The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-02-10; City Council; 14549; PALOMAR BEACH RESORT SDP 97-19| CDP 97-40I IP %TY OF CARLSBAD - AGENR BILL + PALOMAR BEACH RESORT SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 n 4 m That the Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2?fHJ3 1 APPROVING the i' .rl a Declaration, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for the I Beach Resort hotel development. ITEM EXPLANATION : On January 7, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and vot to recommend approval of a Negative Declaration, Site Development Plan and Development Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 162 unit resort hot three-story hotel would be of a Mediterranean-style architecture and include c, Q) a &i 0 rcc VJ 0) E: -rl E u 3 a, a, rn W parking, ornamental landscaping and an outdoor recreation area. Since the project site is located at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and F Airport Road, the proposal involves several changes to the existing public rights-c There is a proposed land swap that would exchange existing excess right-of-wa Carlsbad Boulevard for private property along Palomar Airport Road necessary for tt- future road improvements. The City would be acquiring less land than the del therefore the developer must pay cash for the remaining extra land. The propoi involves the closing of Solamar Drive and the construction of a new traffic si! Carlsbad Boulevard. This signalized intersection would provide access to both tk and the mobile home park. Since the project has frontage on both Palomar Airpo and Carlsbad Boulevard, the developer must also enter into a Future lmprc a a, a E: a, ri (d 0 m cn cr) I 00 g .rl do .lJ 5 4 0 m 2 d, u a 4 TI 2 2 V The only public testimony offered at the Planning Commission hearing consisted of < Mobile Home residents, who were in favor of the project. One homeowner did comr the need to provide some pedestrian access from the existing bus stop on C Boulevard, just west of Solamar, to the restaurants and retail services east of i Encinas. These pedestrians currently walk up Solamar Drive or across the projeci gain access to Palomar Airport Road. Staff was reluctant to force the developer to pedestrian access across his property since there are no sidewalks along Palomar Road. This is an interim condition, as the future intersection and roadway improv 0 a a I PAGE 2 OFAGEND P ALL NO. /#z#y 0 FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be c through the building permit processing. All public facilities necessary to serve tl development are in place or will be in place concurrent with construction and occupancy. EXHIBITS : 1. City Council Resolution No. 98-3 2. Location Map 3. 4. 5. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4219, 4220 and 4221 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 7, 1998 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 7, 1998. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a 0 RESOLUTION NO. 98-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PALOMAR BEACH RESORT HOTEL PROJECT, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT. CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT CASE NO.: SDP 97-1 9/CDP 97-40 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Cod Planning Commission did, on January 7, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hea prescribed by law to consider a Site Development Plan and Coastal Develc Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 10th of February , 1998, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider said Nt Declaration, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit and at th received any recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all p interested in or opposed to SDP 97-1 9/CDP 97-40; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Cot the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: I. 2. That the above recitations are true and correct. That the City Council ADOPTS City Council Resolution No. 3 and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commis: set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4219, 42: 4221 on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by ref are the findings and conditions of the City Council, excel Condition No. 24 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 422 be amended to read as follows: "The owner shall enter into a lien contract for the public improvement of Palomar Airport Road ("PAR) and Carlsbad Boulevard along the project frontage for half- street improvements to major arterial standards. Except for developer's fair share participation in any applicable fee program for the Palomar Airport Road Bridge, the 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 0 developer is not required to improve the PAR bridge and cost estimates for the PAR bridge shall not be included in the future improvement agreement. Public improvements shall include, but not be limited to, paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutter, medians, grading, clearing and grubbing, under-grounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, streetlights, and retaining walls . " 3. That the application for a Negative Declaration to deck absence of significant adverse environmental impacts 1 construction and occupation of a 162 room resort hotel locate( southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Paiomar Airporl in LFMP Zone 22, is approved as shown in Planning Comt Resolution No. 4219, on file with the City Clerk and incorl herein by reference. That the applications for a Site Development Plan and ( Development Permit to allow the construction and occupatic I62 room resort hotel located at the southeast corner of C, Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road, in LFMP Zone 22, is ap as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4220 anc on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Counci City of Carlsbad on the 10th day of PPhriiarY 1998, by the following b wit: 4. AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Ramona 6r HE ATTEST: Qa ii2~ kiLNKmNZy city cleg (SEAL) -2- 0 e E: @ PALOMAR BEACH RESORT SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 0 e RESOLUTION NO. 98-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PALOMAR BEACH RESORT HOTEL PROJECT, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT. CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT CASE NO.: SDP 97-19ICDP 97-40 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Co Planning Commission did, on January 7, 1998, hold a duly noticed public he, prescribed by law to consider a Site Development Plan and Coastal Deve Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the of , 1998, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider said r Declaration, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit and at t received any recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all interested in or opposed to SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Cc the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. 2. That the above recitations are true and correct. That the City Council ADOPTS City Council Resolution No. - and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commi set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4219, 4, 4221 on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by rt are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. That the application for a Negative Declaration to dec absence of significant adverse environmental impacts construction and occupation of a 162 room resort hotel locatc southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airpo , in LFMP Zone 22, is approved as shown in Planning Con 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 17 I* 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e Resolution No. 4219, on file with the City Clerk and incoi herein by reference. 4. That the applications for a Site Development Plan and Development Permit to allow the construction and occupat 162 room resort hotel located at the southeast corner of ( Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road, in LFMP Zone 22, is a as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4220 ar on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by referenc PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Counc City of Carlsbad on the wit: day of 1998, by the following AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ’ o 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 E: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4219 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPATION OF A 162 ROOM HOTEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22. CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT CASE NO. : SDP 97-1 9/CDP 97-40 WHEREAS, Palomar Beach Resort, LLC., “Developer”, has filed application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Beacl LLC, “Owner”, described as A portion of Lot “H” of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of January, 1 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t and arguments, .examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by I considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Dc according to Exhibit “ND” dated November 25,1997, and “PII” dated N 12,1997, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following 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 0 0 Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project m significant impact on the environment. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantl, by this project. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifit project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVA project. Based on the ETA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Cor finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effi environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Deck The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the inc judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 2. 3. 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of January, 199 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compas, Heineman, T Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ‘J Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4219 -2- MICHAEL J. HOLZMLER NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: Southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Carlsl Boulevard, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State California. Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Pen to allow construction and operation of a 162 room, three story hotel v, associated parking and landscaping on a previously disturbed site. Project Description: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projc pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on 1 environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in I Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planni! Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of dz of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department (760) 438-1 161, extension 4499. DATED: NOVEMBER 25,1997 CASE NO: SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 25,1997 - MICHAEL !M&&@* J. HOBMIL R Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-08s e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 97- I9/CDP 97 DATE: November 12. 1997 BACKGROUND 1. 2. APPLICANT: Bill Caneua CASE NAME: Palomar Beach Resort -l 3. 4. 5. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 829 2nd Street. Encinitas CA 92024 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 24,1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for a Site Develobment Plan and Coastal Developmi Permit to allow construction and operation of a 162 room. three story hotel with associai parking and landscaping on a previously disturbed site, south of Palomar Airuort Road. betwc Carlsbad Boulevard and the North San Dieao Railroad right-of-way. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projc involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing [7 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics IJ Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 Planning Directoys Signakke Date 0 a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the follow pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hurr factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information . Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Irnpaa Report (EIR). Negai A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that i adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ei question. A “No Impact’‘ answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that 1 potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopi general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporati of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” tc “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and t City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce t effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that effect is significant. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa effect on the environment, but @ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzl adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicat standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatl Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up‘ the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additior environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requir. to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier El pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. a those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and includi but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect kA not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. ai the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect. determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significz effect to below a level of significance. a A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinc significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan lmpa Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#I, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#I, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#I, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#I, pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 IXI o 0 cl [XI 0 0 0 [XI 0 0. cl [XI 0 0 om (#I, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 [XI 0 c3 0 [XI 0 cl 0 [xi 5.5-6) housing? (#l, PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1, pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l, pgs g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 B 0 0 cl €5 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI o 0 0 [x1 17 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1 - 1 5) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: El 17 18 0 0 0 [x a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 14) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-14) 5 Rev. 03/28/96 e Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan lmpac e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Impact Unless t impact Mitigation Incorporated cl 0 cl Ixi 0 o I7 IXI 0 0 0 [x] o 0 [x] c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-14) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-14) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#I, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l, h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#I, pgs body? (#I, PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) 0 IXI o 0 CI IXI 0 0 0 [x] PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Ixl I7 0 Ixl cl E7 0 El [XI Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#I, pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 1 - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#I, pgs b) Hazards to safety' from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l, e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l, f, Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1, g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - [x1 0 0 o 0 0 w 0 0 0 Ixl 0 0 (x1 0 0 0 Ix1 0 w 0 0 0 w 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) (#l, PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) 5.7-22) 6 Rev. 03/28/96 a Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan lmpa e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result IR impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats animals,-and birds? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l, c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (# 1, pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs 5.4- 0 OB 0 0 0 ix1 cl 17 0 '(XI 0 0 0 Ix1 0 0 1x1 (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) (#I, PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 1 - 5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l, b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 cl cl [XI 0. 0 0 [XI 0 0 E4 pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) inefficient manner? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: IXI o 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 (XI a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l; pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ortrees? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) 5.10.1-3) hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (# 1, pgs 5.9- 0 0 w 0 0 Ix1 1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#I, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) 0 0 0 Ix1 0 0 ixI 0 0 U w C) Schools? (#l, PgS 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5) 7 Rev. 03/28/96 e Potentially Potentially Less Than ho Significant Significant Significan Impal 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 IXI 0 o w d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (# 1, e) Other governmental services? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.1 2.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) b) Communications systems? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 CI 0 Ixl 0 0 0 Bl 0 Ixl 0 0 0 €3 0 0 DM 0 0 0 KI 0 0 [XI e) Storm water drainage? (H, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12,3-7) 9 Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 0 (XI 0 0 0 (XI 0 0 [x1 0 [XI o 0 0 Bl 17 0 El 0 0 cl [XI 0 0 0 [XI a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5- 13 1) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#I, pgs 5-130 - 5- 131) c> Affect historical resources? (#I, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l, pgs Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#I, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) e) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: 0 0 Ixl o 0 [XI a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1, pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impac 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 0 0 0. [XI a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses of the project site have been conducted on two occasions. First was tl Conditional Negative Declaration that reviewed the construction and operation of a 235 roor three story hotel. Both the size of the hotel and the area of development were larger thi anticipated for the current proposal. Second was the Master Environmental Impact Report f; the 1994 General Plan Update, which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Since the project involves the construction and operation of a 162 room hotel within a previous1 disturbed, commercially designated site, the potential impacts in the areas of land use an planning, population and housing, regional transportation and circulation, energy and miner, resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems, cultural resources and recreatio have already been discussed and addressed in the Master Environmental Impact Repor Therefore, with regard to these potential impacts, there will be no additional significant effec due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigatic or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous ME1 which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into this project. The potential impacts with regard to visual aesthetics of the proposed hotel were not full addressed in the previous environmental reviews, therefore these potential impacts are analyze in this environmental review. 0 [XI D 0 w c) 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed Palomar Beach Resort project involves the construction and operation of a I( room hotel and associated parking and landscaping. Also included are the deletion of Solam Drive and the development of some frontage improvements along Carlsbad Boulevard. T hotel would be located within a previously disturbed area of the lot, clear of any agriculture sensitive native vegetation. The project site would take access off of a newly created signalize intersection on Carlsbad Boulevard, sharing this access with the Solamar Mobile Home Par The additional traffic generated by the project is approximately 1,620 average vehicle trips p day, which can be accommodated by Carlsbad Boulevard. The hotel would be three stories, : feet high with a Mediterranean style architecture. No significant environmental impacts a anticipated with the proposed Palomar Beach Resort project. AESTHETICS : The proposed Palomar Beach Resort will be visible fi-om Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbz Boulevard. The site layout and building have been designed to minimize visual impacts. Ti horseshoe shaped building reduces bulk and massing of the structure. The detailed architectw treatment on all four sides of the building soften its appearance on the previously vacant lot ar the building height does not significantly block public views of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, I: significant visual impacts will result from the proposed project. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactiv organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are th major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since th San Diego Air Basin is a %on-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerel cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in th updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variet of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas, transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design: and 5 participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable anc appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th~ design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markec “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, thc preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit! Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for ai quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequen 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project. therefore. further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at t Planning Department. CIRCULATION: 8 The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatc 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequa . to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe impacted by- regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb, Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectio are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numeroi mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatic strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate t State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithc been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of tk failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic. thereforc the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tk recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement 0 Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan‘ Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio impacts is required. This project 11 Rev. 03/28/96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 *7 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4220 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 97- 19 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 162 UNIT HOTEL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22. CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT CASE NO.: SDP 97-19 WHEREAS, Palomar Beach Resort, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Beach LLC, “Owner”, described as A portion of Lot “H” of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Deve Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “0” dated January 7, 1998, on file in the F Department, Site Development Plan SDP 97-19 as provided by Chapter 21.06 of the C Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of Januaq hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all relating to the Site Development Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance NS-424 on 1 15, 1997, which requires all pending and future commercial projects within the area cot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 Urgency Ordinance NS-424 and subject to Planning Commission review shall be re1 undergo City Council review and approval regardless of current zoning ordinance re regarding review and approval of land use entitlements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the I Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of a Site Development PI; 97-19 based on the following findings and subject to the following condit Findings: 1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and envirr settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General I not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroui traffic circulation, in that adequate buffers are provided adjacent to the ne& and circulation facilities are being provided or are conditioned to be provide That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate ti that the hotel building, parking, circulation and landscaping can fit within th size of the site, including all future dedications for Palomar Airport Rc Carlsbad Boulevard. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood provided and maintained, in that the hotel is setback 50 feet or more fi Carlsbad Boulevard travel lanes and 80 feet or more from the adjacent mob park, and privacy walls and landscaping buffers are being provided. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle a Palomar Airport Road can accommodate the 1,296 additional average dail, trips generated by the project. residential area, no significant vistas being occluded by the hotel and safe 2. 3. 4. generated by the proposed use, in that the arterials of Carlsbad Boulevs 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifiec project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVA project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con PC RES0 NO. 4220 -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 e 0 finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effe environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Decla The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the ind judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Commission finds that: a. b. c. 6. 7. the project is a Subsequent Project; the project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan: there was an EIR certified in connection with the 1994 update of th General Plan (GPA 94-01MEIR 93-01); the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as si in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 Gene] Update (MEIR 93-01); d. e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental E1 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist; 8. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Master Environmental Impact Report for tl General Plan Update which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project ha incorporated into this Subsequent Project. The Planning Commission finds that the project, is in conformance with the I of the City’s General Plan, based on the following: a. b. 9. Land Use - the site is designated for TraveVRecreational uses such as h Circulation - the project is conditioned to dedicate necessary right-of-v participate in future street improvements. c. Housing - the project is conditioned to pay, if adopted, a non-res housing impact fee (linkage fee). d. Public Safety - the project will comply with the Uniform Building Cc State seismic standards. 10. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements P applicable local facilities management plan and all City public facility polic ordinances since: 7 2 PC RES0 NO. 4220 -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 0 0 a. The project has been conditioned to ensure the building permits will not E: for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer st available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofai apply to sewer service for this project. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are reqi conditions of approval. The Developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an apy condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be i concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the require] b. c. 11. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any a( requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pur, Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availa public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as pa Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Dt contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are i to mitigate impacts cause by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the proj 12. 13. Conditions: 1. The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of t Development Plan for the project entitled Palomar Beach Resort (Exhibits “A‘ dated January 7, 1998, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated reference, subject to the conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and dirl make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to 1 Development Plan documents, as necessary, to make them internally consisteni conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substan shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially differ< this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, ax ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar cop: Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall re. conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to t 2. 3. e Q PC RES0 NO. 4220 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvem submittal, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan reduced legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline Said blueline drawings shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Devc Permit and signed approved site plan. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property UI District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of ap for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on 1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any devc fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad rV Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or 1 and Improvement Plan and to fulfill the subdivider’s agreement to pay th facilities fee dated December 24,1996, a copy of which is on file with the City C is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application wil consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are as part of the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this re housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as proT Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be inv approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project wit condition complies with all requirements of law. Approval of SDP 97-19 is granted subject to the approval of CDP 97-40. SDP subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CDP 97-40. 10. Prior to the issuance of the building or grading permit, whichever OCCL Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the offic County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notif interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issuec Development Plan by Resolution No. 4220 on the real property owned by the De Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restrictic Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to th c 0 PC RES0 NO. 4220 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the D or successor in interest. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall w pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approve( Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors andor materials to the I the satisfaction of the Planning Director. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any im adjacent homes or property. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire C such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief Planning Director. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conforma the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. TI shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prio approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs fi Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved pl maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, tr 11. 12. 13. 14. debris, 15. The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanie project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing t so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identificatio1 addresses shall contrast to their background color. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations a reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall at a minimum include a ber from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole e designed to enhance or be consistent with the basic architectural theme project. The developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing iml (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The appl further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects m to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Elemen General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or re and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building 16. 17. 18. c PC RES0 NO. 4220 -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 e e except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned developme1 existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the fii parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residenti whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not I: project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this pro. become null and void. Enpineering: Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following Engineering co must be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construc within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from I Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditi requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at the project drive accordance with Engineering Standards and the Site Plan and Preliminary Lar Plan; and, shall record the following statements on the mylar Preliminary Lar Plan: 19. 20. 1. "Mature vegetation within the site line area of the intersection sha greater than 30" in height or have a canopy no less than 8' in heigh 2. "No structure, fence, wall, sign, or other object over 30 inches above th level shall be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identifj sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standards and the Si and preliminary Landscape Plan. The underlying property ownc maintain this condition." The property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance w Council Resolution No. 91-39. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City k regarding drainage across the adjacent property. The owner shall enter into a lien contract for the future public improvement of P: Airport Road (PAR) and Carlsbad Boulevard along the project frontage for ha1 improvements to major arterial standards. The developer is not requi improve the PAR bridge and cost estimates for the PAR bridge shall not be in1 in the future improvement agreement (PIA). Public improvements shall inch not be limited to, paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutter, medians, grading, c and grubbing, under-grounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants lights and retaining walls. 21. 22. 23. 24. d PC RES0 NO. 4220 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 25. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown o plan, a grading permit for this project is required. The developer must submit an approval for grading plans in accordance with City codes and standards. The developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submittc State Water Resources Control Board. Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensure that an "as-graded'' geolc is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constru plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. ' shall be prepared on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film and shall b permanent record. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the project grading or slope easement is obtained from the owners of the affected proper recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no permit will be issued. In that case the developer must either amend the site modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project site in a mannc substantially conforms to the approved site plan as determined by the City Engi Planning Director. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be pro installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be req 26. 27. must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site gradi 28. 29. the City Engineer. 30. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities within the boundary. The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National I Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provj management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Man; Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to dl to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted by the de and approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the following: a. 31. Fossil type filters shall be installed at storm drain inletshnverts, as sh the Site Plan. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, mo antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, anc such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disp pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and othe b. c OI PC RES0 NO. 4220 -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 0 0 chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requi as prescribed in their respective containers. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reducl pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping ana improvements. c. 32. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Stand developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as by law, improvements shown on the site plan, as follows: a. Widen and improve northbound Carlsbad Boulevard from appro: 435’ south of the project entrance to the project entrance, as follows: 0 0 One (1) exclusive northbound left turn lane; two (2) exclusive northbound through lanes; one (1) 8’ bicycle/bus stop lane; approximately 150’ of concrete curb & gutter and sidewalk bt south of the “begin” curb return (BC); one (1) curb return with handicap ramp (also install the curb and handicap ramp on the north side of the intersection); 0 raised landscaped median. b. Widen and improve southbound Carlsbad Boulevard from approximatt north of the project entrance to the project entrance, as follows: One (1) exclusive southbound left turn lane; two (2) exclusive southbound through lanes. 0 0 Grind existing gore striping and re-paint gore striping for the 4 northbound Carlsbad Boulevard ramp to PAR. c. do Construct a fully actuated traffic signal, with interconnect capabilities future realigned PAWCarlsbad Boulevard intersection. The traffic shall be constructed in the ultimate location for the future realign] Carlsbad Boulevard. Construct new Solamar Mobile Home Estates entrance as shown on . Plan and in accordance with private agreement between the develor Solamar Homeowner’s Association, dated October 6, 1997. Submit signing, striping and traffic control plans as part of the impro drawing plan set. e. f. C PC RES0 NO. 4220 -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 0 e Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approw secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement To Construct the project, the developer must acquire fee title property f. City along the project’s Carlsbad Boulevard property frontage. Addition: City may have to acquire right of way for the future realignment of E Airport Road, along the project’s northerly property frontage. To faciliti the developers needs and the City’s potential needs, the project is continge developer entering into an agreement with the City for a land exchange. Dt shall pay the City cash for the value of any land developer receives in exce even trade. Developer shall prepare the draft agreement, which shall be r by the Public Works Director/City Engineer, City Attorney and Finance Ij The final agreement shall be submitted to the City Council. If the agreemer approved by the City Council and the land exchange is not completed, the cannot be constructed as designed and all approvals shall become null an Any engineering, surveying, legal and financial work that must be condu prepare the agreement, shall be completed solely by the developer, incluc costs for the preparation of the agreement itself. The developer shall maintain all off-site landscaping that is installed as shc the project’s preliminary Landscape Plan, in perpetuity. The developer shall grant a temporary construction/slope easement to the ( the future construction of the slopes required for the realignment of PAR (in the bridge widening) and Carlsbad Boulevard. The developer shall grant a temporary construction access easement to th from the project’s entrance to the project’s northerly parking area, for the construction of the slopes required for the realignment of PAR (including the widening) and Carlsbad Boulevard. The developer shall grant a temporary constructiodstaging area easement City, within the project’s northerly parking area, for the future constructior slopes required for the realignment of PAR (including the bridge widenin Carlsbad Boulevard. The developer shall design, construct and maintain an all weather access roa Carlsbad Boulevard to the Solamar Mobile Home Park, to the satisfaction City Engineer, during construction of the project. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Fire Conditions: 39. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate buildin; for conformance with applicable fire and safety requirements of the state and lot codes. C PC RES0 NO. 4220 -10- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 42. The applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, drivev traffic circulation for Fire Department approval. An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons. in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease 1 condition is corrected. All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operationa combustible building materials are located on the construction site. Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access equipped with a “K~ox”, key operated emergency entry device. The applic; contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to install Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as require for emergency service vehicles, shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance 1 requirements of section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All buildings having an aggregate floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Plans and specifications must be a by the Fire Department and a permit obtained prior to installation. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following requii A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and at 1t existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street cen hydrant locations and street names. 43. provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire C 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Water District Conditions: 49. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system : evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands met. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The Sar County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of applica meter installation. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following: 50. 5 1. PC RES0 NO. 4220 -1 1- 1 2 3 4 0 0 40. 41. Additional on-site public water mains and hydrants are required. The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, whicl the location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydr: plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project. 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 0 0 a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requi Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from ap parties. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the b. Department for processing and approval. c. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvemeni meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comn approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. - G.P.M. - E.C This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits wi issued for development of the subject property unless the water district ser development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are avz the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will contini available until time of occupancy. 52. General Conditions: 53. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their term implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail tc implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuanl future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of oc issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litil compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their viola vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s apy this Site Development Plan. Code Reminders: 54. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued 55. project within 18 months from the date of project approval. 56. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable section Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of 1 permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requi pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. All roof appurtenances, including air conditions, shall be architecturally integra concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and str 57. 5 8. PC RES0 NO. 4220 -12- 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 0 0 substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfactic Directors of Community Development and Planning All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the L; Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Department . Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conf with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the 1 Director prior to installation of such signs. The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, includinl limited to the following: a. 59. 60. 61. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phast project to prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be 1 in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the I Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of January, 1998 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compas, Heineman, h Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: AB STAIN: 4m4- - gAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MkAk Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4220 -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I 5 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4221 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, OCCUPATION OF A 162 ROOM HOTEL ON PROPERTY GENERALLYLOCATEDONTHESOUTHEASTCORNEROF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22. CDP 97-40 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND CASE NAME; PALOMAR BEACH RESORT CASE NO.: CDP 97-40 WHEREAS, Palomar Beach Resort, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Beach LLC, “Owner7’, described as A portion of Lot “H” of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map thereof no. $23, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896 (“the Pro~ierty”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Developmlent Permit as shown on Exhibits ‘(A’? - “0“ dated January 7, 1998, on fi, Planning Department, Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-40) as provided by 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of Januar hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a1 relating to CDP 97-40. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance NS-424 on 15, 1997, which requires all pending and future commercial projects within the area COT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 e Urgency IOrdinance NS-424 and subject to Planning Commission review shall be re( undergo City Council review and approval regardless of current zoning ordinance re regarding review and approval of land use entitlements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Cor RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Coastal Development Permit CD based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello I1 segmeL Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the developm not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the shoreline agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geologic instability or coasta opportunities exist on site. The project site is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, acco Map X of the Land Use Plan, certified September, 1980, and, therefor6 sulbject to the provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapte of the Zoning Ordinance). The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Pr Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the proj adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Managemt and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion, no steel exist on the property and the site is not located in areas prone to lam susceptible or accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. 2. 3. 4. The project site is not located between the sea and the first public road pa tht: sea and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal SI Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance). The project is not located within the Mello I LCP Segment and is, therefc sulbject to the provisions of that segments Coastal Resource Overlay 2 described in Chapter 21.205 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. ConditionE: 1. The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Development Permit for the project entitled Palomar Beach Resort (Exhibits LLA PC RES0 NO. 4221 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 e dated January 7, 1998 on file in the Planning Department and inqvrpvr&( reference, subject to the conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and di make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Development Permit documents, as necessary, to make them internally csnsiste conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substar shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially differ this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Building permits shall be issued for this project within two (2) years of app this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a grading permit issued by I Engineer shall be approved. Approval of CDP 97-40 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 97-19. CDP subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1 2. 3. 4. SDP 97-19. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the E Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of January, 1998 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compas, Heineman, R Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 0 EX) Ce City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmeu A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIOll ItemNo. @ Application complete date: October 8, 1997 Project Planner: Michael Grim ! Project Engineer: Michael Shirey SDP 97-19ICDP 97-40 - PALOMAR BEACH RESORT- Request for a Si Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction ar operation of a 162 unit hotel located on the southeast corner of Carlsba Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 22. P.C. AGENDA OF: January 7,1998 SUBJECT: I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 421' RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Directc and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4220 and 4221, RECOMMENDIN( APPROVAL of SDP 97-19 and CDP 97-40, based upon the findings and subject to th conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The proposal involves the construction and occupation of a 162 unit hotel on vacant land at th southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road. The three story hotel woul be of a Mediterranean-style architecture and include surface parking, ornamental landscaping an an outdoor recreation area. The existing Solamar Drive would be removed and access to the sitc and the mobile home park would be taken directly off of Carlsbad Boulevard. A Sitc Development Plan is required because the project site is zoned with a Qualified Developmen Overlay and a Coastal Development Permit is required due to the project's location in thc Coastal Zone. Since the project is located within the area covered by Urgency Ordinance NS 424, the project must be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Thc proposed hotel project meets all applicable policies and regulations and staff has no issues wit1 the proposal. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Palomar Beach Resort, LLC, is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan and Coasta Development Permit to allow the construction and occupation of a 162 room, three story hotel or a vacant site in the southwest quadrant. The project site is bounded by Palomar Airport Road tc the north, North San Diego Railroad to the east, the Solamar Mobile Home Park to the south, ant the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way to the west. The property slopes gently to the east and is covered by disturbed vegetation, interrupted with unimproved walking paths. The General Plan designation of the property is TravelRecreation Commercial (T-R), with a Zoning designation of Commercial-Tourist (C-T). The site would be accessed directly off of Carlsbad Boulevard, at a c3i 0 SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 - d), OMAR BEACH RESORT JANUARY 7,1998 PAGE 2 newly created intersection that would serve both the hotel and the SO~ZUIIZE comunity. 1 concert with this new access point, the existing Solamar Drive would be removed and replact with landscaping. The proposed hotel building would be three stories, measuring a maximum of 35 feet in heigh The architecture would be of a Mediterranean style, with tile roofs, iron window treatment arched entries. The proposed development also includes a large central courtyard containing swimming pool and lawn for outdoor functions, a vista fountain in the front of the hotel and large landscaped buffer between the parking area and the Solamar Mobile Home Park. TI internal components include a lobby with T.V. lounge, buffet and seating area, meeting room and back-of-house operations. Access to the building would be taken through distinct enti doors, rather than each individual room having external access as in a motel. The project site is located at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Roa (PAR), which is the subject of a current realignment study, therefore future major infiashctw construction and land dedications along the project frontage will be required. The existin Carlsbad BoulevardDAR intersection will be realigned to form a standard “T” intersection an( as a result, the alignment of Carlsbad Boulevard south of the intersection and PAR east of th intersection will also change. Since the Palomar Beach Resort project does not significant1 contribute to the demand for these street improvements, the developer will not be required t install the improvements. Rather, the developer is conditioned to fund a portion of thes improvements through execution and recordation of a Future Improvement Agreement, prior tc issuance of building permits. The proposed development was also designed so as to not conflic with any future street dedications or improvements. With regard to the land dedications, the developer must relinquish property for the futurl intersection and widening of the PAR bridge over the railroad tracks. Also, the developer mus acquire fee title property owned by the City, that area currently occupied by Solamar Drive, tc accommodate the necessary building setbacks and parking. To facilitate both the developmen and the future street realignment, a land trade will be conducted between the developer and thl City. This land trade shall be a condition of approval for the project. Since there is a differenct in the proposed land exchange area, with the City exchanging a greater proportionate share, tht developer shall pay to the City an estimated $123,864.38 in accordance with staffs preliminaq land exchange calculations. Final land exchange square footage figures and costs shall bc prepared between the developer, City Engineer, City Attorney and Administrativc ServicesEinance Director. The proposal is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. C. Local Coastal Program (Mello I1 and the implementing ordinances); C-T-Q - Commercial Tourist Zone with a Qualified Development Overlaq (Chapters 2 1.29 and 2 1,06 of the Zoning Ordinance); - TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND comLIANc ELEMENT OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Land Use Site is designated for Hotel is a travel-related Yes TravelRecreation uses. recreational use. Circulation Provide safe, adequate and Parking area meets code Yes attractively landscaped parking areas requirements for parking, circulation and landscaping Require new development to Project is conditioned to Yes dedicate and improve all rights-of- way for circulation facilities needed to serve the development. dedicate necessary right-of- way and pay proportionate share of future improvements and - Housing Achieve a balance between jobs and Project is conditioned to Yes cost of housing relative to wages. pay non-residential housing impact fee, if adopted. Public Safety Design all structures consistent with Project will meet all Yes UBC and State seismic standards. applicable UBC and seismic standards. PROPOSED USE PARKING RATIO PARKING PARKING aEQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED USE 162 hotel rooms Meeting space (1,768 square feet) Dining area (1,536 sq ft) PARKING PARKING REQUIRED PROVIDED PARKING RATIO 1.2 spaces/room 196 spaces 198 spaces 18 spaces 20 spaces 1 space per 100 square feet of assembly area 16 spaces 18 spaces 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area Standard City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water ImpactslStandardh Compliance N/A Yes N/A Yes 162 EDU Yes N/A Yes PLDA C Yes 1,296 ADT Yes Station No. Yes N/A Yes CUSD Yes 162 EDU Yes 35,640 GPD Yes b 0 SDP 97-1 9/CDP 97-40 - ALOMAR BEACH RESORT JANUARY 7,1998 and future requirements of the Zone Plan. The Palomar Beach Resort proposal is therefore conformance with the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Earlier analysis of the Palomar Beach Resort site has been conducted on two occasions. Fir was through the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (ME1 93-01), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, includir transportation and air quality impacts. Second was the environmental review conducted for previous application for the construction and occupation of a 235 room, three story hotel. Whi this previous project was denied and the environmental review never certified, it did under4 public review and comment. Both the size of the hotel and the area of development of tl previous project were larger than the current proposal. Since the project involves the construction and operation of a 162 room hotel within a previous disturbed, commercially designated site, the potential impacts in the areas of land use a planning, population and housing, regional transportation and circulation, energy and miner; resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems, cultural resources and recreatic have already been discussed and addressed in the Master Environmental Impact Repor Therefore, with regard to these potential impacts, there will be no additional significant effec due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigatio measures or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previoi MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project. The potential impacts to visual aesthetics from the proposed hotel were not fully addressed in tl previous environmental reviews, therefore these potential impacts were analyzed through tl current environmental documentation. Upon review of the three story building, the existing arl proposed site elevation and the elevation of the surrounding public roadways, the Plannin Director determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from th proposed development and, therefore, issued and duly noticed a Negative Declaration o November 25, 1997. No comments were received during the public review period. ATTACHMENTS: 1, 2. 3. 4. Location Map 5. Disclosure Statement 6. 7. Background Data Sheet 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 42 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4220 Planning Commission Resolution No. 422 1 Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Exhibits “A” - “O“, dated January 7 , 1998. MG:mh DISCRmONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CrrY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR WMMRTEE. 0 e (Over) Disclosure Statement I 5. Have you had more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of City I Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s) I - Penan IS defined as: 'Any individd.firm. copannorship. joint venture. .ssocktion. mi81 club. fretemal wganbatian. corporation. clf recekwr. syyndime, this and any other couq. city and county. city rnunrcipalrtj, dk-eict or other polit~cal subdwision. or MY other cornbinatlon eang 09 a unk' (NOTE: Attach additional Dags as necessary.) By: Palomar Beach Resort, L.L.C. a California limited same as owner liability company Signature of applicantldate By its managing agent: Two Seas, Inc., a California corporation 1 ;f m, r: //-.@A/ * William L. Canepa, Pre 'dent By: - -, .., fiCQnQ~c .ni' '12 I 7" 17'1~~1 nrrnm7?~,r~ ,,. , . .p cn 'A a CITY OF CARLSEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM 0 (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT - SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 22 GENERAL PLAN: TS ZONING: C-T-O DEVELOPER'S NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT ADDRESS: 829 2"* St, Encinitas CA 92024 PHONE NO.: (760)753-2440 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 210-100-05,06,12 QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 91,000 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: January. 1999 A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 162 EDU D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = PLDA C (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation; Demand in ADTs = 1,296 ADT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Station #4 H. Openspace: . Acreage Provided = N/A I. Schools: CUSD (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDUs 162 EDU Identify Sub Basin = N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 35,640 GPD L. This non-residential project is not subject to the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. a BACKGROUND DATA SHEET 0 CASE NO: SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 CASE NAME: Palomar Beach Resort APPLICANT: Palomar Beach Resort. LLC REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Developme Permit to allow construction and operation of a 162 unit hotel located at the southeast comer t Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot “H” of Rancho Aqua Hedionda. in the City I Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map thereof no. 82 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. A€”: 210-100-05,06,12 Acres: 4.57 Proposed No. of LotsRJnits: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: TR - TravelRecreational Commercial Density Allowed: N/A Existing Zone: C-T-0 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for infokation on Carlsbad’s Zonin Requirements) Density Proposed: N/A Proposed Zone: C-T-Q Zoninq Land Use Site C-T-Q vacant North R-A- 10,000 vacant South RMHP Mobile homes East T-C NCTD railroad West 0-S vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 162 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: December 24, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 0 17 Other, Negative Declaration, issued November 25, 1997 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated 0 e €XI. 3. SDP g7-1g/CDP 97-40 - PALOMAR BEACH RESORT - Request for a Site Development Piar MINUTES PLANNING COMMl SSI 0 N 0 January 7, 1998 0 Page ' and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 162 unit ho located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road in Lo( Facilities Management Zone 22. Chairperson Noble announced that the Commission's action on this item is not final and it will t forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Project Planner, Michael Grim, presented the staff report as follows: This is a request for a Si Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit. The reason for the Site Development Plan is that tt property is zoned CT with a Q overlay. That Qualified Development Overlay requires the SDP. It is all located within the Coast Zone and requires a CDP. The site is between Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-w; and the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way, bounded by Palomar Airport Road on the north and I the Solamar Mobile Home Park on the south. The hotel is a horseshoe shape and is designed to softi any of the massive impacts that may be there. Also, the entire hotel is three stories (35 feet in height) w one and two story elements in the south wing. The building is placed far enough away from the Solam Mobile Home Park to lessen any impacts with a minimum distance of eighty feet at it narrowest poir tapering away to a much wider distance as shown in the illustrations. Also, there will be an extra large (2 feet wide) landscape buffer placed at the southerly boundary with trees and a privacy wail. The site m take access off a newly created intersection on Carlsbad Boulevard which will be signalized and u provide pedestrian access to the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard. Also taking access off this intersectic will be the Solamar Mobile Home Park. Also involved in this proposal is an offer by the developer to bui a gate for the Solamar Community. There will be a fully landscaped parking lot around the hotel, and tt front area will also be heavily landscaped. There will be a vista fountain enabling guests to walk out ar enjoy an ocean view. The architecture will be Spanish-Mediterranean and quite compatible with existir architecture as well as future architecture in the Carlsbad Ranch. The developer has done an admirab job in getting a building as small and concise as possible, while still getting the 162 rooms necessary I reach financial viability. Although the roof of the hotel will be slightly higher than the Palomar Airpo bridge, staff feels that because the views from the bridge are so expansive, the hotel will not significant impact any of those views. Additionally, the setbacks far exceed any of the minimum setbacks required t the zone. This project has frontage on Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road and those IN roadways are going to be the subject of a future realignment and reconstruction project. Because tt- timing of the hotel will probably far precede the timing of the construction of the boulevard and Palom: Airport Road, the developer has been required to put themselves under a future improvement agreemenl Thereby, when the City comes in to improve those roadways, the developer will have to provide their fa share of the improvements. Since the land swap, the deletion of right-of-way, and acquisition of right-o way, will have to go before the City Council for enactment, staff stated that this project is consistent wii the General Plan and therefore makes a General Plan Consistency Finding for the land swap areas. The project is consistent with the underlying zoning with regard to setbacks, building heights, parkin requirements, and is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance and the Local Facilitie Management Plan and is consistent with all of the Local Coastal Program policies including those fc visual resources. Commissioner Compas asked how high the proposed landscaping will be along the Carlsbad Boulevar frontage and will the guests at the hotel have ocean views. Mr. Grim stated that there will be trees, shrubs, and a thirty inch berm to shield the parking area from th travel zone of Carlsbad Boulevard and there will be ocean views, even on the ground floor. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to explain why there is a difference between the number of AD in the Growth Management Compliance Chart as opposed to the number in the EIR Negative Declaration. MINUTES PLAN N I NG COMMISSION 0 January 7, 1998 0 Page d Mr. Grim responded by stating that the Negative Declaration was processed for a larger building (tl original project) than what is actually going to be built. Commissioner Welshons, while on the subject of the original project, asked Mr. Grim to state the findin1 that were used to deny that previous project. Mr. Grim replied that the previous project was a lot larger and more encompassing than this project. N Grim then displayed a small site plan of the original project and visually compared it with the site pk exhibit on display. The previous proposal included development all the way up to the Palomar Airpc Road Bridge as well as Carlsbad Boulevard and the other boundaries of the property. Staff w: concerned that the project, as a whole, was blocking too much of the view and that the building height WI Boulevard further to the west with no opportunity to make a “T intersection with Palomar Airport Road ar Carlsbad Boulevard. At the time this project was originally proposed, the City was preliminarily looking these intersections (with regard to the eventual realignment) and staff thought that an approval of th project would preclude good engineering at the intersection and would create potential erosion and bli instability with the road so close to the bluff edge. Commissioner Welshons also asked what the distance is between the new intersection and the project< “T’ intersection at Palomar Airport Road. Principal Engineer, Bob Wojcik, stated that the distance is approximately 700 feet. Commissioner Nielsen asked if the developer intends to raise the pad level. Mr. Grim indicated a point on the pad and stated that it is quite low and will be raised to a level point. I- also pointed out that staff required this developer to erect story poles to show where the top of the buildir will be. He added that those story poles took into account the added grade elevation and the building it’s 35 foot maximum height. This enabled staff to make the view impact policies. Commissioner Welshons requested that Mr. Grim review the Errata Sheet for this project and to which t complied. Commissioner Welshons referenced Code Reminder No. 55 and asked why there is a difference betwee it and the Coastal Development Permit, regarding the number of months allowed before the projec approval is deemed null and void. Mr. Grim stated that he had been remiss in not including the change to Code Reminder No. 55 in th Errata Sheet and that it should read: “. . . permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the . . .” , and requested that it be added to the Errata. Bill Canepa, 829 Second Street, Encinitas, CA, stated that although he needs a certain number of room! he is not concerned about maximizing the number of rooms on the site because he wants a hotel that w be full as well as a hotel where guests will be happy. He pointed out that instead of the ten foot buffer (a requested by staff) between the hotel grounds and Solamar, they will build a twenty foot buffer which w be better for them and the hotel. They will also be constructing the gated entry for the Solamar Mobill Home Park as has been agreed upon. Mr. Canepa stated that after interviewing a number of major hotc representatives, he has chosen the Hilton Hotel to manage this hotel. He went on to describe some of thl amenities and services of the hotel, some of which include oversized rooms, a small full servicl restaurant, meeting space for approximately 1700 people, an exercise facility, etc. excessive for the area. In addition, the project would have necessitated the realignment of Carlsb: MINUTES Page ‘ 0 January 7, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Canepa to describe the fountain and the area around it. Mr. Canepa stated that it is view area and the fountain will not be a massive structure. It will be more of “water treatment” with reflecting pools to draw people out to it to enjoy the view. There will also be a nic swimming pool and spa located within the courtyard area. Commissioner Compas asked what Mr. Canepa considers affordable with regard to room rates. Mr. Canepa replied that the room rates will have an average daily rate of between $105 and $120 PC night. Commissioner Compas then asked who will maintain the gate between Solamar and the hotel. Mr. Canepa replied that they have an agreement that the hotel will maintain the road itself, while Solam( will maintain the hardware. He added that they have also agreed to collaborate on the design etc., i soon as they have the proper approvals for this project. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Canepa to describe what has been termed as “distinct entry door rather that each individual room having external access, as in a motel.” Mr. Canepa explained that rather that each room having an outside door (as in a motel), they will tak access from interior corridors and the access to the corridors will have distinct entry doors. There will als be a covered logia for passage to the other wings from the check-in desk. Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Greg Francois, 9336 Civic Center Drive, Beverly Hills, CA, praised the design and location of this hot€ and voiced concurrence with the staff report. He stated that they have worked hard to uphold all of thc standards required by this project and to ensure that all of the operation and physical standards ari maintained. He added that once the project opens, Hilton has an on-going visitation program where the maintain the operational standards to make sure that the rooms are clean, that the service is there, etc. Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Francois he has any knowledge of what percentage of guests will bi business related versus vacation related. Mr. Francois replied that it is varied according to the time of the year and the time of the week. Fc example: Monday through Thursday guests, between September and May, will more than likely bf leisure guests. Chuck French, 6532 Ocean View Drive, Carlsbad, Chairman of a committee representing the Solama Homeowners Association, stated that his committee has met with Mr. Canepa and City staff on sever8 occasions and together they have designed a mutually acceptable plan for a shared entrance fron Carlsbad Boulevard and a gated entrance to Solamar Mobile Estates. Mr. French stated that the resident! of Solamar initially had many concerns regarding this project, but to date, all of those concerns have beei alleviated and mutual agreements have been reached. Mr. French mentioned a letter dated October 6 1997, which states Solamar’s approval of the conceptual plan subject to the conditions as stated, a copy c which is on file in the Planning Department. Mr. French concluded by stating the committee’s concurrencE with the staff report and urged the Commission’s approval of this project. Ruth Watson, 6518 Easy Street, Carlsbad, read a letter regarding pedestrian walkways & access, a cop) commercially oriented. In the Summer months there are fewer business travelers and there will mor6 MINUTES Page 1 0 January 7, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 of which is on file in the Planning Department. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony. Mr. Wojcik stated that currently there is no sidewalk either on Solamar Drive or on Palomar Airport Roa and the bridge over the railroad has a very narrow walkway that pedestrians may walk on. He furthe stated that the City specifically did not want a sidewalk included with this project that would lea pedestrians to Palomar Airport Road because it does not have a sidewalk, thereby leading someone in1 what the city believes to be a hazardous condition and a much greater liability risk than the City prepared to take. The sidewalk for that entire area will be included when the intersection is constructed I the future. Currently there is no time line on when the bridge at Avenida Encinas will be constructed bl they are currently working on the alignment studies for Carlsbad Boulevard. Chairperson Noble asked about the offer for pedestrian access across hotel grounds. Mr. Wojcik stated that if the developer wants to offer that access to the residents of Solamar and thl residents wish to take that access, the City will certainly not interfere. Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Wojcik if the Solamar pedestrians are walking along the shoulder c Carlsbad Boulevard and Mr. Wojcik replied that they do use the shoulder because there is no place else t walk. Chairperson Noble re-opened Public Testimony and asked the applicant to approach the podium. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Canepa if the hotel will be providing any bus, shuttle, or othe Solamar until the sidewalks are built. Mr. Canepa replied that they will be offering shuttle service to LEG0 and agreed that it very well could bf a temporary solution to the concerns of the pedestrians. Also, he does not want to encourage pedestrian! to use hotel property as an access to an unsafe area, even though the access will be available to them I they wish to use it. In addition, Mr. Canepa expressed their desire to have sidewalks for the use of thei guests as well. Mr. French stated that a very large concern of approximately 90% of the Solamar residents is the bu! stop. With the advent of the hotel, those residents will be forced to take access to the bus stop by way c the shoulder of Carlsbad Boulevard and across the Palomar Airport Road bridge unless they are able tc use the pathway as they have discussed with the developer. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony. alternate transportation to their guests, and if so, could that be an interim solution for the residents o ACTION : Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planninc Commission Resolution No. 421 9, recommending approval of the Negativc Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commissior Resolutions No. 4220 and 4221, recornmending approval of SDP 97-1 0 and CDF 97-40, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and including the Errata Sheet as submitted and the correction to Code Reminde No. 55, Resolution No. 4220, to read as follows: ". . . permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date . . ." Commissioner Welshons voiced her support for this project and commended all of the participants on their MINUTES PLAN N IN G COMMISSION a January 7, 1998 0 Page ’ foresight in that they have been able to solve many problems and arrive at mutual agreements befo coming to the City for approvals, which in turn, makes everything better for everyone concerned Chairperson Noble, for the record, suggested that the question of pedestrian access should be address1 by the City Council and recommended that they consider this suggestion as soon as possible. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Noble, Heinernan, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen PROOF OF PUBLI~ION (2010 8 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171 349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 1721 71 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Jan. 30, 1998 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at ET a ifornia, I%rco ths 30th day Jan. 1998 Of &Wm 4 g7 - - - -,i - - _ _ ____ _'_- - Signature ____ ____ - - NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space ia the County Clerks Filin! Proof of Publication of Not ice of PubLic HEaring __--------____________ ...................... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SDP 97-191CDP 97-40- PALOMAR BEACH RESOW COMPLETE DATE: approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow on of a 162 unit resort hotel with associated parking, landscaping, and an outdo Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 22. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of Lot 'H' of Ranbo Agua Hedionda. in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Dieg California. acmrding to partition map thereof No. 823. filed in the office of the County Recl County, November 16,1896. APPLICAKI: Palomar Beach Resort, LLC. 829 Second Street Encinitas, CA 92024 A publi above proposed project will be held by the Cartsbad City Council in the Council Chambers, Village Drive. Caikbad. California. on Tuesday, Februaly IO, 1998 at 6:OO p.m.Persons are attend the public hearing and provide me decision makers with any oral or written commen regarding the project. The project wil be described and a staff recornrnendaan given, follo' testimony, questinns and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or aRer I you have any questions. or would like to b notified ofthe decision, please wntact Michae, Carlsbad Planning Deparbnent, Monday through Thursday 730 a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8 p.m. at 2075 Las Palmas Drive. Carlsbad, California 920(39. (760) 438-1161, extension 441 If you challenge the Site Development Plan andlor Coastal Development Permit in wurt yc raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing descnbed in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Mce prior to the 1. AoDeals to the Cii Coundl: Where the dedsion is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a decision by the Planning.Commission. 2. Coastal Commission Appeable Project This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego. California 92108-1725. APPLICANT: Palomar Beach Resort. LLC CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL APPEALS PALOMAR BEACH F SDP 97-19ICDP 97 Legal 51994 January 30,1998 (Form A) 0 0 .. TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 - Palomar Beach Resort for a publlc hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of First= ’ bl Thank you. January 19, 1998 - Assistant City Man-- Date - 0 ’ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 - PALOMAR BEACH RESORT COMPLETE DATE: Octobei Request for approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construc operation of a 162 unit resort hotel with associated parking, landscaping, and an outdoor recreation area. DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on the southeast comer of Carlsbad B and Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 22. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot “B” of Rancho Aqua Bedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California, according to partition map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of S, County, November 16,1896. APPLICANT: Palomar Beach Resort, LLC, 829 Second Street, Encinitas, CA 92024 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City Council in the Council Chamb Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on Tuesday, February 10, 1998 at 6:OO p.m. Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral o comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after February 6, If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Michael Grim at thc Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4499. APPEALS If you challenge the Site Development Plan andor Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corres delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office prior to the public hearing. 1. Atweals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must bi writing within ten (1 0) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 El This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commissi ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The S office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3 11 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 921 APPLICANT: Palomar Beach Resort, LLC PUBLISH: Friday, January 30,1998 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 0 0 @ PALOMAR BEACH RESORT - - E SDP 97-19/CDP 97-40 0 'u'rwr- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: October 8, 1997 DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow thc construction and operation of a 162 unit hotel. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located on the southeast come of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zonc 22. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER. 210-100-05,06,12 APPLICANT: Palomar Beach Resort, LLC 829 Second Street Encinitas, CA 92024 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in thc Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on Wednesday, Janw 7, 1998 at 6:OO p.m. Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers wid any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be describec and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision Copies of the staff report will be available on or after January 2,1998. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Michae Grim at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 531 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5100 p.m. at 2075'Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760 438-1 161, extension 4499. . ... ... - ... ... 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-0891 0 0 APPEALS If you challenge the Site Development Plan and/or Coastal Development Permit in court, yo1 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 prior tc the public hearing. 1. Ameals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by thc Planning Commission. 2. Coastal Cornmission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. [XI This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area, Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with thf Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received i Notice of Final Action fi-om the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coasta Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of thc Coastal Commission is located at 3 1 1 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, Californii . 92 108- 1725. CASE FILE: SDP 97-19KDP 97-40 CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT PUBLISH: DECEMBER 26,1997 . - A DEPT OF FISH'& GAME @!TE 50 CA COASTAL COMMISSION WEC;UNTY PLANNING STE 200 31 11 CAMINO DEL RIO NO SAN DIEGO CA 92108-1725 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LONG BEACH CA 90802 5201 RUFFIN RD 330 GOLDENSHORE DR REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BRD SANDAG LAFCO STE B STE 800 1600 PACIFIC HWY 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 BST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 921 24-1 331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 91 50 CHESAPEAKE DR 801 PINE ST WATER DISTRICT SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CARLSBAD CA 92998 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DlST CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEW PROJECT PLANNER MIKE GRIM U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES 2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008 b - ainic ur L~L nnin . . "I,.. .- PUBLIC NCY 00000 @ yrl&& 00000 MAIER FAMILY TRUST 09-15-86 '/ .Pr .LnLlr . I.". LRI .CI R" .,I L," rn C/O EILEEN YWNT 19600 FA1 RCH I LD #285 IRVINE CA 02612 PALOnAR BEACH RESOR C/O NORMAN AJIAN 11559 U SUNSET BLWD 12625 H BLUFF DR #201 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 DIEGO CA 92130 STATE OF CA 7rJ//=- AIRPORT ROAD STE 250 ./ AGENCY 00000 ip^ixc PALOMAR BEACH RESORT LLC C/O NORMAN NOUSKAJIAN 12625 HIGH BLUFF DR #201 SAN OIECO CA 92130 PACIFIC CENTER A COSTA CA 92009 NORTH S D COUNTY IT DEVELOP PALOMAR BEACH RES NEU ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE IN! C/O COPLEY REAL ESATE ADVI' gy N DIEGO GH CA BLUFF 92130 DR #201 399 BOSTON BOYLSTON HA 02116 ST PAClf IC CENTE PACIFIC CENTER ASSOCIATES NEU ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE IN 703 PALWAR AIRPORT RD #250 703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 1125 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 To RLSBAD CA 92009 NEW 703 ENGLAND PALOM MUTUAL ORT LI RD #250 ECKE C/O SCHULZ PAUL SR MGMT TR (DCSD) INC / VOGEL BEL TRUST BAD CA 92009 4605 MANCHESTER AM: #lo6 0 AVENIDA ENCINAS 4' ENCINITAS CA 92026 PALOMARgCO PALOMARBW PALWR VENTURE 5850 AVENIDA ENCLNAS 5m/&zAs 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS a50 CARLSBAD CA 92008 RLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 PALOPIARSCO UEST COAST INDUSTRIAL L L 5850 AV A ENCINAS C/O VINCENT CIAVARELLA BAD ck 92008 188G2 BARDEEN AVE IRVINE CA 92612 JOHNSON MARILYN E TRUST 01 / f#350 PALOMAR VENT LSBAD CA 92008 CONTE CARLO RLDOROTHY J JANKOUSKY EDWIN ABFRANCES J 350 RIVER PARK DR 6490 EASY ST 6492 EASY ST REODING CA 96003 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 - Trn! * ewfl *?7-& @Of@!Be5 &sp$ @+ /mr oU&T&,Yc ---. -..- -. -.. . ..--. -. .- __ . ._- . .. . . . - - - . . . . . .- - . - . . . . 6494 EASY ST @ 6490 FRIENDLY PL 6492 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAO CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 920Op CIRILLO FRANK JR TR JONES RICHARDgLILLIAN FAMILY TRU BERG ROBERTgJEAN B 1990 LI P 0 BOX 38 6496 FRIENDLY PL 6498 FRIENDLY PL . FALLBROOK CA 92088 CARLSBAD CA 92009 -CARLSBAD CA 92009 HASTRUP HARVEY E FAMILY TRUST 10 SHOEMAKER CALVIN L AFANSEV GEORGEBGLORIA FAMl 6502 FRIENDLY PL 6504 FRIENDLY PL 6506 FRtENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ' (T) CARLSBAD CA 92009 SORENSEN FAMILY TRUST 02-23-83 AMEN HENRYgMARY A TAPP ROBERT VBBETH A 6503 FRIENDLY PL ' 1281 1 CHAPARRAL DRIVE 6509 FRIENDLY PL CARLSGAD CA 92009 GARDEN GROVE CA 92640 CARLSBAD CA 92009 VELMAN LESTER&BETHENE TRUST 07-0 KUNEMAN HGUARD J CHIECHI WBERTWRY FAHI 6507 FRIENDLY PL 3647 MERCED DR 3268 VALEUOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 OCEANSIDE CA 92056 THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 DAVENPORT ROY MBJOAN M HCNEE REVOCABLE TRUST 09-26-90 LEITCH DANIELgCHRISTINA K 6501 FRIENOLY PL 6493 FRIENDLY PL 6491 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009' CARLSBAD CA 92009 BAKER FAMILY TRUST 07-03-91 SHANLEY MADELYN TRUST 08-27-91 KIRSCH KATHERINE F 1314 MONTEREY ST 6498 EASY ST 7535 GIBRALTAR ST REDLANDS CA 92373 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEAD BERNICE E HELLOTT F EARLgTHELMA. HENDERSON JUDITH J 6502 EASY ST 6504 EASY ST 6506 EASY ST CARLSBAO CA 92009 CARLSBAD 'CA 92009 CARLSBAO CA 92009 RUSHFELDT HARVEY L PLEICK LEONA E BECKUITH JOYCE Y 6508 EASY ST #27 6510 EASY ST #28 6498 OCEANVIEU DR #T CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 920.09 - I 2L6 E EDGEHILL RD 0 6504 OCEANVIEW OR SAN BERNARDINO CA 92404 BOTHELL UA 98011 CARLSBAD CA 92009 6514 UE 171ST PL GIEBINK GERALD ABNICOLE H POLLARD GERTRUDE L FEHLMAN ROBERTBSHARON REVOC 6506 OCEANVIEU DR 6507 EASY ST 119 ARMSCEY SO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAO CA 92009 ONTARIO CA 91762 HOSTERMAN FAMILY TRUST 12-11-89 KNECHT UILLIAM STECKLING ADRIAN EUIOROTHY 3119 MESALOA IN 6510 OCEANVIEW DR 6512 OCEANVIEU OR PASADENA CA 91107 CARiSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CR 92009 BUEL FAMILY TRUST 05-22-90 CRAIG JEAN A TRUST 07-15-91 JOHNSON GLORIA G 6514 OCEANVIEU 15238 FRIENDS ST 6518 OCEANVIEU DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ADAMS LLOYD MBDONNA J CLAYPOOL KENNETH JgDOROTHY C DEDERICK FAMILY TRUST 02- 6522 OCEANVIEW DR 6524 OCEAHVIEU DR 6520 OCEANVlEU CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HWSE MAXINE L TRUST 06-06-91 HAUSEN DONALD EgFERNANDA 1994 BARONE FAMILY TRUST 4524 OCEAMVIEU DR 6528 OCEANVIEU OR 5199 DRESDEN CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009’ CYPRESS CA 90630 BARRETT ROBERTBELAINE TRL 6525 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 BEEBY JAMES FgMERLE L ROSATX FRAUKgTHERESA 6529 EASY ST 6527 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 LOOS JOAN M TR EVANS HAROLD RgMARGUERlTE KENNY MlCIlAEL F TR 6523 EASY ST 6521 EASY ST 6519 EASY ST CARLSEAO CA 92009 CARLSBAD ‘CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 NlGRO VJTOi%DONNA 0 FOND WILLIAM J WING VIVIAN I 1112 IDLEWW RD 6515 EASY ST 6513 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 GLENDALE CA 91202 CARLSBAD CA 92009 - , SORENSEN FAMILY TRUSI C/LJ/83 UCnPlhC nNN llAKIC . . - - . . - _. . - . -. . - . 6508 FRIENDLY PL 500 W CLARENDON AVF ?E13 6518 FRIENDLY PC CARLSBAD CA 92009 PHOENIX A2 85013 CARLCSAD CA 92009 POWERS GERTRAUO FAGAN MARIONBADELLE UATSON TRUST 09-17-92 6520 FRIENDLY PL 1639 E PUENTE ST 6702 DARYN OR CARLSBAO CA 92009 WEST COVINA CA 91791 UEST HILLS CA 91307 GLUCS JOHN DBELIZAEETH TRS CHALICH DANIEL JRgEETTY MAZZACANE FAMILY TRUST 08- 6520 EASY ST 30827 ALTA MIRA DR - 6524 EASY ST CARLSBAO CA 92009 REDLANDS CA 92373 CARLSBAD CA 92009 . NORTH S TY TRANSIT DEVELOP *f P C AGENCY 00000 SCHWEICHART IRENE 6526 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 # Labels Printed: 92 - .. 6492 EASY ST 6494 EASY ST . CARLSBAD CA 92009 e CARLSBAD CA 92009 6490 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 NK JR TR > ALLBROOK CA 92088 MOEHNKE BETTY TRUST 01 - 14-91 6490 FRIENDLY PL 6492 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAO CA 92009 ROSE BETTY M LIVING TRUST 10-02- CARLSBAD CA 92009 JONES RICHARDgLlLLlAN FAMILY TRU 6496 FRIENDLY PL 6498 FRIENDLY PL 6502 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 BERG ROBERTBJEAN B 1990 LIVING T . HASTRUP HARVEY E FAMILY TRl SHOEMAKER CALVIN L 6504 FRIENDLY PL 6506 FRIENDLY PL 6508 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 (1) - CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 AFANSEV GEORGEBGLORIA FAMILY TRU SORENSEN FAMILY TRUST 02-2 VELMAN LESTERLBETHENE TRUS ENRY &MARY TAPP ROBERT V&BETH A 6509 FRIENDLY PL 6507 FRIENDLY PL ARDEN GROVE CA 92640 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 x N HOUARD J S DAVENPORT ROY MBJOAN M 3647 ME 6501 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 x NSIDE CA 92056 FAMILY TRUST 07-03-1 * DLANDS CA 92373 1314 H MCNEE REVOCABLE TRUST 09-26-90 - LEITCH DANIECLCHRISTINA K LIVING 6493 FRIENDLY PL 6491 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA- 92009 SHANLEY MADELYN TRUST 08-27-91 KIRSCH KATHERlNE F STEAD BERNICE E 6~98 EASY ST 7535 GIBRALTAR ST 6502 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD GA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MELLOTT F EARLBTHELMA HENDERSON JUDITH J RUSHFELDT HARVEY L 6504 EASY ST 6506 EASY ST 6508 EASY ST #27 CARLSBAO CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ?MQMw @rn W-WT- Qp q-qo loo[ (x!mj?mT Lt5T 6510 yLC,L.n EASY LLI..-. ST #28 - 0 6698 Dcw.nIin OCEANVIEU Ju1l.t DR T #T CARLSBAD CA 92009 e- LL JOHN&DU SAN BERNARDINO CA 9 PPLSBAD CA 92009 GIEBINK GERALD 'ABNICOLE H OOLITTLE THEUS L&J STANLEY 0 LgE L TRUST 03-17-93 6506 OCEANVIEU DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 6514 NE 6504 OCEANVIEU DR y CARLSBAD CA 92009 AN ROBERT OCABLE 119 AR x ARIO CA 91762 POLLARD GERTRUDE L 6507 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 # Labels Printed: 35 OCCUPANT 6496 EASY ST OCCUPANT 6503 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 L OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6500 OCEANVIEW DR 6505 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6510 FRIENDLY PL 6502 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARSLBAD CA 92009 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6494 FRIENDLY PL 6509 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 -