewer lateral to Oak Avenue will be installed for the retail building. All onsite sewer lines will be privately maintained. Water: Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District GPD Required: 250 gpd/edu x 7.10 edu's = 1,775 GPD Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project. Separate service lines and meters are provided from each unit. Soils & Grading: Quantities: LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 11 Cut: 1,325 cy Fill;0 cy Exportf 1,325 cy Import: 0 cy Permit required: Yes Off-site approval required: No Hillside grading requirements met: N/A Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: GeoSoils, Inc. Comment: There are no major grading issues associated with this project. Drainage and Erosion Control: Drainage basin: A Preliminary hydrology study performed by: Conway and Associates, Inc. Erosion Potential: Low Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. Given the minor increase of 0.76 CFS of storm water runoff caused by the development, the existing public storm drain system has the capacity to accept this additional runoff. Land Title: Conflicts with existing easement: None Easement dedication required: No Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project. Improvements: Off-site improvements: Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk exists on' Lincoln Street. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and half street improvements will be installed on Oak Avenue, a street designated for compatible street improvements. Overhead utilities fronting the project will be relocated underground. Standard variance required: no. Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project. Storm Water Quality: The applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) measures, to the maximum extent practical, to ensure that no additional pollutants-of-concern are contributed downstream of the project. The applicant has prepared a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan that lists BMPs including site design, covered parking, stenciling of catch basins, and catch basin filters. LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 12 X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Housing & Redevelopment Department has conducted an environmental review of the project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad! As a result of said review, the project has been found to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. The necessary finding for this environmental determination is included in the attached Design Review Board resolution. XI. ECONOMIC IMPACT The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of what was previously an under-utilized lot will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will further result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project may serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the project. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. XIH. PUBLIC COMMENT To date, the subject project has received substantial public comment from the property owner located immediately east of the proposed development. Attached to this report as Exhibit G are copies of all emails, letters and reports submitted by Mr. Michael Bovenzi, the adjacent property owner. Mr. Bovenzi is opposed to the subject project because he does not believe the project meets the standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As noted in this report, it is staffs opinion that the project is consistent with all standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The project requires no variances from the standards, and is consistent with the land use requirements for the property. Mr. Bovenzi contracted with a private land use consultant to complete a review of the subject project. Staff reviewed the consultant's report and prepared responses to the report findings. This staff response is provided in Exhibit H to this staff report. Due to Mr. Bovenzi's ongoing concern regarding redevelopment staffs review of the subject project, staff obtained a third party review of the project. Michael HolzmiHer, retired Planning Director for the City of Carlsbad and private planning consultant, was asked to complete a review of the project. Mr. Holzmiller's report is attached as Exhibit I to this staff report. Mr. Holzmiller concluded with his report that the proposed project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. He did indicate, however, that he did not believe the private balconies or patios should be included in the open space calculation. He suggested that the public open space component be increased by approximately 4%. Mr. Holzmiller also suggested that the building setbacks for the LINCOLN & OAK MIXED USE JANUARY 23,2006 PAGE 13 residential portions of the building be increased to the maximum of the range for neighborhood compatibility purposes. These suggestions we represented as a personal and professional opinion of Mr. Holzmiller. They were not intended to indicate non-compliance with the development standards. They were intended to address neighborhood compatibility concerns. Staff met with the property owner located immediately to the south (Mr. Dennis Baueren) regarding the proposed project. Mr. Baueren informed staff that his concerns with the proposed project were that the units windows that face south would be able to look into the units of his apartment building. Mr. Baueren also had concerns about the wall height and asked that the south wall be raised higher in order to visually separate the adjacent uses. Lastly, Mr. Baueren expressed to staff that the south side yard setback (approximately 19 feet between the two uses) may not be enough and he would like to see the building setback further along this elevation. Due to the size and scale of the proposed project, there is a concern about neighborhood compatibility. This is a concern, however, which is a matter of opinion rather than a standards compliance issue. The Design Review Board will need to consider this matter in its review and make its own determination. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines. B. Design Review Board Resolution No. 302 recommending approval of RP 04-11. C. Design Review Board Resolution No. 303 recommending approval of CDP 04-30. D. Design Review Board Resolution No. 304 recommending approval of CT 05-03. E. Location Map. F. Exhibits "A - V", dated January 23, 2006, including reduced exhibits. G. Written public comments on project from adjacent property owner. H. Staff response to land use consultant review of project plans dated 12/11/03. I. Project Review Report by Michael Holzmiller, Planning Consultant.