The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPA 05-05; DKN Hotel; General Plan Amendment (GPA)0 CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) (FOR (FOR DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT USEONLYl USE ONLY) D Administrative Permit D Planned Industrial Permit D Administrative Variance D Planning Commission Determination 0 Coastal Development Permit D Precise Development Plan D Conditional Use Permit D Redevelopment Permit D Condominium Permit 0 Site Development Plan os--otf D Environmental Impact Assessment D Special Use Permit 0 General Plan Amendment o.J-o.l D Specific Plan D Hillside Development Permit D +eRtati¥e PaFGel Ma~ Obtain from Engineering Department 0 Local Coastal Program Amendment 0.5--o2._ D Tentative Tract Map D Master Plan D Variance D Non-Residential Planned Development 0 Zone Change or~ D Planned Development Permit D List other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 203-250-08,26 ------~----------------------------------------------3) PROJECT NAME: DKN -Hampton Inn ------------------------------------------------------4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 101 room Hampton Inn on .84 acres ------------------------------------------------- 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) DKN Hotels/Dahya Patel DKNHotels MAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS 540 Golden Circle Drive #214 540 Golden Circle Drive #214 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 480-0661 Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 480-0661 EMAIL AD~RESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: I CERTIFY "{~AT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE I CERTIFY THAT() AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INFORMATJ< IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY OWNER AND TH ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND KN011J.#. t;/ CORREC"t1..Z ~~MY KNOWLEDGE. .-. '}In rj7 .__, /<V-f/~ lu· · ~rs SIGNAtuRE) mE r-siGNATUR~ . 1 or- 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Portion of Block 18, Map No. 775 Rec. 2-15-1894 & Portion ofTrack 100, Map No. 1661 ·· 3-1-1915, All in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUB.MITIED PRIOR TO 3:30P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITIED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 14 Rev. 1 2/04 PAGE 1 OF 5 .... 0 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT: 13136 Carlsbad Blvd. ON THE lEast I (NORTH, soOTH, EAsT. WEsT) BETWEEN I oak Avenue ~--~(~NA"M'"E~O~F~S~T~RE~~~)--~ STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF !carlsbad Blvd. AND !Pine Avenue (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 0) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS []11) 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION EJ14) 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED ~17) PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE EJ20) NUMBER OF EXISTING ~ 12) PROPOSED NUMBER D RESIDENTIAL UNITS L__j OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ r;---115) SQUARE FOOTAGE L...____j PROPOSED INCREASE ~ 18) INADT L_j EXISTING GENERAL r;;-121) PLAN L_j PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU t=J PROPOSED GENERAL lvl PLAN DESIGNATION L_j 22) EXISTING ZONING ~3) PROPOSED ZONING ~ 24) HABITAT IMPACTS I y "N' I t..=..::._j ~ IF YES, ASSIGN HMP # '\!:Y 25) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND E ER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. IIWE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THI UR OSE SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEE REQUIRED Form 14 Rev. 12/04 PAGE 2 OF 5 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECT NAME: DKN -Hampton Inn APPLICANTNAME: DKN Hotels ----------------------------------------------------- Please d~scribe fully the proposed project by application type. lnciude any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Residential High Density (RH) to Village (V) and the zoning from Residential (R-3) to Commercial Tourist (C-T). The project site is two parcels (203-250-08, 203-250-26) totaling .84 acres. The site is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine A venue and Oak A venue. The project proposes to construct a Hampton Inn-Suites hotel on the site. The hotel will contain 101 rooms and suites totaling 60,251 square feet. 122 parking spaces are proposed, and automobile access will take via Carlsbad Boulevard. There will be "loading only" access via Lincoln Street. The 2 parcels are currently occupied by the Surf Motel, The Armenian Cafe, and a single family dwelling. Theses structures will be demolished, removed and replaced with the proposed Hampton Inn -Suites. The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include a 7-11 convenience store to the north, single-family dwellings to the south, multi-family units to the east and a hotel to the west. Project Description 1 0/96 Page 1 of 1 Q City :) of Carlsbad l@fi ·'·"·'·I •A§.fiii I .t§ ·'I 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, fmn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other 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 TilE 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.) Pernon ______________________ _____ Corp/Part DKN Hotels Title. ____________ _ Title _________________________ _ Address ___________ _ Address 540 Golden Circle Dr. #214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 2. 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 more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF TilE 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. ____________________ _ Address ___________ __ Corp/Part DKN Hotels I Dahya Patel Title. ________________________ __ Address 540 Golden Circle Dr. #214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 1 635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ c 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR 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-profit 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 twelv:~ (12) months? D Yes lXI 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. _. ~ul~ lOf owner/dat I Signature of applicant/date Print of type name of owner er/applicant' s agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 0 0 Order Number: 1793023 (22) Page Number: 1 First American Title Company Neil Patel DKN Hotels 540 Golden Circle Drive #214 Santa Ana, CA 92705-3914 Customer Reference: Order Number: Title Officer: Phone: Fax No.: E-Mail: 411Ivy Street San Diego, CA 92101 Lincoln-Carlsbad 1793023 (22) Kenneth Brown (619) 231-4664 (619) 231-4647 kenbrown@firstam.com PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, this company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Polides of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. First American Title c Dated as of February 14, 2005 at 7:30A.M. 0 Order Number: 1793023 (22) Page Number: 2 The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: To be determined A specific request should be made if another form or additiqnal coverage is desired. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Dahya Bhai L. Patel and Shantaben Patel, husband and wife as joint tenants, as to Parcels.1, 2 and 3 and Dahya Patel, a married man as his sole and separate property, as to Parcel 4 The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: A fee. The Land referred to herein is described as follows: (See attached Legal Description) At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: 1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2005-2006, a lien not yet due or payable. 2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2004-2005. First Installment: $7,141.08, Paid Penalty: $714.11 Second Installment: $7,141.08, Open Penalty: $724.11 Tax Rate Area: 09098 A. P. No.: 203-250-26-00 Affects Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 3. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. 4. Rights of the public in and to that portion of the land lying within Roads, Streets or Highways. Affects Parcels 1 and 2. First American Title 0 .-., "'-' Order Number: 1793023 (22) Page Number: 3 5. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements in the document recorded May 28, 1932 as Book 131, Page 23; January 3, 1935 in Book 371, Page 108 and August 17, 1936 in Book 546, Page 400, all of Official Records, which provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any first mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value, but deleting any covenant, condition or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, source of income or disability, to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions violate Title 42, Section 3604(c), of the United States Codes or Section 12955 of the California Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status. Affects Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 6. An easement for poles and lines, and right of way for sewer, water, sewer gas mains, and pipe lines and incidental purposes, recorded May 4, 1937 as Book 643, Page 394 of Official Records. In Favor of: WM. G. Kerckhoff.NC Affects: Parcels 1, 2 and 3. The location of the easement cannot be determined from record information. 7. A deed of trust to secure an original indebtedness of $784,000.00 recorded August 8, 1997 as instrument no. 97-0378993 of Official Records. Dated: August 5, 1997 Trustor: Dahya Bhai L. Patel and Shantaben Patel, husband and wife Trustee: First American Title Insurance Company Beneficiary: The Sumitomo Bank of California, a California Banking corporation A document entitled "Assignment of Rents and Agreement not to Sell or Encumber Real Property" recorded August 8, 1997 as instrument no. 97-0378994 of Official Records, as additional security for the payment of the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust. Affects Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 8. An unrecorded lease dated January 1, 1989, executed by Dahya Bhai L. Patel and Shantaben Patel as lessor and Eddy Shakarjian and Lisa Shakarjian as lessee, as disclosed by a Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement recorded August 8, 1997 as instrument no. 97-0378995 of Official Records. Affects Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 9. An unrecorded lease dated Not shown, executed by Dahya Bhai L. Patel and Shataben Patel as lessor and Eddy Shakarjian and Lisa Shakarjian as lessee, as disclosed by a Memorandum of Lease recorded October 20, 1997 as instrument no. 97-0523090 of Official Records. No representation is made as to the present ownership of said leasehold or matters _ affecting the rights or interests of the lessor or lessee arising out of or occasioned by said lease. Arst American Title c 0 Order Number: 1793023 (22) Page Number: 4 Affects Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 10. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortages in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. Affects Parcel 4. 11. A deed of trust to secure an original indebtedness of $272,000.00 recorded November 6, 1998 as instrument no. 98-0726695 of Official Records. Dated: November 2, 1998 Trustor: Dahya Patel, a married man as his sole and separate property Trustee: CTC Foreclosure Services Corporation Beneficiary: America's Wholesale Lender, which is organized and existing under the laws of New York. According to the public records, the beneficial interest of Countrywide Home LoanS', Inc., dba America's Wholesale Lender under the deed of trust was assigned to Norwest Mortgage, Inc. by assignment recorded December 20, 1999 as instrument no. 99-0822211 of Official Records. According to the public records, the beneficial interest of Wachovia Bank, N.A. fka First Union National Bank (as Trustee or Trust Administration) under the deed of trust was assigned to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. by assignment recorded February 17, 2005 as instrument no. 05- 136172 of Official Records. At the date of recording of the document, the parties thereto had no record interest in the land. Affects Parcel 4. 12. An unrecorded lease dated July 17, 2000, executed by Dahya Bhai Lalbhai Patel as lessor and Web Service Co., Inc. as lessee, as disclosed by a Memorandum of Lease recorded October 20, 2000 as instrument no. 00-0568120 of Official Records. Affects Parcels 1, 2 and 3. First American Title c 0 Order Number: 1793023 (22) Page Number: 5 INFORMATIONAL NOTES 1. Taxes for proration purposes only for the fiscal year 2004-2005. First Installment: $1,848.24, Paid Second Installment: $1,848.24, Paid Tax Rate Area: 09000 APN: 203-250-08-00 Affects Parcel 4. The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. First American expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such Joss or damage is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, if any, to which this map is attached. First American Title 0 0 Order Number: 1793023 (22) Page Number: 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of california, described as follows: PARCEL 1: ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF CARLSBAD, IN THE OTY OF CARLSBAD, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894, AND OF TRACT" 100 OF CARLSBAD LANDS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1661, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 1, 1915, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18, DISTANT THEREON 150 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 18 SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE POINT OF INTERSECT"ION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18 WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAID RIGHT OF WAY IS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. T. HART AND SARAH M. HART, ET ALTO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DATED AUGUST 7, 1924 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1040, PAGE 76 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 6 DEGREES 17'30" WEST (RECORD SOUTH 6 DEGREES 27' WEST) ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE 198.75 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY THE WM. G. KERCKHOFF CO. TO GERARD C. AND MAY GARDNER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEED DATED AUGUST 19, 1936 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 546, PAGE 400 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; THENCE NORTH 55 DEGREES 27' EAST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID GARDNER'S LAND 139.25 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER THEREOF, BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 100; THENCE NORTH 34 DEGREES 33' WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF 160 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACT" 100 OF CARLSBAD LANDS, IN THE OTY OF CARLSBAD, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1661, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 1, 1915, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECT"ION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT" 100, WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AS SAID RIGHT OF WAY IS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1924 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1032, PAGE 284 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 6 DEGREES 17'30" WEST (DEED RECORD SOUTH 6 DEGREES 27' WEST) ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE 79.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 55 DEGREES 27' EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID TRAer 100, A DISTANCE OF 95.85 FEET TO INTERSEcriON WITH A NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRAer 100; THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 33' EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT" 100, SAID POINT BEING ALSO IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO L. R. SLOAN AND BESSIE SLOAN, BY DEED DATED APRIL 28, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1763, PAGE 328 OF DEEDS, First American Title c 0 Order Number: 1793023 (22) Page Number: 7 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 55 DEGREES 27' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED TO SAID SLOAN AND ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND SO CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO L. R. SLOAN AND BESSIE SLOAN BY DEED DATED APRIL 28, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1763, PAGE 330 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, TO INTERSECT WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY ABOVE MENTIONED; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY UNE THEREOF, BEING PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 100, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 50 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY UNE OF SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL PARCEL 3: THE SOUTHEASTERLY HALF OF THE NORTHEASTERLY QUARTER OF BLOCK 18 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894. PARCEL 4: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 100 OF CARLSBAD LANDS, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1661, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARC.H 1, 1915, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 34 DEGREES 33' WEST,A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, SOUTH 55 DEGREES 27' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 33' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 100; THENCE NORTH 55 DEGREES 27' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEAST 135 FEET THEREOF. APN: 203-250-08-00 and 203-250-26-00 First American Title 09 '\ :. --!a"' . ~m~ ~~i .:5~~>§ 2~!i >-=!He g~:; "' ~za: ~~~ ~!!l I:S ~~_, ~~~ ~~e ... ~ I ) ~!~ ;;e \~, !!~ j!;~~ .. J l l ! I 6i11 J 0 T a: o· so w j _J 5 &o 0 <( m (/) _J a: <( u I (_ "' .... 2• 5 1 PUBLIC WALKWAY ESI.AT (i} SHT 2 OCEAN PACJF'JC OCEAN 69 SHT I ~ J ~ IJO 2• CONDO Oll.l'l I I'M \4~'; ")QC 86·609892 (SEE SHT J) THIS MAP WAS PREPAII:O fCR ASSESSI.ENT MPDSES ONlY. 1() l1'.9UTY IS ASSU.IEO fa:! T~ ACC\W.CY OF THE DATA SI-OWN. ASSESSOR'S PAilCElS MAY "'T COAY WITH lOCAl SU801VISCIII OR SUIL[):I(; oP!l~"CES. ~ ST •' POR IB •· ol 5I "!I d ~ ti ..... ·.u··-1. /DD MOST SLY COR OF BLK IS w 2 a: "0 L GARFIELD ST .. ~ MAP 11049-CARLSBAD TCT NO 84-6 MAP 1681 -THUM LANDS MAP 1661 -CARLSBAD LANDS 203-25 ~. ~ SHT.IOF3 . ~ l"= 100' 12/24/02 JES CHANGES ELK OLD t£:N IVA ra:rr 252. ,,.'2 ~ ... (.IJ 72 17ut { 256 ,., 24i .. , ,.,.. ·-.: ... 251 23 ~sl•m 7] lusl j 2.5() 7.18 Zh 78 21'7.:!3 250 ,., 2D 2.1 18 21't+ .zsg Z7 2.S.29 7'1 27# 251 :If /0 ~~-111 S57' 25/ '0 <61JtJO 8Z. ~' 252 I, 2. ,_~ 15 177 2f2 3 ~'!Z'~z ~ 7.89 251 '3 ~~:;)() :s-~ 250 10 SMIE .. 02 5597 ST a.so 250 11 ~do 03 5655 - r -I '.J-· - ::=. - . ... ----~:--··i ~-::# .:·.·. - [~~.a·.:. c· :J -.'::i!ir; .·.hdl i'f'rl'l? ---_.._J•, . --~ .. ~~ ~ MAP 775(365. 535) -TOWN OF CARLSBAD AMENDED ROS 2266 MAP 203 -FRAZIER PLOT ROS 2266, 9672, 10245,13250 City of 0 c.arlsbad I :11 I§ I ;lei hi-I •14 ·'=';I I .tJ ,\I HAZARDOUS ·WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STA TEJ\IE~1T Consultation Of Lists of Sites Related To Hazardous ·wastes (Certification of Complian~e with Government Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5. I have consulted the Hazardous Wastes and Substances ~ites List compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency and hereby certify that (check one): ~ The development"project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 ofthe State Government Code. 0 The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: __ D_K_N_H_o_t_e_l_s ________ ;___ Name: __ D_K_N_H_o_t_e_ls_I_D_a_h_y_a_P_a_t_e_l ----- 540 Golden Circle Dr. #214 Address: _______________ _ 540 Golden Circle Dr. #214 Address: ______________ ---'_ Santa Ana, CA 92705 Santa Ana, CA 92705 PhoneNumber: (714) 480-0661 PhoneNumber: (714) 480-0661 Address of Site: 3136 Carlsbad Blvd & 3155 Lincoln St Local Agency (City and County):---'C~it,_..y--=oc..:..f--=C:.::a:.:...r..:..:ls::..:b::..:a::..:d=----------~---------- Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: 203-250-08, 26 Specify Jist(s): Subject not on lists Regulatory Identification Number: N A Date of List: Search performed on February 9, 2005 Admin/C ounter/Ha:z Waste 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARil'I~AN DIEGO COUNTY CLERK of~ B~i>.l~~V/ISORS Mail to: Public Notice Heariv Mailstop A-45, Room 402, 1600 Pacific Hig,,.,JY. ~1-l;lt cwrr I Response must be received by: March 7, 2007 Public Hearing Date: March 7 2007 Public Hearing Place: 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. 92008 Public Hearing Time: .~6.'"""·0-:"0-=.m:.=.... ---------------------------------- Project Title: --=D=K=N'::'--'H~o>!.!t~e!....l ------------------------------------ Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD -PLANNING Contact Person: Van Lynch/Cliff Jones Street Address: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE Phone: ~(7~6~0L) 6~0!:2c-4!..le6'.!..1~3/~{7~6~0L) 4:!.,3~4c.:,-2~8!.!.l:d..3 ___________ _ City: CARLSBAD Zip: ~9:=e2~00~8~---County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY 'l'iio:itcf .. i(ic·A·fioi'i~ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY City/Nearest Community: CITY OF CARLSBAD Cross Streets: Carlsbad Blvd. and Oak Ave/Lincoln St """'~--=T::-o-"t~ai~A~c~r""e""s:~:__-0~.~8-4------------- Assessor's Parcel No. 203-250-08 and 26 Section: n/a Twp. n/a Range: n/a Base: Rancho Agua Hedionda Spanish Land Grant Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: I-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: __ __,J~e:!.!ffc~e.!.>rs!!:o:!!n...!:a!!!n~d..!.P2.in~e"-E!:!.!.!:Ie~m~e<!!n~ta:!!.ryL "iiNviiioNM'J!:-i'i.TAL.riocui\1'iiNf; ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. CEQA: 0 NOP 0 Supplement/Subsequent 0 Early Cons 0 EIR (Prior SCH No.)-------------- [gl Neg Dec 0 Other:----------------- 0 Draft EIR LOCAL ACTION TYPE: 0General Plan Update 0 [8JGeneral Plan Amendment 0 0General Plan Element 0 Ozone Code Amendment ~ Amendment DEVELOPMENT TYPE: 0Residential: Units Specific Plan Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan Ooffice: Sq. Ft.---------- Ocommercial: Sq. Ft. _ _!,6~2.,3~54::!.__ _____ _ 0Industrial: Sq. Ft.---------- 0Recreational: PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: OAestheticN isual D Flood Plain/Flooding 0Agricultural Land D Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0Air Quality D Geological/Seismic 0Archaeological/Historical 0 Minerals Ocoastal Zone D Noise 0Drainage/ Absorption D Population/Housing Balance 0Economic/Jobs D Public Services/Facilities 0Fiscal D Recreation/Parks Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use ~ Rezone 0 Use Permit 0 Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Acres _____ _ Acres _____ _ Acres _____ _ Acres _____ _ D Schools/Universities D Septic Systems D Sewer Capacity D Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading D Solid Waste D Toxic/Hazardous D Traffic/Circulation D Vegetation 0 Annexation ~ Redevelopment ~ Coastal Permit ~ Other: Local Coastal Program D Water Quality D Water Supply/Ground Water D Wetland/Riparian D Wildlife D Growth Inducing D Land Use D Cumulative Effect 0 Other: Motel, restaurant and single family dwelling/Village Redevelopment and Multiple-Family Residential/ Village and Residential High Density Project Description: 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 a hotel, restaurant, and single family residence and for the construction of a 3-story, 1 04-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. Where documents are located for Public Review: Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 August 2006 Notice of Completion & Envir ental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. 0. Box 30 , acramento, CA 95812-(916) 445-0613 See NOTE Below: Project Title: Springhill Suites-GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05- ___ _..:..14_,_ SCH # Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Van Lynch/Cliff Jones ------ Street Address: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE Phone: (760) 602-4613/(760)-434-2813City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92008 SAN DIEGO COUNTY County: 'iJJioiEc·T .. iocATioi'( ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: ---'C""'a=r""ls""b:.::ac::.d ________________________ _ Cross Streets: Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak A venue Total Acres: ----''""8...:.4 ____________________ _ Assessor's Parcel No. 203-250-08 and 26 Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: --'P"-'a,c""'ifi,tc"'-"'O:.,:c~ea=n~----------------------- Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: ___,J:.,:e~U""'er"""s""on=E~le""'m""e""'n,ta""'r,J...y ___________ _ DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQ A: D NOP D Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: D NOI OTHER: D Joint Document D Early Cons D EIR (Prior SCH No.) D EA D Final Document 181 Neg Dec D Other: D Draft EIS D Other: D Draft EIR D FONSI LOCAL ACTION TYPE: D General Plan Update D Specific Plan 181 Rezone D Annexation 181 General Plan Amendment D Master Plan D Prezone 181 Redevelopment D General Plan Element D Planned Unit Development D Use Permit 181 Coastal Permit D Community Plan 181 Site Plan D Land Division (Subdivision, D Other: Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) DEVELOPMENT TYPE: D Residential: Units Acres D Water Facilities: Type_ MOD D Office: Sq. Ft._ Acres Employees_ D Transportation: Type D Commercial: Sq. Ft._ Acres Employees_ D Mining: Mineral D Industrial: Sq. Ft.-Acres Employees_ D Power: Type Watts D Educational: D Waste Treatment: Type 181 Recreational: 104 unit hotel D Hazardous Water: Type D Other: PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: D AestheticN isual D Flood Plain/Flooding D Schools/Universities D Water Quality D Agricultural Land D Forest Land/Fire Hazard D Septic Systems D H20 Supply/Ground H20 D Air Quality D Geological/Seismic D Sewer Capacity D Wetland/Riparian D Archaeological/Historical D Minerals D Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading D Wildlife D Coastal Zone D Noise D Solid Waste D Growth Inducing D Drainage/ Absorption D Population!Hsg. Balance D Toxic/Hazardous D Land Use D Economic/Jobs D Public Services/Facilities D Traffic/Circulation D Cumulative Effect D Fiscal D Recreation/Parks D Vegetation D Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use 28 room hotel, 1125 square foot Restaurant and a single family residence/ Village Redevelopment (VR) and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) I Village Redevelopment (V)/Residential High Density (RH) Project Description: 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 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 NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised 2006 ~R~e~v~ie~w~in~g~A~g.e~n~c~i~e~s~C~h~e~c~k~l~is~t~_<:) ___________________ ~F~o~r~m~A~,c~o~n~ti~n~u~e~~a--K-E_Y ______________________ _, Resources Agency __ Boating & Waterways __ Coastal Commission __ Coastal Conservancy __ Colorado River Board __ Conservation, Dept. of __ Fish & Game __ Forestry & Fire Protection __ Office of Historic Preservation __ Parks & Recreation __ Reclamation Board __ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission __ Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation & Housing __ Aeronautics __ California Highway Patrol __ CAL TRANS District# ____ _ __ Department of Transportation Planning (headquarters) __ Housing & Community Development __ Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare __ Health Services, ____________ _ State & Consumer Services __ General Services __ OLA (Schools) Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date-------------- Signature--------------- Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: _______________ _ Address: __________________ _ City/State/Zip: ------------------------------ Contact: __________________ _ Phone:L__} -------------------------------- Applicant: ________________ _ Address:------------------- City/State/Zip: ------------------------------ Phone: L__j --------------- S = Document sent by lead agency X = Document sent by SCH .I= Suggested distribution Environmental Protection Agency ______ Air Resources Board ___ California Waste Management Board ___ SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _____ SWRCB: Delta Unit _______ SWRCB: Water Quality ____ SWRCB: Water Rights _____ Regional WQCB # __ _ Youth & Adult Corrections ___ Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices ___ Energy Commission ____ Native American Heritage Commission ___ Public Utilities Commission ___ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ___ ,State Lands Commission ___ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ___ Other _____________ _ Ending Date------------------- Date -------------------- For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts: Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: c DKN MARRIOTT GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05- 03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14 CASE NAME: CASE NO: 14 0 City 0 of Carlsbad I#IJ@Iillllli·i•X§.fiiii•i§lll NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION DKN Hotels GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05- PROJECT LOCATION: On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lincoln Street between Oak A venue and Pine A venue. 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 =D_;:;.ec=e=m=b=er::....:2=8==-=20.::..;0::;..=6;__ ___________ _ 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us (i} PROOF OF PUBLIC. 'ION (201 0 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego 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: February 23rd, 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 February, 2007 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of 4). GPA 05·05fZC 05-02/LCPA gs·Ofl?~ 05~~CDP ps-14/SDP ~5-0~· OKN HQ: TEL:ReqUeSTlOfa recommenda 1on o e 1_;1 ounc1 to aaopt a ega ivelJe(:lara-~and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, "Zone Change Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Coastal Development Perm1t, and approval of a Site Development Permit; and a recommendation to the Housing and Redevel-opment Commission to adopt a Ne_gative 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 ~~~~~~i~bo~~ft~.r:~~?'si~~\fP't~rths~~~Pii~~~v~~grgc~~e~~i~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~s~~~ 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. The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the above de-~c,[~~g~,J>~~~~~cM~Iffvu~g~ ~gdt~~e ~~~(ci~n~:nt~f ~"nft~Wo~n~r~?n~~Jet~f t~.:'1g~rn6r Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified no po?;m. tially significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration was issued for the subtect 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). If you challenge these projects 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 at or prior to the public hearing. Copies of the environmental documents are available at the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue during regular business hours from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Thursday and 8:00am fo 5:00 pm Friday. Those persons wishing to speak on these pro osals are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report · ilable online at http://www.ci.earlstlad.ea.us/pdfdoc.ntml n or after the Friday prior to the ~~~:r£gate. If you have any ques 1ons, the Planning Department at (760) PUBLISH: FEBRUARY 23, 2007 • NCT 2030860 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Carlsbad I@Fi;JUI.f4i•l4·1UJI.,t§.il NOTICEOF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~~-123 4s A~ I //! v;:; ~ o CASE NAME: DKN Hotels \~-L.\)v ?..,~"f.;_\ CASE NO: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCP A 05-02/RP 05-03/SD ;,~&f~DP 05- 14 \.,\ ':;,'b' t;;~.~<> PROJECT LOCATION: On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lineoln Street between Oak Avenue and Pine Avenue. 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, 203-250-08 anc:Y26. 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 =-D=ec:.=.;:em~b"'""e~r 2::..::8"-'-, 2::..::0~0.:::....6 --------~t£~ft-~ _,[l ~ [Q) FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK Gregory J. Smith, Recorder/County Cieri< San Diego County on DEC 2 S 1DDS Posted DEC 2 8 1006 Removed JATj 2 9 2006 Returned to agen~ on JAN 2 9 2006 Deputy A. 0 SU --------- DEC 2:8 Z006 A. Consul ~----------~~~ DEPUTY 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us DKN MARRIOTT GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05- 03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14 0 City 0 F llE COPY of Carlsbad I Q ih ;no U. I •I§ ·151 I I I .t§ ;t I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00p.m. on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, to consider a request for the following: CASE NAME: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/CDP 05-14/SDP 05-04-DKN HOTEL PUBLISH DATE: February 23, 2007 DESCRIPTION: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, 1 04-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. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. Copies of the staff report will be available online at http://www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us/pdfdoc.html?pid=295 on or after the Friday prior to the hearing date. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613, Monday through Thursday 7:30a.m. to 5:30p.m., Friday 8:00a.m. to 5:00p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge these projects, if approved, is established by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge this project 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 at or prior to the public hearing. o Appeals to the City Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. o Coastal Commission Appealable Project: D This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. ~ This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ PROOF OF PUBUC~--.I'ION (201 0 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been 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: December 28th, 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 28th , Day of December, 2006 (5 u C ti.J--L~ Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising ne County Clerk's Filing Stamp t • tJAN 2007 Proof of Publication of RADIUS MAP DKN Carlsbad, California NORTH 0 I 100 200 400 I I I SCALE 1 II = 200' June 29, 2010 1CI30 FARADAY AVEKUE, atm'l: 100, CARlSIUD, C4 82008 (750) e:n-O?ao ru (?eo) e&-6744 0 0 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER DKN HOTEL GPA 05-05 APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ,/ /?-L./_ BY: ~~---------~--~~------- DATE: ___ 7....,..fi_z_,_1/o_o_7 ___ _ ~, RECEIVED BY DATE: 2/c.foz c First American Title Insurance Company NATIONAL HOMEBUILDER SERVICES 0 11175 Azusa Court • Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 • (877) 659-4502 • fax (909) 4 77-6055 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF San Bernardino ) I, MIKE PHILLIPS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF A VENDOR SERVICE, THE ATTACHED LIST CONTAINS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS TO WHOM ALL PROPERTY IS ASSESSED AS THEY APPEAR ON THE LATEST AVAILABLE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED AND FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 FEET FROM THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: ASSESSORS PARCEL #: 203-250-08, 203-250-26 (~WE CERTIFY (OR DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS '1fF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. S IGNED_t-p7.__;___a_aL____::::_ ___ _ DATE: February 8TH' 2007 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS 8TH DAY OF February, 2007. NOTAR~/· ..•. ,.,. J ~0 ) (isT) 11A 6: 12A SBE UJJ> IKI<4-J7-8H R R/W) . IIJ411.,'W "' .. Jl.t1D,J2, ' n ~5; • r • U) ~ : : "' 01 0 ~ 8~ .. ~ -· 0' ~ • c· ~ tm..., 0. 1tJO,JS .,.c.,. N.J.I•U'-11''1'1 1 8 g ~ C&)B 8 ,::_m Q. .!!> ~ .su•J.~tH"tr 0 hl8002, 0 i ~ 8/' / : ~ ~ ~ ... -f. "' ,. 0 ~tl ~ ~~~f ! (!)~ 1. Gi@ ~ ::: ;:,(1~ '1j .. ~=-~ -' .. z•o./6 Nt.~•u•P•"w ~ i LINCOLN 0-J~. ./: - ~ • .. ~ ~ ~ : : _ .. "~ ~ "' T .. ::;: <( 0 .... ,. ... ···e···· POR PAR6ASBE SOA-37_8J 75AC (ATII..SFRR) ® POR PAR/SA SElf 804-37-SJ I 7!!1 AC TCT 222 7 : POFI' PAR 15A ~ POR PAFI I&A 8 (§) 0 I.OIAC 9 \0 @ ll8 t£.. POR PAR 18A 58£ ltiAP 804-37 R. R.) FIOR PAR IIA .!EIE UA.P eo ST ' PROOF OF PUBL TION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been 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: February 24th , 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 241h Day of February, 2006 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is ·the County Clerk's Filing Stamp ~ Proof of Publication of fo'Ut:ILI\.r l'tVII\.r~ TO INTERESTED PARTIES: . . Please be advised that the City of Csrtsbad is considenng Zone and land use Map amendments to Its Lo9al Coastal Pr~grarn (LCP) as summarized below. !h1s amendment ISDelng proposed by DKN Hotels and 1~ currently ~nder r~view. This notice hereby OJM!ns a SI~·Y!eek rev1e.w (1enod after which the Planning Com-miSSion and C1ty Council will consider all comments and aqt qn the prop9sed amendment. The Planning Com-miSSion he;;tnng 1s expected to take place in May and will be duly not!cecf. The City Council hearing is expected to take place 1n June, and will be duly noticed. Copies of !he LCP <!mendment are available for review at the following locat1ons: (1) Carlsbad Planninj\l Depart-ment, 1635 Faraday Avenue· (2\ City Clerks Office 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive· (:3\ Car1stiad Main Library' 1775 Qove Laf!e; (4) Georgina Cole Libral\', 1250 Carls: b<!d IJilla?e Dnvei and .(5) th~ Califqrnia Coastal Com-3'~~~~b8?Jj0~e ropohtan Dnve, SUite 103, San Diego, PROPOSED LCP AMENDMENT SUMMARY LCPA 05-02-DKN Hotels The City's ZoniniJ Ordinance is the implementing ordi-/ n'!nce for the C1ty s Local Coastal Program. Accoraingly, th1s Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessaiY to ~nsure qonsistency b~fween its proposed amended Zon-Ing Qrd~nance and 1ts Local Coastal Program. This spec1f1c Zone Code Amendment is as follows: An amendment to the General Plan Map and LCP land uH~ m!!l) to change land use designation of Residential 1gh (RH) to Travel Recreation Commercial CTR\. The Zone Change will revise the Zoning Map and lCP zone map .from 11-3 Multiple-Family Residential to Commercial Tounst (C-Tl. This proper!}' is also identified as APN: 203-250-08-00 and 203-250-26-00 (east portion). If you.have any questions ... please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (t60) 602-4613. Written com- 1 ments should be sent to the Planning Department at 1635 Fa.raday Avenue, Carlsbad, Camorma 92008 or vltnc~cLcarlsbad.ca.us. l'J 1906/25 • 02124/06 '-'"" STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 329122 Date: 05/09/2007 County/State Agency of Filing: San Diego Document No.: 14081 ------~-----------------------------------~--------- Project Title: DKN Hotels Project Applicant Name: DKN Hotels --------------------------------------------------------------- Project Applicant Address: 540 Golden Circle Dr, #214 City Santana State CA --------Zip Code _9_2_70_5 ____ __ Phone Number: (714) 480-0661 Project Applicant (check appropriate box): o~~~o~~o~~~o~~0~~ Check ApDable Fees: Env1ronmentallmpact Report 0 Negative Declaration 0 Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) D Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs 0 County Administrative Fee 0 Project that is exempt from fees 0 Notice of Exemption $2,500.00 $ $1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $850.00 $ $850.00 $ $50.00 $ 50.00 D DFG No Effed Dote..,;~~ TOTAL RECEIVED $ ______ 1_,8_5_0._00_ Signature and title of person receiving payment: ~ // f/ A. Consul Deputy 'M-IITE ·PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW· DFG/FASB PINK· LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD· COUNTY CLERK DFG 753.5a Rev. 1/07) -~_o_t_ic_e_o_f_D_e_te_r_m_in_a_t_io_n __________ 0_1_,_o_a 1 / To : D Office ofPlanning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Planning Depar t Sacramento, CA 95812-304~ ~ !L [E !D) 1635 Faraday ~~enue Gregory J. Smith ;-:,'r'Y'1€t/County Clerk Carlsbad, c~ (\'-92009 SD County Clerk (760) 602-46 Attn: Anthony J. Consul MAV .. 0 ')0 07 I l_, vI I . Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway A. Consu' San Diego, CA 921 01 BY. DEPUTY "St. F: z ~-\,<i-(J Project No: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP -- Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. DKN Hotels Project Title 2006-121106 City of Carlsbad, Van Lynch (760) 602-4613 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lincoln Street between Oak Avenue and Pine A venue. 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, 203-250-08 and 26 . Carlsbad, San Diego County Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: DKN Hotels Applicant's Address: 540 Golden Circle Dr, #214, Santana, CA 92705 Applicant's Telephone Number: (714) 480-0661 Project Description: Demolition of an existing hotel, restaurant, and single family residence and for the construction of a 3-story, 1 04-room hotel. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on May 1, 2007, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment 2. D An Environmental Impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQ A. C8J A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. D This project was reviewed previously and a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval ofthe project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was not adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. ~ ~ FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE OOUNTY CLERK :::~egoM~~:t6 gn 2007 ~:0~0: }~~ I 1 Z007 S:. L/-0 7 DON NEU' Planning Director Returned to agency on JUN 1 1 7007 Date Date received for filing at OPR: Deputy A. Consu l Revised December 2004 c. Cit of 0 Carlsbad --------~----~~~~~ CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION DKNHotels GP A 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCP A 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14 On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lincoln Street between Oak A venue and Pine A venue. 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: 1::8] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. D 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). D 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: March 7, 2007, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6254 and May 1, 2007, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2007-096 ATTEST: ~~ DONNEU Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us <!) c 0 EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART I BACKGROUND I. CASE NAME: DKN -Hampton Inn 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Department Staff (760) 602-4600 4. PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: ______ _ DATE: ------------- The project is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine A venue and Oak Avenue. 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: DKN Hotels 540 Golden Circle Drive #214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential High (RH); proposed change to Village (V) 7. ZONING: Residential (R-3); proposed change to Commercial Tourist (C-T) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, fmancing approval or participation agreements): City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department 0 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Residential High Density (RH) to Village (V) and the zoning from Residential (R-3) to Commercial Tourist (C-T). The project site is two parcels (203-250-08, 203-250-26) totaling .84 acres. The site is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak A venue. The project proposes to construct a Hampton Inn-Suites hotel on the site. The hotel will contain 101 rooms and suites totaling 60,251 square feet. 122 parking spaces are proposed, and automobile access will take via Carlsbad Boulevard. There will be "loading only" access via Lincoln Street. The 2 parcels are currently occupied by the Surf Motel, The Armenian Cafe, and a single family dwelling. Theses structures will be demolished, removed and replaced with the proposed Hampton Inn-Suites. The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include a 7-11 convenience store to the north, single-family dwellings to the south, multi-family units to the east and a hotel to the west. 2 Rev. 07/26/02 c 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. D Aesthetics D Geology/Soils 0Noise D Agricultural Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Population and Housing [gj Air Quality D Hydrology/Water Quality D Public Services D Biological Resources D Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation D Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources ~ Transportation/Circulation D Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities & Service Systems Significance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • 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. 3 Rev. 07/26/02 0 • Based on an "EIA-Part II", 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. • 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-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 c Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) I. 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? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES -(In detennining 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? 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 detenninations.) 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? 5 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defmed 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? 6 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D No Impact D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defmed 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 paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 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: 1. 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? 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? 7 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D No Impact ~ D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) d) Be located on expansive soils, as defmed 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? 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? 8 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D D No Impact ~ D Rev. 07/03/02 c Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) 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? e) 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? t) 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'? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) 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? 9 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact [8J D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact i) Place within 1 00-year flood hazard area structures, D D D C8J which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of D D D ~ loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D [g) D l) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface D D [g) D waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, D D [g) D pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or D D [g) D wetland waters) during or following construction? o) Increase in any po1lutant to an already impaired D D [g) D water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater D D D receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? D D D ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or D D D ~ 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 D D D plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral D D D resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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? 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? 11 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D 0 D 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D D No Impact ~ D D Rev. 07/03/02 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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? 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? 12 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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)? 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? 13 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D D No Impact [8] D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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? 14 Potentially Significant Impact D D D 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the previous pages. After each question is posed, a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed by an analysis of potential project impacts, the fmding and appropriate factual justification. In cases where the finding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the finding is followed by a description ofthe mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Information sources are cited for each discussion. I. AESTHETICS-Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Existing Condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The site is visible from Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered a Community Theme Corridoc 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 screen the project from motorists. The proposed project calls for one building, which will have a maximum height of 35 feet. This height is consistent with the height of other buildings in the area. Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project will replace the existing Surf Motel and other uses. The new structure will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding uses or from Carlsbad Boulevard. Temporary impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant. The project will conform to the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines for construction and setbacks relating to Community Theme Corridors. Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. No buildings, including 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 impactto 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. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ofthe site and its surroundings? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 0 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 similar 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) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing condition: The subject area presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights for the 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 substantial light and glare and will not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the area. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES-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? 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. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Existing condition: See lla above. Environmental Evaluation: See lla above. Finding: No impact-See lla above. 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? Existing condition: See lla above. Environmental Evaluation: See lla above. Finding: No impact-See lla above. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 0 ill. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The project area has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure Zone, which produces prevailing winds from the west to northwest. These winds tend to blow pollutants away from the coast toward the inland areas. Consequently, air quality near the coast is generally better than that which occurs at the base of the coastal mountain range. Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of winds from the Pacific High Pressure Zone interacting with the daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or containment of air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit the public's health, welfare and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of the CAA, the EPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards. Six pollutants of primary concern were designated; ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and suspended particulates. A proposed project's air quality impacts must be addressed relative to compliance with the standards adopted pursuant to these pollutants. The proposed project is located in the northwestern portion of the SDAB and will be required to comply with all San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules and Regulations. Air emissions will be produced during construction, however this construction period will be temporary in nature. The SDAB is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The applicable attainment plan for these criteria pollutants is the Regional Air Quality Strategy, which is prepared and administered by the San Diego APCD. Environmental Evaluation: Short-term air quality impacts during construction of the .84 acre project would occur from heavy equipment exhaust emissions, construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material hauling trucks, and from associated fugitive dust generation. Heavy construction equipment is usually diesel-powered. In general, emissions from diesel-powered equipment contain more nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx), sulfur oxide compounds (SOx), and PM10, and less carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCs), than emissions from gasoline-powered engines. NOx compounds and ROCs are precursors to ozone formation. Approximately 2,047 cubic yards of finish grading will result from the proposed project. The amount of grading will be balanced on-site, so no export/import of earth will occur. Nonetheless, construction is anticipated to involve equipment such as tractors, scrapers, backhoes, cranes, graders, dump and concrete trucks, and miscellaneous tractor-trailer delivery trucks. The type of equipment that may be found at any one time at the site during the construction period will vary. The construction operation is anticipated to extend 6 to 10 months in duration, although heavy machinery will not be in operation during this entire period. Short term sources of construction-related air emissions include (a) fugitive dust from grading 17 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 activities, (b) construction exhaust, and (c) construction related by worker commute, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks. The APCD does not have specific significance thresholds for air pollutants generated during construction. However, the APCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Trigger Levels for review of new stationary sources. Although these trigger levels are specified for stationary sources, they are used here to assess the potential impacts due to air emissions during project construction. The AQIA construction Trigger Levels are defined as: NOx 250 pounds per day SOx 250 pounds per day CO 550 pounds per day PM10 100 pounds per day No AQIA Trigger Levels specified for ROCs have been adopted. If anticipated project emissions exceed any of these Trigger Levels, a more detailed Air Quality Impact Analysis may be required by the APCD. For this evaluation, project construction air emissions were estimated using the California Air Resources Board Urbemis7G version 3.2 air emission estimation program. The Urbemis7G program does not include emission factors for SOx compounds. The equipment emission factors used in Urbemis7G are the same as those found in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Handbook does include emission factors for SOx compounds. A comparison of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook NOx and SOx compound emission factors reveals that the SOx emission factors are consistently less than the corresponding NOx emission factors for the same types of equipment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total SOx emissions from a project will be less than the total NOx emissions from that project. The San Diego APCD Trigger Levels for NOx and SOx compounds are the same (250 pounds per day). Consequently, for this assessment it can be concluded that ifthe total NOx emissions projected by Urbemis7G are less than the AQIA Trigger Levels, then the total SOx emissions will also be below the Trigger Levels. As indicated, the amount and types of equipment on-site at any one time during the construction period will vary. This assessment conservatively assumes that all of the projected equipment could be working on-site simultaneously. Under this assumption, the maximum projected daily air emissions during construction would be: NOx 158 pounds per day SOx <158 pounds per day CO 92 pounds per day PM10 26 pounds per day Regarding vehicular emissions from the proposed development, the air quality analyses identify motor vehicles as the primary source of emissions associated with development projects such as the one proposed on the subject site. The long-term vehicular trips to and from the project may contribute significant amounts of air pollutant emissions. · The proposed project will consist of a three-story hotel. The project specific traffic report, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan projects the project's ADTwill be 707 (101 room hotel @ 7 ADT/room). This will be an increase of 391 ADT over the 316 ADT currently generated by the Surf Motel and 18 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 restaurant. The project specific traffic report has been included as part of the project's initial application package. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated-The project is located within a basin that has a nonattainment status and the project would contribute pollutants, thereby having a cumulatively significant air quality impact unless mitigation measures are adopted. Controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. All project construction is required to incorporate best management practices to reduce dust and air pollution impacts. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would contribute additional pollution emissions. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the preceding technical evaluation in Section III( a). Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during construction of the tenant improvements would be temporary. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would contribute additional pollution emissions. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the technical evaluation in Section III( a). The project would contribute to pollution emissions however it is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Carlsbad Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). The site is in use for urban development presently. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during construction of the tenant improvements would be temporary. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Existing condition: No sensitive air quality receptors are located near the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation at III( a). The project would not alter wind patterns, moisture levels or temperatures in the area. Finding: No impact-Please refer to response to III( a). 19 Rev. 07/03/02 c e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: Urban development of hotel uses such as those proposed have not been shown to result in the creation of objectionable odors. There is no evidence that the proposed project will be any different than those previously analyzed and developed in Carlsbd. Finding: No Impact-No significant odors are anticipated from the proposed project. 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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will replace an existing 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) 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? Existing condition: anticipated. Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). No impacts are 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) 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? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters ofthe 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. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 0 Finding: No impact-The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act. 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? 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 industrial building in a developed business park. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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 industrial building in a developed business park. 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. 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? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed use is located in an urban area and is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. The Habitat Management Plan allows urban development of the site. Finding: No impact -The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Finding: No impact-Please refer to response IV(a) and IV(b) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: proposed project. No impacts to historical resources will result from implementation of the 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 resources will result from construction of the project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Finding: No impact-Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Finding: No impact-Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Finding: No impact-Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). 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. 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 22 Rev. 07/03/02 0 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 11,000 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, 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Existing condition: Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area. As indicated in the response to Item Vl(a)(i), the Newport-Inglewood 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 ofthe Elsinore fault zone. 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. E_nvironmental 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 23 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about four miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 25 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 was constructed following the Uniform Building Code standards that were in effect at the time of construction to minimize the effects of strong seismic ground shaking during a seismic event. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 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 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 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. iv. Landslides? Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities. Environmental Evaluation: improvements. No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development Finding: No impact-No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and 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. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 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) 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? 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) 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? 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) 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? 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. 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? 25 Rev. 07/03/02 c 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 that significant. 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? 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) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Existing condition: proposed school. The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or Environmental Evaluation: existing or proposed school. The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an 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) 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? 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. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 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. 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? 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. 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? 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) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 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) 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? 27 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 Existing condition: family home. The proposed project site currently consists of a motel, restaurant and single 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. Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 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. 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)? Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton Consulting, excavated for the subject project, indicated that groundwater was encountered at depths of33 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 ifthey occur. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project is not expected to significantly deplete groundwater supplies, or significantly interfere with ground water recharge. c) Impacts to groundwater quality? Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton Associates, Geologists, excavated for the subject project, indicated that groundwater 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 ifthey occur. Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project is not expected to significantly deplete groundwater supplies, or significantly interfere with ground water recharge. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: and (b). Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a) Finding: Less than significant impact-Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a) and (b). e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) ofsurface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off- site? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: and (b). Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a) Finding: Less than significant impact-Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a) and (b). f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 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 29 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 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. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Existing condition: The drainage pattern dictates that the drainage water will 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. h) 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? Existing condition: The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing within the 1 00-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: No placement of housing is proposed within the flood hazard area. Finding: No impact-No housing is proposed as part of the project. i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Existing condition: hazard area. The subject project does not propose any structures within the 1 00-year flood Environmental Evaluation: The project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 1 00-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. j) 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? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII(i) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(i) above. No levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 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. k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Existing condition: The proposed project site is located approximately 350 feet from the Pacific ocean approximately 50 feet above sea level in an area prone to seiche, tsunami or mudflow conditions as identified in the City's MEIR, Map 5.10.1-2. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows is considered to be negligible. Finding: Less than signficant impact-The potential for damage to the project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are considered less than significant due to the project's location and elevation. I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VITI( a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: and (b). Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VITI( a) Finding: Less than significant impact-Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a) and (b). m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Existing condition: The project proposes urban development in an area that is currently developed. The project design does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges into receiving surface waters or other waters upstream or downstream of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project proposes no increase in pollutant discharges. The project will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit. No significant levels of heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, or uncontrolled trash will be produced by the project. Finding: Less than significant impact-No significant increase in pollutant discharges will result from implementation of the proposed project. n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VITI( a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: and (b). Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VITI( a) 31 Rev. 07/03/02 0 Finding: Less than significant impact-Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a) and (b). o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303( d) list? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: and (b). Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a) Finding: Less than significant impact_-Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII{a) and (b). p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: and (b). Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII( a) Finding: Less than significant impact-Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII{a) and (b). IX. LAND USE PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Existing condition: The project site is currently developed with a motel, restaurant, parking lot and landscaping. It is located in an existing urban area. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of the current motel, restaurant and 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) 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? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential High Density {RH) land use. Zoning is designated Residential (R-3). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to Village (V) and a Zone Change to change the Zoning to Commercial Tourist (C-T). These two land uses will allow the construction of the new three- story hotel. Additionally, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is proposed to allow the new usage. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 0 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. Finding: No impact-Following approval ofthe 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) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) is intended to lead to citywide permits and 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. Approval of the HMP by the USFWS and the Coastal Commission is pending. The open space preserve system and program es1ablished by the HMP is intended to replace that contained within the Open Space Element of the General Plan. As part of the planning process for the HMP, a citywide interconnected open space preserve system was identified. 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. No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site effect the property 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? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 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) 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? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). 33 Rev. 07/03/02 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? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and 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. 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) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground bourne vibration or ground bourne noise levels? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site 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) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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. 34 Rev. 07/03/02 c d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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) 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? 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. t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residiJ!g or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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. XD. 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)? Existing condition: The subject project is an existing commercial/motel 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 and associated uses and replacing them with a three story hotel. No increase in population is anticipated as a result of the service industry jobs related to the 60,251 square feet of commercial/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. 35 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 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 will be designated for urban development consistent with the City's General Plan. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 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 Hampton Inn Suites. A less than significant impact will occur as a result of the loss of one housing unit. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 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. 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? 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 this 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. ii. Police protection? 36 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 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. iii. Schools Existing condition: for schools. The proposed project is non-residential, and will not cause an increase in demand Environmental Evaluation: school student generation. The proposed project is non-residential, and will have no impact on Finding: No impact-The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. iv. Parks? Existing condition: The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. Environmental Evaluation: demand for parks. The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in Findin_g: No impact-The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 'spark requirement adequately. v. Other public facilities? 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 detennined 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 detennined by appropriate water district and must 37 Rev. 07/03/02 c 0 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. Wat~r: 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? Existing condition: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including 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 Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 'spark 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) 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? Existing condition: The proposed project does include recreational facilities. A pool, spa, and indoor exercise area will be constructed for the use of the hotels patrons. Environmental Evaluation: effect on the environment. The proposed recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical Finding: No impact-The proposed recreational facilities will not result in any adverse physical effect on the environment XV. TRANSPORTATION!fRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Existing condition: The subject project is located in the northeast quadrant ofthe city of Carlsbad, at the northeast comer of the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak A venue. 316 ADT are currently generated by the existing motel/restaurant use. 38 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 Environmental Evaluation: An analysis of traffic impacts projected of the proposed project has been prepared, Traffic Impact Analysis for Carlsbad Hampton Inn, Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, February 17, 2005) which analyzes the traffic generation from the proposed project. Pronosed Project: Use ADT AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak Hour-In Hour-Out Hour-In Hour-Out Existing Uses -28 room motel @ 7 ADT/room 196 Q 2 11 1 -1.200 sg.ft. restaurant@ 100 ADT/sf.ft 120 l Q 1 1 Proposed Uses -101 room hotel@ 7 ADT/room 707 23 34 38 26 Total 391 lQ 25 20 lQ Finding: Less than significant impact-The proposed project is projected to generate 707 ADT. Factoring in the loss of 316 ADT with the removal of the existing motel/restaurant, the new project will generate 391 additional ADT. This increase is not considered an increase so substantial that it will impact the existing roadway system in the vicinity of the site. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ofservice standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Existing condition: All street segments and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the subject project presently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods). Some intersections and roadway segments within the city operate at unacceptable levels of service, including freeway links and the Palomar Airport RoadiE} Camino Real intersection. The additional traffic generated by the project will cumulatively add to this traffic congestion. The proposed project will generate approximately 707 ADT. Environmental Evaluation: The increase of 707 ADT onto the adjacent street system will cumulatively contribute to impacted road segments or intersections exceeding the level of service standard established by SANDAG or by the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project will not significantly impact traffic flow in the area of the project. Finding: Potentially significant impact-The proposed project will add cumulatively to existing significant impacted traffic levels of service within the city. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Existing condition: patterns. The proposed project will have no impact on air traffic demand or air traffic Environmental Evaluation: The project will not have an impact on air traffic demand or patterns. Finding: No impact-The project will not generate or require air traffic and will not physically interfere with air traffic patterns. 39 Rev. 07/03/02 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Existing condition: The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for commercial/hotel serving projects. Environmental Evaluation: The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for commercial/hotel serving projects. This includes adequate fire access and vehicular circulation, and roadway widths, parking configuration, and length and widths of driveways. These standards have been adopted and have been demonstrated through long-term use to decrease hazards or incompatible uses. Finding: No impact-The project will not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Existing condition: The Carlsbad Fire Department is responsible for review of emergency access plans for development projects. The project site plan will be assessed for emergency access by the Fire Department prior to approval. Environmental Evaluation: The City will review the details of the proposed design of the Carlsbad Airport Hotels to ensure compliance with emergency access plans. Finding: No impact-The proposed project will be required to comply with emergency access plans, and the project will not affect any public or private access to other property. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Existing condition: The proposed project is required to comply with Chapter 21.44 (Parking) of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Evaluation: The City of Carlsbad will review the final site plan to ensure its compliance with the Parking Ordinance, and will not be approved if sufficient parking is not being provided. Therefore it can be concluded that adequate parking capacity will be provided for the project. Finding: No impact-Sufficient spaces will be provided onsite. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? Existing condition: The subject site is not identified on any regional or community plans relative to alternative transportation. Environmental Evaluation: The project is located on a site that is not considered integral to any alternative transportation policies. Thus the project will not conflict with any such policies. Finding: No impact-As a result of the fact that regional and local policies do not include any specific reference to the site in terms ofalternative transportation programs, facilities, it is concluded that the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project: 40 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Existing condition: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the existing motel/restaurant 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. 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? 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) 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? Existing condition: The proposed project site is an existing commercial/motel 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) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 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 hotel. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. 41 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 Finding: supplies. Less than significant impact -The project will not result in a significant impact to water 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? 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. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 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. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 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. XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The site drains directly into the Pacific Ocean. The project must also obtain a 42 Rev. 07/03/02 0 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 ofthe 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. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 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) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The project does J?,Ot 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 ofthis checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified. XVlll. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were 43 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis ofthis 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) 4. Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002). 5. San Diego County Important FarmlanQ, California Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 6. Uniform Building Code-Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B. 7. Special Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). 8. Traffic Impact Analysis. Carlsbad Hampton Inn, Linscott Law and Greenspan., (December 1, 2004). 9. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987). 10. Zoning Ordinance, City of Carlsbad 11. Grading Ordinance, City of Carlsbad 12. General Plan, City of Carlsbad ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DISCUSSION: AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides 44 Rev. 07/03/02 of nitrogen. and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non- attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects 45 Rev. 07/03/02 covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial·changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real has been mitigated to below a level of significance with new roadway improvements. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. 46 Rev. 07/03/02 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the development of the proposed project: 47 Rev. 07/03/02 .. Memorandum TO: Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner FROM: David Rick, Assistant Engineer DATE: April 6, 2005 RP 05-03/DEV 05-19/ZC 05-02/GPA 05-05/LCPA 05-02/SDP 05-04/EIA 05-02/CDP 05-14: DKN -HAMPTON INN COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items: 1. A Storm Water Management Plan completed, sealed and signed by a registered civil engineer. The following issues need to be resolved prior to resubmittal: 2. On the preliminary grading and drainage plan: a. Plot or identify with note the location of the nearest fire hydrant· and distance from building to said hydrant. b. Screen existing facilities and darken proposed facilities to make more distinguishable. c. Add potable and peak potable water and fire flow demand in.gpm. d. Add sewer generation. rate in million gallons per day. e. Under "Construction Legend for Surface Improvements" note No. 4, change "Private" to "Public". f. Identify the street signs along the property frontage, including the "Begin Park Parallel" and "End Parking to the Corner" signs. g. Identify Bus Stop on Carlsbad Blvd. h. Specify that the water line in Carlsbad Blvd. is ACP and show connecting line in Oak. i. Show southerly continuation of sewer main in Carlsbad Blvd. j. Add water meter symbols on Lincoln Street and irrigation BFP symbol on Carlsbad Blvd. The notes have leaders pointing at nothing. Also, plot all water service lines. k. Provide cross sections at the northerly and southerly boundary of Parcel three. I. Plot the water main in Lincoln Street and show all service lines to the subject property. m. Determine if the wood fence along the Lincoln Street frontage will remain or be removed. n. Add Top of Wall/Bottom of Wall elevations to those retaining walls that do not provide this information. 3. Plot intersection site distance for a vehicle exiting the driveway onto Carlsbad Blvd. and a trash truck backing onto Lincoln Street from the Service Entrance. Also, will the service entrance primarily be used for deliveries? 4. On Carlsbad Blvd., show sidewalk as existing and plot transition with abutting frontages. On Lincoln Street, plot existing sidewalk fronting the 7 -Eleven Shopping Center. 5. Provide a cross sectional profile of the driveway ramp and include BVC and EVC at the base of the driveway. Also, plot percent grade of the parking lot ramps and add vertical curves as needed. 6. The trash receptacles are placed on the north side of the Service Entrance on Sheet C-1 and on the south side on Sheet A-1. Since the driveway approach complies with City standards for separation from property line on Sheet C-1, this design should prevail. 7. Are Parcels 1-4, as described in the title report, separate legal parcels? If so, an adjustment plat may be necessary to consolidate the parcels into one. Provide documentation to support status. 8. Correct the street sections plotted on Sheet C-1. Identify east and west side of the cross section and show sidewalk on the east side of Carlsbad Blvd. as non- contiguous. Also, extend base an additional 6 inches beyond curb. 9. Plot the location of all tree trunks within the public right-of-way. Determine whether the trees will remain or be removed. Permission from the General Services Division of the City Parks and Recreation Department must be granted for any trees to be removed within the public right-of-way. 10. Clearly plot the proposed sidewalk as contiguous with the proposed curb and gutter on Lincoln Street. It appears that the sidewalk is proposed as non- contiguous with the sidewalk. Clearly show that the sidewalk will end at the southern boundary of the Lincoln Street project frontage and that sidewalk does not exist along the southerly abutting property. Plot edge of pavement and flow line and/or spot elevations within this area to illustrate adequate drainage and pavement transition. Add detail if needed. 11. Show drain inlet and dual alternating pumps for the ramp leading to the garage. How will the underground garage drain? Will rain/irrigation water reach this area? How will water from periodic cleaning of garage be extracted? Provide 0 explanation on plans. 12. Plot all existing and proposed sewer laterals and water service lines. Provide pipe material and size. Include water line and DOC valve for fire sprinkler system. If any of the existing water services and meters is not going to be used, identify as abandoned. Meters shall be placed in the public right-of-way. Check valves shall be placed on private property. 13. Correct the attached redlined hydrology report and submit two copies of corrected plan with your next submittal. 14. Drainage on Parcel 28 appears to flow northerly toward the subject property. A retaining wall is proposed at the property line. This wall will block drainage as designed. Provide a means to prevent ponding in this area. 15. Place D-25 manhole within the public right-of-way so that City may access for cleaning outlet. 16. Per the Storm Drain Legend, the "V" designation indicates that the minimum size of the proposed yard drain is 12". This size seems excessive. It appears that a lesser size would be adequate. Please reevaluate. 17. Provide a detail of the proposed wall on the north side of the driveway ramp. Given the depth of excavation, height of the wall to support the underground parking, the location at the property line and close proximity to the 7/11 Store, there are concerns about potential effects the excavation and wall could have on the neighboring property. In addition, it does not appear that enough space exists between the proposed wall and property line to accommodate an underground drainpipe. A cross section would help illustrate the proposed design. 18. Include the excavation quantities for the garage. 19. Address the issues/comments red lined in the soils report. 20. On Sheet CS, the owner's name should be the same as the name of the owner in title report. However, sheet CS states that the owner is DNK Hotels. The title report states that the estate is vested in "Dahya Bhai L. Patel and Shantaben Patel, husband and wife as joint tenants, as to Parcels 1, 2 and 3 and Dahya Patel, a married man as his sole and separate property, as to Parcel 4. Please clarify. Correct property owner needs to be placed on Sheet CS. 21. Correct the ADT on Sheet CS to read 8/unit = 808 ADT. Also, subtract existing ADT to establish net increase. 22. Indicate on cover sheet that fire sprinklers will be installed. 23. Some of the bearings and distances vary several feet or minutes from record information. Please correct accordingly. 0 0 24. Add a note to the plans stating that the overhead utilities along Lincoln Street frontage will be placed underground. 25. On Sheet A-10 (Building Sections), show adjacent buildings such as ?-Eleven. Also, plot ground water table and identify lateral loads from excavation for underground garage based on 1:1 inclination. 26. Are any doors, meters or other routinely accessed facilities located behind the 7- Eleven building? If so, how will access be maintained given that the grade will be lowered for the driveway ramp? 27. Correct the traffic study per redlined comments. 28. Due to proposed land use changes, provide a water and sewer analysis to determine ability of existing City infrastructure to accept any additional demand. Please submit all redlined documents and plans with your next submittal. Three copies of each corrected document shall be submitted. If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 2781. DAVID RICK Assistant Engineer Development Services Division Attachment: Redlined grading and drainage plan Redlined Hydrology Report Redlined Soils Report Redlined Traffic Report C: Senior Engineer -Development Services Division Project Planner-Van Lynch Tribal Council Russell Romo Captain Carmen Mojado Secretary of Guvemment Relations Charlotte Herrera Secretary of the Treasury Tom Beltran Secretary of Economic Development AI Cerda Secretary ofTn"bal Ethics and Infonnation OaraGuy Tribal Elder Henry Contreras Council Member Mel Vernon Council Member Mary Lou Beltran Council Member Carrie Lopez Tribal Advisor Merri Lopez, Esq. Tribe Legal Advisor Contact information 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, CA 92<m Tel: (760) 724-8505 Fax: (760) ?24-2172 Revised: 01/05 SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, Ca 92081 Tel: (760) 724-8505 Fax: (760) 724-2172 RE: SENATE BILL ~to a regarding the above referenced Specific Plan. Please send us a copy of your cultural resources . report. The ----------------------------------------------------- aoes not wish to enter into a formal consultation witlltne regarding the above referenced pvaject and Specific Plan. We understand that this does not limit our ability to comment or claim any arifacts or cultural articles if they are found during excavation or any ground disturbance. The San Luis Rey Band is to ~otified so a monitor can be sent to the project. L~/f ~ttdl v~~RStJs-{?t?o) sign•jik;dz · {! 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 I 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 buildirlg and a wen thought out use, what the community will get from this hotet is a maximum room count and tittle else that is positive for the village. ln 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 "mis-labeled'' 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. In direct contrast to this statement, almost half of the ground floor street frontage, the area labeled "breakfast roorn" and its outdoor patio, will not be used in the operation of the hoteL lt will not be used because the development has no parking to support it All 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?. lf walk up businesses can use this streetside room/patio, that fact should be noted as part of your approvaL If walk up uses are not part of your approval, due to parking, these areas will be lifetess. This development will remove the existing Armenian restaurant and replace it with a use that is only half VJorked 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 special place. The hotel has been allowed to maximize Its building form. As I understand It, the building is a three story structure everywhere over its footprint The building has also 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 styre. This style has its history in the village but it does not work well on an 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 (corner of Grand and Roosevelt is a good example) and require it on those developments. c I appreciate and support the owner bringing to the city plans to upgrade their 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. Respectfully. Cc Debbie Fountain March 8, 2007 DKN Hotels Suite 214 540 Golden Circle Drive Santa Ana CA 92075 City nLQCOPY mcu· ted <oh/07 of Carlsbad IQFIIIIII.t.i•X§.£1111·14111 PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION SUBJECT: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/CDP 05-14/SDP 05-04-DKN HOTEL At the Planning Commission meeting of March 7, 2007, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6 -0 to RECOMMEND APPROVAL/APPROVE. The decision of the Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 602-4600. DONNED Planning Director DN:VL:bd Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6254, 6255, 6256, 6257, 6258 and 6259 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 <> www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, BOOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-8251 Fax (916) 657·5390 Web Site www nahc ca goy &-mall: ds_nahc@pacbell.net Mr. Cliff Jones CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 'If II \J (\ (,) -e. January 5, 2007 \d' RECEIVED JAN 0 8 2007 STATE CLEARING HOUSE Re: SCH#20061211 06; CEQA Notice of Completion: Initial Study/Negative Declaration for DKN-Marriot Springhill Suites-GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14: City of Carlsbad: San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Jones: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced document. The Native American Heritage Commission is the state's Trustee Agency for Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per CEQA guidelines§ 15064.5(b)(c). In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action: ..J Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS). The record search will determine: • If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. ..J If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center . ..J Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for: * A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity who may have additional cultural resource information. Please provide this office with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands File search request: USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle citation with name. township. range and section: . • The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached list to get their input on potential project impact, particularly the contacts of the on the list. ..J Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans . .J Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. * CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5{d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens . .J Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 {d) ofthe CEQA Guidelines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery . .J Lead agencies should consider avoidance. as defined in § 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines. when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of project planning. Please feetfree to contact me at {916) 653-6251 if you have any questions. Sincerer L[Ji,~~ Cc: State Clearinghouse Program lyst Attachment: List of Native American Contacts .. c City of Carlsbad I#IJbhhlhi•i•J§.fJIIIel§bl January 26, 2007 Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 05-05-DKN HO;TEL Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on March 7, 2007. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by February 14, 2007, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. Please submit the following plans: A) 15 copies of your site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans, floor plans on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 9" x 12" size. B) One 8%" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans. 2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. B) 1 00' Occupant List -(Coastal Development Permits Only) a typewritten list of names and addresses of all occupants within a 100 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us (!) GPA 05-05-DKN HOTEL c January 26, 2007 Page2 VL:bd C) Mailing Labels -two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owner and occupants within a 600 and 100 foot radius respectively of the subject property. For any address other than a single-family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt, Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt, and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: ACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 1 23 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 ACCEPTABLE (with APN) 209-060-34-00 MRS JANE SMITH APT 3 1 23 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 D) Radius Map -a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these. lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. E) Fee -a fee shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash check (payable to the City of Carlsbad) and credit cards are accepted. Attachment • c I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER DKN HOTEL GPA 05-05 APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: ----------------------- DATE: ____________________ __ RECEIVED BY DATE: ____________________ __ c 5 T A T E OF C A L I F 0 R N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit January 26, 2007 Van Lynch I Cliff Jones City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Springhill Suites-GPA 05-051ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-031SDP 05-041CDP 05-14 SCH#: 2006121106 Dear Van Lynch I Cliff Jones: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on January 25,2007, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 211 04( c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your fmal environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review proces.s. Sincerely, '!:::::i ~z;- Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report --, State Clearinghouse Data Bas~ SCH# 2006121106 Project Title Springhill Suites-GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14 Lead Agency Carlsbad, City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description 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 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. Lead Agency Contact Name Van Lynch I Cliff Jones Agency City of Carlsbad Phone (760) 602-4613/434-2813 email Address City 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad Project Location San Diego Carlsbad County City Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak Avenue 203-250-08 and 26 Range Proximity to: Highways 1-5 Airports McClellan I Palomar Railways NCTD Waterways Pacific Ocean Schools Jefferson ES Fax State CA Zip 92008 Section Base Land Use 28 room hotel, 1125 square foot restaurant and a single family residence I Village Redevelopment (VR) and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) I Village Redevelopment (V} I Residential High Density (RH) Project Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Office of Emergency Services; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Water Resources; California Coastal Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Date Received 12/27/2006 Start of Review 12/27/2006 End of Review 01/25/2007 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 9001 3 January 22, 2007 Van Lynch I Cliff Jones City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Van Lynch & Cliff Jones: ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor Re: SCH# 20061221106; Springhill Suites-GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05- 04/CDP 05-14 The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway-rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings. Commission staff is concerned that the new development near Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak Avenue (lat=33.156846, long=-117.344842) may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings: 1. Grand A venue (DOT 026820X) . 2. Carlsbad Village Drive (DOT 026821E) 3. Tamarack Avenue (DOT 026822L) Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not limited to, grade separation of major thoroughfares, safety improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to an increase in traffic volumes and appropriate fencing to limit the access of trespassers to railroad right-of-way. The Commission did not receive a copy of the Negative Declaration from the State Clearinghouse. Please provide us with a copy for review. The City of Carlsbad should arrange a meeting with the Commission's Rail Crossings Engineering Section and North County Transit District (NCTD) to discuss relevant safety issues and, if necessary, file a 0088-B request for authority to modify an at-grade crossmg. Please advise us on the status of the project. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (213) 576-7078 or at rxm@cpuc.ca.gov. ''*'~lnLuJOZ, p ·----Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section Consumer Protection & Safety Division C: Richard Walker, NCTD Z,. l"l·D-q. 0 0 Fll£ COPY City of Carlsbad I@FJ,J,JI,J.i•J§.filll•l§hl february 13, 2007 Planning Systems 1530 ~araday Avenue, Suite 100 Carfsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/.t.CPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SOP 05-04/COP 05-14-OK<N HOTEL The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, February 21, 2007, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be hekf on February 26, 2007. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning_your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted .colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. Your colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, your pro;ect could be rescheduled to a later time. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, ~ease make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please .contact your Planner, Van Lynch at (760) 602-4613. DON NEU Assistant Ptanning Director DN:VL:aw c: 'FHeCopy Project Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us <i) Page 1 of2 Van Lynch -Re: Fw: DKN Hotel From: "Paul Klukas" <pklukas@planningsystems.net> To: "Van Lynch" <VIync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 01/26/2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Fw: DKN Hotel CC: "Cliff Jones" <Cjones@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, "David Rick" <Drick@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, "Kenny Booth" <kbooth@planningsystems.net> Van: The highest priority to the applicant is to stay on schedule for the soonest possible hearing. And the civil engineer does not have the time available to modify the engineering site plan in the timeframe necssary to stay on schedule. Also, I worry about the inconsitency with plans if we prepare one (civil) plan which is different than the landscaping, etc. So I think we would prefer to go forward with what we have and deal with any changes as substantial conformance. And if the changes from the additional land are too great for substantial conformance, then we will just go with the project as is, or with very minor expansion of central court, or with just a deeper landscaping area on Lincoln. · Thanks for advising us of the availability of the additional land on Lincoln St. but at this late date we would request to proceed as is. Paul Klukas -----Original Message ---- From: Van Lynch To: Paul Klukas Cc: Cliff Jones ; David Rick ; Kenny Booth Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:20 AM Subject: Re: Fw: DKN Hotel Paul: Engineering would need to see the plans revised to reflect the changes and I would be interested to see how the new building foot print would be expanded, especially near Mr Korn's property. David and I would consider doing this to be at a later date givin the timeframe we are under to get this to hearing. The issue would be if there were any problems with the expansion of the facility with the neighbors. I feel that this could be done under a consistency determination, if done in a sensitive way as to not upset the neighbor to the south. I don't know how long it would take on the applicant's side to prep some plans to reflect the proposed changes-primarily the civil plan. I would not need any mods to the architectural as they would not be changing (except for maybe a little at the southeast corner which should pose any problems). So let me know if the civil could be changed prior to hearing and that we are in agreement as to the extent of the modifications needed for the site plan as to not cause any hardships on the neighbors. Let me know if you need any more direction. Van >>>"Paul Klukas" <pklukas@planningsystems.net> 01/24/07 11:04 AM >>> Van: Response from DKN below. How should I reply to him? Paul Klukas -----Original Message ----- file://C:\Documents and Settings\vlync\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 01/26/2007 ... From: Kiran Patel To: Paul Klukas Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1 0:54 AM Subject: RE: DKN Hotel Paul, Page 2 of2 I would like to extend the room and take advantage of this. At the same time I do not want to delay or go thru changing drawings at this stage. Can this be an option for us to visit once we get approval? Do we have a confirmed hearing date? Kiran From: Paul Klukas [mailto:pklukas@planningsystems.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:38AM To: Kiran Patel Cc: Kenny Booth Subject: Fw: DKN Hotel Kiran: The City says we can have 10 more ft. of buildable area if we like on the Carlsbad project. Your thoughts on this? See below. Paul Klukas -----Original Message ----- From: Van Lynch To: Kenny Booth ; Paul Klukas Cc: Cliff Jones; David Rick Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:22 PM Subject: DKN Hotel Paul: In looking at the site plan yet again, it appears that there is an opportunity to acquire excess right-of- way from Lincoln Street. The two parcels to the south have previously been given (if thats the right word - probably not) 10 feet of excess right-of-way. The street is now 80 feet wide and we only need 60 feet of ROW. So that would allow 10' (possibly a little less) for the project. I don't know if the applicant wants this for additional room size (keep in mind Mr Korn and the location of the corners of the building) or landscaping. Just an offer and to put the issue to rest prior to completing the project for hearing. Let me know, Thanks, Van file://C:\Documents and Settings\vlync\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 01/26/2007 P1"'-", ~-----------------------L-r--------------------------~~------------~-------. PLA.NNING I SYSTEMS _ LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCIDTECTURE • LAJ900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION October 30, 2006 Mr. Cliff Jones CITY OF CARLSBAD Housing & Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt St. Ste B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/DEV 05-19/LCPA 05-02/ZC 05-02/GPA 05-05- DKN Springhill Suites Dear Cliff: Per your letter dated August 30, 2006 identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal of the above-referenced project, the project applicant has commissioned modifications to the project design and the provision of the additional information requested. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find a re-submittal package including: • Five (5) sets of revised plans • Landscape redlines • Materials and color board With regard to the specific items and issues identified in the August 30 letter, the following is a discussion of the method in which the redesigned project addresses the general issues, followed by a specific response to each item/issue identified by City Staff, in the order presented in your draft letter. Issues of Concern Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: 1. As mentioned in previous correspondence, staff has concern regarding the look of the roof of the proposed building. Any modifications to the roof to make it appear more like a true roof (consistent I»ith the architectural design chosen) would benefit the project. The dormers could be integrated into the roof line rather than just "planted on" and the roof line could also benefit from the use of larger/lengthier exposed eaves. Additionally, the mansard roof could be broken up more I as viewed from the north and south. Response: Pursuant to the conclusions of our meeting on October 5, we have prepared computer/artist renderings (Sheets A-15 & A-16) which have been included into the plan package. These renderings better depict that the eaves will project only 24" from the fa~ade, with dormers extending only up to 36" from the fa~ade. The mansard roofline steps in and out with the relief in the fa~ade. We are very pleased with the architectural design and roofline as shown on these computer-based renderings. We are hopeful that these provide an understandable visual simulation of the roofline and architecture of the project. · 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net 2. Staff is concerned with the elevation depicted as Elevation B on Sheet A-7. The roofline at the northeast corner ends nine feet from the property line. Staff is concerned how this will look. Additional articulation should be incorporated at this location or the applicant should consider planted ltindscaping that grows tall to improve the look of this corner. Additionally, no detail is provided regarding the look of the east side of the building that projects above the existing 7-11 shopping center. Please provide det~il on how this elevation will look and provide articulation as necessary. Response: Elevation B-1 was added for clarity as requested at the October 5 meeting. The stairwell is defined by a higher parapet and wood brace detailing. Additional detailing was added to the north elevation as shown in the elevation. 3. Staff suggests the southwest elevation of the building that has no windows could use more building articulation in line with the architectural theme already chose for the project. Response: This 12'-0" wide portion of the elevation contains relief at the ground level in the form of a covered patio, and is capped by a mansard roof and roof terrace. The blank wall portion in-between provides a nice canvas for the hotel identification signage as seen on elevation F I A-8. 4. The elevator necessary to access the roof deck at the south elevation could benefit from architectural screening. Response: The elevator override parapet massing is set back 9' from the face of the stair gable end roofline. This can be seen in the 3-D shadow studies on sheet A-ll and View 13-D sketch on sheet A-15. The line weights on the elevations have been adjusted to better depict the relief. 5. On Sheet A-14 please correct "Building Section X" illustration to reflect a residential building not hotel suites. Response: 13. The notation has been corrected. The sections now appear on Sheet A- 6. On Sheet A-14 please indicate the building setbacks for "Building Section" illustration. Response: The setbacks have been indicated and can be seen on Sheet A-13. 7. Please provide an updated color and materials board. Response: An updated color and materials board has been included with this re- submittal, as requested. 8. Once the final design is acceptable to staff, the applicant should consider providing artist renderings or photo simulation in order to better demonstrate to the public what the final building will look like. Response: Two artist renderings have been included in the plan sets on Sheet A-16 for staff review. Colored renderings mounted on boards will be provided prior to public hearing or at Staff's request. 2 Landscape: 1. Plans are too conceptual to allow for an appropriate review. There is one symbol used for several trees/palms. In several cases the list of possible trees/palms has plants that are drastically different. One symbol is used for all shrubs where the list of shrubs is very different in character . . Please provide one symbol for each tree and palm unless they have the same character (i.e. evergreen of same height and width and character) and provide one symbol for each type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen screen shrub; medium evergreen shrub; small flowering accent shrub; etc.). Final comments are reserved pending more complete plans. Response: The plant legend has been revised and now shows all symbols used on the landscape plan. · 2. , Please identify all symbols used on the plans. Check all symbols. Response: All symbols have now been shown on the legend. 3. Please address planting of all landscape areas. Response: All planting areas have been illustrated to define their treatments. 4. Provide detailed information as to the expected ultimate size of the plants that are to be grown in the containers. Response: Size data has been added to the legend. 5. There appear to be windows with views out to the 6' masonry wall along the southeast side of the building. Please provide landscaping along this wall and enhance views. Response: Vines have been added to the inside face of the masonry wall along the southeast side of the building. 6. Please show and label all property lines and easements on the landscape plans. Response: All property lines have been shown on the landscape plan. 7. Provide a plant palette list indicating the following: a. Tree types and quantities b. Shrub types and quantities (approximate) . c. Proposed plant sizes (either by number or% of total quantity) Response: information. The plant legend has been updated to include the requested 8. All planting areas shall be outlined as one of the four planting zones below and described in Appendix A: Zone One Lush Zone Two Refined Zone Three Naturalizing/Transitional Zone Four Native Response: The landscape plan has no Zone 3 or Zone 4. Zone 1 is identified and all other areas are Zone 2. A note has been added to the plan indicating the Zone breakdown. 3 I PLANNING I SYSTEMS • 9. Indicate the percentage of the landscaped area (as defined in Appendix G) of each planting zone as described in Section A.S-3 and Appendix A. Response: A note on planting zones has been added to the landscape plan. 10. Show and label any bio-swales/detention basins or underground drainage collection systems (in or under planting areas that could impact the planting) and work these facilities into the design. Response: All drainage collection systems proposed as part of the project have been labeled on the landscape plan. 11. 50% of the shrubs (except on slopes 3:1 or steeper) shall be a minimum 5 gallon size. Please insure this requirement is met. Response: gallon size. At least 50% of the shrubs proposed for this project shall be a minimum 5 12. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. Response: Existing utilities have been labeled. There are no street lights within the public right-of-way. 13. Plans shall include but not be limited to: a. Extent of Planting Zone 1 (Lush)-Indicate percentage of Zone 1 planting (per Appendix A) of the total landscaped area (as defined in Appendix G). Provide justification for the appropriateness of where Zone 1 plantings are used in terms of water conservation. (For example, are Zone 1 plantings in areas of shade where they will use less water and/or has the soil been suitably amended so as to retain relatively greater moisture?) b. Proposed turf areas. (see limitations in JY.C.3-4.2) Give percentage of turf of the total landscaped area. Response: The plan proposed no turf other than the existing turf located in the public right-of-way. 14. Plan notes indicate that other than the turf, there are no zone 1 plantings. Plans ca,ZZ for Cyperus which is zone 1. Please revise notes as appropriate. Include all zone 1 plantings in the percentage calculations per comment numbers 10 and 14 above. Response: The notes and percentage calculations have been revised. 15. Per the water conservation section of the manual (C.3-4.6), woody shrubs must be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% of the groundcover area at maturity. Please insure that this requirement is met. Response: A section titled "Herbaceous Groundcover" has been added to the legend and the landscape plan now meets this standard. 16. Please reduce the percentage of turf to meet requirements of the landscape manual section IV, C.3- 4.2-1. 4 ~ 'W Response: The plan proposed no turf other than the existing turf located in the public right-of-way. 17. Please clearly indicate and label the precise location of the Red Fescue planting on the plans. Response: The Red Fescue has been labeled on the landscape plan. 18. It is recommended that landscaping be included along the southwest side of the pool to soften and enhance this wall. Please address. Response: Vines have been added to the area along the southwest side of the pool. 19. Return redlines and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept and water conservation) on the next submittal. Response: The redlined plans have been returned along with 2 copies of the revised landscape plan. Thank you for your continued assistance with the planning of this project. With these minor revisions, we are hopeful that the project design is now acceptable for docketing for Design Review Board/Planning Commission hearing. Sincerely, ~~)~ Director of Planning cc: Neil Patel Attachments 5 L_ Legend c:==::::J Building Height < 15' c:==::::J Building Height 15'-29' c::::JBuilding Height 30'-34' Building Height 35'+ r::z:zz1 Proposed DKN Hotel DKN Surf Motel-Vicinity Heights Analysis Existina Conditions Carlsbad, Caiifornia July 13, 2006 PS# 041030 Scale: 1" = 150' ..... ~ ..... ..,.. .. IlL"",. ~---.-c..-............ '";roo$"'- August30,2006 DKN HOTELS 540 GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE #214 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SUBJECT: DKN-Marriott (RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, COP 05-14, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05) APN: 203-250-08 & 203-250-26 The purpose of this letter is to address issues of concern raised by City staff following a review of the revised plans. The issues of concern are attached for your review. These issues mu~t be addressed prior to staff making a formal recommendation on the project. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, ~~ CLIFF JONES Assistant Planner c: Kenny Booth, Planning Systems Van Lynch, Planning File 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 (!) DKN Marriott 08/30/2006 Page 2 of4 c 0 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, COP 05-14, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05 Staff has completed a review of the subject project for issues of concern. The following items need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project: (Please note, the issues are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.) Housing & Redevelopment & Planning: 1 . As mentioned in previous correspondence, staff has concern regarding the look of the roof of the proposed building. Any modifications to the roof to make it appear more like a true roof (consistent with the architectural design chosen) would benefit the project. The dormers could be integrated into the roof line rather than just "planted on" and the roof line could also benefit from the use of larger/lengthier exposed eaves. Additionally, the mansard roof could be broken up more as viewed from the north and south. 2. Staff is concerned with the elevation depicted as Elevation 8 on Sheet A-7. The roofline at the northeast corner ends nine feet from the property line. Staff is concerned how this will look. Additional articulation should be incorporated at this location or the applicant should consider planted landscaping that grows tall to improve the look of this corner. Additionally, no detail is provided regarding the look of the east side of the building that projects above the existing 7-11 shopping center. Please provide detail on how this elevation will look and provide articulation as necessary. 3. Staff suggests the southwest elevation of the building that has no windows could use more building articulation in line with the architectural theme already chosen for the project. 4. The elevator necessary to access the roof deck at the south elevation could benefit from architectural screening. 5. On Sheet A-14 please correct "Building Section X" illustration to reflect a residential building not hotel suites. 6. On Sheet A-14 please indicate the building setbacks for "Building Section" illustration. 7. Please provide an updated color & materials board. 8. Once the final design is acceptable to staff, the applicant should consider providing artist renderings or photo simulation in order to better demonstrate to the public what the final building will look like. For questions regarding Housing & Redevelopment Department and Planning comments, please contact Cliff Jones at 760-434-2813. Landscape: 1. Plans are too conceptual to allow an appropriate review. There is one symbol used for several trees/palms. In several cases the list of possible trees/palms has plants that are drastically different. One symbol is used for all shrubs where the list of shrubs is very different in character. Please provide one symbol for each tree and palm unless they have DKN Marriott 08/30/2006 0 Page 3 of4 the same character (i.e. evergreen of same height and width and character} and provide one symbol for each type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen screen shrub; medium evergreen shrub; small flowering accent shrub; etc.}. Final comments are reserved pending more complete plans. 2. Please identify all symbols used on the plans. Check all symbols. 3. Please address planting of all landscape areas. 4. Provide detailed information as to the expected ultimate size of the plants that are to be grown in the containers. 5. There appear to be windows with views out to the 6' masonry wall along the southeast side of the building. Please provide landscaping along this wall to soften and enhance views. 6. Please show and label all property lines and easements on the landscape plans. 7. Provide a plant palette list indicating the following: a. Tree types and quantities b. Shrub types and quantities (approximate} c. Proposed plant sizes (either by number or % of total quantity} 8. All planting areas shall be outlined as one of the four planting zones below and described in Appendix A: Zone One Lush Zone Two Refined Zone Three Naturalizing/Transitional Zone Four Native 9. Indicate the percentage of the landscaped area (as defined in Appendix G) of each planting zone as described in Section A. 5-3 and Appendix A 10. Show and label any bio-:swales/detention basins or underground drainage collection systems (in or under planting areas that could impact the planting} and work these facilities into the design. 11. 50% of the shrubs (except on slopes 3:1 or steeper} shall be a minimum 5 gallon size. Please insure this requirement is met. 12. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Please also locate all light poles on the landscape plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 13. Plans shall include but not be limited to: a. Extent of Planting Zone 1 (Lush} -Indicate percentage of Zone 1 planting (per Appendix A) of the total landscaped area (as defined in Appendix G). Provide justification for the appropriateness of where Zone 1 plantings are used in terms of water conservation. (For example, are Zone 1 plantings in areas of shade where they will use less water and/or has the soil been suitably amended so as to retain relatively greater moisture?) b. Proposed turf areas. (See limitations in IV.C.3-4.2) Give percentage of turf of the total landscaped area. 14. Plan notes indicate that other than the turf, there are no zone 1 plantings. Plans call for Cyperus which is zone 1. Please revise notes as appropriate. Include all zone 1 plantings in the percentage calculations per comment numbers 1 0 and 14 above. 15. Per the water conservation section of the manual (C.3-4.6), woody shrubs must be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% of the groundcover area at maturity. Please insure that this requirement is met. 16. Please reduce the percentage of turf to meet requirements of the landscape manual section IV, C.3-4.2-1. 1 7. Please clearly indicate and label the precise location of the Red Fescue planting on the plans. DKN Marriott 08/30/2006 Page4 of4 c 1 8. It is recommended that landscaping be included along the southwest side of the pool to soften and enhance this wall. Please address. 19. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept and water conservation) on the next submittal. For questions regarding Landscape Consultant comments, please contact Michael Elliott at 760-944-1620. ..-.. ~--------------------~ ~------------------------,~~--------------------~ PLANNING I SYSTEMS • July 14, 2006 Cliff Jones CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USFJCOASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPEARCHJTECTURE•LA3~ POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION Housing & Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt St. Ste B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RECEIVED JUL 14 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/DEV 05-19/LCPA 05-02/ZC 05-02/GPA 05-05- DKN Springhill Suites Dear Cliff: Per your letter dated March 1, 2006 identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal of the above-referenced project, the project applicant has commissioned modifications to the project design and the provision of the additional information requested regarding the project. To this end, attached with this cover Jetter please find a re-submittal package including: · • Five (5) sets of revised plans • Height Analysis • CDP fee of $3,817.80 • Variance Findings • Pool Area Detail Exhibit With regard to the specific items and issues identified in the March 1letter, the following is a discussion of the method in which the redesigned project addresses the general issues, followed by a specific response to each item/issue identified by City Staff, in the order presented in your draft letter. Issues of Concern Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: 1. Please replace the DEV 05-19 #with the Coastal Development Permit# (CDP 05- ·14) on the front cover sheet of the plans. Response: DEV 05-19 has been replaced by CDP 05-14 on all plan sheets. 2. . Please correct the spelling error on the front cover sheet under Developer to read "DKN Hotels". Response: The spelling error on the Cover Sheet (CS) has been revised. It now reads "DKN Hotels". 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (7160) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net 3. Staff recently noticed that a fee was not collected for CDP 05-14. A fee for the CDP will need to be collected. The fee will need to be broken down by zoning. Staff will need to collect $560 for the VR zoning and $835.00 + .10 per square foot for the area outside the VR zoning. Please contact staff for more information. Bl1·80 Response: A check for $3,817.80 is included with~ re-submittal. ~0 Breakdown as follows: f trJ fD, -1-z.. 11.. " ~ z S 36,954 sq. ft. x .10 = $3,695.40 + $835.00 + $560 (-25% discount) = $3,817.80 o/=--~ 4. Staff counts a total of 105 rooms. Each room that has a door and diiect access to the main hall way should be calculated in the room count. This has an effect on the parking calculation. Please revise the plans accordingly. Response: After redesign of the hotel, the room count now stands at 104. All rooms that have a door and direct access to the main hallway have been included in this count. Correspondingly, the parking calculations have been revised to properly match the room count. 5. Architectural features may only encroach two feet in required yards. Please make sure that all overhangs and columns are at least 3 feet back from the front property line. Response: The plans have been revised to show that all ovethangs and columns encroach no more than 2 feet into all required yards, including the front property line. This can be seen on the Roof Plan (Sheet A-9). 6. Please provide section detail and elevations of the proposed property line walls so staff can evaluate design. Response: Elevations and section details of the proposed property line walls have been provided. These can be seen on SheetA-15. 7. Staff does not have enough information to evaluate the proposed signage. Signage will require a separate permit; therefore it may be best to eliminate the signage plan Sheet A-ll for now. The signage can be approved as part of a sign permit separate from the major redevelopment permit. We apologize for the confusion. Response: The signage plan (Sheet A -11) has been eliminated from the plans as requested. An application for a sign permit will be initiated after the hearings and approval of the project. · 8. Staff assumes the building height displayed on the elevation sheets is displayed from the most restrictive point (of existing or finished grade). Is that correct? Response: Building height has been calculated from existing grade to the top of the parapet. This is the most restrictive point since there will be 1-2 feet of fill soil which has been included in the height calculation. This information can be seen on Sheet A-10. 2 c 9. Staff has not received the necessary variance findings to support the northern portion of the building to abut the adjacent 7-11 use. Please provide the support for the variance findings required under 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Response: Included with this re-submittal are draft variance findings to support the northern portion of the building abutting the adjacent 7-11 property. The findings have been made as required under 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Engineering: 1. Label private drainage easement as shown on redlines. Response: The Engineering plans have been revised and the private drainage easement has been ,properly labeled. Fire: 1. The breakfast room measures greater than 750 square feet, thus it requires two exits equal to one-half of the rooms diagonal measurement. Response: Two separate exits from the breakfast room have been provided. This can be seen on the First Floor Plan (Sheet A-2). 2. Provide a walkway from the meeting room westward to the public way (Carlsbad Blvd) joining the outdoor dining or patio area. Response: A walkway has beeri added from the meeting rooms westward toward Carlsbad Boulevard. The walkway will give patrons exiting the treeting rooms access to both the outdoor dining/patio area and Carlsbad Boulevard. This can be seen on Sheet A-2. 3. The "rated" corridor shall not be interrupted by intervening room(s). Refer to CBC 1004.2.2 "Interveni ng Rooms". Response: A pair of doors with magnetic hold-open devices has been added to separate the 1-hour corridor from the public space intervening room. The corridor has a direct exit to the south elevation. This information can be seen on Sheet A-2. 4. Provide a detail of the pool area and enclosure and gates including proposed hardware. Note: all gates shall be provided with panic hardware. Response: As requested, an 8 W' x 11" exhibit has been included that provides a detail of the pool area and gates. 3 Additional City Comments: 1. Include a shade I shadow study for the proposed portion of the hotel nearest the neighboring property to the south as well as for a potential residential project on the existing R-3 portion of the property. · Response: A shade/ shadow comparative analysis for a potential hotel use and residential use (on the existing R-3 portion of the property) has been included with this re-submittal. This analysis can be seen on Sheets A-12 through A-14. · 2. Please provide a height analysis of the proposed project in relation to neighboring properties. Response: A height analysis of the subject project in relation to neighboriri.g properties has been included as part of this re-submittal. The analysis shows the existing building heights in the vicinity of the proposed project. 3. Include colored elevations. Response: Colored elevations for the proposed hotel have been included as part of this re-submittal package. 4. Consider lowering the roof pitch along Lincoln A venue and the side of the hotel. Try to make it look more like a true roof line. In doing so, this may also lower the overall height of the project along Lincoln Avenue. Response: We have conducted a detailed analysis of the option of lowering the roof pitch in this area It is our conclusion that a lower roof pitch is not . physically and structurally compatible with the gable projections and roofline of the remainder of the project. The eave has been lowered to sit on top of the top plate, resulting in a larger roof area. The height along Lincoln Avenue (as measured from existing grade) is now 34' 6". Thank you for your continued assistance with the planning of this project. With these minor revisions, we are hopeful that the project design is now acceptable. We look forward uow to docketing for Design Review Board/Planning Commission hearing. Paul J. Klukas Director of Planning cc: Neil Patel Attachments 4 '' ' ....... '.' ... ' ........ '.'. ' ... '.' ..... '' .. ' ... ' .. '' ................ ' .............. . 5ft iron fenc.e 4 self c.losing gate wl panic. hardware 6ft masonry wall--- 5ft iron fenc.e 4 self c.losing gate w/ panic. hardware . . '...... . '. . .......................... ' ...... ' ....... ' ..... . building wall 4 door 6ft masonry wall 5ft iron fenc.e 4 self c.losing gate wl panic. hardware () () March 1, 2006 DKN HOTELS ~"""'· '-' Ci 540 GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE #214 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SUBJECT: The purpose of this letter is to address issues of concern raised by City staff following a review of the revised plans. The issues of concern are attached for your review. These issues must be addressed prior to staff making a formal recommendation on the project. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, ~~ CLIFF JONES Assistant Planner c: Kenny Booth, Planning Systems Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director Greg Ryan, Fire Van Lynch, Planningl David Rick, Engineering File 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 <!) DKN Hampton Inn 03/01/2006 Page 2 of3 0 0 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, CDP 05-14, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05 Staff has completed a review of the subject project for issues of concern. The following items need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project: (Please note, the issues are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.) Housing & Redevelopment & Planning: 1. Please replace the DEV 05-19 #with the Coastal Development Permit# (COP 05-14) on the front cover sheet of the plans. 2. Please correct the spelling error on the front cover sheet under Developer to read "DKN Hotel". 3. Staff recently noticed that a fee was not collected for CDP 05-14. A fee for the COP will need to be collected. The fee will need to be broken down by zoning. Staff will need to collect $560 for the VR zoning and $835.00 + .10 per square foot for the area outside the VR zoning. Please contact staff for more information. 4. Staff counts a total of 1 05 rooms. Each room that has a door and direct access to the main hall way should be calculated in the room count. This has an effect on the parking calculation. Please revise the plans accordingly. 5. Architectural features may only encroach two feet into required yards. Please make sure that all overhangs and columns are at least 3 feet back from the front property line. 6. Please provide section detail and elevations of the proposed property line walls so staff can evaluate design. 7. Staff does not have enough information to evaluate the proposed signage. Signage will require a separate permit; therefore it may be best to eliminate the signage plan sheet A-11 for now. The signage can be approved as part of a sign permit separate from the major redevelopment permit. We apologize for the confusion. 8. Staff assumes the building height displayed on the elevation sheets is displayed from the most restrictive point (of existing or finished grade). Is that correct? 9. Staff has not received the necessary variance findings to support the northern portion of the building to abut the adjacent 7-11 use. Please provide the support for the variance findings required under 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. For questions regarding Housing & Redevelopment Department and Planning comments, please contact Cliff Jones at 760-434-2813. Fire: 1. The breakfast room measures greater than 750 square feet, thus it requires two exits equal to one-half of the rooms diagonal measurement. DKN Hampton Inn 03/01/2006 Page 3 of3 - 2. Provide a walkway form the meeting room westward to the public way (Carlsbad Boulevard) joining the outdoor dining or patio area. 3. The "rated" corridor shall not be interrupted by intervening room(s). Refer to CBC 1004.2.2 "Intervening Rooms" 4. Provide a detail of the pool area and enclosure and gates including proposed hardware. Note: All gates shall be provided with panic hardware. For questions regarding Fire Department comments, please contact Greg Ryan at 760-602- 4663. Engineering: Engineering Department comments are forthcoming and will be sent under a separate cover. 0 21.35.117 21.35.117 Notice of publi~ hearings. Notice of any public hearing required by this chap- ter shall be given as provided in Section 21.54.060( 1) of this code. (Ord. NS-330 § 4 (part), 1995) 21.35.ll0 Consolidation ofotber permits and discretionary_ approvals-Findings requirements. (a) Whenever a project would require a permit or approval under the provisions of this title. notwith- standing this chapter, the redevelopment permit shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for such permit or approval; provided, however, that in considering the redevelopment permit for said project the direc- tor, design review board and the housing and rede- velopment commission shall apply the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of this title otherwise applicable to such other permit or approval for the project (b) Whenever a project consists only of exemp- tion determinations and/or administrative permits or administrative variances within the authority of either the director of planning or the director, they shall be consolidated and considered by the director, subject to appeal to the design review board with regard to determinations other than exemptions. (c) If the project includes permits or other dis- cretionary approvals outside the director's adminis- trative permit or administrative variance authority, the administrative permit and/or administrative vari- ance aspects shall be consolidated with the other mat- ters and submitted to the design review board. (d) No variance, determination of exemption or administrative, minor or major redevelopment permit shall be granted unless the decisionmaker finds, in addition to any other findings otherwise required for the project, that the project as approved, or condi- tionally approved is consistent with this code, the general plan, the Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan and the village master pJan and design manuaJ. (Ord. NS-330 § 4 (part), 1995) 21.35.130 Variances. (a) The housing and redevelopment commission may grant variances from the limits, restrictions and (c.nst-4 Supp. No. 7, 2-04) 648 0 controls established by this chapter for major rede- velopment permits if the commission finds that: (I) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size. shape. topog- raphy, 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; (2) 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 subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding; (3) The variance does not authoriZJe a use or activ- ity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property; ( 4) The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan, Carlsbad vil- lage area redevelopment plan. and the Carlsbad vil- lage redevelopment master plan and design manual; (5) In addition, in the coastal zone. that the vari- ance is consistent with and implements the require- ments of the certified local coastal program and that the variance does not reduce or in any manner ad- versely affect the protection of coastal resources as specified in the zones included in this title, and that the variance implements the purposes of zbnes adopted to implement the local coastal program land use plan. (b l An application for a variance shall be proc- essed in the same manner established by this chapter for a redevelopment permit. (c) The design review board may grant variances from the limits, restrictions and controls established by this chapter for minor redevelopment projects (or otherwise administrative projects consolidated or on .appeal from a director decision), if the board makes the variance fmdings set forth in subsection (a) of this section. (d) The director may grant administrative vari- ances in accordance with Section 21.35.090(e), if the director makes the findings set forth in subsection (a) of this section. (Ord. NS-675 § 36, 2003: Ord. NS- 330 § 4 (part}, 1 995) February 08, 2006 Van Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Re: 3155 Lincoln Street Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Dear Mr. Lynch: This letter is in regard to the proposed Marriott Motel expansion at 3155 Lincoln Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. I am the owner/neighbor at 3177 Lincoln Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. I purchased this apartment complex with the intent of making my personal residence in one of the units and have occupied unit F since 1999. My overall living experience here has been one of tranquility and enjoyment. My tenants have been quality individuals with few exceptions. In past years we have periodically had complaints concerning noise originating from the motel-owned properties (tenants), and after notifYing police numerous times of the problem, the offending individuals were requested to quiet down without further official action. If you, personally, have had similar disruptions in the middle of the night, I am sure you will agree how very annoying the inconvenience can be. Now my understanding is that a proposed zone change from R3 to multiple units (commercial) has been under consideration with a pool to be constructed on the adjacent, north side of my property. The location of a pool south ofthe motel has the potential to create double the noise factor at all hours of the day and night whether swimming or socializing around the pool. This disruption would echo not only to the abutting property but to all neighboring properties. In my opinion this zoning change and proposed building of 100 plus units will drastically reduce my future property value and monthly income not to mention the threat to my ability to attract quality tenants who expect a certain level of peace and enjoyment in their living environment. There is no way to control the noise from that type of density and the subsequent effect on the surrounding area. The resulting conditions would have a devastating impact on my property. 0 Lynch!Kom 02/08/06 Therefore, I am requesting that the zoning on the property at 315 5 Lincoln Street not be changed from the present zoning. My investment would suffer a severe loss and the current favorable living condtions at 3177 Lincoln Street would greatly deteriorate. I have discussed this proposal with owners of Pine Street properties adjacent to mine and they are as concerned as I am about the noise and extreme density. Thank you for your attention and consideration of this matter. s;/-~ William (Sam) Kom CC: C. Jones, Assistant Planner City of Carlsbad PLANNING I SYSTEMS - February 1, 2006 Cliff Jones CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USFJCOASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPEARCEDTECTURE•LA3~ POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION Housing & Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt St. Ste B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RECElVED FEB U l 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/DEV 05-19/LCPA 05-02/ZC 05-02/GPA 05-05- DKN Springhill Suites Dear Cliff: Per your letter dated December 1, 2005 identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal of the above-referenced project, the project applicant has commissioned modifications to the project design and the provision of the additional information requested regarding the project. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find a resubmittal package including: • Five (5) sets of revised plans • Redlined Grading and Drainage Plan • 2 copies of revised Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan • Redlined Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (Sheet 3 only) • 2 copies of revised Traffic Study • Redlined Traffic Study (cover sheet only) • Chain of Title Search With regard to the specific items and issues identified in the December 1letter, the following is a discussion of the method in which the redesigned project addresses the general issues, followed by a specific response to each item/issue identified by City Staff, in the order presented in your draft letter. Issues of Concern Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: 1. Please complete the Early Public Notification Package. The requirements for the early public notice package are enclosed. Response: A project notification sign was posted onsite on 12/15/05 to satisfy the requirement of the Early Public Notification Package. 2. Overall Staff likes the architectural theme for the project. However, planning staff has concerns about the look of the mansard roof as viewed from Lincoln Street. · Please contact staff if additional clarification is needed. 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net 1 Response: The roof line at the Lincoln St. elevation has been revised to reflect a lower level eave line, which has resulted in the creation of a break-up to the massing and softer roof lines .. This can be seen on Sheets A-7 and A-8. 3. Staff suggests plexiglass walls be placed on top of the mansard roof at the southwest corner of the site in order to top off the roof and balance the comer. Response: Plexi-glass walls have been added on top of the roof parapet at the roof deck to an elevation of 5' abov e finish floor. This can be seen on Sheet A-7. 4. A few building elevations are still relatively flat with little building articulation. As a suggestion from staff, these elevations could benefit from the addition of the decorative half timbering already being used. Additional articulation is needed at the west elevation depicted on Sheet A-8 as Elevation G, the and Elevation C depicted on Sheet A-7, and the northern portion of Elevation Don sheet A-7. Response: Additional half timbering has been added to Elevations C, D, and G. These can be seen on Sheets A-7 and A-8. 5. The east elevation, adjacent to the 7-11, is not depicted in the elevations. Please include an elevation of that portion of the building with next submittal. Response: Elevations B and C have been expanded to include the property line wall. This can be seen on Sheet A-7. 6. Please identify the location of the a/ c units and associated equipment. Response: Vertical, self-contained air conditioners/heaters will be located at each of the guestrooms. All that will be seen from the exterior is a small fresh- air louver mounted on the wall. The public spaces will be served by split systems with the condenser units mounted on the roof. The kitchen exhaust and make-up air equipment will be mounted on the roof. All roof-top equipment will be screened from public ,view. The fresh-air louvers can be seen on Sheets A-7 andA-8. Building: 1. Fully accessible rooms were not indicated on the plans. Please ensure that the project is in compliance with T-24 Accessibility Standards for public accommodations. Table llB-3 requires that a facility with 103 rooms provide a minimum of Five (5) fully accessible rooms. Please revise plans before next submittal. Response: The five fully accessible guestrooms are shown and noted on the building plans. They can be seen on Sheets A-2, A-3, and A-4. 2. The rooftop terrace will need two exits therefrom due to the occupant load being over 10. There is only one stairway shown that has access to the roof. The roof must also be served by the elevator to make it accessible. The elevator cannot be counted as an exit since the car returns to the ground floor in an emergency. 1 . _Ips~~; I 2 Response: Two sets of stairs and one public elevator serve the roof patio, as requested. This can be seen on Sheet A-9. 3. The elevations close to the property line (adjacent to 7-11) will have to be protected with fire resistive construction detailing. The glazing nearest the property line in the B Elevation on Sheet A-7 will not be allowed since it isn't perpendicular to the property line. And the eave on that same elevation will not be allowed either unless it is combustible. Response: The property line wall will be of four hour construction per code. The window has been removed, and the eave cut back to 5 feet from the property line. This can be seen on Sheet A-7. Engineering: 1. Add engineer's seal and signature to the cover of the attached traffic report. Response: Two (2) copies of a revised traffic report have been included with this submittal. The reports now contain an engineer's seal and signature o n the cover sheet. 2. Add a grass lined b,asin instead of concrete at the southwesterly comer of the property. Although the dewatering pit will aid in reducing pollutants and should remain, directing runoff through a vegetated swale or strip prior to reaching the dewatering pit and/ or curb outlet will further treat and treat more effectively storm water pollutants. If silt entering the dewatering pit is a comer, could the entrance to the pit be raised to allow some settlement of suspended solids to occur prior to water entering the pit? Revise Sheet C-1 and detail "Q-Q" accordingly. Also, the landscape plans shows vegetation proposed within this basin. The basin should primarily be co~prised of vegetation that adequately absorbs pollutants, such as fescue grass. Response: The concrete lined desilting basin has been replaced by a grass lined desilting basin. A portion of the pipe drainage system has been replaced by a grass swale .. Additionally, the basin has been planted with fescue grass to help absorb pollutants. These changes can be seen Sheets C-1 and L-1. 3. Revise the attached page 3 of the SWMP and have owners sign attached certification of responsibility. Response: Page 3 of the SWMP has been revised and the certification of responsibility sheet has been signed. Both pages have been included in a new revised SWMP. Two (2) copies of the SWMP have been included with this submittal. 4. We cannot located a copy of the chain of title search that was submitted with the adjustment plat (ADJ 05-09) application as you indicated in your response letter. Please submit a new copy. 11=:;1 3 Response: An additional copy of the chain of title search has been included with this submittal, as requested. Fire: 1. Laundry room and Employee Break Room are not permitted in the parking garage, revise the location of said rooms. Response: The laundry and break rooms have been moved to the third and second floor, respectively. They can be seen Sheets A-3 and A-4. 2. Are you using Automatic Fire Sprinklers to achieve FR rating? If so, please state. Response: The below grade garage will be Type I and of concrete construction. The above grade hotel will be Type V-1 hour and of wood-framed construction. Both ~uildings' will be fully sprinklered, as noted on the Cover Sheet (CS). If required, area separations will be provided in the hotel. 3. Elevator car interior dimension shall accommodate an ambulance gurney of 84 inches by 24 inches at a height of 36 inches. Response: The elevators will be able to accommodate a gurney, see general note 3 on the Cover Sheet (CS). 4. Occupancy groups shown are not for all areas. Please revise Title Sheet to reflect the declaration of each area and occupancy classification. Response: The construction type and occupancy classifications were revised to reflect the different conditions. This can be seen on the Cover Sheet (CS). Thank you for your continued assistance with the planning of this project. With these minor revisions, we are hopeful that the project design is now acceptable. We look forward now to docketing for Design Review Board/Planning Commission hearing. 5~1~0~ Paul J. Klukas Director of Planning cc: Neil Patel Attachments 4 December 19, 2005 DKN HOTELS 540 GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE #214 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 ~ UtC 2CI~ gV\1,£.!\l flJ>-\\\;1\\G t.t: . . C1t~ ot ca{\sbad SUBJECT: DKN-Hampton Inn (RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, COP 05-14, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05) APN: 203-250-08 & 203-250-26 This letter is a follow-up to my previous letter to you, dated December 1, 2005, in which the issues of concern related to your application for a Major Redevelopment Permit were identified. In addition to the items listed in my previous letter, Engineering Department and Fire Department comments on your proposed project are as follows: Engineering: Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project are as follows: 1. Add engineer's seal and signature to the cover of the attached traffic report. 2. Add a grass-lined basin instead of concrete at the southwesterly corner of the property. Although the dewatering pit will aid in reducing pollutants and should remain, directing runoff through a vegetated swale or strip prior to reaching the dewatering pit and/or curb outlet will further treat and treat more effectively storm water pollutants. If silt entering the dewatering pit is a concern, could the entrance to the pit be raised to allow some settlement of suspended solids to occur prior to water entering the pit? Revise Sheet C-1 and detail "Q-Q" accordingly. Also, the landscape plan shows vegetation proposed with this basin. The basin should primarily be comprised of vegetation that adequately absorbs pollutants, such as fescue grass .. 3. Revise the attached page 3 of the SWMP and have owners sign attached certification of responsibility. 4. We cannot locate a copy of the chain of title search that was submitted with the adjustment plat (ADJ 05-09) application as you indicated in your response letter. Please submit a new copy. Please return all attached redlined plans and documents with next submittal. To discuss all Engineering Department related concerns, please contact David Rick at (760) 602-2781. Fire: Fire Department issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project are as follows: 1. Laundry Room and Employee Break Room are not permitted in parking garage, revise the location of said rooms. 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. 8 • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @ DKN Hampton Inn 12/19/2005 Page 2 of2 c 0 2. Are you using Automatic Fire Sprinklers to achieve FR rating? If so, please state. 3. Elevator car interior dimension shall accommodate an ambulance gurney of 84 inches by 24 inches at a height of 36 inches. 4. Occupancy groups shown are not for all areas. Please revise· Title Sheet to reflect the declaration of each area and occupancy classification. To discuss all Fire Department related concerns, please contact Greg Ryan at (760) 602-4663. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813 if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. Sincerely, CLIFF J NES Assistant Planner C: Kenny Booth, Planning Systems David Rick, Engineering Department Greg Ryan, Fire Department Van Lynch, Planning Department File December 1, 2005 DKN HOTELS 540 GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE #214 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 0 SUBJECT: DKN -Hampton Inn (RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, DEV 05-19, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05) APN: 203-250-08 & 203-250-26 The items requested from you earlier to make your application complete have been received · and reviewed by the Housing & Redevelopment Department and all other appropriate departments. It has been determined that the application is now complete for final processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise,· supplement the basic information required for the application. In an effort to continue to process the application in the most expeditious manner as possible, a list of issues identified by staff during the project review period has been included with this correspondence. These issues must be resolved prior to staff making a final determination on the project. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, CLI~~ Assistant Planner c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director Pat Kelley, Building Van Lynch, Planning David Rick, Engineering 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. 8 • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • {760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX {760) 720-2037 (!) DKN Hampton Inn 12/02/2005 Page 2 of3 0 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, DEV 05-19, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05 Staff has completed a review of the subject project for issues of concern. The following items need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project: (Please note, the issues are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.) Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: 1. Please complete the Early Public Notification Package. The requirements for the early public notice package are enclosed. 2. Overall staff likes the architectural theme chosen for the project. However, staff has concerns about the look of the mansard roof and the plant-on dormers. The plant-on dormers should function more like a true dormer. This can be achieved by extending the roofline either up or down. Please contact staff for additional clarification if needed. 3. Staff suggests plexiglas walls be placed on top of the mansard roof at the southwest corner of the site in order to top off the roof and balance the corner. 4. A few building elevations are still relatively flat with little building articulation. As a suggestion from staff, these elevations could benefit from the addition of the decorative half timbering already being used. Additional articulation is needed at the west elevation depicted on Sheet A-8 as Elevation G, the and Elevation C depicted on Sheet A-7, and the northern portion of Elevation D on sheet A-7. 5. The east elevation, adjacent to the 7-11, is not depicted in the elevations. Please include an elevation of that portion of the building with next submittal. 6. Please identify the location of the ale units and associated equipment. For questions regarding Housing & Redevelopment Department and Planning comments, please contact Cliff Jones at 760-434-2813. Building: 1. Fully accessible rooms were not indicated on the plans. Please ensure that the project is in compliance with T -24 Accessibility Standards for public accommodations. Table 11 B-3 requires that a facility with 103 rooms provide a minimum of Five (5) fully accessible rooms. Please revise plans before next submittal. 2. The rooftop terrace will need two exits therefrom due to the occupant load being over 1 0. There is only one stairway shown that has access to the roof (the other stairway near the front of the building needs to have access). The roof must also be served by the elevator to make it accessible. The elevator cannot be counted as an exit since the car returns to the ground floor in an emergency. 3. The elevations close to the property line (adjacent to 7-11) will have to be protected with fire resistive construction detailing. The glazing nearest the property line in the B Elevation on DKN Hampton Inn 12/02/2005 Page 3 of3 0 Sheet A-7 will not be allowed since it isn't perpendicular to the property line. And the eave on that same elevation will not be allowed either unless it is combustible. For questions regarding Building Department comments, please contact Pat Kelley at 760-602- 2716. Engineering: Engineering Department comments are forthcoming and will be sent under a separate cover. June 24, 2005 DKN HOTELS 540 GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE #214 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SUBJECT: / DKN-Hampton Inn (RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, DEV 05-19, LCPA 05-02..! ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05) APN: 203-250-08 & 203-250-26 Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Housing and Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments, has reviewed the above-mentioned applications as to their completeness for further processing. The applications are incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information that must be submitted to complete your applications. This list of items must be submitted directly to the Housing & Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your application can occur until the applications are determined to be complete. The second list includes issues of concern to staff, which must be addressed prior to staff making a recommendation on the project. When all required materials are submitted to the Redevelopment Office, the City has an additional thirty (30) days to make a determination of completeness. If the applications are determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed , March 2, 2005, to either resubmit the applications or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the applications or to submit the materials necessary to determine your applications complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the applications. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, CLIFF JONES Assistant Planner c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director Van Lynch, Planning David Rick, Engineering 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @ DKN Hampton Inn 06/24/2005 Page 2 of4 c 0 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. RP 05-03, SDP 05-04, DEV 05-19, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05 Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: The Housing & Redevelopment Department and Planning Department have completed their review of the subject project for application completeness. The applications and plans submitted for this project are incomplete at this time. Please resubmit 5 sets of plans addressing the following incomplete items: 1. The side yard setback for the southern side yard off Lincoln shall be 1 0 feet (8' 11" proposed). Please correct sheet A-1 and A-2 civil sheet. 2. Please correct roof plan and key maps to reflect the most southern wall elevation (on left as looking form Lincoln Street (see item #1 above). 3. The portion of the property that falls within the V-R zoning requires a minimum of a 5:12 roof pitch. Please modify the plans accordingly (roof plan). Engineering: Engineering comments are forthcoming and will be sent under a separate cover. DK.N Hampton Inn 06/24/2005 Page 3 of4 c ISSUES OF CONCERN No. RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, DEV 05-19, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05 Staff has completed a review of the subject project for issues of concern. The following items need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project: (Please note, the issues are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.) Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: 1. The proposed project design and architectural materials do not promote the Village character, design, and scale. The plans are very corporate architecture and very manufactured in appearance. Staff advises the applicant to consider more of a Craftsman Style or an Old World design consistent with the design of the Carlsbad Inn located north of the project site or the Best Western View Lodge located to the south. The Village Design Guidelines (attached) should be reviewed carefully and greater attention should be provided to the design of the project. Sample materials provided do not reflect the desired Village character. 2. Staff still has concerns with the front elevation of the building. Staff would like to see a grand entryway to the project such as the one provided at the Best Western View Lodge. Staff suggests enhanced paving, a semi-circle entrance, and possibly a fountain at the entry way to the hotel. 3. The building elevations are still relatively flat. Greater building articulation is necessary along all building elevations particularly off the highly visible front elevation off of Carlsbad Boulevard. A hotel within the Village needs to be able to stand-alone and have a unique look. 4. The northwest portion of the building has a great street presence, which can be very desirable as recreational space for hotel guests to observe street traffic. This location would be a great location for creating a small coffee shop or delicatessen for hotel guests to get a quick snack or drink or just relax and observe street activity. 5. Staff encourages the applicant to make use of the views available at the subject property. Staff suggests balconies be provided along front and rear elevations. This will help to break up the dullness of the inherently flat building faces. 6. Staff has concerns with the massing of the roof. Please provide more articulation to the roof. 7. The elevation which faces onto Lincoln Street should have a faux entrance and architectural relief to break up this rather flat elevation. The elevations should appear as front elevations for better street presence as opposed to a rear elevation and the "back" of a building. The other residences on the street have balconies which give a better street presentation. The hotel could step back the upper floor and provide decks with railings to achieve this look. There is a concern that there will be a large and abrupt vertical wall surface within the proposed design. J DKN Hampton Inn 06/24/2005 Page 4 of4 0 0 8. With the new roof pitch, it would be possible to enclose the mechanical in the ceiling area as opposed to having a/c units at each room. We have other projects in the City that have done this successfully. 9. Staff suggests that rockwork be provided along the building elevations instead of the cultures stone. The rockwork gives more texture to the building. 10. Staff noted that the application of random shutters and window types are a bit too random. Please choose a window type that supports the overall Village Design theme. 11 . As part of the design review process, the Design Review Board must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to each of the ten basic principles outlined in the Village Design Guidelines. A copy of the design guidelines has been attached for your review. Some suggestions from the design guidelines are as follows: • Provide for variety and diversity of building forms. An informal building character and a sense of individuality is desired. Each building shall express its uniqueness of structure and not mere copies of generic building types, which might be found anywhere. Staff suggests the applicant pay greater attention to the design of the front entrance of the project and provide a grand entryway to the buildings entrance off of Carlsbad Boulevard. • Provide a variety of setbacks along any commercial block front. Varied setbacks provide a desired informality and diversity of appearance and allow for greater landscaping. • Break larger building forms into smaller units through the use of recessed facades. Fa<;ade projections as well as entry way recesses are elements which add richness to the Village facades through the creation of shadows and the contrast between sunny and shady surfaces. • Design visual interest in all sides of the building. Greater articulation should be incorporated into all sides of the building and the upper levels should be stepped back from the lower levels to reduce the overall mass of the structure. • Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail elements for visual interest and scale. • Emphasize cottage form, scale, and character. The use of gable roofs, varied roof heights, and dormers help create interesting detail and are encouraged to enhance the area's Village character. • Incorporate an abundance of landscaping into the project. • Incorporate benches and low walls along public pedestrian frontages such as Carlsbad Boulevard. Landscape Plan Review: Comments on the preliminary landscape plan are forthcoming and will be sent to you under a separate cover. c 0 c i t ~~~.,SJ,,,S?wz'i.,~J,~.£,fmP. March 31, 2005 DKN HOTELS 540 GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE #214 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SUBJECT: Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad. The Housing and Redevelopment Department, together with other appropriate City departments, has reviewed the above-mentioned applications as to their completeness for further processing. The applications are incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information that must be submitted to complete your applications. This list of items must be submitted directly to the Housing & Redevelopment Office. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your application can occur until the applications are determined to be complete. The second list includes issues of concern to staff, which must be addressed prior to staff making a recommendation on the project. When all required materials are submitted to the Redevelopment Office, the City has an additional thirty (30) days to make a determination of completeness. If the applications are determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, March 2, 2005, to either resubmit the applications or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the applications or to submit the materials necessary to determine your applications complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the applications. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2813, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, ~~ CLIFF JONES Assistant Planner c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director Van Lynch, Planning David Rick, Engineering Pat Kelley, Building Greg Ryan, Fire Jodee Sasway, Police 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 (!) .. DKN Hampton Inn 03/3112005 Page2 ofS 0 0 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. RP 05-03, SOP 05-04, DEV 05-19, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05 Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: The Housing & Redevelopment Department and Planning Department have completed their review of the subject project for application completeness. The applications and plans submitted for this project are incomplete at this time. Please resubmit 5 sets of plans addressing the following incomplete items: 1. The General Plan designation and zoning for the residentially zoned property will need to be changed. The proposed General Plan Land Use designation will need to be changed to Recreation Tourist (RT). The Commercial Tourist (C-T) Zoning will implement the AT General Plan Land Use designation. Please modify the plans accordingly (refer to item #3 for format and language). 2. The project will need to discuss the impacts that will occur as a result of the General Plan Amendment for the residentially zoned property. Assembly Bill 2292 requires residential zoned land to develop to its potential. Since the project eliminates residential units, findings will need to be made to justify the loss of residential units. 3. Include the following information on the title sheet: a. Application types submitted and assigned application numbers to the upper right corner. b. Name of sewer, water, and school districts providing service to the project. c. Please remove "CUP Number'' from "Project Summary Table". d. Correct the "Existing Zone" to state "Existing Zone: R-3 and V-R District 9". e. Correct the "Proposed Zone" to state "Proposed Zone: C-T and V-R District 9 (to remain)". f. Correct the "Existing General Plan" to state "Existing General Plan: RH, V''. g. Correct the "Proposed General Plan" to state "Proposed General Plan: AT and V (to remain)" h. Correct the "Existing Land Use Designation" to state "Existing Land Use Designation: Overlay Zones (Beach Overlay Zone & Coastal Zone)". i. Correct the "Existing Land Use" to state "Existing Land Use: Motel, Restaurant, Single Family''. j. Please include an open space calculation. A minimum of 20% of the site must be maintained as open space. The areas that qualify as open space include; landscape planters, open space pockets, balconies, and patios. No parking spaces or drive aisles are permitted in the open space calculation. 4. Please indicate on the site plan, through shading, the portion of the project that falls within the V-R District 9 zoning designation. Please note that the minimum roof pitch within V-R District 9 is 5:12 and the permitted height of the building is 45 feet if the project is located over parking, which in this case it is. Staff suggests the applicant consider using the allowable increase in roof height in order to create a front elevation that is grander, and visually appealing (for more information on staff's issues of concern related to the front elevation of the project and the overall design of the project refer to page 4). Please modify the plans accordingly. 5. Please dimension the widths of the driveway entrance and exit. DKN Hampton Inn 03/31/2005 Page 3 of5 c 0 6. Compact parking spaces are a minimum width of 8 feet by 15 feet. Sheets A-5 and A-6 show compact spaces being 7.5 feet wide. Standard parking spaces are a minimum width of 8.5 feet and 170 square feet in area. The supporting columns will need to be shown outside of the parking area such that the parking space is free and clear of any structures. Please review all parking spaces and label all compact spaces as such. In addition please number all parking spaces. Please correct and revise the plans as necessary. 7. Show finished and existing grades on all elevations and building sections. 8. Please add the top of wall and bottom of wall heights for the retaining walls on the civil plan, sheet C-1. 9. Provide a sign plan showing conceptual signage for the building along with a summary table with the following information: a. Total building street frontage; b. Total sign area allowed (1 square foot of signage per linear foot of building frontage); c. Total sign area proposed. 10. Submit a construction materials board and color samples. Engineering: Engineering comments are forthcoming and will be sent under a separate cover. DKN Hampton Inn 03/3112005 Page4of5 0 0 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. RP 05-03, SDP 05-04, DEV 05-19, LCPA 05-02, ZC 05-02, GPA 05-05 Staff has completed a review of the subject project for issues of concern. The following items need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a final determination on the proposed project: (Please note, the issues are listed under the department which identified them as an area of concern.) Housing & Redevelopment and Planning: 1. As part of the design review process, the Design Review Board must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to each of the ten basic principles outlined in the Village Design Guidelines. A copy of the design guidelines has been attached for your review. Some suggestions from the design guidelines are as follows: • Provide for variety and diversity of building forms. An informal building character and a sense of individuality is desired. Each building shall express its uniqueness of structure and not mere copies of generic building types, which might be found anywhere. Staff suggests the applicant pay greater attention to the design of the front entrance of the project and provide a grand entryway to the buildings entrance off of Carlsbad Boulevard. • Provide a variety of setbacks along any commercial block front. Varied setbacks provide a desired informality and diversity of appearance and allow for greater landscaping. • Break larger building forms into smaller units through the use of recessed facades. Fayade projections as well as entry way recesses are elements which add richness to the Village facades through the creation of shadows and the contrast between sunny and shady surfaces. • Design visual interest in all sides of the building. Greater articulation should be incorporated into all sides of the building and the upper levels should be stepped back from the lower levels to reduce the overall mass of the structure. • Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail elements for visual interest and scale. • Emphasize cottage form, scale, and character. The use of gable roofs, varied roof heights, and dormers help create interesting detail and are encouraged to enhance the area's Village character. • Incorporate an abundance of landscaping into the project. • Incorporate benches and low walls along public pedestrian frontages such as Carlsbad Boulevard. 2. The established range for front yard setbacks within Land Use District 9 are 5-20 feet. In all cases where a range has been established as the appropriate setback standard within a given district, the top of the range is considered to be the desired standard. However, a reduction in the standard to the minimum, or anywhere within the range, may be allowed if the project warrants such a reduction and appropriate findings are made: • The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. • The reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is to be located. : DKN Hampton Inn 03/3112005 Page5 of5 c 0 • The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character of the area. 3; Please add a building section that includes the pool and upper and lower parking levels. The pool and spa appear to conflict with the laundry facility below. Please explain how the pool and spa are to be supported. 4. Please compare the setbacks provided on the architectural plans and the civil plans. The setbacks along Lincoln Street are shown as 9.9 feet on the civil plans where the architectural plans show 1 0 feet. 5. Architectural elevations -embellish ends and add vertical relief to long ridgelines. Lincoln Street elevation needs some ·building articulation along face of building. Consider adding windows to the west end of elevation C and on elevation F. 6. Please explain the difference in the design of the windows as shown on the floor plans. Are these air conditioning units on the plans? If so, please show on the elevation plans and describe how the air conditioning units will be treated. 7. Please specify the wall types in between units. 8. Please describe the intended use of the meeting room. Is this for guest use only? Fire: The following Fire Department issues must be must be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project: 1 . City Engineer shall ensure that the proposed access from Carlsbad Boulevard conforms to the minimum design standards for Fire Apparatus Access. 2. The clear height of the Portico shall be 13'6", this is the only access for fire apparatus. 3. Class 2 Standpipes shall be required on the Northwest and Southeast stairwells. If you have any questions regarding Fire Department issues, please contact Greg Ryan at 760- 602-4663. Landscape Plan Review: Comments on the preliminary landscape plan are forthcoming and will be sent to you under a separate cover. Crime Prevention Plan Review: The City's Crime Prevention Specialist typically reviews plans for larger projects in an effort to increase security through project design. Project design recommendations have been attached for your review. For questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Jodee Sasway of the Carlsbad Police Department at 760-931-2195. ; 0 Date: March 11, 2005 To: Cliff Jones, Housing and Redevelopment From: J. Sasway, Crime Prevention Specialist, Carlsbad Police Department Subject: Hampton Inn Plan Review Recommendations Carlsbad Police Department's Crime Prevention Unit has provided the following optimal security recommendations. The purpose of this document is to safeguard property and public welfare by regulating and reviewing the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. The standards used in this document represent model statewide standards. • Building Placement -Creating Defensible Space Strategies to consider: 1. Provide clearly defined transitions from public to private space. Use landscaping, fencing and ground cover to create territoriality for the property. 2. Locate common well-used areas where there is good surveillance. 3. Use natural barriers to designate space and separate activities that may conflict. 4. Design space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. 5. Consider that if people feel comfortable and safe in all areas, they are more likely to use the areas. • Parking Structure Considerations Lighting Natural surveillance Stair towers Elevators Access control Sign age Light • The model routine light standard in parking structures is 6-footcandles of uniform light at the ground level. When lighting take into consideration the illuminance, uniformity and glare. Natural Surveillance • Maximize flat parking areas and minimize ramps • Long-span construction and high ceilings create openness and aid lighting. • The openness of the fa<;ade should be maximized. • Pedestrian paths should be minimized. Concentrating more people on less paths increased surveillance. • Dead-end parking and nooks and crannies should be avoided • Stair towers and elevators have been the highest risk for personal injury as they are typically enclosed. • Design stair towers and elevators as open as the code permits. If a stair must be enclosed, glass walls can reduce crime. . . .. c • Parking spaces should be defined at 90 degrees instead of 45 degrees. Access Control • Access control and perimeter security should be considered during the design state. • Ground level pedestrian exits that open into non-secure areas should be emergency exits only. • Access to the parking facility should be controlled, generally taking a ticket on entry and interacting with a guard on exit. • Access into the facility should be minimized. Signage • Place signs carefully to expedite the movement of people through the area. • Color coding or unique memory aids help patrol quickly locate their vehicles • Hotel Considerations Lighting • Light should be consistent to reduce contrast between shadows and illuminate areas. Illuminate aisles, passageways, and recesses related to and within the building complex with a maintained minimum of twenty-five one hundredths (.25) of a foot-candle at the ground level during the hours of darkness. Protect lighting devices with weather and vandalism-resistant covers. • Protect open parking lots with a maintained minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light on the parking surface during the hours of darkness. White lights provide better vision and surveillance capabilities than do yellow lights. Yellow lights prevent loitering because they are monochromatic. Protect lighting devices with weather and vandalism covers. Ensure landscape and building design does not take away from minimum standards of lighting. • Give the main entry and rear dock areas additional lighting during hours of darkness. Landscaping • Landscaping can mark the transition between zones or areas. The police department recommends that the exterior landscaping be kept at a minimal height and fullness, giving police, security services and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. Growth characteristics of plants and their placement in relation to potentially vulnerable areas are extremely important. • Plant low-profile bushes and shrubs, not exceeding three feet in height. Create space between the bottom of trees and the tops of bushes or shrubs. Make sure tree canopies are not lower than six feet. Do not plant landscaping higher than three feet in front of windows or in parking areas. • Landscaping should not detract from lighting. Keep entranceways clear of clutter. Design perimeter landscaping and burms to allow vision into the property, particularly parking areas and building access doors. • Apply security plants where necessary to prevent loitering and tampering. Addressing • Display street numbers prominently on the street side of the building. Place the number in a position that is easily visible to emergency vehicles, hasting their approach. Make sure the numbers are no less than four (4) inches in height and are a contrasting color to the building to i c which they are attached. Illuminate the numbers at night. Access Control • All entrances except the lobby should be closed 24 hours a day and require guest card to access. This includes internal doors and gates to community use facilities like laundry. This further enhances the personal safety of the guests. • Building Recommendations Doors •The police department recommends that hollow steel doors be a minimum sixteen (16) U.S. gauge and have sufficient reinforcement to maintain the designed thickness of the door when any locking device is installed. Only use glass doors with fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant glazing. Protect all exterior doors with security hardware. • Equip all doors with an astragal constructed of steel. Ensure the astragal is a minimum of .125 inch thick. The astragal covers and protects the opening between the door and doorframe or other door at the locking device. The purpose of the astragal is to protect the locking device from a cutting or prying attack. Attach the astragal to the outside by welding or with non- removable bolts spaced apart on not more than ten-inch centers. • Construct the jamb of all aluminum frame-swinging doors to withstand 1600 pounds of pressure in both a vertical distance of three inches and horizontal distance of one inch each side of the strike, to prevent violation of the strike. • Equip hotel room doors with a viewer and deadbolt lock. Equip hotel room sliding glass doors with a security pin. • Equip rear doors used for shipping and receiving and employee entrances with a viewer. Windows • Equip movable windows with security hardware and burglar resistant glazing. Cover other vulnerable non-movable windows with burglar resistant glazing. Roofs • Secure all roof openings. Trash Enclosures • Position the trash enclosures away from areas of shipping and receiving. This information is a representation of information gathered on a national level. The purpose is to provide effective and consistent information. If you would like additional assistance concerning building security or employee security issues, please contact the Crime Prevention Unit at (760) 931-2105. Reviewed by: Jodeene R. Sasway Crime Prevention Specialist Carlsbad Police Department (619) 931-2195 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking East of Surf Motel from Carlsbad B 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking East (view of southern property line from Carlsbad Blvd.) 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking West (single family structure to be demolished) 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking West (view of Surf Motel from Lincoln St.) 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking North of back-side of Surf 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking North (view of back-side of Surf Motel) 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking South of Restaurant area and Surf Motel in dista 2/14/05 DKN-Hampton Inn-Looking South (view of Surf Motel)