Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 85-19A; SEA HORSE INVESTMENTS; Redevelopment Permits (RP)APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: NOVEMBER 1. 1988 STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1988 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders - Amendment to add 18 hotel units and 27 parking spaces to a previously approved redevelopment permit for a 70 unit hotel/commercial complex at the southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street and Coastal Development Permit in Subarea 5 of the V-R zone of Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. 121 recommending APPROVAL of the Prior Compliance/Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Resolution Nos. 122 and 123 recommending APPROVAL to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained herein. II. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION On March 25, 1986, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a major Redevelopment Permit to construct a 70 unit hotel complex above a commercial area with underground parking. The applicant is currently proposing to add an additional 18 units by dividing 18 of the hotel suites. Twenty-seven parking spaces are being proposed on an adjacent lot to accommodate the increased parking needs. The original hotel/commercial complex received environmental review when the project was processed in 1986. This review determined that the project would not create any adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration was issued. At the time the original project was reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, the City did not have coastal permit authority; however, the City has subsequently received certification and permit authority for the Redevelopment Area. In addition to the Redevelopment Permit Amendment, the applicant is now requesting approval of the required Coastal Development Permit for the entire project. The attached environmental documents include a Prior Compliance for the original proposal and an initial study and Negative Declaration for the additional 18 units and parking lot. RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders November 16, 1988 PAGE 2 III. ANALYSIS Planninq Issues 1. Does the proposed project comply with the standards and conditions of RP 88-19? 2. Does the proposed project provide the required parking? 3. Can the existing circulation system adequately handle the increased traffic generated by the additional hotel units? 4. Has the site of the stonecutting operation been adequately preserved as required under Title 22 of the Municipal Code? 5. Is the proposed project consistent with the segments of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Plan pertaining to the Village Redevelopment Area? 6. Does the project comply with the requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1? DISCUSSION Standards and Conditions of RP 85-19 The proposed project complies with all development standards and conditions established for RP 85-19. The project has remained basically the same with the exception of the adjacent lot used for additional parking. The building footprint and square footage have not increased or changed. The architectural style, and detailing have all remained the same. The only difference between the approved plan and the proposed plan is that the 18 larger suites have been divided thereby creating 18 additional units and the need for 22 more parking spaces. These spaces will be accommodated on an adjacent lot (See location map) now owned by the applicant. Parkinq The proposed project complies with the parking requirements established for hotels at 1.2 spaces for each unit and for retail uses at 1 space for each 300 feet of gross floor area. The additional 18 hotel units will require an additional 22 spaces above the 116 spaces required for the original project. The applicant is providing 142 spaces or an excess of 26 spaces. The parking is located as follows: 115 spaces in the interior of the building; 27 spaces on the adjacent lot. The parking area of Building B has been slightly modified so that ingress and egress can also be obtained through the open parking lot. The parking and circulation provided comply with all planning and engineering requirements. RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders November 16, 1988 PAGE 3 Traffic The applicant provided a traffic study when RP 85-19 was originally reviewed. At that time the transportation planner made the determination that the project would have no significant adverse traffic impacts. The project's primary traffic distribution on Carlsbad Boulevard can be efficiently absorbed through the traffic signals at Carlsbad/Grand, Carlsbad/Elm, and Carlsbad/Tamarack. The additional 18 units will create an additional 144 trips per day. This is a very minimal impact and easily absorbed by the existing circulation system. Stonecutter's House The site of the proposed open parking lot is currently occupied by an older single family dwelling and accessory buildings used for a former stone cutting operation. On June 13, 1988 the Historic Preservation Commission added this site to its Historic Resource Inventory. This means the site has the potential to be designated as a Point of Interest which requires the site to be photographed and documented. At the same time, any artifacts the Historical Preservation Commission may want to see preserved would then be relocated to another site. The Commission is presently uncertain of what actions they will take with regard to the site, however, the project has been conditioned to comply with any future recommendations of the Commission prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Coastal Development Permit The proposed project is consistent with the two segments of the Local Coastal Plan that pertain to this area of the City. These segments include: 1) the provision of adequate visitor-serving facilities within the Redevelopment Area; and 2) the provision of adequate parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project implements the Local Coastal Plan by providing additional visitor-serving facilities near the western terminus of Elm Avenue. The proposed hotel, including the additional 18 units, provides adequate parking facilities and actually exceeds the parking requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance. In summary, the proposed project is a visitor-serving use which meets the parking requirements established by both the City and the Coastal Commission. LFMP Zone 1 The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 was approved on September 1, 1987. The project originally approved for this site was included in the calculations used in preparing the Zone 1 plan. The increased facility demand created by the additional 18 units complies with that plan in terms of being well within the future estimated square footage for commercial uses in the Redevelopment Area. All performance standards continue to be met or exceeded within Zone 1. RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builders November 16, 1988 PAGE 4 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject site was previously approved to construct 70 hotel units over a commercial complex and underground parking. This approval is presently being amended by the addition of 18 units and 27 parking spaces on an adjacent lot. The subject site is located in an infill area of Redevelopment and currently in transition from older residential uses to commercial development. Based on field checks by staff and the fact that the site is already developed with a residence and accessory structures it was determined that there are no sensitive resources on or adjacent to the site. The Planning Director has determined that this project will have no significant impacts on the environment and, therefore, issued a Prior Compliance/Negative Declaration on October 28, 1988. In addition, no comments were received in response to either the previous or present Negative Declaration. ATTACHMENTS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 121 (Negative Declaration) 2. Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 122 and 123 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Form 6. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form 7. Exhibit "X", dated November 16, 1988 8. Exhibit "Y", dated November 16, 1988 9. Item 3, dated January 21, 1987 10. Staff Report dated March 5,1986 11. Reduced exhibits 12. Exhibits "A" - "I" , dated October 19, 1988 AML:af October 26, 1988 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 EXHIBIT "ND' TELEPHONE (619) 438-1161 Olitu of (EarlHbaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of a portion of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 - California Builder Project Location: Southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street. A previously approved 70 unit hotel over commercial complex and underground parking increased by the addition of 18 interior hotel units and adjacent lot to accommodate 27 parking stalls. A Coastal Development Permit is also requested for the entire project. In addition, the City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the amended subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. Dated: October 28, 1988 Case No.: RP 85-19(A)/CDP 88-7 Applicant: California Builders Publish Date: October 28, 1988 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director EXHIBIT "PII" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. RP 85-19(A) DATE: October 28, 1988 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: California Builders 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 142 Carlsbad. CA 92008 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: September 15, 1988 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affinnative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X_ d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X_ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X_ YES MAYBE NO 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X_ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X_ 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? X_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unic[ue, rare or endangered species of animals? X_ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X_ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? X_ 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X -3- YES MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X_ b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X_ 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X_ 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X_ 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? X_ b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? X_ c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X_ e. Alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic? X. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X. -4- YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? X_ 15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X_ b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X_ 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X_ b. Communications systems? X_ c. Water? X_ d. Sewer or septic tanks? X_ e. Storm water drainage? X_ f. Solid waste and disposal? X_ 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X_ -5- YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paieontological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The parking lot is too small to be phased. The 18 additional hotel units will be constructed at the time the hotel itself is constructed. b) Given the L-shaped configuration of the parking lot, there are no alternative site designs possible. Surface striping of the parking is not a significant design feature. c) The proposed parking lot is a minimum scale of development for a commercially-designated site. d) The subject site is designated for commercial types of uses. These types of uses would be difficult to develop due to the small size of the property as well as a difficult lot configuration that has little street frontage. e) Development later would have little change in the environmental impacts. f) The subject site is well situated to be developed in conjunction with the previously-approved hotel project. g) A "no project" alternative would leave the subject site with a rather rundown single family dwelling, shed, and deteriorating equipment. The site has the potential, given its CBD land use designation, to develop as a commercial site. -6- YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory findings of significance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? x b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The subject site was previously approved for the construction of 70 hotel units over a commercial complex and underground parking. This approval is presently being amended by the addition of 18 hotel units and 27 parking spaces on an adjacent lot. The subject site is located in an infill area of Redevelopment and currently is in transition from older residential uses to commercial development. Based on field checks by staff and the fact that the site is already developed with a residence and accessory structures it was determined that there are no sensitive resources on or adjacent to the site. Potential impacts from the additional 18 units and the 27 parking stalls include: (1) Noise generated from the parking lot on adjacent property owners. -7- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) (2) Impact upon existing roadways. Potential noise impacts from the parking lot will be mitigated by the construction of a solid masonry wall on the perimeter property lines of the parking lot. This is considered adequate because surrounding property is designated for commercial rather than residential land uses and likely to be redeveloped in the future at a higher land use intensity. The amended project, which includes the additional 18 hotel units, will generate 144 ADTs more than the original project. While this is an incremental increase of traffic along Carlsbad Boulevard, this impact is not considered a significant impact in that it doesn't meet the test for significance per Section 15064 of CEQA. Overall, the environmental analysis and field checks conducted by staff indicated that because there are no sensitive resources on the subject property and because the site has been previously developed and is within an urban area no significant project environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received in response to the Notice for a Negative Declaration. -8- IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9- llll lllll 1^ Oi'l X X X nxj 1985 STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 5, 1986 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP 85-19 - CALIFORNIA BUILDERS - Request for approval of a redevelopment permit to construct a 70 unit hotel complex above a commercial area with underground parking at the southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street in Sub-area 5 of the V-R zone. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board recommend APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 068, recommending APPROVAL of RP 85-19, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a redevelopment permit to develop a 70 unit hotel complex above a commercial area on 1.1 acres, located as described above. The subject property, which is irregularly shaped, presently vacant and slopes slightly to the east. The site fronts on three streets - Carlsbad Boulevard, Beech Street, and Christiansen Way. The proposed three-story structure, averaging 32 feet in height, would be developed over semi-subterranean parking. Access to this parking area would be derived from both Beech Street and Christiansen Way. Surrounding land uses include assorted commercial uses to the south, and school offices to the north. Small, older, single family dwellings are located to the east. To the west, small commercial uses exist as well as a church and the Lutheran Home. Other, larger, commercial developments in the general area include the Twin Inns, Carlsbad Inn, the Rombotis office- commercial project, and the Tamarack Beach Resort. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the proposed project conform with the goals of Sub- area 5 of the Village Redevelopment Area? 2) Does the project comply with the development standards of the Village Design Manual? 3) Can the existing circulation system adequately handle the increased traffic generated by this project? Discussion V-R Area Goals The proposed project is located towards the northern end of Sub- area 5 in the Village Redevelopment area and is "envisioned as serving as the major tourist/tourist commercial center" for this portion of the City. It also falls within the Carlsbad Boulevard Special Treatment area which encourages pedestrian traffic, specialized commercial uses and heavy streetscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard. Staff believes the proposed project meets these goals. Small specialty shops catering to tourists have been proposed at the ground-floor of the structure along Carlsbad Boulevard. A 70 unit hotel is planned for the upper two stories of both the front and the rear building. It is expected that tourists utilizing the hotel will also patronize the tourist- oriented shops. Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with" both the goals and permitted uses of Sub-area 5. Village Design Manual Standards The proposed project does meet all requirements of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines Manual. Setbacks are not required in a commercial zone, however, the applicant has provided generous, landscaped setbacks of 19* - 20' on Beech Street, Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way. A 10' setback has been provided along the interior property line. Approximately 36% of the site consists of landscaping. One hundred sixteen parking spaces have been required for this project, 120 spaces have been provided. This parking has been located in a semi-subterranean parking garage. Staff finds this acceptable, even for the retail uses, because similar situations have worked successfully in other areas (i.e. Old Town San Diego and Carlsbad Inn) . Access to the parking garage can be taken frora either Beech Street or Christiansen Way. Through circulation to either street has been incorporated into the traffic design. Land Use and Compatibility As previously stated, the project site provides uses stipulated in Sub-area 5 of the Redevelopment area. This site is also designated for tourist-commercial uses under the Local Coastal Plan. It should be noted, however, that this particular block is in an area of transition. Although the subject site is vacant, -2- many lots in this block consist of older, single family homes. Since this area is desingated for tourist commercial development by the Village Design Manual, it is likely that these older single family homes will eventually be replaced with commercial uses. Staff believes, the proposed use is still justified and desirable based on other projects which have been approved for this general vicinity (listed earlier). Staff sees this project as a continuation of tourist/commercial uses on Carlsbad Boulevard and an encouragement for intervening sites to develop in a similar fashion. Architecture The three-story structure, featuring a contemporary Spanish style of architecture, has an average height of 32'. This complies with the 35' height limit of the Village Redevelopment Area. The buildings themselves will be an off-white stucco with Spanish tile roofs. As previously stated, the ground floor of the most westerly building will house specialty shops which are entered from an arched arcade accented with promenade planters and trellises for climbing vines. The roof line has been varied and augmented with a tower to add interest. The major architectural feature along the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage will be a simulated porte cochere at the entry backdropped by a two-story glass atrium over the lobby area. All the hotel units will have private balconies and the occupants will also be able to utilize the interior courtyard. This has been designed for outdoor eating and lounging, featuring both a spa and lap pool. Staff believes the modulated facade emphasized with cobalt blue tile, lattice and railings and accented with 48" box Queen Palm trees will handsomely compliment the downtown area. Traffic The transportation planner believes this project will have no significant adverse traffic impact. The typical peak hour traffic generation does not coincide with normal street peak traffic hours, thus the project's primary traffic distribution on Carlsbad Boulevard can be efficiently absorbed through the traffic signals at Carlsbad/Grand Carlsbad/Elm, and Carlsbad/Tamarack (see attached traffic plat). The driveway entrance on Beech Street is closer to the corner than is desirable, but Beech is a lightly traveled street, extending only one block easterly from Carlsbad Boulevard. Even though the developer's frontage on Beech Street is only 95 feet wide, a driveway there is a fair trade-off for not having any driveway access to the property from Carlsbad Boulevard. As proposed, this use is consistent with the design concepts of the Village Design Manual and the goals of Sub-area 5 of the Village Redevelopment Area, therefore, staff recommends approval of RP 85-19. -3- JV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on February 15, 1986. ATTACHMENTS 1) Design Review Board Resolution No. 068 2) Location Map 3) Vicinity Map 4) Exhibit "B", dated January 26, 1986 5) Traffic Plat 6) Background Data Sheet 7) Disclosure Form 8) Environmental Document 9) Exhibits f dated . AML:bn 2/19/86 -4- rxit.r'tm tiML 4^ (6- T "* I »«"'piK'.'-e'' BUILDINQ B SITE PLAN (5) ^ EAST I, —ll- <r :i ? I m 1pi|3J^:IlllIl WEST, BULOMO A BJEVAT10N8 -ma*. 6i.o' T f fr re-ti 0e o ' I NORTH SOOTH T ?! T -I. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiteu. B:^H o£|£i;U i-\m^ mmm >--m • ! :j • p UA • Y3 r:i p i:i r:i t-IS EAST iiiiiiii 1 — ll ,Jl_ij IMA. A0I.Aa.« WEST. BULDMQ 8 ELEVATKMt