HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-01; City Council; 18982; DKN HotelCARLSBAD - HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
18,982
05/01/07
PLN
DKN HOTEL
RP 05-03/CDP 05-14
GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/CDP
05-14
DEPT. HEAD^B
CITYATTY.
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Housing and Redevelopment Commission:
438That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and APPROVING a Redevelopment Permit (RP 05-03) and
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-14) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
City Council:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS*4Q , APPROVING an amendment to
the Zoning Map (ZC 05-02) and ADOPT Resolution No. 20t)7-096. ADOPTING a Negative
Declaration and APPROVING a General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-05), Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 05-02) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-14) based upon the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Project Application (s)
Environmental Review
(Negative Declaration)
RP 05-03
CDP 05-14
GPA 05-05
ZC 05-02
LCPA 05-02
SDP 05-04
Design
Review
Board
RA
RA
RA
Planning
Commission
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
X
Housing and
Redevelopment
Commission
X
X
X
City Council
X
X
X
X
•
RA = Recommended Approval
X = Final City decision -making authority
•= requires Coastal Commission approval
This project falls both within and outside of the Village Redevelopment Area and required
recommendations from both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. On March 7,
2007, a joint hearing of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission was held. The
Design Review Board recommended approval (3-0, Whitton and Hamilton absent) of the Negative
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
/
D
D
D
D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER -SEE MINUTES
Daaa
Page 2
Declaration, Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit and the Planning Commission
recommended approval (6-1, Whitton absent)) of the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and approved a Site Development Plan for the
demolition of an existing hotel, restaurant, and single family residence, and the construction of a 3-
story, 104-room hotel project on property located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard on the east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue.
The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment are to change
the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designations from Residential High Density
(RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (T-R) and to change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal
Program Zoning designations from Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) to Commercial Tourist (C-T) for
the portion of property located outside the Village Redevelopment Zone.
The Commission and Board heard public comments regarding potential noise impacts to adjacent
residential property from guest activity and the underground parking garage. The Commission/Board
discussed architecture, building height, pedestrian impacts, and lamented over the loss of the existing
restaurant. Excerpts of the minutes are attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project will have a positive impact in terms of increased property tax, transient
occupancy tax, and additional employment opportunities. The current assessed value of the project
site is $1,800,000. With the new construction, it is estimated that the assessed value will increase to
approximately $12 million. The increase in value would result in additional tax increment revenue for
the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $102,000 per year. Additionally, the project
may serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation
of existing buildings, through the elimination of a blighting influence within the area. All public
infrastructure required for this project will be funded and/or constructed by the developer.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project does not have any
impacts to any significant native or wetland habitats or wildlife species identified as candidate,
sensitive or special status by the wildlife agencies and is identified as a development area within the
Habitat Management Plan. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Notice of
Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project on December 28, 2006. No comments were
received on the environmental document during the 30 public review period (December 28, 2006
through January 27, 2007).
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Plan
Special Facility Fee
1
1
None
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch 760-602-4613 vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Page 2
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission resolution No. 438
2. City Council Ordinance No NS-840
3. City Council Resolution No. 2007-096'
4. Location Map
5. Design review Board Resolutions 319, 320 and 321
6. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6255, 6256, 6257 and 6258
7. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 7, 2006
8. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 7, 2006.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch 760-602-4613 vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1 RESOLUTION NO. 438
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
3 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL
4 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN
EXISTING HOTEL, RESTAURANT, AND SINGLE FAMILY
5 RESIDENCE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-STORY, 104-
ROOM HOTEL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3136
6 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE IN
7 LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
8 AND MELLO II SEGMENTS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
9 1.
10 CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
CASE NO.: RP 05-03/CDP 05-14
11
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design Review
Board did, on March 7, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development14
Permit and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of16
Carlsbad, on the 1st day of May
, 2007, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration, Major
lo
Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit and at that time received
recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the
21 Negative Declaration and/or RP 05-03/CDP 05-14; and
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
24 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
25..
2. That the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board as set forth in
26 Design Review Board Resolutions No. 319, 320 and 321 on file with the City Clerk and made a
part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment
27 Commission.
28
1 3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as a responsible agency
under CEQA, has considered and concurs with the findings of the Negative Declaration.2
4. That the application for a Negative Declaration, Major Redevelopment Permit
and Coastal Development Permit on property generally located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard on
4 the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue is approved as
shown in Design Review Board Resolutions No. 319, 320 and 321.
5. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
6 Redevelopment Commission and is subject to approval of the LCPA 05-02 by the California
Coastal Commission. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time
7 Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
8 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
9 The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
10 made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in
11 the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date
on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
12 decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
13 record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
14 record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
15 record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008."
16
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission and City Council of the City of Carlsbad on
the 1st day of May, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Kulchin, Packard and Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commission Member Hall
, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, Se^$$^
(SEAL) /£•••"'
r e; ESTABLISHED •
1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-840
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF
3 THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 05-02,
4 FROM MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO TOURIST
COMMERCIAL (C-T) ON A .49-ACRE PARCEL GENERALLY
5 LOCATED WEST OF LINCOLN STREET BETWEEN PINE
AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
6 MANAGEMENT ZONE!
CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
7 CASE NO.: ZC 05-02
8 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
9
SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
10
zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit "ZC 05-02," dated March 7, 2007
attached hereto and made a part hereof.12
13 SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
14 forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6256 constitute the findings and conditions of the
15 City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty days
after its adoption but not until Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 05-02 is approved by
I O10 the California Coastal Commission, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
1 o7 ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the
90 City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7
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
78
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Joint Special Meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the 1st day of, May 2007, and
thereafter.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad on the day of, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-096
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
3 DECLARATION AND APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT,
4 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOTEL, RESTAURANT, AND
5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A 3-STORY, 104-ROOM HOTEL PROJECT ON PROPERTY
6 LOCATED AT 3136 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD ON THE EAST
SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE
7 AND OAK AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, IN THE
8 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AND MELLO II SEGMENTS OF
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
9 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 .
10 CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
CASE NO.: GPA 05-05/LCPA 05-02/CDP 05-14 _
11
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
12
Commission did, on March 7, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment; Local Coastal Program
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 1st day of16
May _ , 2007, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative
Declaration and General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Coastal
1 o
Development Permit and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the Negative Declaration and/or GPA 05-
21 05/ LCPA 05-027 CDP 05-14; and
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
_ Carlsbad, California, as follows:
24 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct.
25 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6255, 6257 and 6258 on file with the City Clerk
26 and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
28
3. That the application for a Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment;
Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit on property generally
1 located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine
Avenue and Oak Avenue is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254,
2 6255, 6257 and 6258.
3 4. That the application for a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use
designation from Residential High Density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (T-R) on a .49
acre property generally located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard on the east side of Carlsbad
Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue as shown in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 6255, is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved
with GPA Batch No. 2 of 2007.
o
5. That the approval of LCPA 05-02 shall not become effective until it is approved
by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval
becomes effective.
9 6. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council and is
subject to the approval of the LCPA 05-02 by the California Coastal Commission. The
10 Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review"
shall apply:
11
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
12
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
13 governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
14 Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date
15 on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an
16 amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
17 extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
18 of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
19 Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008."
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28
\V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on
the 1st day of May 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Packard and Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Hall
5, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City CTerk
(SEAL)
TJQ
EXHIBIT 4
V
\
SITE MAP
NOT TO SCALE
DKN Hotel
GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02
/CDP 05-14/RP 05-03
iz
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 319
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT RP 05-
4 03 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 104-ROOM
HOTEL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31365 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND
6 OAK AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE
CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN
7 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1, INCLUDING A
VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE NORTH SIDE YARD8 SETBACK THAT IS BELOW THE MINIMUM OF THE
9 SETBACK._STANDARD...RANGE FOR THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
10 CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
CASE NO: RP 05-03
11
12 WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
13 filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
14 property described as
15 Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
16 Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
17 County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
26-0018
19 ("the Property"); and
20
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, as
21
shown on Exhibits "A" - "R" dated March 7, 2007, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
23 Department, DKN HOTEL - RP 05-03, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad
24 Municipal Code; and
25 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold a duly
26 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
27
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
2 arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors related to
3
DKN HOTEL - RP 05-03.
4
5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
6 follows:
7 A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
c
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
9 Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DM^ HOTEL - RP 05-03, based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
10
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:11
1- The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the
findings contained herein for the north sideyard setback variance, is in conformance
13 with the City's General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, and all pertinent
14 provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code based on the facts set forth in the staff report
dated March 7, 2007 including, but not limited to the following:
1 6 a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan hi that it provides
for a tourist/traveler serving use normally associated with coastal highways
1 7 (Carlsbad Boulevard) in an appropriate location within the Village. The use
in turn provides an additional customer base for local restaurants, specialty
shops, and nearby convenience services. Additionally, the project provides
new economic development by replacing the existing underutilized uses on
the subject property with a new hotel use. The General Plan objective is to
20 implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. By providing more hotel lodging, the
project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment by encouraging
22 and increasing the opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which provides
the necessary customer base to attract complementary uses. The project
23 reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area with a
hotel location that provides an opportunity for hotel patrons to walk to
24 shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. The projects proximity to
existing bus routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing
new economic development near transportation corridors. Furthermore, the
25 project will provide a strong street presence with extensive architectural
relief, including outdoor patios looking out over Carlsbad Boulevard and
27 parking that is out-of-site and below grade. Overall, the new hotel will
enhance the Village as a place for living and working.
28
b. The project is consistent with the land use standards set forth in the Village
DRBRESONO. 319 -2-
Master Plan in that it will provide a permitted use (hotel) in an appropriate
2 location within Land Use District 9 of the Village Redevelopment Area. The
proposed project assists in satisfying the goals and objectives set forth for
3 Land Use District 9 through the following actions: 1) it establishes the Village
as a quality shopping, working, and living environment providing additional
lodging for visitors who will shop and dine within the Village adding to the
lively environment within the downtown area, 2) it improves the pedestrian
circulation in the Village Area by providing lodging in close proximity to
5 both bus and rail mass transit options and will thus encourage and promote
the use of mass transit, further improving vehicular circulation in the
7 Village, 3) it stimulates property improvements and new improvements in the
Village by providing an appropriate intensity of development that is
compatible with the surrounding area and may serve as a catalyst for future
redevelopment inthe area, J) it in^ro^es thajihysical appearance of the
Village Area by replacing older structures with an aesthetically pleasing
10 building that meets the requirements of the design guidelines for the Village.
c. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for
. 2 Land Use District 9, design guidelines, and other applicable regulations set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of
13 the requested variance.
14 d. The findings required allowing reductions in the front yard setback and the
south side yard setback at a level below the maximum and within the
standard range are as follows. First, the proposed setback will not have an
adverse impact on surrounding properties as the reduced setback will allow
for the outdoor dining areas and the business center to be close to the street
17 reinforcing the pedestrian interaction along Carlsbad Boulevard helping to
create a lively commercial block frontage. The reduced front yard setback
will, therefore, encourage and maintain the existing visitor-serving
commercial continuity and synergy that exists along Carlsbad Boulevard
adding to the shopping experience in the Village. The reduced side yard
20 standard will help to break up the mass of the building allowing other
portions of the building to be setback further. Second, the reduced
21 standards will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the land use objectives in
that the project will replace existing blighted structures with a visually
23 appealing project that has scale and character that will improve the
appearance and condition of the current Village hotel lodging stock helping
24 to stimulate property improvements and further new development in the
Village. The project will help to further establish Carlsbad Village as a
quality shopping and living environment by providing an attraction for
additional tourist-serving uses. Lastly, the reduced standards will assist in
creating a project design that is interesting, visually appealing and reinforces
27 the Village character of the area through setbacks that provide adequate
space for landscaping and decorative paving at the ground floor allowing
28 building recesses and relief along the various building planes. The reduced
standards will assist in creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to
DRB RESO NO. 319 -3-
the street and will assist in the effort to make the building visually interesting
2 and more appealing which is a primary goal of the Village Design guidelines
in reinforcing the Village character.
3
e. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation
have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking.
6 Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building
design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be
7 constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned
to develop and implement a program of "best management practices" for the
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are
transported within storm drainage faciMes,___
10 f. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space
within the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area
. _ and the City's Landscape Manual.
13 g. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets
14 appropriate fire protection and other safety standards.
2. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow a variance for the north side yard
setback that is below the minimum of the standard range:
17 a. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
* ° of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
1 q property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, in that the shape
of the lot is unusual due to it's "wedged" shape configuration at the north
20 end of the site fronting Carlsbad Boulevard. This shape restricts the design
flexibility for new visitor-serving commercial uses. However, through the
21 reduction (variance), the applicant is able to provide a large enough outdoor
dining area at the north end of the site that will serve to reinforce the
pedestrian interaction between hotel patrons and pedestrians helping to
23 generate a lively commercial block frontage with visitor-serving commercial
continuity. This is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village that
24 include attracting additional tourist serving commercial uses and reinforcing
the pedestrian commercial continuity within the Village commercial districts.
The additional outdoor dining area, enabled through the variance, is
necessary at the north corner of the site in order to maintain the existing
visitor-serving commercial continuity and synergy that exists along Carlsbad
27 Boulevard.
28 b. That the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
DRBRESONO. 319 -4-
subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to ensure
2 compliance with this finding, in that the property to the north currently has a
zero foot side yard and rear yard setback. By allowing the subject project to
3 abut the property line to the north, the project will share the same setback
standard as the property to the north. Allowing the setback standard below
4 the 5-foot minimum will eliminate an area between the proposed and existing
building that could collect trash and debris and eventually become a health
and safety concern.
6
c. That the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
7 expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property, in that
a hotel use is a permitted use within Land Use District 9 (Tourism Support
Area) of the V-R zoning designation.
d. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general
10 plan, Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan, and the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards
established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to
, 2 be somewhat flexible in order to encourage diversity and variety of
development and to take into consideration the unique conditions associated
13 with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The reduced side
yard setback is consistent with the existing site conditions to the north where
14 the property to the north currently has a zero foot side yard and rear yard
setback. The requested variance in no way changes the use or development
of the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the general purpose and
intent of the General Plan, Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and
the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
17
e. In addition, in the coastal zone, the variance is consistent with and implements the
1 ° requirements of the certified local coastal program and that the variance does not
reduce or in any manner adversely affect the protection of coastal resources as
specified in the zones included in this title, and the variance implements the
20 purposes of zones adopted to implement the local coastal program land use plan,
in that the variance is consistent with the intent of the requirements of the
21 Village Master Plan and Design Manual, which functions as the Local
Coastal Program for the area. As long as the project is consistent with the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the project is consistent with the
23 Local Coastal Program. The variance allows for a permitted hotel use with
outdoor seating, which is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design
24 Manual and therefore is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.
The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
27 provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
28 facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
DRBRESONO. 319 -5- ,,-,
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
2 Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer
4 service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the
5 requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
6
_ b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
8
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and
9 wffllvecollected priwto theissuarice of building permit.
10
1, 4. The project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual.
12 5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
13 to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
15 GENERAL CONDITIONS:
16 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
jo 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
19 implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
20 of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of
violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
22 compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are
gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's/Agency's approval of this
23 Major Redevelopment Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
25 and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
26 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2£ 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
DRBRESONO. 319 -6-
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
2 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
3 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project
without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
5. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
6 hold harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body
members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all
7 liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and
attorney's fees incurred by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's
approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency's approval or
9 issuance™^»any permit,,or, action^whether discteiicmary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation
10 and operation of the facility, permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
* 1 energy waves or emissions. This obligation serves until all legal proceedings have been
concluded and continues even if the Agency's approval is not validated.
13 6. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body.
7. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
16 reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
format.
17
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
20 9. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
21 Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
22 10. Approval is granted for Major Redevelopment Permit RP 05-03 as shown on Exhibits
23 "A" - "R" dated March 7, 2007, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department and incorporated herein by reference. Development shall occur substantially
24 as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
25 11. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and GPA
26 06-01, LCPA 05-02, CDP 05-14, and SDP 05-04 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6255, 6257, 6258 and 6259
27 and Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 321 and 320 for those other approvals.
28 12. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
DRBRESONO. 319 -7- •/*n
13. Building permits will not be issued for the project unless the local agency providing water
2 and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate
water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of
3 the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities
will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be
4 placed on the final map.
Landscape Conditions:
6
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
7 and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City's Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
° landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy andjferiving condition, freefrgm weeds, trash, jnd debris.
15. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
11 project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
12 Noticing Conditions:
13 16. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
14 of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and
15 successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment
I r Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Negative Declaration by Resolution(s) No.
319, 320, and 321 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of
17 Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
1 8 specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
20 successor in interest.
21 On-site Conditions:
22 17. The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site
23 plan (Exhibit "B") enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City
Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said
24 receptacles shall be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director and/or
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to
the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director and/or Planning
Director.
27 18. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When
so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
Housing and Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter
comply with the approved plan.
DRBRESONO. 319 -8-
19. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
2 plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and
avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
3
20. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
4 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and/or Housing and Redevelopment.
6
21. Solid decorative masonry walls, with design and materials consistent with the hotel
7 building, shall be installed along all common lot lines that adjoin an existing
residential use.
9 Engineering ____ . .„..,„.„..,.„.,., _.....„._ „„..__,.„.„.
10 NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon
the approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a building or
11 grading permit whichever occurs first.
12 General
13
22. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
14 within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.15 F
l£ 23. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17
24. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street and driveway intersections in
1 ^ accordance with Engineering Standards.
19 Fees/Agreements
20
25. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
21 recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
99 26. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to
23 the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross
lot drainage as shown on the site plan. The deed restriction document shall be in a form
24 acceptable to the City Engineer and shall:
25 A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course;
OA
B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying
27 property owner; and
28 C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict,
impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in
DRBRESONO. 319 -9- ^r
damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public
2 nuisance.
3 27. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
r Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an
additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
6 on a form provided by the City Engineer.
7 Grading
o 28. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as-graded" geologic plan with the
City En^nejr. ThejrfanLjMl clejrly_§how all .the geology^ as exposed by the grading
operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a
10 contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed
by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24"
x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
12 29. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
13 plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
14 project.
Dedications/Improvements
16 30. Developer shall cause Owner to execute a covenant of easement for drainage purposes
17 as shown on the site plan. The obligation to execute and record the covenant of easement
shall be shown and recording information called out on the site plan. Developer shall
provide City Engineer with proof of recordation prior to issuance of building permit.
19 31. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
20 install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
21
32. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform
23 to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage
systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement
24 plan check and inspection fees.
33. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
~,_ Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including, but not
27 limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing,
undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, and drainage curb outlets, to City
28 Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are:
DRBRESONO. 319 -10-
a) Curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting Lincoln Street
2 b) Underground of utility poles and wire on Lincoln Street property frontage,
c) Installation of domestic and fire water services.
3 d) Installation of sewer lateral as needed.
e) Installation of drainage curb outlet on Lincoln Street and Carlsbad Boulevard.
4 f) Street pavement and base on Lincoln Street frontage as needed between street
centerline and proposed curb and gutter.
g) Installation of driveway approach and replacement of driveway approach with
curb and gutter on Carlsbad Boulevard
A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the
provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above
shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development
Q improvemeiitjgreement or such other rime as provided in said agreement.y "" ' " "~ ~*-*~~~ •-- - —. —*- -~~- •—.•-- .*—«.•—~- -™, .
10 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead
utilities along and within the project boundary.
11
35. Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6
hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
14 conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
1 , 36. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
17 pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
18 prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be
limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
20 A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
21 established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
22 B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
24 or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
25 Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.26
27 C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
28
37. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
DRBRESONO. 319 -11-
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)."
2 The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban
Storm water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region
3 of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from
storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the
project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall:
6 a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern;
b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies
7 that could be impacted by this project;
c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with
this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the
9 maximum extenljH3dicablg.bej|^
d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special
10 considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper
procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants;
e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and
f. identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not
exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent
13 practicable.
14 38. Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, whichever occurs first Developer
shall have design, apply for and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural
section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards
due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500.
The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with
17 required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the
building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
18
39. The developer shall process and receive approval of an adjustment plat to
consolidate the four lots within the project boundaries into one lot.
20
40. Property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for any
private improvements proposed within the public right-of-way, including decorate
pavement within driveway approaches. Encroachment Agreements shall be
processed in accordance with City procedures and fees.
23
24 Water
41. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire
Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be
27 considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
28
DRBRESONO. 319 -12-
1 42. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
2 for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
3
43. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by
the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
6 44. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
7 improvement plans.
o
45. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities^sufestantiaUy mjshown on Jke,JSite Plan tejthje_satisfaction of the District
Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
10
46. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy.
13
47. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire
14 potable water and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate
capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District
Engineer.
16 48. The Developer shall submit a detailed sewer study, prepared by a Registered
17 Engineer, that identifies the peak flows of the project, required pipe sizes, depth of
flow in pipe, velocity in the main lines, and the capacity of the existing
infrastructure. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement
plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the
District Engineer.
20
49. The Developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a
Registered Engineer that identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire
flow demands). The study shall identify velocity in the main lines, pressure zones,
and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the
23 improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
24
Code Reminders:25
~c The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following code requirements.
27
50. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
28 #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
DRBRESONO. 319 -13-
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
2 Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this
3 approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
51. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
6 52. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of final project approval.
7
53. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as,.oA.e]rwise specifically prpvidedhexein.
10 54. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
. 2 55. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
13
56. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
14 with the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual and shall require review and approval of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director prior to installation of such signs.
16
57. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
17 prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
1 ° of the City Engineer.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRBRESONO. 319 -14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APFEYIto waiterand sewer connection fees aM capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2007 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Lawson, Board members Baker and Schumacher
None
Board members Hamilton and Whitton
None
i, ACTING CHAIRPERSON
DESIGNyREVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRBRESONO. 319 -15-
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 320
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
4 NUMBER CDP 05-14 TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF A
HOTEL, RESTAURANT, AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-STORY, 104-
6 ROOM HOTEL PROJECT LOCATED AT 3136 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
7 BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND OAK
AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD
8 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, IN THE VILLAGE
9 REDEVELQPMEMLSEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
10 ZONE 1, INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF
THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK THAT IS BELOW THE
11 MINIMUM OF THE SETBACK STANDARD RANGE.
CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
CASE NO.: CDP 05-14
13
WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
14
filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
1 6 property described as
17 Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
18 per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
j 9 County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
26-00
20
("the Property"); and
21
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
23 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A-R" dated March 7, 2007, on file in the Housing
24 and Redevelopment Department, DKN HOTEL - RP 05-03/CDP 05-14 as provided by Chapter
25 21.81.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
26 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did, on the 7th day of March 2007, hold a
27
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
3
relating to the CDP.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
6 Board of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
7 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
o
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board
9 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DKN HO1EL - CDP 05-14 based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
10
Findings;
11
1. That the portion of the proposed development within the Village Redevelopment
Segment of the Local Coastal Program is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village
13 Area Redevelopment Plan and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan
and Design Manual, which serve as the Certified Local Coastal Program for the
14 Village Redevelopment Segment of the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and
all applicable policies in that the development does not obstruct views or otherwise
damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone, and no agricultural activities, sensitive
j g resources, geological instability exist on the site.
17 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the development will not alter physical or visual access to
18 the shore.
19 3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
~f. Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that no steep slopes,
environmental resources or agricultural resources exist within the proposed
21 construction area, all grading will conform to the City's erosion control standards,
and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or
22 liquefaction.
23 Conditions:
24 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
25 building permits.
26 1. if any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the
28 right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
DRB RESO NO. 320 -2-
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute
2 litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
3 City's/Agency's approval of this Coastal Development Permit.
^ 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
c and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
5 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
7
3. The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a
reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Coastal Development Permit reflecting the
9 conditions approvedby the final decision making hody^ „__
10 4. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and RP 05-
03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolutions No.
319 and 321 for those other approvals and incorporated by reference herein.
12 5. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within
13 twenty-four (24) months of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless
extended per Section 21.81.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
14
, 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
16
7. The project site is located in an area that may contain soil material that is suitable
17 for beach sand replenishment. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and as
part of the grading plan preparation, the developer shall test the soil material to be
exported from the project site to determine the materials suitability for sand
19 replenishment. Material testing shall be conducted pursuant to the requirements of
the Carlsbad Opportunistic Beach Fill Program (COBFP). If the material is deemed
20 suitable for beach replenishment pursuant to the guidelines established in the
COBFP, the developer shall comply with the process outlined in the COBFP to
21 transport and place the beach quality material on the beach site identified in the
22 COBFP. The city may refuse the placement of the exported material on the beach,
if it is determined that any aspect of the project does not comply with the provisions
23 of the COBFP (i.e. seasonal restrictions on beach fill activities, quantity and quality
of the material, etc.). The COBFP prohibits placement of beach fill on the beach
24 during the summer season (between the last Monday in May, Memorial Day, and
the first Monday in September, Labor Day); therefore, if project construction will
result in the export of the soil material from the site occurring during this summer
25 timeframe, the requirements of this condition shall not apply, but may be voluntary
if the developer chooses to store the exported material until placement of sand on
27 the beach is permitted per the COBFP.
28
DRB RESO NO. 320 -3-
1 NOTICE
2
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
5 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
6 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
g annul their imposition.
9 You are herebyHFWRTHER- NOTIFIED that-your right-to protest-the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
1 zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
, j project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
12 expired.
13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
14 Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2007, by the following
15
vote, to wit:
16
AYES: Chairperson Lawson, Board members Baker and Schumacher
18 NOES: None
19 ABSENT: Board members Hamilton and Whitton
20 ABSTAIN: None
21
22
23 TONYLAWSON, ACTING CHAIRPERSON
DESIGNfllEVIEW BOARD24 If
25 ATTEST:
26 "
27
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 320 -4-
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 321
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MAJOR
4 REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 05-03 AND CDP
05-14 TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF A HOTEL,
RESTAURANT, AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO
6 ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-STORY, 104-
ROOM HOTEL PROJECT LOCATED AT 3136 CARLSBAD
7 BOULEVARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND OAK
8 AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD
9 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT .AREA,. . QLJEHE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
10 PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1, INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF
1! THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK THAT IS BELOW THE
MINIMUM OF THE SETBACK STANDARD RANGE FOR THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
13 CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
CASE NO: RP 05-03/CDP 05-14
14
WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
1 g filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
17 property described as
18 Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
19 Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
20 County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
26-00
21
22 ("the Property"); and
23 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold a duly
24 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 7th day of March, 2007 and upon considering
26 all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
27
staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all
28
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
2
Board as follows:
3
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
4
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative
6 Declaration Exhibit "ND," dated March 7, 2007 according to Exhibits
"NOI" dated December 28, 2006 and "PIT dated December 31, 2006,
7 attached hereto and made part hereof, based on the following findings:
o
Findings;
9
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
10
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration (DKN HOTEL -
RP 05-03) the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said
12 comments thereon, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, prior
to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
13
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
16 c. reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad; and
17
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on
19 the environment.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRBRESONO. 321 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2007 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Lawson, Board members Baker and Schumacher
None
Board members Hamilton and Whitton
None
TONTLAWSON, ACTING CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
( v
-—~-<*X/fyii
DEBBIE FOUNTAI
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRBRESONO. 321 -3-
EXHIBIT 6
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6254
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
6 PERMIT, FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A HOTEL,
RESTAURANT, AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND
7 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-STORY, 104-ROOM
HOTEL PROJECT LOCATED AT 3136 CARLSBAD
8 BOULEVARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
o BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND OAK
AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD
10 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, IN THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AND MELLO II SEGMENTS OF THE
11 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
12 CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
! 3 CASE NO.: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/
CDP 05-14/SDP 05-04
14
WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
, 6 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
17 Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
18 per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
19 26-00
20 ("the Property"); and
21
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
22
23 project; and
24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold a
25 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
27 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
28
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration. ^2 cr
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
2 Commission as follows:
3
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
4
, B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit "ND," dated March 7, 2007 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated
December 28, 2006, and "PII" dated December 21, 2006, attached hereto and
7 made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
o Findings:
9 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
10
it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration DKN Hotels -
11 GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/CDP 05-14/SDP 05-047 the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
12 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
13 b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
14 the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
1,- c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
17
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
18 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6254 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2007, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, and Segall
None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
V :
ER, ChaiER, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6254 -3-
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: DKN Hotels
CASE NO: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14
PROJECT LOCATION: On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lincoln Street
between Oak Avenue and Pine Avenue. 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, 203-250-08 and 26. Carlsbad . San
Diego County.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment of the Land Use Element to change the Land
Use from Residential High to Travel/Recreation Commercial, a Zone Change from Multiple Residential
Family Zone (R-3) to Tourist Commercial (C-T) on a portion of the project, a Local Coastal Program
Amendment to change the Land Use and Zoning, and a Redevelopment Permit, Site Development Permit
and Coastal Development permit for the demolition of an existing 28 unit motel, a 1125 square foot
restaurant and single family residence for the construction of a 104 unit, three story hotel with two
underground levels of parking for 125 vehicles on a .84 acre parcel.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study
(EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
[X] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
I | The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that
remained to be addressed).
I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:, pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
3B.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 » (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 « www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: DKN Hotels
CASE NO: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-
14
PROJECT LOCATION: On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lincoln
Street between Oak Avenue and Pine Avenue. 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, 203-250-08 and 26.
Carlsbad , San Diego County.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment of the Land Use Element to change
the Land Use from Residential High to Travel/Recreation Commercial, a Zone Change from
Multiple Residential Family Zone (R-3) to Tourist Commercial (C-T) on a portion of the project,
a Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the Land Use and Zoning, and a Redevelopment
Permit, Site Development Permit and Coastal Development permit for the demolition of an
existing 28 unit motel, 1125 square foot restaurant and a single family residence for the
construction of a 104 unit, three story hotel with two underground levels of parking for 125
vehicles on a .84 acre parcel.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call van
Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613 or Cliff Jones in the Village
Redevelopment Office at 434-2813.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 28, 2006 through January 27. 2007
PUBLISH DATE December 28, 2006
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-Q3/ SDP 05-047 CDP 05-14
DATE: December 21.2006
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: DKN - Marriott
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Cliff Jones (760) 434-2813. Van Lynch (760)
602-4613
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, on the east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. Carlsbad, San Diego County.
203-250-08.26
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: DKN Hotels. 540 Golden Circle Drive #214.
Santa Ana. CA 92705
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Village (V). and Residential High (Rlfl that is proposed to
change to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR).
7. ZONING: Village Redevelopment (V-R), and Residential (R-3) that is proposed to change to
Commercial Tourist (C-T).
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment. Major Redevelopment Permit Site Development Plan and Coastal Development
Permit for the demolition of an existing 28 room hotel. 1125 square foot Restaurant and a single
family residence to allow for the construction of a three story 104 room hotel with underground
parking. The General Plan Amendment is to change the Land Use designation from Residential
High density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) on the easterly portion of the project.
The project site consists of two parcels (203-250-08 & 203-250-26) totaling .84 acres. The site is
in an urbanized area and is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue
and Oak Avenue. The project proposes to construct a Marriott - Spring Hill Suites hotel on the
site. The hotel will contain 104 rooms and suites totaling 62.354 square feet. 125 underground
parking spaces are proposed, and automobile access will take access via Carlsbad Boulevard.
There will be "loading only" access via Lincoln Street for trash service. The two parcels are
currently occupied by the Surf Motel. The Armenian Cafe, and a single family dwelling. These
structures will be demolished, removed and replaced with the proposed Marriott. The site is
located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the
City of Carlsbad and in the Mello I and Redevelopment Area segments of the Local Coastal
Program. Surrounding properties include a 7-11 convenience store to the north, multi-family
Rev. 02/22/06
dwellings to the south, multi-family units to the east and a Carlsbad Inn Beach Resort hotel to the
west.
Rev. 02/22/06
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
J Geology/Soils Noise
Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing
Hydro logy/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Circulation
Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 02/22/06
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
/\1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 02/22/06
U3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The
Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides
the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "ElA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on
the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
Rev. 02/22/06
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse
effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 02/22/06
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing Condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home. The site is visible from Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered a
Community Theme Corridor in the City of Carlsbad General Plan, and the site is currently landscaped according to
the standards of the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines Manual.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will be visible to drivers and pedestrians on Carlsbad
Boulevard. Landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard will help soften and screen the project from motorists. The
proposed project is one three story building, which will have a maximum height of 42.83 feet. This height is
consistent with the development standards for the area.
Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will replace the existing 28'room Surf Motel,
restaurant and a single family residential uses. The new structure will not significantly impact the viewshed from
either the surrounding uses or from Carlsbad Boulevard. Temporary aesthetic impacts associated with construction
of the project will not be significant. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on any scenic vista.
b)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home. No historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The site is not located within the
viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a
scenic highway.
Environmental Evaluation: Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic
highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated.
Finding: No impact - The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is
designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to the preceding response.
Rev. 02/22/06
c)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will involve the construction
of a three-story hotel. Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant. A
hotel currently occupies the site. No impacts to open spaces will be caused by the proposed project. Therefore, it
is concluded that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
Finding: No impact - Please also refer to response I(a), above.
d)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject area presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights
for the 28 room Surf Motel.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project presently contains exterior building mounted and parking
area lights. The proposal will not significantly change the lighting characteristics of the existing building. The
project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department as part of the approval process.
Finding: No impact- It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source of significant light
and glare and will not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
a)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed. There is no farmland on the site.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not impact farmland.
Finding: No impact - The project site is currently developed and no farmland exists.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Kl
[X]
Rev. 02/22/06 147
b)
No Impact.
Existing condition: See Ha above.
Environmental Evaluation: See Ha above.
Finding: No impact - See Ha above.
c)
No Impact.
Existing condition: See Ha above.
Environmental Evaluation: See Ha above.
Finding: No impact - See Ha above.
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Rev. 02/22/06
a)
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone
(O3) and for paniculate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM|0). The periodic violations of
national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in
inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to
improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air
Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted
by the Air Resources Board (ARE) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure
that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include
the following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
b)
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton.
Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No
other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would
involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be
minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the
site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal.
Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of
any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
c)
Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended
fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the
proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project,
air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered
de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
10 Rev. 02/22/06
d)
No impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the
project. No impact is assessed.
e)
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
11 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will replace an existing motel use. The site is fully
developed and there are no special status, candidate or sensitive biological species on site.
Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur
through implementation of the subject project.
b)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). No impacts are
anticipated.
Environmental Evaluation: No permanent impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from
implementation of the project.
Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur
through implementation of the subject project.
c)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home. No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the U.S." will take
place due to the implementation of the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project.
Finding: No impact - The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
d)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a).
Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a).
Finding: No impact - The subject property is an already developed with commercial and residential buildings in an
urbanized area.
e)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would
affect the subject project. In addition, the subject property is an already developed with commercial and residential
buildings in an urbanized area.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected
by policy or ordinance.
Finding: No impact-No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project.
0
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed use is located in an urban area and is consistent with the Habitat
Management Plan which identifies that area as urbanized.
Finding: No impact - The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
12 Rev. 02/22/06
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
a)-d)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: No impacts to historical, archeological, or geological resources will result from
implementation of the proposed project.
Finding: No impact - The subject site is currently developed and demolition will not result in impacts to historical
resources. No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and
therefore no impacts to historical, archeological, or geological resources will result from construction of the
project.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13 Rev. 02/22/06
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic
province of southern California. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the
Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and-beyond another 775 miles to the
southern tip of Baja California. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is
located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks.
The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San
Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern
California. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there
evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 1 1,000 years.
The Newport-Inglewood fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault
zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Rose Canyon fault to the north of the subject site.
This fault zone, located approximately four miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-
lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends
offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon
fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active.
Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the
subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Environmental Evaluation: No active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is
located approximately four miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 25 miles
east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 20 miles west of the site. The potential for
rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard
zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low.
The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the
active regional faults discussed above.
Finding: Less than significant impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in
the geotechnical report (Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton
Consulting, Inc, November 23, 2005), and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects.
14 Rev. 02/22/06
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area. As indicated in the
response to Item VI(a)(i), the Newport-Ingle wood fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately four
miles westerly of the subject site. This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend
south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second-closest active area of potential ground
motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, located 23 miles to the northeast of the
subject site. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project.
The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude
7.1 earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which could produce an estimated horizontal peak
ground acceleration of .37g at the site.
Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a
local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the
San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the
greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about four miles west, and potentially
the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the project site.
Finding: Less than significant impact -Earthquake faults exist within Southern California, including three fault
zones within 23 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground
shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. The building will be
constructed following the Uniform Building Code standards that are in effect at the time of construction to
minimize the effects of strong seismic ground shaking during a seismic event.
a)iii.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion
due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow
groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. The site is currently fully developed with an existing
motel, restaurant, and a single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: The site is currently developed fully and the proposed project will replace the
existing building. The new building will be constructed following the Uniform Building Code standards in effect
at the time of construction to minimize the effects of liquefaction during a seismic event. Leighton Consulting
(Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulting, Inc,
November 23, 2005) indicates that the on-site soils are not considered liquefiable due to their relatively dense
condition and absence of a shallow ground water condition.
Finding: Less than significant impact - The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the
vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of the underlying soil
formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface.
a)iv.
No Impact.
Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the
proposed project facilities.
Environmental Evaluation: No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development
improvements.
Finding: No impact - No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project.
15 Rev. 02/22/06
b)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home site.
Environmental Evaluation: The existing motel, restaurant, and home will be replaced by a new three-story
hotel. During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils
from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or
sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be
promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary,
temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant.
Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less
than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control requirements of the City of
Carlsbad grading ordinance.
c)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii).
Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii).
Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii).
d)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site indicates that the site is underlain
by Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits which overlies the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. The Quaternary-aged
Terrace Deposits are encountered at shallow depths and consist of orange-brown, damp to slightly moist, medium
dense to very dense silty fine to medium grained sands. The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation underlies the entire
site at depth and generally consists of light brown to light gray silty sandstones.
Environmental Evaluation: Expansion testing indicated that the Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits as
having "very low" to "low" expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as directed in the
Geotechnical Investigation by Leighton Associates, and footings/slabs for all buildings should be constructed as
directed in Leighton's report.
Finding: No impact - As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation work, the project will not be
subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies.
e)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Sewers are available for the proposed project.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will utilize access to the existing sewage trunk line
serving the property. As a result, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed.
Finding: No impact - No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the project
description.
16 Rev. 02/22/06
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as petroleum
products, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site. Upon completion of construction of the
project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase,
the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials.
Environmental Evaluation: There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous
materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination on the site.
Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilizes petroleum
products, paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some
cleaning products used within normal business operations. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any
cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such
materials.
Finding: Less than significant impact- It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized
during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less than significant.
b)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition response.
Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the
environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in normal
instances.
Finding: No impact - Please refer the response to Section VII(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or
the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation
of the proposed project.
c)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
Finding: No impact — Due to the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.
d)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database)
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal
database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of
current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's
knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL).
It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which treat, store, dispose of,
or incinerate hazardous waste.
Finding: No impact - The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known
previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials.
18 Rev. 02/22/06
e)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles northwest of the McClellan-Palomar
Airport runway. The site is not located in the Airport Influence Area of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP), adopted April, 1994, prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG).
Environmental Evaluation: The site is not located within an airport land use plan.
Finding: No impact - The project is not located within an airport land use plan and therefore will have no impact
on the safety of people residing or working in the project area.
0
No Impact.
Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: Neither construction nor operation of the proposed hotel will significantly
affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through
the project.
Finding: No impact - No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
h)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The proposed project site currently consists of a motel, restaurant and a single family
home.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project site is surrounded on all four sides by development and
as a result will not have any significant exposure to wildland fires.
Finding: No impact - The subject property will not expose people or structures to wildland fires. The site is
surrounded by development on all four sides.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
19 Rev. 02/22/06
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a)
Less Than Significant Impact. .
Existing condition: The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water
quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin
plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.
The subject property is a fully developed motel, restaurant, and a single family home that will be demolished and
replaced with a three-story hotel. The site currently generates runoff due to its paved surfaces. The Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. These
objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will not be an increase in runoff from the study area.
The site will be fully paved and have up to date water management practices in effect. Application, certification
and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality
exiting the subject site will be maintained to a level of acceptability.
Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality
if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project
proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the
installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State
Water Resources Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of
Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed
ditches, or other appropriate methods. Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized.
20 Rev. 02/22/06
b)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton Consulting, excavated for the subject project,
indicated that ground-water was encountered at depths of 33 to 35 feet.
Environmental Evaluation: Based on the estimated depth of the proposed development, Leighton
Consulting does not expect groundwater to impact the development. Seepage conditions may be locally
encountered after periods of heavy rainfall or irrigation. However, these conditions can be treated on individual
basis if they occur.
Finding: Less than significant impact- The proposed project is not expected to significantly deplete groundwater
supplies, or significantly interfere with ground water recharge.
c) and d)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: Presently the site drains to the public street.
Environmental Evaluation: The project grading will not significantly change the topography, drainage
patterns, or amount of runoff from the site. Surface Drainage will still drain to the public street.
Finding: Less than significant impact - The project proponent shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (December 2003) and adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of
sedimentation and erosion, including Best Management Practices, such as installation of temporary
detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources
Control Board. The following guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during
construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion:
a. Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures.
b. Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment
transport until the storm drain system is in place.
c. Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of Carlsbad erosion control
standards.
d. Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes to
erosion.
e. Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms,
desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods.
e)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally
increase runoff.
Environmental Evaluation: Existing storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed,
approved, and in some cases constructed to accommodate the runoff projected from the proposed project. No
impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation
of the project.
Finding: Less than significant impact-No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the
project.
f)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The drainage pattern dictates that the drainage water will travel west to the Pacific
Ocean. These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality.
Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to
comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated
NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will
not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control
program.
Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the preceding responses.
21 Rev. 02/22/06
g)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing within the
100-year flood hazard area.
Environmental Evaluation: No flood hazard areas exist on the property.
Finding: No impact - No flood hazard areas exist on the project site.
h)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject project does not propose any structures within the 100-year flood hazard
area.
Environmental Evaluation: The project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 100-
year flood hazard areas. Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project.
Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downstream flood
flows.
i)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII(h) above.
Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(h) above. No levee or
dam exists onsite or downstream of the project.
Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or
structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam
j)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII(h) above.
Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(h) above. The project
site is located well above the expected 5 to 10 foot tsunamis or seiche water level.
Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or
structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving tsunami or seiche events.
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
22 Rev. 02/22/06 (ol
a)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The project site is currently developed with a motel, restaurant, associated parking lot
and landscaping and a single family residence. It is located in an existing urban area.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of the current motel, restaurant and
a single family home and replacing them with a three-story hotel. As a result, no division of an existing community
would result from development of the project.
Finding: No impact - The project would not physically separate any contiguous community areas since a similar
use currently occupies the site.
b)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential High
Density (RH) and Village (V) Land Use. The property is Zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3) and Village
Redevelopment (V-R). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element
designation of Residential High density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) and a Zone Change to change
the Zoning from Multi-family Residential (R-3) to Commercial Tourist (C-T). Additionally, a Local Coastal
Program Amendment is proposed to reflect the changes. These three amendments (General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment) will allow the construction of the new three-story hotel.
Environmental Evaluation: Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment, the proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use plans. No
incompatibility will exist between the proposed project and the new land use regulations on the property. The
proposed land use is consistent with the majority of the surrounding land uses which include commercial and hotel
uses.
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact - Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and
Local Coastal Program Amendment, the project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project.
c)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) allows
authorization for the incidental take of sensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private
developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. The subject site is currently
fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is identified for urban uses in the HMP.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is
identified for urban uses in the HMP. Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP.
Finding: No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for
Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. The property is not subject to any other habitat conservation plans.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
23 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the
state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject site has been already fully developed. No known mineral
resources were identified on the site at the time of original construction.
Finding: No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected
through implementation of the project. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR
93-01, map 5.13-1.
b)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b).
Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b).
Finding: No impact- Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b).
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
24 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home site.
Environmental Evaluation: In terms of noise generation, the construction of the proposed project is
anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise.
The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing,
excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8
A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise
level standard for construction activities, but simply limits the hours of construction.
The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance
with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that
construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Noise from the pool
and spa area will be attenuated from the adjacent residential by the hotel building. The pool and spa will also have
a restriction regarding late night hour useage.
Finding: No impact - Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels generated by the project are
anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards.
b)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home and does not generate ground vibrations as part of regular business.
Environmental Evaluation: Although some ground vibration may occur during demolition and
construction of the new project, the proposed hotel is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of
excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels.
Finding: No impact - The project will not produce any significant groundbourne vibration.
c)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a).
Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a).
Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels generated by Carlsbad Boulevard without the project. Noise from Carlsbad Boulevard will be
reduced due to the location and mass of the proposed building. The proposed buildings orientation and the
proposed mechanical ventilation systems effectively reduce noise levels generated by hotel patrons.
d)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a).
Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a).
Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity.
e)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport.
Finding: No impact - The subject site will not expose people to excessive noise due to the fact that it is not located
within 2 miles of a public airport.
0
No Impact.
Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
25 Rev. 02/22/06
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a)
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject project is an existing commercial/motel/residential use located in an already
developed urban area. Implementation of the project would result in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of
the site, but not in population. The subject site has been identified as a location for urban development.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of an existing motel, restaurant and
a single family residence uses and replacing them with a 104 room three story hotel. No increase in population is
anticipated as a result of the service industry jobs related to the 62,354 square feet of hotel development. The
proposed project will be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. As a result, no inducement for
substantial growth, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project.
Finding: No impact - The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce population growth by
providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth. The property is designated for urban development
consistent with the City's General Plan.
b)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will displace one single family dwelling unit.
Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be demolished as part of the
construction of the proposed hotel. A less than significant impact will occur as a result of the loss of one housing
unit.
c)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home. -
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will displace one single family dwelling unit
Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be displaced by the implementation of
this project. A substantial number of people will not be displaced and replacement housing will not be necessary.
26 Rev. 02/22/06
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
No Impact
Existing condition: The subject site is located within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
area. City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. 1 (1275 Carlsbad Village Drive) serves the subject site.
Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within an
effective fire response time of Fire Station No. 1 . The subject project will not measurably affect anticipated
current fire response times.
Finding: No impact - The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban
development, and planned within their standard response time. The project will comply with the standards
identified in the Zone 1 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or
needs of the area.
No Impact
Existing condition: The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire
city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does
maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community.
This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. In order to achieve
this level of emergency service and to sufficiently patrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each
patrolled at any given time by one or two officers.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project does not represent an increase in demand on CPD
resources. However, for any increased demand, the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb demand and
continue to meet their own general service guideline of maintaining a six-minute emergency response time.
Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand on police protection resources,
and the police department's service guideline will continue to be met.
27 Rev. 02/22/06
No Impact
Existing condition:
schools.
Environmental Evaluation:
student generation.
Finding: No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact
on schools serving the area.
The proposed project is non-residential, and will not cause an increase in demand for
The proposed project is non-residential, and will have no impact on school
a)iv.
No Impact
Existing condition: The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for
parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park
requirement adequately.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in
demand for parks.
Finding: No impact - The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks.
The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement
adequately.
a)v.
No Impact
Existing condition: Sewer: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the subject
site. Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer trunk line located
in the surrounding developed streets and lateral lines that currently serve the property. The Zone 1 LFMP
stipulates that sewer trunk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts and must
be provided concurrent with development.
Water: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site. Water is provided via
an existing water line and lateral currently connected to the project. The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that water line
capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district and must be provided concurrent with
development. Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development.
Environmental Evaluation: Sewer: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand planned
by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for the subject site.
Water: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand planned by the Municipal Water District for
the subject site.
Finding: No impact - The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage demands anticipated at the time of
initial construction of the existing building. No unanticipated demands will occur as a result of the project.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
28 Rev. 02/22/06
a)
No Impact
Existing condition: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in
demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill
Zone 1 's park requirement adequately.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase
in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park
fulfill Zone 1's park requirement adequately.
Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand beyond that
already accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind.
b)
No Impact
Existing condition: The proposed project does include recreational facilities for hotel guests. A
pool, spa, and indoor exercise area will be constructed for the use of the hotels patrons.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical
effect on the environment.
Finding: No impact - The proposed recreational facilities will not result in any adverse physical
effect on the environment
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
29 Rev. 02/22/06
a)Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 832J Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 59| peak hour trips.
The present uses generate 326 ADT. The net increase is 506 ADT. This traffic will utilize the following roadway:
Carlsbad Boulevard!. Existing traffic on this arterials is 17,725;ADT (2005) and the 2005 peak hour level of service
at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is B. The design capacity of the arterial road affected by the
proposed project is 20,000 to 40,000( vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 4.7% and 2.1% of the
existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed
project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the
project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an
increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The
impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant.
b)
Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated
three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in
Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and
Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62
Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73
SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180
1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272
* The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all
designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in
modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard
assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads
and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the
short-term and at buildout.
c)
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components and is not located within the
McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area. No impact assessed.
d)
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and,
therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and
Zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e)
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments. No impact assessed.
0
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply
with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
30 Rev. 02/22/06 (eft
g)
No Impact. The project is near public transportation (i.e. Bus & Rail Transit).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
El
El
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the
existing motel/restaurant/residential use.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater.
Finding: Less than significant impact - The project would have a less than significant impact on
wastewater treatment.
El
El
31 Rev. 02/22/06
b)
No Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to the previous response. The project will not result in a significant
increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Environmental Evaluation: The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of
wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Finding: No impact - No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities will be required due
to the construction of the proposed project.
c)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The proposed project site is an existing commercial/motel/residential use.
Storm water drainage facilities were constructed at the time of initial development and are functioning
and in place currently.
Environmental Evaluation: Minimal improvements will be made to the drainage facilities. Both
upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm
water demands resulting when the project is complete.
Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant environmental effects will result from the
implementation of new drainage facilities during construction of the proposed hotel.
d)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a
restaurant and a single family home. Water supply facilities were constructed at the time of initial
development are functioning and in place currently.
Environmental Evaluation: Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District. The site is identified in the City's MEIR 93-01 for urban uses. Proposed water usage on the site
will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated with a 104 room hotel. The
project will have no significant impact on water supplies.
Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will not result in a significant impact to water
supplies.
e)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: Please refer to response XVI(a).
Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XVI(a).
Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant increase in wastewater treatment will
result from the project.
0
No Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a
restaurant and a single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: The project site has been planned as an urban community. No
unanticipated significant increase in solid waste disposal is anticipated to result from implementation of
the project. The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City's engineering staff
will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part of the approval
process.
Finding: No impact - No measurable significant increase in impact on solid waste creation is
expected to result from the subject project.
32 Rev. 02/22/06
g)
No Impact.
Existing condition: See previous response. The subject project is not anticipated to create any
significant increase in the amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state
and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Environmental Evaluation: The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection
and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes.
Finding: No impact - The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and
disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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? ("Cumula-
tively 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?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
a)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home. The site drains directly into the Pacific Ocean. The project must also obtain a NPDES permit
prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and
storm water pollution prevention plans to protect water quality.
Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A
portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc.
The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. The drainage
pattern dictates that this drainage water will flow west to the Pacific Ocean. Application, certification and
compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering
the Pacific Ocean will be maintained to a level of acceptability.
Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V.
33 Rev. 02/22/06 "72.
b)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and traffic
congestion in the vicinity.
Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic will be
less than significant.
c)
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a
single family home.
Environmental Evaluation: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Finding: Less than significant impact - Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in
preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have
been identified.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport, San Diego Association of Governments,
(April, 1994)
3. Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002).
4. San Diego County Important Farmland, California Department of Conservation (September, 2002).
5. Uniform Building Code - Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B.
6. Special Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology
(May 1996).
7. Traffic Impact Analysis, Carlsbad Springhill Suites, Linscott Law and Greenspan., (October 27, 2005).
8. Storm Water Management Plan, Springhill Suites, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc. April 26, 2005.
9. Preliminary Hydrology Report, Springhill Suites, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc. October 10, 2005.
10. Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulting, Inc,
November 23 ,2005.
11. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987).
34 Rev. 02/22/06 73
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6255
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
4 CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY TO
TRAVEL/RECREATION COMMERCIAL ON A .49-ACRE
6 SITE GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF LINCOLN STREET
BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE IN LOCAL
7 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
8 CASE NO: GPA 05-05
9 WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
10
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
11
Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
13 per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
14 26-00
15 ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
17
Amendment as shown on Exhibit "GPA 05-05" dated March 7, 2007, attached hereto and on
18
file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05, as provided in
2Q Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
21 and
22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold
23 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
24
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
25
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors26
27 relating to the General Plan Amendment.
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
3 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05, based on the
following findings and subject to following conditions:
4
, Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in
7 the staff report dated March 7, 2007 including, but not limited to the following:
8 Land Use: The Land Use designation change of .49 acres from Residential
High Density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial is for the purpose of
developing a 104 room hotel. The proposed T-R Land Use designation would
be compatible with adjacent Residential High Density and Village (Travel
Recreation and Commercial) Land Uses. The site is presently developed with
11 an existing 28-room motel and single family residence.
12 Circulation: The change of Land Use designation to Travel/Recreation
Commercial does not significantly increase the projected traffic generation.
Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in any new significant
project traffic impacts. The project presently generates 372 ADT and the
existing Carlsbad Boulevard roadway is adequate to handle 452 ADT increase
15 in the traffic generated by the proposed hotel use, for a total ADT generation
of 824 Trips.
16
Noise: The project has been designed to reduce the amount of potential noise
17 impacts to adjacent residential land uses through building form and restricting
1 o the hours of outdoor activities.
19 Public Safety: All necessary water mains, fire hydrants, and appurtenances
must be reviewed during building design and installed prior to occupancy of
20 any building.
2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
22 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
23 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
24 Conditions:
25 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
27 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
28 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
PC RESO NO. 6255 -2- """"vi>
conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
2 or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this General Plan Amendment.
3 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the General Plan Amendment documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
6
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
7 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
o 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
10 Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
12 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
13 harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
14 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this General Plan Amendment,
(b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
17 including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
18 survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
approval is not validated.
20 6. This approval is granted subject to the adoption of the Negative Declaration and
approval of ZC 05-02, LCPA 05-02 SDP 06-03 and CDP 05-14 and RP 05-03 and is
21 subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6256,
6257, 6258 and 6259 and Design Review Board Resolution No. 319 for those other
22 approvals.
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6255 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2007, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, and Segall
None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
JULIBBAKBR, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6255 -4-T7
GPA 05-05 DKN Hotel
DRAFT
MARCH 7, 2007
\
RH
VX
l
\Y./
OS 'V""'
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Related Case File No(s): ZC 05-02/LCPA05-02/SDP
/CDP 05-1 4/RP 05-03
05-04
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property
A. 203-250-08-00
B. 203-250-26-00 Por
C.
D.
From:
RH
RH
To:
TR
TR
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6256
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM MULTIPLE-
4 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL
(C-T) ON A .49-ACRE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED
WEST OF LINCOLN STREET BETWEEN PINE AVENUE
6 AND OAK AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
7 CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
CASE NO: ZC 05-028 :
0 WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
10 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
11 Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
! 3 County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
26-00
14
("the Property"); and
1 , WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
17 Exhibit "ZC 05-02" dated March 7, 2007, attached hereto and on file in the Planning
18 Department, DKN HOTEL - ZC 05-02, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold a
21
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
22
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
24 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
25 relating to the Zone Change.
26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
27 Commission as follows:
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
2 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DKN HOTEL - ZC 05-02 based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
Findings:
4
1. That the proposed Zone Change from Residential-Multiple-Family (R-3) to Tourist
Commercial (C-T) is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of
the General Plan, in that the proposed C-T Zone implements the Travel/Recreation
Commercial General Plan Land Use designation and would be compatible with
7 surrounding uses of Village Redevelopment (Commercial Tourist and Commercial)
to the north and west and Multiple-Family Residential to the south and east. The
site is topographically suitable for the development of hotel uses, as the site is
relatively flat and presently developed with a 28-room motel and a single family
residence. The site is accessible by vehicles from Carlsbad Boulevard which is
10 adequate in size and capacity to serve the site. The proposed C-T Zoning
designation would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts to the area.
11
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the Tourist Commercial Zone implements the Travel/Recreation
Commercial General Plan Land Use designation.
14
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity, and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the proposed location is
necessary and desirable to provide hotel services to the visitors of Carlsbad, which
will contribute to the well being of people in the community. The proposed use will
17 not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons working or living in
the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that
18 adequate separation and buffering of uses is proposed.
1 Q Conditions:
20 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
21 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
22 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
24 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
25 or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Zone Change.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
27 and modifications to the Zone Change documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall
28 occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
PCRESONO. 6256 -2-
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
2 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
7 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
n and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Zone Change, (b) City's
10 approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary,
in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have
13 been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated.
14 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and GPA
06-01, LCPA 05-02, CDP 05-14, SDP 05-04 and RP 05-03 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6255, 6257, 6258
1, and 6259 and Design Review Board Resolution No. 319 for those other approvals.
n NOTICE
18 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees,
19 dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
fees/exactions."
20
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
23 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
24
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
27 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
28
PC RESO NO. 6256 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of March, 2007, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez,
Douglas, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
JULIE BAKER, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DONNEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6256 -4-
Exhibit ZC 05-02
March 7, 2007
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF
3 THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 05-02,
4 FROM MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO TOURIST
COMMERCIAL (C-T) ON A .49-ACRE PARCEL GENERALLY
5 LOCATED WEST OF LINCOLN STREET BETWEEN PINE
AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
6 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
7 CASE NO.: ZC 05-02
8 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
9
SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
10
zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit "ZC 05-02," dated March 7, 2007
attached hereto and made a part hereof.12
13 SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
14 forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6256 constitute the findings and conditions of the
15 City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty days
17 after its adoption but not until Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 05-02 is approved by
18 the California Coastal Commission, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the
90 City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
2 Carlsbad on the day of • 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
3 AYES:
4 NOES:
5 ABSENT:
6
7
8n
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
9 "
10 || ATTEST:
11
12 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
13 (SEAL)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -2-
ZC 05-02 DKN Hotel
DRAFT
MARCH 7, 2007
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Related Case File No(s): GPA 05-05/LCPA05-02/SDP 05-04
/CDP 05-1 4/RP 05-03
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property
A. 203-250-08-00
B. 203-250-26-00 Por
C.
D.
From:
R-3
R-3
To:
CT
CT
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6257
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
4 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
5 LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL
6 HIGH DENSITY (RH) TO TRAVEL/RECREATION
COMMERCIAL (T-R) AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY
7 RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-3) TO COMMERCIAL TOURIST
ZONE (C-T) RESPECTIVELY ON A .49 ACRE SITE
8 LOCATED WEST OF LINCOLN STREET BETWEEN PINE
AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
9 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
I o CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
CASE NO: LCPA 05-02
11
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
1-, General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
14 WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
15 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
16 Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
17 Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
18 County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
26-00
19
2Q ("the Property"); and
21 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
22 Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit "LCPA 05-02" dated March 7, 2007, attached
hereto, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8,
24 Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California
25
Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and
26
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold a
2g duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
60?
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
3
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
4
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six-week public review period
5 for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
o0 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
9 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
10
B) At the end of the State-mandated six-week review period, starting on February 24,
2006 and ending on April 7, 2006, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DKN HOTEL - LCPA 05-02 based on the
14 following findings:
Findings:
That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
17 in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
18 this amendment, in that the project will provide additional hotel/ motel rooms and
visitor-serving uses within the Coastal Zone.19
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring it into consistency with the City's General Plan Land Use
Map, Citywide Zoning Map (as amended), and the Mello II Segment Land Use Plan
and Implementation Plan (the zoning map) into conformance.
22
23 Conditions:
This approval is granted subject to the adoption of the Negative Declaration and
25 approval of GPA 05-05, ZC 05-02, SDP 06-03 and CDP 05-14 and RP 05-03 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6255,
26 6256, 6258 and 6259 and Design Review Board Resolution No. 319 for those other
approvals.
28
PC RESO NO. 6257 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of March 2007, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez,
.Douglas, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
, Chairperson
ANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6257 -3-
LCPA 05-02 DKN Hotel
LAND USE
DRAFT
MARCH 7,2007
OS
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Related Case File No(s): GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/SDP
/CDP 05-1 4/RP 05-03
G.P. Map Desig
Property
A. 203-250-08-00
B. 203-250-26-00 Por
C.
D.
From:
RH
RH
nation Change
05-04
To:
TR
TR
LCPA 05-02 DKN Hotel
ZONING
DRAFT
MARCH 7,2007
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Re/atecf Case F/7e A/ofs|- GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/SDP
/CDP 05-14/RP 05-03
05-04
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property
A. 203-250-08-00
B. 203-250-26-00 Por
C.
D.
From:
R-3
R-3
To:
CT
CT
°\o
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6258
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 05-
4 14 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A HOTEL, RESTAURANT,
, AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-STORY, 104-ROOM HOTEL
6 PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3136 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
7 BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND OAK
AVENUE IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
8 COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES
9 MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
10 CASE NO.: CDP 05-14
11 WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has
12 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
13
Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775,
14 Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands
per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and
16 26-00
17 ("the Property"); and
10 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
19 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "R" dated March 7, 2007, on file in the
20
Planning Department, DKN HOTEL - CDP 05-14, as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold
24 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
26
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
27
relating to the CDP.
28
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
3
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
4
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DKN HOTEL - CDP 05-14 based on the
6 following findings and subject to the following conditions:
7 Findings:
^ 1. That the portion of the proposed development in the Mello II Segment of the Local
q Coastal Program is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all
applicable policies in that the site is designated with approval of GPA 05-05, ZC 05-
10 02, and LCPA 05-02 for hotel/motel development and the project consists of the
construction of 104 hotel units on a .84 acre site; the development does not obstruct
11 views of the coastline as seen from public lands or public rights-of-way or otherwise
damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone; and no agricultural activities, sensitive
resources, geological instability, or coastal access opportunities exist on the site.
13 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
14 of the Coastal Act in that no coastal access areas or water oriented recreational
activities exist on or near the site.
15
3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the
17 City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard
Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff
18 Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil
erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the
19 site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion,
floods, or liquefaction.
21 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
22 to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
23
Conditions:24
25 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building
permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first.
26
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
2' implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
„„ implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
PC RESO NO. 6258 -2-
future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy
2 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
3 conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Coastal Development Permit.
4
<- 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
6 them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
7 development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
o 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
9 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
10 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
*1 challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
,~ 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
13 all requirements of law.
14 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
16 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit,
17 (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or
nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
19 including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
20 survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
approval is not validated.
21
__ 6. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration, GPA 05-
05, ZC 05-02 and SDP 05-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
23 Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6255, 6256, 6257 and 6259 for those other approvals.
24 7. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
26 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
27
9. The project site is located in an area that may contain soil material that is suitable
for beach sand replenishment. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and as
part of the grading plan preparation, the developer shall test the soil material to be
PC RESO NO. 6258 -3-
exported from the project site to determine the materials suitability for sand
2 replenishment. Material testing shall be conducted pursuant to the requirements of
the Carlsbad Opportunistic Beach Fill Program (COBFP). If the material is deemed
3 suitable for beach replenishment pursuant to the guidelines established in the
COBFP, the developer shall comply with the process outlined in the COBFP to
transport and place the beach quality material on the beach site identified in the
<- COBFP. The city may refuse the placement of the exported material on the beach,
if it is determined that any aspect of the project does not comply with the provisions
6 of the COBFP (i.e. seasonal restrictions on beach fill activities, quantity and quality
of the material, etc.). The COBFP prohibits placement of beach fill on the beach
7 during the summer season (between the last Monday in May, Memorial Day, and
the first Monday in September, Labor Day); therefore, if project construction will
result in the export of the soil material from the site occurring during this summer
9 timeframe, the requirements of this condition shall not apply, but may be voluntary
if the developer chooses to store the exported material until placement of sand on
10 the beach is permitted per the COBFP.
11 NOTICE
12
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
15 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
16 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
j o annul their imposition.
19 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
_, project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
22 expired.
23
24
25
26
27
28
PCRESONO. 6258 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2007, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, Douglas,
Montgomery, and Segall
None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
ABSTAIN: None
ER, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION
DON NEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO. 6258 -5-
CiTy of CARlsbAd HousiNq ANd f&fcwlopweNT DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 7
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ApptlCATiOM CoMpJETC DATE: $Mfl: Otiff
DeccMbER 1, 2006 VAIN lyrxb
ENVIRONMENT^ Review: OAvid Rick
MiTfcjATtd NeqATivc DECURATJON
DECEMBER 28, 2006
DATE: March 7, 2007 O
SUBJECT: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02mP 05^03/COP 05-14/SOP OS-04 - OKfl
HOTEL: Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration,
and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, -Local Coastal
Program Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit, and approval of a Site Development
Permit; and a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to adopt a
Negative Declaration and a recommendation of approval of a Major Redevelopment Per-mit and
Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing hotel, restaurant, and -singte family
residence and for the construction of a 3-story, 104-room hotel project on property located at
3136 Carlsbad Boulevard on the east side of Cartebad Boutevard between Pine Avenue and
Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad ViHage Redevelopment Area, in '4he Village
Redevelopment and Mello II Segments of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission 'Resolution No. 6254
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 6255, 6256, 6257 and 6258 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ^General P!an
Amendment 05-05, Zone Change 05-02, Local Coastal Program Amendment €5-02 and
Coastal Development Permit 05-14 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution -No. 6259
APPROVING Site Development Permit 05-04 and based on the findings and -subject to the
conditions contained therein.
Design Review Board
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution -No. 321
RECOMMENDiNG ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Design Review Board
Resolution Nos. 319 and 320 recommending APPROVAL of Major Redevelopment Permit-RP
05-03 and Coastal Development Permit COP 05-14 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a Major Redevelopment Permit because a portion of the property
>rs tocated within the ViHage Redevelopment (V-R) area and involves new oonstruotion of a
building that has a building permit valuation greater than $150,000. This Major Redevelopment
Permit serves as the Site Development Plan required by Chapter 21.53 of the Cartebad
OKN HOT€L - GPA OS^05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP OS-14VSOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 2
Municipal Code for the portion of the property that faHs wKhin the V*R zoning. The project ateo
includes a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal
Program Amendment, to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use
designations from Residential High Density <RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (T-R) and to
change the Citywide Zoning and Local Coastal program designations from Multiple-Family
Residential Zone (R-3) to Commercial Tourist Zone <C-T) for the portion of property located
outside the Village Redevelopment Zone. In addition, the project requires a Site Development
Permit for the portion of development located outside the V-R Zone and a Coastal Development
Permit as the entire site is located within the Coastal Zone.
Because the property is partially within and partially out of the Village Redevelopment Area, the
split zoning designations on the property, the project's discretionary review is within the purview
of both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board
maintains authority over all Redevelopment Permits and Coastal Development Permits within
the Village Redevelopment Zone (V-R). For these permits the Design Review Board functions
as an advisory board to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Planning
Commission has authority over the portion of the site that is located within the area currently
Zoned R-3, with final approval authority over the Site Development Permit and functioning as a
recommending body to the City Council for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local
Coastal Program Amendment and Coastal Development Permit.
The Design Review 8oard and Planning Commission are being asked to hold a joint public
hearing on the permits requested, consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on
the project, discuss the project and then take action on the project.
Table A, below, indicates the decision-making bodies that have authority over the various
aspects of the project:
TaWeA
~
30)
8
0.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GPA 05-05
ZC 05-02
LCPA 05-02
COP 05- 14
RP 05-03
SOP 05-04
Planning
Commission
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
X
Design
Review
Board
RA
RA
RA
City
Council
X
X
X
X
X
Housing &
Redev.
Commission
X
X
X
Coastal
Commission
•
RA = Recommended adoption/approval
X = Final City decision-making authority
• = Requires Coastal Commission approval
OKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP 05-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 3
•ill.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, DKN Hotels, is requesting to construct a 104-room, SpringHill Suites, Marriott
hotel on property located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard
between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. The subject property is bordered by a 7-11
convenience store and other retail uses to the north, multi-family residential use to the south,
multi-family residential and a proposed mixed use project to the east, and Cartsbad Boulevard
to the west. The subject property consists of two-separate parcels <203-250-08 & 26) that are
currently owned by the applicant. The total site area is .84 acres of which, .35 acres are
located within the Village Redevelopment Area with frontage along Carlsbad Boulevard. The
remaining .49 acres is located outside the redevelopment area boundaries and front Lincoln
Street. Currently a 28 room two-story motel (Surf Motel), a 1,125 square foot restaurant (The
Armenian Cafe), and a single-family structure occupy the site, all of which are proposed for
demolition.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 62,354 square foot, three-story hotel With
on-site amenities for guests including a breakfast room, business center, and ground-floor
outdoor dining areas, as well as roof-top dining areas that front Carlsbad Boulevard with views
of the ocean. The interior of the hotel includes amenities such as conference rooms, a
business library, guest laundry, a swimming pool & spa, and an exercise room. On-site
improvements include 125 underground parking spaces, circulation drive aiste, trash
enclosures, exterior lights, and a six-foot tall masonry perimeter wall. The various guest rooms
are broken down into king, double, accessible double, and suite rooms. The following chart
shows the breakdown of room type per floor:
^^^_
First Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Total
King
15
22
24
61
Double
8
16
15
39
Double
(Accessible)
1
1
1
3
Suite
-
-
1
1
Total
24
39
41
104
ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards:
A. General Plan; Village Redevelopment and Travel/Recreation Commercial (T-R)
Land Use Designations;
B. Local Coastal Program; Land Use Plan; Village Redevelopment and MeHo II
Segments.
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 {Zoning Ordinance) including:
1. Chapter 21.35 - Village Redevelopment Zone (V-R);
2. Chapter 21.29 -Commercial Tourist Zone <C-T);
3. Chapter 21.06 -Site Development Plan findings required by the Beach
Area Overlay Zone;
4. Chapter 21.203 -Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone and;
D. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1)
°re>
DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC OS-02/LCPA 054)2/RP 05-03/CDP OS-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAG€4
The recommendation for approval of (his project was developed toy analyzing the -project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations feted above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Design Review Board Considerations
The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves,
enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic
and cultural functions while retaining the Village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; 2) a City
which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate
in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3)
a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation
corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety
of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social
environment and a profitable business setting. The General Plan objective is to implement the
Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a tourist/traveler serving use normally
associated with coastal highways <Carlsbad Boulevard) in an appropriate location within the
Village. The use in turn provides an additional customer case for local restaurants, specialty
shops, and nearby convenience services. Additionally, the project provides new economic
development by replacing the existing older underutilized uses on 4he subject property with a
new full-service hotel use. The General Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Pten
through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual. 8y providing more hotel
lodging, the project helps to create a lively, interesting social environment by encouraging and
increasing the opportunity for 24-hour life in the Village, which provides-the necessary customer
base to attract complementary uses. The project reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired
for the downtown area with a hotel location that provides an opportunity for hotel patrons to
walk to shopping, recreation, and mass transit functions. The projects proximity to existing bus
routes and mass transit will help to further the goal of providing new economic development
near transportation corridors. Furthermore, the project will provide a strong street presence
with extensive architectural relief, including outdoor patios along Carlsbad Boulevard. Parking
is provided in a subterranean garage and not visible from public view. Overall, the new hotel
will enhance the Village as a place for living and working.
CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION. GOALS ANO
OBJECTIVES
Design Review Board Considerations
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Village as a Quality Shopping. Working and Living Environment.
The proposed project will result in the development of additional lodging opportunities within the
visitor-serving Tourism Support Area (District 9) that is close 4o the retail and commercial core
OKN HOT€L - GPA OS-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP 05-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGES
of the ViHage Center (District 1). The proposed project is highly compatibte with *he
surrounding area and contributes to establishing the Village as a quality shopping, working, and
living environment by providing additional lodging for visitors who will shop and dine within the
Village adding to the lively environment within the downtown area. The attractive architectural
design of the project will serve to enhance the site and the surrounding area.
Goal 2: Improve the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Village Area. The absence of
at-graole parking improves pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area by eliminating the
need for additional curb cuts. Additionally, the proposed project will be in close proximity to
both bus and rail mass transit options and will thus encourage and promote the use of mass
transit, further improving vehicular circulation in the Village.
Goal 3: Stimulate Property Improvements and New Development in the ViHage. The Master
Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or
improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
new development. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the
Village Redevelopment Area, specifically in the Tourism Support Area (District 9) by providing
for an appropriate intensity of development that is compatible with the surrounding area. The
proposed development of the subject property will serve as an additional catalyst for further
redevelopment along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Goal 4: Improve the Physical Appearance of the Village Area. The project has a design that is
visually appealing. The architecture of the new structure meets the requirements of the design
guidelines for the Village. Construction of the proposed project will reinforce the Village
character with appropriate site planning and architectural design and materials that comply with
City standards and requirements. In addition, the proposed project will establish a hotel with a
scale and character that is appropriate along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Planning Commission Considerations
The proposed -General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element would change the Land Use
designation of a portion of the site from Residential High Density (RfH) to Travel/Recreation
Commercial (T-R). The proposed T-R designation wouW be appropriate as a portion-of the
existing 28-room motel is presently located within the RH Land Use designation and is
considered an existing non-conforming use. The existing single family residence makes up the
remainder of the proposed Land Use change area. The project can be found compatible with
surrounding uses of miriti-family, commercial and other hotel uses in the immediate area. The
site is topographically suitable for the development of T-R type uses, as the majority of the
developable portion of the site has been previously developed with motel, commercial and
residential uses. The proposed T-R Land Use designation would not result in any unavoidable
adverse impacts to the area. The project will not generate a significant increase in average
daily vehicle trips and Carisbad Boulevard is capable of handling the proposed vehicle trips.
Adequate buffers in the form of building placement, setbacks and landscaping wHI separate the
existing residential land uses to the south from the proposed hotel site.
The project is proposing -to change the General Plan Land Use designation from f?H to T-R on
.49 acres of the property. This would reduce the dwelling unit potential of the site by 9.3
dwelling untts. Consistent with Program 38 of the City's certified Housing Element, all of the
!00
DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA OS-02/RP 05-03fCOP 05-14/SOP 05*04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 6
dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City's share of the regional housing
need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City's Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects.
Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties
identified in the Housing Clement allowing residential development with a unit capacity,
including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City's share of the regional housing
need.
The project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan.
Particularly relevant to the proposed hotel development are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise,
and Public Safety elements. Table 8 below indicates how the project complies with these
particular elements of the General Plan.
TABLE 8 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element Use Classification,
Goal, Objective or
Program
Proposed Use and Improvements Compliance
Land Use T-R development to serve
the travel and recreational
needs of tourist, residents
as well as employees of
business and industrial
centers.
The project proposes a Genera IPIan
Amendment to T-R for the
development of a 104 room motel.
Yes
Circulation Adequate circulation
infrastructure to serve the
projected trips generated
by the use.
The existing Carlsbad Boulevard
roadway is adequate in capacity to
handle the traffic generated -by the
proposed use.
Yes
Noise To achieve noise impact
compatibility between
land uses through the
land use
planning/development
review process
Project has been designed to reduce
the amount of potential noise
impacts to adjacent residential land
uses through buttding form and
restricting the hours of outdoor
activities.
Yes
Public
Safety
Enforce the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes,
adopted by the City, to
provide fire protection
standards for all proposed
structures.
All necessary water mains, fire
hydrants, and appurtenances must
be reviewed during buHding design
and installed prior to occupancy of
any building.
Yes
B.LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
The subject properties are located in both the Village Redevelopment and Metio II Segments of
the City's Local Coastal Program {LCP). The eastern portion of the site is located within the
Mello II Segment and the western portion of the site is within the Village Redevelopment
Segment of the LCP. The LCP consists of two parts - the Land Use Plan and the implementing
ordinances. 'For the portion of the project site located in the MeHo II Segment, the implementing
ordinances consist of the applicable portions of the Zoning Ordinance. This analysis section
,0
DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP OS-O&COP 05-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 7
only addresses compliance with the Land Use Plan since Zoning Ordinance compliance is
discussed in Section C below.
The policies of the Mello II Land Use Plan emphasize topics such as preservation of agricultural
and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline
access, and prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The proposed LCP Land Use
Amendment from Residential High Density (RH) -to T-R is consistent with the policies contained
in the Land Use Plan for the Mello II Segment of the LCP. Since all of the affected properties
are already subdivided and developed, no impacts to any physical features, such as scenic
resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or geologic features, will occur. The change to the
land uses over most of the existing developed properties does not preclude the continued
conformance with the Mello II Segment policies. The policies of the LCP call for additional
hotel/ motel rooms and visitor-serving uses within the Coastal Zone.
No agricultural uses currently exist on the site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on
the property. The proposed hotel is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood
hazard. The site is proposed to be Land Use designated Travel Recreation/Commercial and is
proposing a hotel use.
The property is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and there are no opportunities
for vertical coastal access or recreational activities from the subject site. There is adequate
vertical public access to public beaches located to the southwest of the site. Therefore, the
project will not interfere with the public's right to physical access to the sea.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master
Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban *Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to
avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil erosion. No development is proposed in
areas of steep slopes (coastal bluff) and no native vegetation is located on the subject property.
The site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion,
floods or liquefaction.
The proposed DKN Hotel project must be consistent with 'the proposed C-T Zoning. The
proposed actions would change the LCP zoning from R-3 to C-T zoning over the eastern
portion of the site. The C-T zone implements the T-R Land Use designation.
As stated above, the area proposed for the Land Use changes -covers the eastern portion of the
site. The proposed hotel project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the existing
development.
Consistency with the Village Redevelopment and MeHo II Segments of the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan is applicable to this project. The Village Master Plan and Design
Manual functions as the Local Coastal Program for the area. Therefore, as long as the project
is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the project is consistent with the
Local Coastal Program. Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual and therefore toe Local Coastal Program. A Coastal Development
Permit is being processed in both Local Coastal Program Segments concurrently and is a
common permit for both the Redevelopment Permit and the GPA/ZC and "SOP applications.
!OZ
OKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP 05-14/SOP 05XJ4
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 8
The Coastal Permit is not in the appeal area of the Calif. Coastal Commission.
Given the above, the proposed DKN Hotel project is consistent with the Village Redevelopment
and Mello II Segment Land Use Plans of the LCP. To date, no comments have been received
during the required six-week LCPA pufcHic notice of availably period (February 24, 2006 - April
7, 2006).
C. CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING DESIGNATION
Design Review Board Considerations
The Village Redevelopment Master Plan and the Village Redevelopment Design Manual, which
implements the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan are the
controlling documents for projects within the Village. As set forth in the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, hotel projects are classified as permitted uses within Land Use District 9 of the
Village Redevelopment Area. Permitted uses are defined as those uses which are permitted by
right because they are considered to be consistent with the vision and goafs established for the
district. Although these land uses may be permitted by right, satisfactory completion of the
Design Review Process and compliance with all other requirements of the Redevelopment
Permit Process is still required.
The overall vision for the development of District 9 {Tourism Support) is to accommodate a wide
mix of uses with an emphasis upon facilities, goods and services to tourists and regional visitors
traveling along the coast. High quality hotels, restaurants, and retail shops are emphasized and
multi-family development is permitted as part of a mixed-use project. The proposed project
achieves this vision by providing a highly desirable hotel project, which promotes tourist lodging
to the travelers along the coastal highway, while remaining sensitive to <he adjacent residential
uses to the east through scale and design. The architectural design and site planning of 4he
project helps to ensure that the residential portions of Oak Avenue remain a quality residential
neighborhood.
The proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is located in
close proximity to mass transit, parks, the beach, retail, and commercial services. The project
is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also been determined to
be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village Redevelopment Area.
Development of the subject property will serve as a catalyst for future projects and help to
promote the Village Design further within District 9.
CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The project complies with all development standards and design criteria specified by the
applicable ordinances as shown in Table C below.
i 03
DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP 05-14/SOP OS-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 9
TABLE C - VR and CT/BAOZ Compfiarae
Standard
Arterial Setbacks:
Setbacks required for arterials.
V-RZone - 5'-20'
C-T/BAOZ - N/A
Side Yard Setback
V-RZone -5'- 10'
C-T/BAOZ -10'
Rear Yard Setback
Building Height
V-RZone -45'
C-T/BAOZ - 35'
Lot Coverage
V-R Zone < 80%
C-T/BAOZ - N/A
Parking
1.2 spaces/ room
= 125 parking spaces required
Proposed
7'-3" (See "reduction on standards"
discussion below)
N/A
0' *(See "reduction of standards"
discussion betow)
10' adjacent to residential
V-RZone -N/A
C-T/BAOZ -N/A
43'
33 feet 8.5 inches
53%
N/A
125 spaces provided
Conformance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Design Review Board Considerations
Building Setbacks within V-R Zoning:
The development standards within the Village Redevelopment Area require specific findings for
projects that are below the maximum of the setback standard range. As set forth in the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the setback range is considered to
be the desired setback standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum, or
anywhere within the setback range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a •reduction and
the following findings are made by the Housing & Redevelopment Commission:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project that meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the tend use
district in which the project is to be located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area.
The findings required allowing reductions in the front yard setback and <he south side yard
setback at a level below the maximum and within the standard range are as foflows. First, ihe
proposed setback will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties as the reduced
setback will aHow for the outdoor dining areas and the business center *o be dose to the street
reinforcing the pedestrian interaction atong Carlsbad Boulevard helping to create a lively
commercial block frontage. The reduced front yard setback will, therefore, encourage and
maintain the existing visitor-serving commercial continuity and synergy that exists along
Carlsbad Boulevard adding to the shopping experience in the Village. The reduced side yard
OKN HOTEL - GPA OS-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP 05-14fSOP t)5-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 10
standard will help to break up the mass of the building allowing other portions of the building 4o
be setback further. Second, the reduced standards will assist in developing a project that
meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the land use
objectives in that the project will replace existing blighted structures with a visually appealing
project that has scate and character that will improve the appearance and condition of the
current Village hotel lodging stock helping to stimulate property improvements and further new
development in the Village. The project will help to further establish Carlsbad Village as a
quality shopping and living environment by providing an attraction for additional tourist-serving
uses. Lastly, the reduced standards will assist in creating a project design that is interesting,
visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area through setbacks that provide
adequate space for landscaping and decorative paving at the ground floor allowing building
recesses and relief along the various building planes. The reduced standards will assist in
creating greater architectural articulation adjacent to the street and will assist in the effort to
make the building visually interesting and more appealing which is a primary goal of the Village
Design guidelines in reinforcing the Village character. Based on these findings, it is staffs
position that the proposed project satisfies the setback requirements set forth for Land Use
District 9 for the reduced front yard and south side yard setbacks.
for approval of a portion of the north side yard setback, which is below the minimum setback
range requirements for the subject land use district, a variance must be approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Variances may only be granted if the findings set
forth in Section 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are met.
In order to approve the requested variance to allow the side yard building setback to be
reduced to zero along a portion of the northern property line, the Design Review Board and
Housing and Redevelopment Commission must be able to make the five findings -contained
within Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35.130. Staff offers the following justification for
granting the requested variances to exceed the setback standards:
Variance Finding #1: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zone
regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and
under identical zoning classification. Justification: Special circumstances exist that a*e
applicable to the subject property that justify granting the requested variance. "First the shape
of the lot is unusual due to its "wedged" shape configuration at the north end of the site fronting
Carlsbad Boulevard. This shape restricts the design flexibility for new visitor-serving
commercial uses. However, through the reduction (variance), the applicant is able to provide a
large enough outdoor dining area at the north end of the site that will serve to reinforce the
pedestrian interaction between hotel patrons and pedestrians helping to generate a lively
commercial block frontage with visitor-serving commercial continuity. This is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Village that include attracting additional tourist serving commercial
uses and reinforcing the pedestrian commercial continuity within the Village commercial
districts. The additional outdoor dining area, enabled through the variance, is necessary at the
north corner of the site in order to maintain the existing visitor-serving commercial continuity
and synergy that exists along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Variance Finding %2: The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inoonsfstent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which tne subject property is
located. Justification: The granting of the variance will not constitute 3 granting -of special
IQ5
DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP 05-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 11 _
privileges as the property to the north currently has a zero foot side and rear yard setback. By
allowing the subject project to abut the property tine to the north, the project will share the same
setback standard as the property to the north. Allowing the setback standard below the 5-foot
minimum will eliminate an area between the proposed and existing building that could collect
trash and debris and eventually become a health and safety concern.
Variance Finding #3: The variance does not authorize a use or activity, which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. Justification: The
variance for this project falls on property within the V-f? zoning designation. The variance does
not authorize a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized by the zone regulation
governing the subject property, as a hotel use is a permitted use within Land Use District 9
(Tourism Support Area) of <he V-f{ zoning designation.
Variance Finding #4: The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the
General Plan, Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan, and the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
conditions associated with many of the properties in the redevelopment area. The reduced side
yard setback is consistent with the existing site conditions to the north. The requested variance
in no way changes the use or development of the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the General Plan, Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan,
and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual.
Variance FindinQ #5: In addition, in the Coastal Zone, the variance is consistent with and
implements the requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program and the variance does not
reduce or in any manner adversely affect the protection of coastal resources as specified in the
zones included in this title, and the variance implements the purposes of zones adopted to
implement the Local Coastal Program Land Use plan. Justification: The variance is consistent
with the intent of the requirements of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, which
functions as the Local Coastal Program for the area. As long as the project is consistent with
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the project is consistent with the Local Coastal
Program. The variance allows for a permitted hotel use with outdoor seating, which is
consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and therefore is consistent with the
Local Coastal Program.
8ased on these variance findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants
granting of a variance to allow the side yard buHding setback to be reduced to zero along the
northern property line.
Residential Density and Inclusionary Housing Requirements:
There is no residential component proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density
and inclusionary housing requirements are not applicable to this project.
DKN HOTEL - GPA OS-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-OSfCDP 05-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 12
CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design Review Board Considerations
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to .design
a project that is consistent with a village scale and character. The Design Review Board and
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that ihe
applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These
design principles are:
1. Development shall have an overall informal character.
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project design
provides for an overall informal character while expressing the unique nature of the use and site
location. The architectural design provides for variety and diversity through the incorporation of
the following elements: varying roof heights; a variety of roof pitches that range from a
minimum of 5:12 to a maximum of 14:12; building articulation on all elevations; and varied
building setbacks. The project incorporates an abundance of informal landscaping along the
perimeter of the property, which works well with the building design. The building provides for a
variety of architectural features and detaNs, which in addition to those previously described
include divided-pane windows, a columned entryway, decorative rock work, and outdoor eating
areas oriented towards the street. A summary of the design features related to the project <s
provided as Exhibit 1 to this report.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION. SEWER. WATER. RECLAIMED
WATER AND OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS)
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City's requirements for the following:
Traffic & Circulation:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 824 AOT (additional new ADT of 452)
Traffic Study was prepared by Linscott Law and -Greenspan Engineers, dated October 27,
2005.
Comment: Carlsbad Boufevard access to the site will be restricted to right turns only. A raised
median on Carlsbad Boulevard will prevent left turns from *he project driveway. There is also
an access restricted to "loading only" on Lincoln Street. Outbound project traffic wishing to
travel south on Carlsbad Boulevard can make a LMwn at the intersection of Carlsbad Village
107
DKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP 05-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 13 _
Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. Southbound project traffic entering the project site can make a
U-turn at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Pine Avenue.
The proposed project will generate 824 AOT. The existing uses on site to be demolished
generate 372 ADT. Since the AOT from existing uses will be nullified by demolition, the net
expected AOT generated will be 452. All frontage and project related roadways are conditioned
to be designed and constructed concurrent with development of this project.
Sewer:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Sewer EDUs Required: 104 units wfthout kitchens
(0.60) edu/dwelling x 104 suites = 171.6 EDUs
Comment: An 8 inch sewer main exists in Lincoln Street and a 6 inch sewer main exists in
Carlsbad Boulevard. Provided that the existing sewer lateral in Lincoln Street is appropriately
sized, the project will connect to this lateral. Otherwise a new (minimum 6 inch) lateral will be
installed. The project is conditioned to require a submittal of a sewer study to determine the
required lateral size and other pertinent information.
Water:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
<3PD required: 61,860 square foot building x 2,300 gpd/10,000 square foot building = 14,228
Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed -project. Adequate fire and
domestic water supply will be available to the project. Service will be -provided by connecting -to
the existing 10 inch water service in Carlsbad Boulevard.
Softs & Grading:
Quantities: Cut: 14,870 cy Fill: 80 cy Export: 14,790 cy Import: Ocy
Permit required: Yes
Off-site approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: N/A
Addendum No. 1 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation performed by: ieighton Consulting,
Inc. dated November 23, 2005
Comment: The onsite soils have a tow to very tow expansion -potential. The onsite soils are
suitable for compacted fill. Excavations approximately 20 feet deep are proposed for the
underground parking garage. Given the depth of cut and close proximity to offsite structures,
the soils engineer recommends that shoring operations be performed =by a specialty contractor.
!D&
OKN HOT€L - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP 05-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 14
Drainage & Erosion Control:
Drainage basin: 8
Preliminary hydrology study performed by: Aquaterra Engineering Inc. 1843 'Camesino Place,
Oceanside CA 92054.
Erosion Potential: Low
Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. The drainage
patterns affecting the site are divided into four basins. The net difference in runoff from the
existing development to the proposed development for a 100 year frequency storm is -0.1 cubic
feet per second (cfs). A combination of rerouting drainage, directing drainage through grass
swales and to a retention basin with dewatering pit allows for a slight decrease in offsfte
drainage runoff.
A Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan was submitted to address storm water quality
concerns. A combination of vegetated swales, an infiltration basin, inlet filters for the
underground garage and filters installed in the downspouts for treatment of roof drainage will
treat onsite drainage for anticipated pollutants prior to discharge to the public storm drain pipe.
Land Title:
Conflicts with existing easement: None.
Easement dedication required: a private drainage easement will need to be recorded for the
abutting property to the south.
Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes
Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project. The project is conditioned
to consolidate the four parcels within the development boundaries into one tot.
Improvements:
Off-site improvements: Curb, gutter, sidewalk, street and bike lanes and medians on Carlsbad
Boulevard exist. No further improvements are necessary on Carlsbad Boulevard other than
removal of a driveway and replacement with curb, gutter and sidewalk and installation of a new
driveway and drainage curb outlet. On Lincoln Street, new curb, gutter and sidewalk will be
installed along with street pavement widening needed to bring the stfeet-to-centertine width to
21.5 feet. These improvements will transition into exiting curb, gutter and sidewalk to the
northwest and southeast. Also, the pavement between the street centerline and curb along the
property frontage shall be resurfaced where needed. A domestic water line and fire service line
will be installed on Lincoln Street.
Standard variance required: No.
Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project.
\cf\
OKN HOTEL - GPA 05-05/ZC OS-02/J.CPA 05-02/RP OS-03/COP 05-14/SDP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 15
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified no potentially significant environmental impacts
and a Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Director on
December 28, 2006 and made available for public review. No comments were received on the
environmental document during the 30 public review period (December 28, 2006 through
January 27, 2007).
Because the project is subject to the approval of two different decision-making bodies (City
Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission), the Negative Declaration, which
applies to both parts of the project, must be adopted by both the City Council and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
V. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a significant positive financial impact on (he City
and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of under-utilized properties will result
in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will result in increased tax increment
to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project will generate significant transient
occupancy taxes which will benefit the City as a whole. Third, it is hoped that the project will
serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation
of existing buildings. Finally, the project will result in the construction of a new development
and elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
VI. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant a variance for a portion of
the north side yard setback that is below the minimum of the standard range. The project will
have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency and will assist in
fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Pten.
no
OKN HOT€L - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/COP OS-14/SOP 05-04
MARCH 7, 2007
PAGE 16
EXHIBITS:
1. Exhibit 1, Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design
Guidelines.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 319 <RP)
3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 320 (COP)
4. Design Review Board Resolution No. 321 <Neg. Dec.)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6254 (Neg.Oec.)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6255 (GPA)
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6256 <ZC)
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6257 (LCPA)
9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6258 <CDP)
10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6259 (SOP)
11. Location Map
12. Background Data Sheet
13. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
14. Disclosure Statement
15. Reduced Exhibits
16. Exhibits "A" - "R" dated March 7, 2007
111
WLLAG€ MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
"eject: °«N Marriott
Provide variety of setbacks along any singte commercial
Week front.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
The project provides various setbacks and outdoor
eating areas in order to provwte setback -from
Carlsbad Boulevard. The building setbacks are
appropriate for the location.
The project does not provide benches or low lying
walls 'but does have outdoor seating areas for
guests of the hotel. Outdoor dining and seating
areas are incorporated along the Carlsbad
Boulevard frontage.
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity. Outdoor dining is provided along
building frontage in order to encourage greater
interaction with the pedestrians atong Carlsbad
Boulevard.
No drive through service use is included in project.
The project provides ampte setbacks and
appropriate landscaping in order to reduce
impacts to adjacent residential uses to the south.
In addition, the building has minimal windows
facing to the south in order to reduce privacy toss.
The project location does not lend itself to
courtyards for pedestrian use.
Landscaped areas along all sides of the building,
within 4he parking tot, and within the recreational
area of the project will provide for an informal
character/sett ing .
Landscaping will be provided along afl sides of the
buHding.
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots.
The project provides two-levels of subterranean
parking, in which landscaping is not suitabte for
growth.
The property is not located adjacent to an altey.
Parking is subterranean and not visible from the
street.
I
Ill
Devote all parking tot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
tot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces.
lading
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mereoopies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
Break large buildings into smaller units.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
btock faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "took at me"
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
All areas -not required for parking spaces, driveway
aisles, or trash enclosures have been landscaped.
No parking is provided in the front setback area.
There will be one curb ,cut of minimal width atong
Carlsbad Boulevard to provide ingress and egress
to the property.
The subject property is not located on a corner.
Landscaped setbacks are provided around the
entire perimeter of the property.
The parking is provided betow-grade.
The parking is provided below-grade.
The driveway entry provides enhanced paving.
The proposed design of the building provides -for
articulation in the building, varying roof forms, and
other architectural features which provide for a
unique character.
At its peak, the proposed project is approximately
43' in height. The project includes several varying
roof heights and roof pitches that range from 5:12
to 14:12. These design elements serve to break "
up the overall mass of the structure.
The project is designed in an "L" shape which
serves to break up the overall mass of the
structure.
The height of the building is consistent with the
height of the Carlsbad Inn located to the west of
the subject property and recently approved
projects to the east. Existing hotels along
Carlsbad Boulevard range from 2-3 stories in
height.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building ,
is not trendy or "Hook at me" in design.
ib
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
•or .greater.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 5 day tile roofs
are acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Roof pitches of 12:12 and 14:12 are common with
the proposed project resulting in the desired steep
roof pitch.
Dormers have been incorporated into the project
design.
The project provides a wood composition shingte
roof which is consistent with the architectural
design intended for the project as well as other
projects in the area.
The building does not incorporate flat roofs.
This will be a requirement of the project.
The project utilizes mansard roof forms in order to
reduce overall building height and provide desired
roof pitch.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
•
8y providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all building facades, thereby creating
visual interest in the building. The project makes
good use of divided-pane windows, a columned
entry feature, applied surface ornamentation,
varying roof peaks, and landscaping.
The proposed project provides for divided paned
windows through out the buHdtng to achieve the
Village character.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create shadows and
contrast.
The upper levels of this building provide for
attractive window features, applied ornamentation,
and varying roof heights which reflects special
attention in design.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
etements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies.
Utilize light and neutral base colors.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less colors)
„.*,•* "*!*- ~ Jt*;fe * Si*,"! j *" ~W%&.
Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid large blank walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
The upper levels of ihis building will be accessed
through internal stairways. Therefore, no special
treatment of upper level use entries is necessary.
Detail etements have been incorporated into the
entire project by design. The windows and
entrance design all provide for detail which adds
visual interest. Applied surface ornamentation and
varying wall materials also enhance the overall
architectural detail.
The materials and colors proposed for the building "
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The exterior walls utilize river rock detail on the
first and second stories. Stucco is used on other
surfaces.
None of the noted materials have been indicated
for use.
The windows are clear glass.
The applicant will be using divided-pane vinyl
windows.
The applicant has proposed no awnings or
canopies.
The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
The project incorporates less than Sectors.
Due to the type of commercial facility, this design
feature is not applicable.
The project has been designed with no large blank
walls.
Not applicable; no restaurant proposed within the
protect. Large windows are provided along lower
level in order to encourage greater interaction with
the street.
No fabric awnings to be used; not a retail or
storefront operation.
No display lighting. Not applicable to project.
Project design does not lend itself to the use of ,
IVo
Utilize small paned windows.
Develop a total design concept.
Provide frequent entries.
•Limit the extent of entry openings.
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate fences and walls into the building design.
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Provide front entry porches.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Emphasize "cottage" form, scale and character
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
•Provide quality designed fences and walls.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smarter
components.
dutch doors.
The applicant is using small divided paned
windows throughout.
All facade design elements are unified. The appli-
cant was abte to develop a total design concept
with is afso functional and visually interesting.
The project does provides a sufficient number of
entrances acceptable for the proposed use.
The extent of the entry openings has been limited
through the design.
The project does not include pull down shutters,
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontage.
Not applicable to this project.
Fences and watts have been incorporated into the
building design.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-Q2/LCPA-05-02/RP 05-t)3/SDP 05-04/CDP05-14
CASE NAME: DKN MARRIOTT
APPLICANT: DKN Hotels
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a recommendation to the City Council Co adopt a
Negative Declaration, and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change.
Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit, and approval of a Site
Development Permit: and a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to adopt a
Negative Declaration and a recommendation of approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit for the demolition of an existing a hotel, restaurant, and single family residence and
for the construction of a 3-story. 104-room hotel project on property located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard
on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of
the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area, in the Village Redevelopment and Mello II Segments of the
Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Block 18. Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775.
Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100. Carlsbad Lands per Map 1661. Recorded 3-1-
1915. all in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California.
APN: 203-250-08 and 26 Acres: J54 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 104 hotel units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation: V (VillageVRH
Proposed Land Use Designation: V/TR
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: VR/R-3 Proposed Zone: VR/C-T
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site V/R-3 VR/RH Motel/SFR
North VR V Retail <7/ll)
South R-3 RH Multi-family residential
East R-3 RH Single and Multi-family
West V-R V Multi-family residential
ftevised 01/06 I I /
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Coastal Zone: f3 Yes f~| No Local Coastal Program Segment: Village Redevelopment and
Mello II ^
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: O Yes (^ No Coastal Development Permit: ^ Yes Q No
Local Coastal Program Amendment: 1X1 Yes f~l No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: RH Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: T-R
Existing LCP Zone: R-3 Proposed LCP Zone: C-T
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 171.6EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Categorical Exemption.
Negative Declaration, issued December 26. 2006
| I Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
| | Other,
Revised 01/06 115
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: DKN MARRIOTT - GPA 05-OS/ZC 05-t)2/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP
05-14/SDP 05-04
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: i GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: R-3
DEVELOPER'S NAME: DKN Hotels
ADDRESS: 540 Golden Circle Dr. #214. Santa Ana. CA 92705
PHONE NO.: (114) 480-0661 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 203-250-08 and 26
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): .84 Ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ASAP
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) 171.6EDU
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 4.37
Identify Drainage Basin = B_
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 452
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = j
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
I. Schools: Carlsbad N/A
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU, 171.6
Identify Sub Basin = Vista/Carlsbad
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 14.228
L. The project is 9 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
-J
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on-all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust receiver, syndicate, in this and any ofber county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit"
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person,
Titk
Corp/Tart flKN HnteJs
Title
Address Address 5tO golden Circle Or. #214
Santa Ana, CA 92705
OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership <i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning mor«e
than 10% of the shares. EF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES.
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person,
Title
Corp/Part
Title
OKN / Oahya Patel
Address Address 5i|0 Co{den Circle Or. 12 1U
Santa Ana, CA 92705
120
1835 Faraciay Avenue • Csrfsbaci, CA 92OO6-7314 • (760) 5O2-4SOO • FAX <76O) 6O2-8559
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OH TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-prdfit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust.
Title : Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (]2) months?
I j Yes /\ No If yes. please indicate person(s):_
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
of owner/daw ' Signature of applicant/date
• L •
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signaturrbf owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
HiADf/HNVCOUNTEmDtSClDSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 -Of 2
HIo
t ;.•!«! ill'll.l fl*-;fc~
1 S
Si
in
i -fm
KEttje«£i
IPPIgfefeur
hi! «s w liiiw» ii' *r:• *•' S S!
I
ii i « ill, • =
5 ^ •• i
U) C 111 £ iu£ iu «. & S £
2232 s
J I
= tt K
iff 1 ~5 in
ii
BBBBSE3B B BE
I
i>
-j'-;-ff,
of BE NTOONH
•-'•"l:':':''^:"?-^-^-''.-''"^^
!{ I1
II n if II
-J LJ Li Ej
II
if!• It ii
a 8
If
M
i
•i-Ri
co
I?))
II
trina
I
M
i*
::*•n ii
i
WVOBS
truj
8UJa
i
R
S
I!
:;*•Ti!
i!
UJ
UJ
-5
WVOOS NNOO^l WdOO-'C
•g
fi
PIS
H ill!
CO
I
r i I!
!
I
1
i
1 1
HU
3
1
£1Ifc
ii"
12 •
•cEl
ii
I ; \(0frni
SEE.
<
;; *•'ft s *i
i
tH-H-i-
Mi
|i
«'
y ' ~- -si. TS .=-Et-B8_gd*y .i^Wmg.'r""*"°"*jj gt ---),*=.»«—a
I^JLJil....,-! ^N^^^jaa^zd^ggU-^E-~ m—i ,**^_~^s ^vr-^g^.^Tm''. •.«'/ ^''iiit i ^, caf*
i fiiiiii
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 1
EXHIBIT 8
Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m.
Date of Meeting: March 7, 2007
Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission Chairperson Baker called the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and
the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Dominguez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Baker and Commissioners Cardosa, Montgomery, Dominguez,
Douglas, and Segall; Board Members Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
Absent: Commissioner Whitton and Board Members Hamilton and Whitton
Staff Present: Don Neu, Planning Director
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Michele Masterson, Management Analyst
David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer, Development Services
Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Van Lynch, Senior Planner
Elaine Blackburn, Senior Planner
Pam Drew, Associate Planner
Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner, Housing and Redevelopment
David Rick, Associate Engineer
Chris Scobba, Associate Engineer
Chairperson Baker directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures
the Commission would be following for that evening's Public Hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing and asked Planning Director Don Neu to introduce
the first joint-hearing item.
1. GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP 05-14/SDP 05-04 - DKN HOTEL -
Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration,
and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit, and approval
of a Site Development Permit; and a recommendation to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission to adopt a Negative Declaration and a recommendation
of approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for
the demolition of an existing hotel, restaurant, and single family residence and for the
construction of a 3-story, 104-room hotel project on property located at 3136
Carlsbad Boulevard on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue
and Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area,
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 2
in the Village Redevelopment and Mello II Segments of the Local Coastal Program
and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Mr. Neu introduced Joint Hearing Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch, Assistant
Planner Cliff Jones, and Associate Engineer David Rick would make the Staff presentation.
Chairperson Baker asked if the applicant wished to continue with only six Commissioners and three
Board Members present. The applicant confirmed that he would.
Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing on Joint Hearing Agenda Item 1.
Staff gave a brief presentation and stated they would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the site is currently occupied by a motel and a restaurant. He
added the proposed development contains some dining amenities and requests several zone
changes and General Plan amendments in order to proceed, but does not offer a replacement for
the current restaurant. He asked what efforts were put into including a restaurant in the development
that the citizens of Carlsbad could have enjoyed. Assistant Planner Cliff Jones stated Staff did
review the idea of including a restaurant use within the hotel itself, but due to economic reasons it
could not be accommodated. He added the applicant could offer more details on this subject, but
one thing Staff did note is that although the site is experiencing a loss of active frontage through a
restaurant use along the front property line, there is also a gain of additional active frontage to the
south of the site, which was a requirement of Staff. Mr. Jones stated Staff has spoken with the owner
of the restaurant currently located at the site in hopes of finding an alternative location within
Carlsbad Village.
Commissioner Segall asked Staff to display the aerial view of the site and requested confirmation
that the red line located near the 7-Eleven store is the zero setback that has been referred to and if it
is only that one corner. Mr. Lynch stated that is correct.
Commissioner Segall asked what the normal setback requirement is. Mr. Jones stated the normal
setback requirement in the V-R Zoning is a range between 5 and 10, but he added he would need to
double-check the report.
Commissioner Segall asked if that area is the only area requiring a variance. Mr. Jones stated that is
the only area.
Commissioner Segall asked where the variance for the 7-Eleven store is located. Mr. Jones stated
the entire center located at Oak Avenue and Lincoln Street is being referred to as 7-Eleven store;
that could be corrected. He added the commercial building, where the 7-Eleven store is located, is
abutting the property at the northwesterly corner of the subject site, as indicated by a red line on the
site map. He stated this is the zero-foot setback area that the adjacent center shares with the subject
property.
Board Member Lawson asked Staff to elaborate on the restaurant use for the proposed
development; in particular, the area on the map labeled as a breakfast room. He added by labeling it
as a breakfast room it is implied that the room will only be used during morning hours. He asked if
the area would be open for public dining. Mr. Jones stated the space would be intended for the hotel
patrons only. As to the hours of use, Staff would have to defer to the applicant for further
explanation.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Staff to outline the area that is designated as a breakfast room on
the map. Mr. Jones displayed the map and pointed out the area as requested. Commissioner
Dominguez asked if there would be outside dining in that area. Mr. Jones stated there is outside
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 3
patio dining in that area, as well as a roof deck patio area. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the
roof deck on the southern portion of the deck would include dining. Mr. Jones pointed out the
location of the kitchen on the map and added he is unsure if food will be served on the patio deck.
Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further questions of Staff; seeing none, she asked if the
applicant would like to give a presentation.
Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100, Carlsbad, gave a brief
presentation with the assistance of Eric Jacobs, Senior Vice President, Lodging Development-
Marriott, 200 Fernwood Drive, Washington, D.C., and Joseph Wong, Joseph Wong Design
Associates, 2359 4th Avenue, Suite 300, San Diego, stating they would be available to answer any
questions. He added the property owner/developer, Mr. Patel is present and could also address
questions.
Commissioner Segall asked if the brochures from Marriott could be distributed among the
Commissioners and Board Members. The applicant passed out the brochures.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if any other Marriott SpringHill Suites operate in conjunction with
a restaurant. He also asked what type of restaurant will be included within this development and
added what type of potential use could be expected of the area not designated as a breakfast room.
Mr. Jacobs stated generally speaking a Marriott SpringHill Suite does not offer full-service dining. He
added there are urban developments where a portion of the building has been leased to a third-
party, outside operator. The Marriott SpringHill Suite is a select service hotel, as opposed to a
full-service hotel; the biggest defining difference being the restaurant and lounge and whether or not
either of them is included. The proposed development will offer a full hot and cold breakfast that will
be complimentary to internal guests. Mr. Jacobs stated the lobby space is flexible and can be used
as a lounge and even possibly contain cocktail service in the evening. He stated the hotel will be
designed for the internal traveler, but an outside guest would certainly be welcome to come in and
utilize the amenities.
Commissioner Montgomery asked what type of use could be expected for the area currently
designated as a breakfast room. Mr. Jacobs stated he could not comment nor make a commitment
on behalf of the owner of the property, but in his opinion, a walk-up retail opportunity that could be
used by in-house or walk-up guests is possible. He added the area on the property that is
designated as a breakfast room is really a place holder for some additional space and at some point
a determination will be made as to what the highest and best use is for that area.
Commissioner Douglas asked if the proposed property will feature a banquet room where weddings
or parties could be accommodated. Mr. Jacobs stated there will be a small conference room that
would be geared toward small corporate meetings or small impromptu local meetings. He added the
layout does not allow for a full-blown catered event and, at 0.80 acres, there is no social opportunity
for a large-scale wedding or local event. Mr. Jacobs stated there will be some very nice outdoor
venues, either the rooftop deck or the outdoor patio that could host some local parties.
Commissioner Douglas asked about the rooftop area and what has been considered for that
location. Mr. Jacobs stated it will certainly be a feature that will sell within the property, but it is still a
fairly limited deck. Commissioner Douglas asked how many people could occupy the deck. Mr.
Jacobs stated the rooftop deck will seat 40 people.
Commissioner Douglas asked if the interior decorations would be modem. Mr. Jacobs stated the
guest room package would have to be customized to meet the local flavor, but the modern style is a
standard offering in terms of a guest room interior design package.
Commissioner Douglas asked how many suites would be included within the development.
Mr. Jacobs stated all of the guest rooms are what would be referred to as studio suites, which would
be 15-foot by 26- to 32-foot. He added they will all have a small divided area, a separated bathroom
145
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 4
from the shower area, and a separate sink, which would allow for more of a studio-style living, but is
not a distinct two-room suite.
Commissioner Cardosa asked what the conference room square footage would be and what type of
uses could be expected. Mr. Jacobs stated it would be 800 to 1,000 square feet and could host a
small meeting room opportunity, seating 18 to 20 in boardroom style or more if used classroom or
theater style. He added the size of the conference facility is commensurate with the size of the hotel
and type of customer that will be attracted to this location.
Commissioner Cardosa asked who would have access to the conference facility. Mr. Jacobs stated
guests as well as members of the public would have the opportunity to utilize the space.
Board Member Lawson stated he is curious about the various product types that Marriott has to draw
from. He added this is located in an area that appears to be a tourist-type area, which attracts
families and other types drawn to the beach. Board Member Lawson stated the project is being
presented as a business traveler's hotel and he added he is curious as to how Marriott differentiates
between that and the market associated with it or how the conclusion is made that this is a business-
oriented area. Mr. Jacobs stated there is fluctuation throughout the year, but if one were to look
around Carlsbad Sunday through Thursday, there are corporate travelers throughout the market;
one would not find a lot of families traveling during this time. He added the common hotel guest is a
business traveler who wants to be located close to the ocean, who is fitness minded and looking for
the Carlsbad Village experience. Mr. Jacobs stated SpringHill Suites is a hybrid product that lends its
hand in the high leisure time because of the distinct spaces and the oversized guest rooms. He
added it will also be a benefit to drawing family travelers during the off-season and weekends.
Board Member Lawson asked what would be the approximate length of stay for the average guest.
Mr. Jacobs stated an average of 2!4 to 3 night stay could be expected. He added that extended day
travelers are also attracted and their average stay would be between 4 and 8 nights.
Board Member Lawson asked if all service related activities are planned to enter the site from
Lincoln Street. Mr. Jacobs stated all service would enter from the back side of the site.
Board Member Lawson asked if any patron access would be located on the back side. Mr. Jacobs
stated his belief is that there will be only emergency exits located on the back side of the site.
Board Member Lawson asked for an elaboration on a statement that was made during the
applicant's presentation regarding the project being pedestrian-friendly. Mr. Klukas pointed out
several open space areas on the site map, especially the area currently designated as a breakfast
room. He added this area could be utilized as a walk-up coffee or juice bar, or perhaps a souvenir
stand, as long as the use would not require additional parking. He stated the general point he is
making is that when one walks along the front of the project, it is not just one long line of building; it
has interesting details to view on the ground floor.
Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated she wants to point out to the Commissioners and Board
Members that the findings that are being made at tonight's hearing are whether or not the proposed
use meets the respective findings, which need to be made in order to approve the project. She
added whether or not the applicant could have or should have had a different product is a different
question. She stated she is not aware of any requirement that any portion of this project must be
open to the public and asked Mr. Jones for clarification.
Mr. Jones stated there is no requirement that states the hotel must be open to the public. The hotel
use will be open to the hotel paying patrons.
Mr. Klukas stated the applicant would accept a condition including some type of required public use
in the breakfast room, providing it did not affect the parking requirement. He added the assumption
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 5
is that everyone using it would already be staying at the hotel or would be walk-up traffic coming in
off the street.
Board Member Schumacher asked if the owner of the development would be speaking about any
ideas for the breakfast room public use. Mr. Klukas stated he would not, but some possible ideas are
a coffee bar, juice bar, or souvenir stand.
Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further questions of the applicant; seeing none, she
opened public testimony.
Sam Korn, 3177 Lincoln Street, Carlsbad, stated his residence is located just south of the project
and added he has made calls to the City regarding the construction at this site. He stated he was
initially enthusiastic about the prospect of a hotel in the neighborhood and requested a site map of
the proposed location. He added he is not in favor of the location of the windows facing his property
or of where the pool would be situated. Mr. Korn met with the applicant to discuss possible solutions
for the areas where he had expressed concern. He stated the applicant was cooperative and
removed some of the windows, but left the pool in the same location. He added his idea would be to
relocate the pool to the front of the development, by the street overlooking the beach. During the
summer the surrounding neighborhood can hear the activity at the existing Carlsbad Inn pool. He
stated there is a corridor that runs east to west in the proposed development that hits his backyard
and sound will travel. Mr. Korn stated when he bought his units this area was residentially zoned and
his understanding was the zoning would be protected, and now it may be removed. He added his
concern for the two underground layers of parking and any associated noise from that parking area
and if the zone change is approved the applicant will be allowed to build up an additional story. Mr.
Korn stated he is concerned about a trend of changing zoning and wonders when it will stop. He
added this development is proposing over 100 units, but he stated Marriott had informed him that a
Spring Hill Suite could contain as little as 70 units. Mr. Korn stated his bottom line is that at 104
units, the proposed hotel is too high and will be too noisy.
Michael Solomon, 3160 Lincoln Street, Carlsbad, stated his residence is located directly across the
street from Mr. Korn's property. He added he is in total agreement with Mr. Korn's statements and
stated it appears that this hotel will have a third story, which will infringe on the existing residential
neighborhood. He asked when these types of developments will stop. Mr. Solomon stated he has
concern for the amount of traffic that will be generated from 104 units at the hotel. He added he
loves Carlsbad and would love to see it continue to grow, but in a way that serves everyone.
Eddy Shakarjian, Armenian Cafe, 3126 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, stated he is in favor of the
proposed hotel and feels it is a nice project that will enhance the area. He added his concern is
regarding the restaurant, which has been at the current location for 18 years. He requested that the
project be conditioned to retain the restaurant, if at all possible. Mr. Shakarjian stated approximately
80 percent of his customers are walk-in traffic and require no additional parking. He added
approximately 50 percent of his customers are regular, local diners. He implored the Board and
Commission to do anything possible that would allow the landmark Armenian Cafe to continue to
operate at this location.
Chairperson Baker asked if any other members of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1;
seeing none, she closed public testimony.
Mr. Jones addressed the issue that was raised regarding the pool and spa location. He stated the
wall surrounding the area was designed to jut out to help screen a good portion of the pool and spa
area. He added the spa itself is actually enclosed in a separate area. Mr. Jones stated these are the
developer's attempts to reduce the noise impacts that could be generated from these uses. The
developer looked at the option of locating the pool and spa at the front of the site and decided
against doing so in an effort to include the breakfast room, a business center, and a roof deck. He
added Staff agrees with that decision because a pool would break up the continuity of the outdoor
dining-type uses proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 6
Mr. Jones stated regarding the 104 units being proposed, the applicant has explained that it is a
matter of simple economics why that number of units will be required to make the project financially
feasible.
Mr. Jones addressed the matter of building height, stating the maximum building height in the
redevelopment area is 45 feet if the structure is located over parking. This project proposes a 43-foot
height within the V-R zoning and the portion that is adjacent to Mr. Korn's residence proposes a
maximum height of approximately 33 feet, 8Vz inches. Mr. Jones stated if this was a residential use,
the maximum height would be restricted to 30 feet; however, the proposed use is over that number
by 3 feet, 8Yz inches. He added one thing the applicant did share with the Board and Commission is
that a shade analysis was prepared. This analysis showed the residential use being built out to the
maximum allowable standard and it provided more shading due to providing less setback area. He
stated the current DKN Hotel project has a 10-foot setback, whereas a residential use could reduce
the setback area to 6 feet, 5 inches so that the shade impact would actually be greater with a
residence use as opposed to a hotel use.
Mr. Jones addressed the question regarding noise from cars in the parking garage being generated
within the lot itself, adding it could be possible to use an alternative surface to reduce noise made by
squeaking tires. He stated the developer could possibly present some ideas regarding alternative
surfaces that could be used in the underground parking areas to reduce tire noise.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the City cannot legally mandate that an owner incorporate a particular tenant or
that they sign a lease with a particular tenant. She added that it would not be possible to do, even in
light of the fact that it seems to be unanimous that the Armenian Cafe is a wonderful restaurant.
Commissioner Douglas asked Staff to explain the terms V-R and CT for the benefit of the audience.
Mr. Lynch stated in Staffs presentation there is an exhibit that showed the eastern half of the
property, which is the area proposed for a General Plan Amendment and zone change. The eastern
portion of the site is currently zoned and General Plan designated for Multi-Family Residential, so
the proposal of this project is to change the eastern half from Residential High-Density to a Visitor
Serving Commercial Use and the Multi-Family Residential R3 zone to a Commercial Tourist Zone in
order to implement the General Plan Commercial designation. Mr. Lynch added it is difficult because
it is a transition zone. The developer will have a chance to develop his site with another hotel use,
and in doing so, a General Plan Amendment and zone change will have to be processed because
there is an existing nonconforming use. He stated the City does not allow hotels in a Residential
zone, so in one respect this action would clean up the site. The developer had a chance to pick up a
single-family home adjacent to the south, which was incorporated into this project, and even farther
south of that the designation is Multi-Family Residential. Mr. Lynch stated a transition of some kind
will need to occur at some point. Transitioning from a Commercial Tourist Service use to Multi-
Family is preferable than from a Commercial Tourist Service use to Single-Family Residential. He
added it is not much in the way of a consolation, but as transitions go, it is an easier transition than
one from a single-family neighborhood.
Commissioner Douglas asked for an explanation of the V-R zone. Mr. Jones stated the downtown
area of Carlsbad has a V-R zoning that encompasses the redevelopment area boundaries. There
are land use districts that incorporate the V-R zoning designation and this particular property lies
within land use district 9, which happens to be the City's tourism support area. He added in this area
residential uses are actually nonconforming uses and if this were a residential project, it would not
be permitted. Mr. Jones stated as part of the tourism support area, hotels are a permitted use and
are actually encouraged in the V-R zoning. He added the actual term V-R is an acronym for Village
Redevelopment.
Commissioner Montgomery stated regarding the zero setback line of the hotel adjacent to the 7-
Eleven strip center it is obviously an existing building, with the zero lot line and in theory, they could
build right up against it. He asked if through the plan review process the developer finds that they
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 7
have to offset that, for some building reason, would they have the right to build on the property line
and impact the other structure without consequence. Mr. Lynch stated he had spoken with the
Building Department regarding this issue and, depending on the type of construction, the developer
can build up to a zero setback. He added, in reality there may be an inch or two because of
construction needs to be able to build a building and there will be a minimal gap, but they are able to
provide a zero setback. Commissioner Montgomery asked if this would comply with earthquake
standards. Mr. Lynch stated there could be a small amount of movement, but the Building
Department would not allow something to occur that could be a potential safety problem. They would
require an adequate setback or separation based on building type and construction type.
Board Member Lawson asked if Staff has access to any floor plans for the proposed hotel, because
the graphics that are displayed are a bit deceiving. He added the illustrative site plan appears to
reveal a building on the southerly side of the site and a breakfast room on the northerly side with a
driveway coming through the middle. He stated it appears that the entire area that appears as the
driveway to the lower parking area is covered, so virtually from the northern corner of the breakfast
room to the southernmost corner of the other building it appears to be one continuous building mass
and asked if this was a correct assessment. Mr. Jones confirmed that this was correct.
Board Member Lawson stated the setbacks that have been referred to appear only to affect the one
ground plane near the breakfast room and he asked for confirmation of this assessment as well. It
also appears that the driveway area is only a hole in the front of the facade. Mr. Jones stated that
this was correct.
Board Member Lawson stated when the front elevations are reviewed, the entire building mass
extends across the top, so the breakfast room is simply just the portion of the building in the front to
the northern end where two small blue windows can be seen. He asked if this was correct. Mr. Jones
stated that this was correct.
Board Member Lawson stated relative to the building heights, the building elevations have 12 feet
that is simply made up of roof that is more of a parapet type of condition. He asked if there is a need
for 12 feet of parapet wall in order to hide something relative to the overall size and mass of the
building. He added that the structure is 45 feet, and 12 feet of that is a parapet wall for the top
portion, and he questioned the necessity for it. Mr. Jones stated the roof pitch itself is steep. It is a
12-and-12 roof pitch and it fits in with the architectural design for the project. It has an old world style
that is in line with the architecture typically seen in old world design and other projects that are
located within the Carlsbad Village. He added the design is one that Staff recommends.
Board Member Lawson asked if there is anything along the frontage that comes close to the amount
of building height at this setback along Carlsbad Boulevard. He added he is trying to understand the
setbacks and knows they are within the tolerances. Compared to when Carlsbad by the Sea was
built, the southern portion of that project had a larger setback from the curb in order to create a more
pedestrian-friendly place. Board Member Lawson stated these plans appear to have only a 5-foot-
wide sidewalk and then a small amount of planting and then a 40-foot tall building; he added he is
trying to understand if that is what the Board is here to approve of as a pedestrian friendly condition
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Jones stated the applicant is proposing a setback, which is at the
minimum of the range for the front yard. He added the design provides various reliefs in terms of
projections, recesses, and balconies, but a lot of the mass of the structure is located close to the
property line.
Board Member Lawson asked Staff to display the site plan and stated the patio located at the
northern end, which is intended for patrons only, appears as if it is located at the edge of the
sidewalk. He asked if there is a specific reason that use needs to be located at the edge of the
sidewalk. Mr. Jones stated the applicant would best be able to address their reasons for wanting the
patio that close to the sidewalk itself. He added that it does not go over the height limit, but as to why
they would wish to have that usable space that close to the property line would be something the
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 8
applicant would need to address. He stated his assumption would be that it would provide the
interaction with the street that the applicant is trying to achieve.
Board Member Lawson asked what Staffs evaluation was of that area of the project. Mr. Jones
stated Staff did acknowledge that portion of the design and added he is not sure what the existing
setback is for the Armenian Cafe, but part of the reason could be to maintain the existing restaurant
use setback.
Mr. Klukas stated the architecture that has been proposed for this project is the architecture that is
identified in the design manual as recommended for this area. He added the pitches of the roof are
recommended by the design manual. Having the social areas located close to the front so they are
easily seen and accessed by the public walking by is encouraged by the design manual. He stated
the Armenian Cafe currently has no setback. Mr. Klukas stated the developer has attempted to stay
in line with their understanding of what the design manual recommends for this area.
Mr. Klukas addressed earlier concerns about anticipated noise from the pool and spa area. He
stated the building goes all the way up, three stories high. He added there is a wall between his unit
and the pool and spa area.
Mr. Klukas addressed earlier concerns regarding possible noise from the underground parking
garage. He stated all access to the garage is from Carlsbad Boulevard and were that a residential
area at the back, access to those lots would be off Lincoln Street, so it is possible that more noise
would be experienced from a residential use than a use such as this where all the access is at the
front. He added the only noise that might be heard could come from vents located in the parking
garage.
Commissioner Dominguez stated his personal experience is that an unusual amount of squealing
can be heard in some garages and he asked if the applicant is aware of any alternative surfaces that
might minimize this effect. Mr. Klukas stated he personally has not.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if there is anything else that can be considered in regards to noise
from the pool and spa area, such as a glass wall. Mr. Klukas stated it is his understanding that the
spa is actually underneath the second floor and that is neither the original nor the preferable way to
include the spa in the design. He added the east, west, and south sides of the spa are enclosed.
Commissioner Cardosa stated the time of use for these amenities has been restricted to better
accommodate the mix of use at this location. Mr. Klukas confirmed that it has been.
Board Member Lawson stated the only service entrance is located on Lincoln Street and as such, do
any precautions or no parking areas need to be provided. Mr. Rick stated City streets are generally
left open for public parking, especially in the beach area. He added if Staff were to red-curb any
portion of Lincoln, it would be contrary to the goal of the Coastal zone. He stated if a problem were
to arise, typically our Streets Division would investigate the situation and make a determination if it
would be prudent to place any restriction on the street.
Board Member Lawson stated currently the existing house that will be removed as a result of this
development has a stretch of the curb cut for their driveway. He added from a no net-loss
standpoint, could that same length of curb then still be out of service for parking if there were a need
for it. Mr. Rick stated Staff would be looking at gaining additional on-street parking and the
development would be providing a service bay that will be located off the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall stated he thinks the project will enhance the neighborhood. He added he is
unhappy that the restaurant has to leave the area, but there is nothing the Planning Commission can
do to change that. The property owner has the right to develop the property as they wish.
150
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 9
Commissioner Douglas stated she concurs with Commissioner Segall regarding the loss of the
Armenian Cafe. She added she is concerned with the noise and hopes that the developer pays close
attention to this matter, in particular in the parking garage.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he supports the project and added that Carlsbad is changing
dramatically, and every time there is a change there will be someone who is impacted by that
change.
Commissioner Montgomery stated he struggled with the project because of the volume of plan
amendments and zone changes being granted to allow the project to occur. He added, in his mind,
to allow so many changes requires a project to exhibit certain characteristics and features that
warrant the proposed changes. He stated he tries to keep an open mind and listen to all parties
involved. He stated he struggled with the loss of a restaurant in Carlsbad and added he will support
the project, as he is first and foremost a proponent of private property rights.
Commissioner Cardosa stated he concurs with his fellow Commissioners and supports the project,
in spite of the loss of the Armenian Cafe.
Chairperson Baker stated she will support the project and believes it will be an improvement to the
area. She added she can support the zone and General Plan Amendment changes because of the
fact that it is located within a transition area. Chairperson Baker stated she is disappointed that the
hotel will not include a full-service restaurant
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6254
recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6255, 6256, 6257 and 6258 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 05-05, Zone Change 05-02, Local
Coastal Program Amendment 05-02 and Coastal Development Permit 05-14
and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6259 approving Site
Development Permit 05-04 and based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairperson Baker and Commissioners Cardosa, Montgomery, Dominguez,
Douglas, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DISCUSSION
Board Member Schumacher stated he supports the project but regrets the loss of the Armenian
Cafe. He added it is a good time to replace the underutilized property that is there now by
quadrupling the number of hotel rooms that will bring additional economic stimulation to Carlsbad
Village and help other businesses in the Village as well. He stated it is a great project.
Board Member Lawson stated he finds it difficult to go against someone who works within the rules
and plays right and stated he can support he project. He added he does have some concerns that
should be on the record. He stated one of his main concerns is the pedestrian experience along
Carlsbad Boulevard. This is a very unique opportunity, and there is only one chance to do it right. In
thinking about the different places where we have short setbacks with tall buildings in front, it is
important to make sure the experience for the pedestrian is both comfortable, as well as stimulates
the good feelings that exist along the streets of Carlsbad. Board Member Lawson stated he hopes
as the project moves into further refinement of the plan, there might be an opportunity for widening
Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2007 Page 10
the sidewalk or something that might enhance that area. He added he feels that most people will not
like the front area if it is completed exactly as presented with the narrow sidewalk and 40-foot
building right next to it, but the developer is working within the regulations, and from that standpoint
he stated he would not arbitrarily subject the project to denial on that basis. He added there are
areas that could be refined and worked on before it is constructed. Board Member Lawson stated
other than that he can support the project.
Board Member Baker stated she will support the project as a dual member of both the Planning
Commission and the Design Review Board. She added she appreciates the reminder that the added
hotel rooms will generate economic activity in the Village.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Lawson, and duly seconded, that the Design
Review Board adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 321
recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and adopt Design Review
Board Resolution Nos. 319 and 320 recommending approval of Major
Redevelopment Permit RP 05-03 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 05-
14 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 3-0
AYES: Board Members Baker, Lawson, and Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSENT: Board Members Hamilton and Whitton
RECESS
Chairperson Baker closed the Public Hearing on Joint Agenda Item 1 stating that the joint meeting of
the Planning Commission and Design Review Board is concluded and recessed the meeting for a
five-minute break at 7:38 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Baker reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 7:46 p.m. with all attending
Commissioners present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, to approve the
minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 21, 2007.
VOTE: 4-0-2
AYES: Chairperson Baker and Commissioners Cardosa, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Dominguez and Douglas
ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Neu to introduce Planning Commission Agenda Item 1.
1. CT 06-12/PUD 06-11/PIP 06-16 - LAS PALMAS INDUSTRIAL COMPOS - Request
for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit
and a Planned Industrial Permit to allow the conversion of an existing one-story
industrial building into ten (10) airspace nonresidential condominiums located at
2221 Las Palmas Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
52-
MEMORANDUM
April 30, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
RE: DKN HOTEL, AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
Please change the recommended action under the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission to:
"The Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
438. concurring with a Negative Declaration adopted by the City Council
and APPROVING a Redevelopment Permit (RP 05-03) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 05-14) based upon the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein."
This will make the recommendation consistent with paragraph 3 of Resolution No. 438
and recognizes the fact that the City, not the Redevelopment Agency, is the lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney
rn
c: City Clerk +
City Manager
Community Development Director
Housing and Redevelopment Director
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director, Van Lynch
C_
All Receive- Agenda Item #
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
rriiy Manager
March 12, 2007
Mayor & Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Blvd
Carlsbad Ca.
Dear Council Member:
I am writing you to ask that you deny approval of the Village - DKN / Marriot Hotel in its
present form. This development should go back for refinement before it is worthy of your
approval. Its flaws are as follows:
instead of an attractive building and a well thought out use, what the community will get
from this 'hotel is a maximum room count and tittle else that is positive for the village. In
addition to hotel rooms, the development proposes an area adjacent to the boulevard's
sidewalk that is labeled "Breakfast Room". During the recent public hearing, one of the
commissioners asked about this. The response from the developer was that this room
was 'Vn/s-/a6efed"and that the hotel operation would not use the room or its outdoor patio.
The hotel was presented as "pedestrian friendly* due to the activity it would provide along
the boulevard's sidewalk, fn direct contrast to this statement, almost half of the ground
floor street frontage, the area labeled "breakfast room" and its outdoor patio, will not be
used in the operation of the hotel, ft will not be used because the development has no
parking to support it. Ail of the building's parking has been used for its three stories of
hotel rooms. When asked further about how this space along the side walk will be used,
the developer said they hoped that the City would allow uses in it for "walk up customers",
Will the Council allow such a use?. If walk up businesses can use this streetside
room/patio, thai fact should be noted as part of your approval If walkup uses are not part
of your approval, due to parking, these areas will be lifeless. This development will
remove the existing Armenian restaurant and replace it with a use that is only naif worked
out. Its approval will not be a positive step in enhancing the sidewalk life that is an integral
part of what make the village a speciai place.
The hotel has been allowed to maximize Hs building form. As I understand It, the building
is a three story structure everywhere over Its footprint. The building has ateo been allowed
to minimize the building setbacks. To offset the unattractiveness of this bulking the
building should provide more architectural interest, with facades that have more undulation
and roof lines that are varied. Additionally, the hotel was required to incorporate the
European Cottage "Half Timbered" architecture style. This style has its history in the
village but it does not work well on all buildings types and it does not work on this hotel.
The "Half Timbered" architectural style looks tacked on like a movie set rather than
producing an attractive building. The redevelopment staff needs to understand what scale
and building massing work well with "Half Timbered" structures (comer of Grand and
Roosevelt is a good example) and require it on those developments.
I appreciate and support the owner bringing to the city plans to upgrade therr property and
hotel, but the current plan for the DKN-Marriot Hotel is only partially worked out and is a
poor example of what Carlsbad should receive from redevelopment in the village.
Hi;1iliil
Respectfully,
A builder and Carlsbad home owner since 1988
(ichard Nash
Cc Debbie Fountain
SISCIit
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010& 2011 C.C.P.)This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudicated newspapers of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the City of
Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court
Decree number 171349, for the County of San
Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
April 21st, 2007
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 23rd , Day of April, 2007
Proof of Publication of
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that theCity Council and the Housing and Redevel-
opment Commission of the City of Carlsbadwill hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers,1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, af6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, to consider arequest for a recommendation to the City Council toadopt a Negative Declaration, and recommendationof approver of a General Plan Amendment, ZoneChange, Local Coastal Program Amendment, andCoastal Development Permit and a recommendationto the Housing and Redevelopment Commission toadopt a Negative Declaration and a recommendationof approver of a Major Redevelopment Permit andCoastal Development Permit for the demolition of anexisting hotel, restaurant, and single family residenceand for the construction of a 3-story, 104-room hotelproject on property generally located at 3136 Carls-bad Boulevard on the east side of Carlsbad Boule-vard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue in LandUse District 9 of the Carlsbad Village RedevelopmentArea, in the Village Redevelopment and Mello II Seg-ments of the Local Coastal Program and in LocalFacilities Management Zone 1 and more particularlydescribed as:
Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No.775. Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of TracflOO,Carlsbad Landsoer Map 1661. Recorded 3-1-1915,all in the City of Carlsbad County of San Diego, Stateof California APN 203-250-08 and 26-00
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal arecordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copiesof the agenda bill will be available on and after April27, 2007. If you have any questions, please call vanLynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, ZoneChange, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Redevel-opment Permit, or Coastal Development Permit incourt, you may be limited to raising only those issuesyou or someone else raised at the public hearing de-scribed in this notice or in written correspondencedelivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk'sOffice, 1200 CarlsBad Village Drive, Carlstad, CA92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP05-03/CDP 05-14
CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
PUBLISH: April 21, 2007 NCT 2048156
CITY OF CARLSBADCITY COUNCIL
n
SITEMAP
NOT TO SCALE
DKN Hotel
GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02
/CDP 05-14/RP 05-03
NICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, to consider
a request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration, and
recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit and a recommendation to the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission to adopt a Negative Declaration and a recommendation of
approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the demolition
of an existing hotel, restaurant, and single family residence and for the construction of a 3-story,
104-room hotel project on property generally located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard on the east
side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue in Land Use District 9 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area, in the Village Redevelopment and Mello II Segments of
the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly
described as:
Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775, Recorded 2-15-
1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands per Map 1661, Recorded
3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California. APN 203-250-08 and 26-00
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after April 27, 2007. If you have any
questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Plan Amendment,
Redevelopment Permit, or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP 05-14
CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL
PUBLISH: April 21, 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
203-261-06-19
Mildred Guernsey
123 2Nd Ave 607
Salt Lake Cit, UT 84103-4755
203-261-06-29
Paul & Guste Eriksen
1201 W 860 N
Provo, UT 84604-3108
L C
•••»
i, AZ 85251-1935
203-251-09-01
Benson K Boreyko
8322 E Hartford Dr
Scottsdale, AZ 85255-5466
203-250-21
K B Carlsbad Investors L L C
3915 E Broadway Blvd 300
Tucson, AZ 85711-3422
203-261-06-02
Daniel Wiehle
2148 S Pearl Dr
Camp Verde, AZ 86322-6949
203-251-08
Edward j & Maria Quirk
7859 Bermuda Dunes Ave
Las Vegas, NV 89113-1222
204-132-05
Wells Family
1350 E Flamingo Rd 36
Las Vegas, NV 89119-5263
204-131-13
Maurice R & Yvette Tauzin
251 S Bedford Dr
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-3722
204-132-24-07
Randy E & Crystal Narramore
608 Coate Ct
Altadena, CA 91001-3868
204-132-27-09
Michael T Marshall
5256 Pizzo Ranch Rd
La Canada Fli, CA 91011-1850
203-250-16
Ward
945 S Orange Grove Blvd D
Pasadena, CA 91105-1793
203-261-06-03
Spadaro
212 Donnick Ave
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3313
203-261-06-06
Trent
2429 Windward Cir
Westlake Vill, CA 91361-3440
204-123-07-02
Bradshaw
2692 Baywater PI
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362-5335
204-123-05-03
Andrew & Laura Reyer
27003 Cliffie Way
Santa Clarita, CA 91387-4808
203-261-06-01
Thomas D & Marie Bitonti
536 N Mission Dr
San Gabriel, CA 91775-2147
203-261-06-30
Thomas D & Marie Bitonti
536 N Mission Dr
San Gabriel, CA 91775-2147
203-250-17
Five Z North L L C
1359 Serena Cir 3
Chula Vista, CA 91910-7163
203-261-06-21
Vera G Morin
10952 Morning Star Dr
La Mesa, CA 91941-7232
203-261-06-13
Steven & Margaret Macpherson
1277 Forest Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1008
203-261-06-26
Stephen p & Maria Frost
1380 Cynthia Ln
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1507
203-261-06-08
James D & L Boone
3955 Skyline Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2746
203-261-06-28
Bradshaw
4376 Horizon Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3652
203-232-08
Frank E & Patricia Maldonado
4213 Beach Bluff Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3607
203-232-09
Frank E & Patricia Maldonado
4213 Beach Bluff Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3607
203-232-16
Dinitto Properties Inc
264 Carlsbad Villagedr
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2915
203-233-03
Indigo Blue L L C
2950 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2952
203-250-09
William M Korn
3177 Lincoln St F
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2939
203-250-22
Thomas M Funke
3100 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2959
impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide
Utilisez I* gabarit 5160®www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 201
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 202
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 203
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 204
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 205
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 206
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 207
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 208
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 209
Carlsbad, CA 92008
®09ts AM3AV-OD-008-I.8,091s aividi/vai ®AJBAV asn
aan aBonuK Due tuer
impression antioourrage et a sechage rapide
Utilisez le gabarit 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 16
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 17
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 18
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 19
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 20
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 21
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
304 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
308 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
328 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
332 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3112 Lincoln St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
201 Oak Ave Unit A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
201 Oak Ave Unit B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
201 Oak Ave UnitC
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
201 Oak Ave Unit D
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
201 Oak Ave Unit E
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3162 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3162 Carlsbad Blvd Unit A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3162 Carlsbad Blvd Unit B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3162 Carlsbad Blvd Unit C
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3162 Carlsbad Blvd Unit D
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3162 Carlsbad Blvd Unit E
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3162 Carlsbad Blvd Unit F
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 101
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 102
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 103
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 104
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3145 Carlsbad Blvd Unit 105
Carlsbad, CA 92008
®Atl3AV AM3AV-O9-008-1 ®09LS
6UI1UU.4 aau aBonuic nup
impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide
Utilisez le gabarit 5160®AVERY® 5160®
Occupant
250 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
218 Pine Ave Unit A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
218 Pine Ave UnitB
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
218 Pine Ave Unite
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3134 Lincoln St
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3180 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3136 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3177 Lincoln St, Apt A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3177 Lincoln St, Apt B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3177 Lincoln St, Apt C
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3177 Lincoln St, Apt D
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3177 Lincoln St, Apt E
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3177 Lincoln St, Apt F
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 1
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 2
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 4
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 5
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 6
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 7
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 8
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 9
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 10
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 11
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 12
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 13
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 14
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
3160 Lincoln St Apt 15
Carlsbad, CA 92008
AM3AV-O9-008-1 ®091S 31VldW31 ®AJ3AV asn
BUIIUI.M aau aSonuK DUB uier
204-132-24-08 .
W G A Pine^^Aveptfe L P
9252 Chesap^Ske Dr 100
San Diego, CA 92*123-1025
204-132-24-09
W G A Pine Avenue L P
9252 Chesapeake Or 100
San Diego, JN^92123 -1025
204-132-24-10
W 6 A Pine Avenue L P
9252 Ches^S^ake Dr 100
San Die4o, CV92123-1025
204-132-24-11
W G A Pine>NAvenue' L P
9252 ChesasS*'*®-Dr 100
San Diego, CA 92123-1025
204-132-24-13
W G A Pine Ayenue L P
9252 Ches>3|$eake Dr 100
San Diego, CA 92123-1025
204-132-24
Nancy Anderson
8109 Santaluz Village Grn S
San Diego, CA 92127
203-261-06-20
Milton Wyatt
17160 Botero Dr
San Diego, CA 92127-1424
203-261-06-17
Murphy
12913 Polvera Ct
San Diego, CA 92128-1118
Rd 123-1
CA 92128-1902
203-261-06-11
Julianne Deen
11808 Rancho Bernardo Rd 123-1
San Diego, CA 92128-1902
204-132-06
Mark E & Marita Gardner
1810 Country Club Dr
RedlandS, CA 92373
204-123-07-03
Nina A Arcidiacono *M*
PO Box 7491
Hemet, CA 92545-0713
203-261-06-O7
Nancy L Kaupp-Warner
30175 Via De La Mesa
Teraecula, CA 92591-1684
203-261-06-15
Gary A Cringan
30195 Via De La Mesa
Temecula, CA 92591-1684
204-123-07-06
Karen J Hartman
5791 Price Dr
Huntington Be, CA 92649-4932
204-132-24
David Wolfson
25 Lewiston Ct
Ladera Ranch, CA 92694-0532
204-132-24-12
C W D
25 Lewiston Ct
Ladera Ranch, CA 92694-0532
204-123-07-07
Ohare
5289 E Rural Ridge Cir
Anaheim, CA 92807-4619
204-132-07
Miles McCarthy
2545 Hansen Ave
Fullerton, CA 92831-4412
203-174-06
Svf Lie
115 W Canon Perdido St 200
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3210
203-252-04
Tr Lopez
3718 San Remo Dr
Santa Barbara, CA 93105-7336
203-175-03
Robert H Sonneman
52 El Sereno Ct
San Francisco, CA 94127-1816
203-261-06-16
Johns
6565 Birch Dr
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-8587
204-132-27-06
Quinn A Krekorian
5950 SW Elm Ave
Beaverton, OR 97005-4219
203-250-10
Robert B & Elizabeth Holmstrora
PO Box 528
Vancouver, WA 98666-0528
*** 145 Printed ***
Dahya and Shantaben Patel
10815 Turn Leaf Ln
Tustin, CA 92782
Grand Pacific Resort Services
5900 Pasteur Ct.,Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Helm Management
4668 Nebo Dr., Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91941
203-252-05
Carlsbad Inn L L C
5900 Pasteur Ct 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7336
203-252-06
Carlsbad Inn L L C
5900 Pasteur Ct 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7336
203-250-11
S S
218 Pine Ave Avea
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2981
203-260-04
Ocean Mist !• L C
343 Oak Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2945
204-123-02
Nassar Three Family *B*
3217 Garfield St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3126
204-123-04
Daniel & Susan Russo
3245 Garfield St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3126
204-123-05-O2
Grubbs
3257 Garfield St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3126
204-123-05-04
Law
3267 Garfield St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3126
204-123-06
Abraham Poladian
190 Walnut Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3146
Ronald
172
CSPlibad, CA 92008-3193
204-123-07-05
Christopher Ward
174 Walnut Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3193
204-131-12
Doran
3288 Garfield St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3125
204-132-04
Fordschumacher
350 Chestnut Ave 1
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3116
204-132-24-01
Phillip Powell
317 Pine Ave 101
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3183
204-132-24-14
Eric Ducette
317 Pine Ave 209
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3195
204-132-27-01
Frank A & Susan Ferencz
349 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3163
204-132-27-02
Eric L & Darlene Fink
347 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3163 CA 92008-3163
204-132-27-08
Dana K Grace
335 Pine Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3163
204-123-03
Ammon
4070 Sunnyhill Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2750
203-175-01
Grant Holdings L L C
7173 Obelisco Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6522
203-261-06-27
Gary C & Debra Cruse
7927 Corte Carolina
Carlsbad, CA 92009-9251
203-261-06-22
Butchko *M*
2763 Victoria Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92010-2146
203-261-06-23
David K t Beverly Woodward
3413 Corvallis St
Carlsbad, CA 92010-2187
204-131-11
Ralph E Morgon
4145 La Portalada Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92010-2805
204-132-18
Pat & Judy Entezari
4377 Tuolumne PI
Carlsbad, CA 92010-7924
203-260-08
Mccabe
6489 Franciscan Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011-3212
204-132-27-04
Lance B & Kathleen Schulte
7386 Escallonia Ct
Carlsbad, CA 92011-4692
204-132-08 f- 0°)
David B & Karen Thompson
PO Box 130758
Carlsbad, CA 92013-0758
204-132-09
DavidSB & Kgefen Thompson
PO Box
CarJ^bad, Ctf 92013-0758
203-250-28
31623056 Carlsbad Blvd L C
2950 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2952
203-250-29
31623056 Carlsbad Blvd L C
2950 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2952
203-251-03
Virginia A Phipps
3015 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2958
203-251-07
Mary W skinner
3065 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2958
203-251-09-02
Douglas A Dodson
3085 Ocean St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2958
203-260-03
Dorothy K Johnson
3140 Lincoln St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2933
203-261-01
Inciyan
3076 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2907
203-261-06-05
Patrick A & Pascale Lucier
3080 Lincoln St 5
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2930
203-261-06-14
Judy A Mikovits
3080 Lincoln St 14
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2932
, CA 92008-2950
203-261-06-24
Sue Hockett
3080 Lincoln St 24
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2976
204-131-14
George P Anderson
3267 Lincoln St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3131
204-131-15
James A Demott
3259 Lincoln St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3131
204-132-19
Y R & Ethel Nayudu
320 Walnut Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3151
204-132-21
Kris Se Nancy Nayudu
320 Walnut Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-3151
203-261-07
California Property Brokers Ltd
3324 Seacrest Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2035
203-261-06-12
Stephen & Sherryl Ford
3869 Woodvale Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2757
203-175-05
Bernard & Marina Goldstein
160 Tamarack Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4059
203-175-06
Phyllis M Hall
4046 Garfield St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7401
203-175-07-01
Gofat L L C
160 Tamarack Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4059
CA 92008-4059
203
Gofal
ISC
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4059 Carlsbad,059
203-261-03
Bernard & Marina Goldstein
160 Tamarack Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4059
203-250-25
Tobo Investments
2785 Roosevelt St
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1617
203-260-11
Glenn L Goldman
2653 Roosevelt St D
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1667
203-260-12
Robert L Nielsen
525 Carlsbad Village Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2304
Easy Peel Labels
Us? Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Paper
See Instruction Sheet j
for Easy Peel Feature ^
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
STE 250
255 PICO AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
^AVERY®5160®
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST
TIM JOCHEN
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966OLIVENHAINRD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVE
VISTA CA 92084
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
201 VALLECITOS DE ORO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STEB
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ATTN TEDANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD
STE 110
9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
5934 PRIESTLEY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
14/10/2007
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilisez le aabarit AVFRY®rfo rharnomont Consultez la feuille www.avery.com
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
See Instruction Sheet j
for Easy Peel Feature ^
BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY
STE 2450
980NINTHST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
AVERY®5160®
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 921084402
CANNEL ISLANDS NATL PARK
SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
COUNTY OFSD
SUPERVISOR
RM335
1600 PACIFIC
SAN DIEGO ca 92101
DEPT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DIST ENG
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLZDR
ARLINGTON TX 760114005
DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ENV SERV DIV
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES
RM100
1220 NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPT OF FORESTRY
ENV COORD
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPT OF JUSTICE
DEPT OF ATTY GEN
RM700
110 WEST AST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA
MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G
ENV SERVICES SPR
STEJ
4665 LAMPSON AVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 907205139
OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFF OF LOCAL GOV ARRAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 958123044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV & DEV
COM
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941114704
SANDAG
EXEC DIRECTOR
STE 800
1STINTLPLZ401BST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
STE B-5
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SDGE
8315 CENTURY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 958258202
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 1 DOS
100 HOWE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197
US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID PACIFIC REG
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 958251888
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 G ST
DAVIS CA 95616
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de charaement Consultez la feuille
*!>:....*... ._>.:*._
www.avery.com
204-123-05-O1
Sunbird Holdings L L C
445 Marine View Ave 300
Del Mar, CA 92014-3926
203-175-02
Daniel & Colleen Soto
PO Box 353
Carlsbad, CA 92018-0353
204-123-08
Hill
PO Box 1935
Carlsbad, CA 92018-1935
203-175-04
Robert L & Elaine Nielsen
PO Box 2445
Carlsbad, CA 92018-2445
203-261-06-25
Rose Laski
PO Box 2686
Carlsbad, CA 92018-2686
203-251-05
Carlsbad Inn Ltd
PO Box 4068
Carlsbad, CA 92018-4068
204-123-07-01
Wilson A & Virginia Clay *M*
PO Box 4538
Carlsbad, CA 92018-4538
204-132-27-07
Mark Stone
PO Box 4485
Carlsbad, CA 92018-4485
203-260-15
Bennett Russell Lee L L C
951 Neptune Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024-2077
203-260-13
Scott D & Linda Cordes *M*
315 S Coast Highway 101 U106
Encinitas, CA 92024-3543
203-261-06-09
Thomas F & Gayle Hodges
19988 Lake Dr
Escondido, CA 92029-7024
203-260-16
San Katrina L L C
7136 Vista Del Mar Ave
La Jolla, CA 92037-5341
203-261-06-10
Virginia L Gipner
1508 Mountain View Ave
Oceanside, CA 92054-5511
203-260-02
Dennis R & Jean Bauern
3149 Coachman Ct
Oceanside, CA 92056-3602
204-131-16
235 Pine Avenue Lie
734 Wilshire Rd
Oceanside, CA 92057
204-123-01
Suder *B*
13820 Eagles Nest Sta
Poway, CA 92064-1075
203-251-04
Perry
PO Box 1102
Rancho Santa , CA 92067-1102
204-132-17
Harry M & Sharon Mellano
PO Box 100
San Luis Rey, CA 92068-0100
204-132-27-03
Fletcher
PO Box 986
Poway, CA 92074-0986
204-132-22 -f 1 3>
Margaret I & Stanley Potter
856 Seabright Ln
Solana Beach, CA 92075-1273
204-^32-23 ->
StanleyNfl & Marfgaret Potter
856 Seabjeigt Ln
92075-1273
204-132-26
Cypress Cove Apts L P
1322 Scott St 102
San Diego, CA 92106-3702
203-251-06
3053 Ocean Street Lie
6660 Wandermere Ct
San Diego, CA 92120-3246
204-132-28
Sandcastle Shores Apts L P
1322 Scott St 102
San Diego, CA 92106-3702
W G A PineAjsetSue L P
9252 Chesapeake Dr 100
Sajxmego, CA 92123-1025
204-132-03
Carlsbad Shores Apartments Gp
4542 Ruffner St 387
San Diego, CA 92111-2250
204-132\24-03
W G A Pirjfc<Svenue L P
9252xenesapeake Dr 100
SXnDiego, CA 92\23-1025
204-1^2^24-04
Wga Pine Av?
9252 -SbeSapeake Dr"
San Diego, CA 92123-1014
204-132-24-05
w G'A ^iTre~Ayena£ij p
9252 Ches>q5eake Dr 100
San Diego, CA 92123-1025
204-1*2-24-06
WGA Pii^Avenjie-l, P
9252 Chesape^Sit^Dr 100
San Di^go, CA 92123-1025
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery.® TEMPLATE 5160® P^ ^Feed Paper
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
See Instruction Sheet j
for Easy Peel Feature ^lAVERY®5160®
W G A Pine Avenue L P
9252 Chesapeak Dr 100
San Diego, CA 92123-1025
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilk<V7 lo naharit AX/CRV®Consultez la feuille www.avery.com
DKN HotelDKN HotelGPA 05GPA 05--05/ZC 0505/ZC 05--02/LCPA 0502/LCPA 05--02/02/RP 05RP 05--03/CDP 0503/CDP 05--1414
Location MapLocation MapPINE AVOAK AVLIN COLN STCARLSBAD BLO C E A N S T GAR FIELD STA T & SF R R WALNUT AV
OAK AVPINE AVL IN C O L N S T
CARLSBAD BLO C E A N S T
G A R F IE L D S TWALNUT AVA T & S F R R CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR0200100FeetGPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP 05-14/SDP 05-04DKN Hotel
OAK AVPINE AVL IN C O L N S T
CARLSBAD BLO C E A N S T
G A R F IE L D S TWALNUT AVA T & S F R R CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR0200100FeetGPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP 05-14/SDP 05-04DKN Hotel
Housing and Redevelopment Housing and Redevelopment CommissionCommissionRedevelopment Permit Redevelopment Permit (RP)(RP)Coastal Development Coastal Development Permit (CDP) in the VPermit (CDP) in the V--R R zonezoneEnvironmental Document Environmental Document as Responsible Agencyas Responsible AgencyCARLSBAD BL
City Council ConsiderationsCity Council ConsiderationsGeneral Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment (GPA)(GPA)Zone Change (ZC)Zone Change (ZC)Local Coastal Program Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)Amendment (LCPA)Coastal Development Coastal Development Permit (CDP)Permit (CDP)Environmental Document Environmental Document as Lead Agencyas Lead AgencyCARLSBAD BL
Proposed DevelopmentProposed Development
CONF ROOMSEX ROOMBREAKFAST ROOMBUSINESS CENTER
Consistency with Development Consistency with Development StandardsStandardsOpen Space Open Space VV--R Required: 20%R Required: 20%CC--T Required: N/AT Required: N/ABuilding CoverageBuilding CoverageVV--R Required: 80%R Required: 80%--100%100%CC--T Required: N/AT Required: N/AHeightHeightVV--R Required: 45R Required: 45’’(5:12 pitch)(5:12 pitch)CC--T Required: 35T Required: 35’’ParkingParkingRequired: 1.2 Required: 1.2 spaces/room =125 spaces/room =125 spacesspacesOpen Space Open Space Proposed: 31.5%Proposed: 31.5%Building CoverageBuilding CoverageProposed: 53%Proposed: 53%HeightHeightProposed: 43Proposed: 43’’w/12:12 roof pitchw/12:12 roof pitchProposed: 33Proposed: 33’’--33””w/12:12 roof pitchw/12:12 roof pitchParkingParkingProposed: 125 spacesProposed: 125 spaces
5’min10’min0’min5’min7-11 Convenience Store7.5 to 125 to 1510 to 1810 to 14
Setbacks and VarianceSetbacks and VarianceFront and Side SetbacksFront and Side SetbacksMinimum of rangeMinimum of rangeNo adverse impactsNo adverse impactsBuilding articulationBuilding articulationSide Yard VarianceSide Yard VarianceUnique lot shapeUnique lot shapeNo special privilegeNo special privilegeAuthorized useAuthorized useGeneral Plan and Coastal General Plan and Coastal PlanPlan
Front ElevationFront Elevation
Rear ElevationRear Elevation
South ElevationSouth Elevation
North ElevationNorth Elevation
VV--R Zoning & Village General Plan R Zoning & Village General Plan CompatibilityCompatibilityVV--R Zone, Land Use District 9R Zone, Land Use District 9Hotel = Permitted UseHotel = Permitted UseVillage General Plan Consistency Village General Plan Consistency Proposed project meets goals and objectives:Proposed project meets goals and objectives:Desirable useDesirable useDevelopment of underutilized lotDevelopment of underutilized lotNew economic development near transportation corridorsNew economic development near transportation corridorsServe as catalyst for future developmentServe as catalyst for future developmentContributes to a lively and interesting social environmentContributes to a lively and interesting social environment
General Plan, Zone Change and LCP General Plan, Zone Change and LCP AmendmentAmendmentGeneral Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan AmendmentFrom Residential High Density (RH) to From Residential High Density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TTravel/Recreation Commercial (T--R)R)Zone ChangeZone ChangeFrom Multiple Family Residential (RFrom Multiple Family Residential (R--3) to Commercial 3) to Commercial Tourist Zone (CTourist Zone (C--T)T)Local Coastal Program AmendmentLocal Coastal Program AmendmentFrom Residential High Density (RH) to From Residential High Density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TTravel/Recreation Commercial (T--R)R)From MultipleFrom Multiple--Family Residential Zone (RFamily Residential Zone (R--3) to 3) to Commercial Tourist (CCommercial Tourist (C--T)T)
EnvironmentalEnvironmentalNegative Declaration Negative Declaration No Significant Impacts IdentifiedNo Significant Impacts Identified
RecommendationRecommendationThat the Housing and Redevelopment Commission That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission adopt the Resolution concurring with the Negative adopt the Resolution concurring with the Negative Declaration and approving the Redevelopment Declaration and approving the Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit.Permit and Coastal Development Permit.That the City Council introduce the Ordinance That the City Council introduce the Ordinance approving the Zone Change and adopt the approving the Zone Change and adopt the Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment, Local approving the General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program and Coastal Development PermitCoastal Program and Coastal Development Permit