The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRP 05-11; Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (7)CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECKBOXES) • • Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit Administrative Variance Coastal Development Permit OP^Q^ I I Conditional Use Permit • Condominium Permit I I General Plan Amendment I I Hillside Development Permit I I Local Coastal Plan Amendment I I Master Plan I I Non-Residential Planned Development I I Planned Development Permit (FOR DEPARTIVIENT USE ONLY) • Planned Industrial Permit I I Planning Commission Determination • • Precise Development Plan Redevelopment Permit Site Development Plan I I Special Use Permit I I Specific Plan I I Tentative Parcel Map Obtain from Engineering Department I I Tentative Tract Map I I Variance I I Zone Change I I List other applications not specified (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 3) PROJECT NAME: 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 214-590-04, 214-160-10,11,13,19,20,21,24,29 Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort and Spa See attached sheet 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) WaveCrest Resorts, LLC 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) Hofman Planning Associates MAILING ADDRESS 829 Second Street, Suite A MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Encinitas, CA 92024 (858) 753-2440 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 438-1465 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE L^GVIL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE^/ND COftRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. "7 / jf / // f 1 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE / DATE SIGNATURE d DATE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Portion of Lot 4 of Section 29, Township 12/ Parcel A of Parcel Map No. 4383/ Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 18332 NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE BETWEEN Southeast STREET ADDRESS CORNER OF (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) AND (NAME OF STREET) Carlsbad Blvd and Ponto Dr. (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING n/a n/a 8.015 CT, CT- Q/RD-M-Q 22 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING n/a 2150 RMH/ T-R n/a 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 15) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 188,605 178 n/a 24) 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 ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED RECEIVED SEP 0 2 2005 (flTY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED ^y- DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort and Spa APPLICANT NAME: WaveCrest Resorts Description/Explanation: The project site is generally located on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Poinsettia and Avenida Encinas. The proposed project is a Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort and Spa. The project includes one main hotel building and a landscaped 3 story parking structure on the eastern end ofthe property. The main hotel will be 1-3 stories in height containing 215 hotel rooms, 12,820 square feet of meeting space, restaurant and spa. The grounds will include a pool area, public pedestrian trail and public snack bar/cafe along Carlsbad Boulevard. The northern portion ofthe property (APN 214-590-04) falls within the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. The existing zoning for that parcel is CT and the existing General Plan designation is TR. The rest of the property has the existing zoning of CT-Q/RDM-Q and General Plan designation of RMH/TR. Land uses surrounding the project site include railroad tracks to the east, Hanover Beach Colony subdivision to the north, a mixture of uses including junkyard, storage and a few homes to the south, and Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. The project will provide a number of public amenities including ocean front meeting rooms for weddings and functions, public spa, restaurant, snack bar/cafe and pedestrian trail along Carlsbad Boulevard. City of Carlsbad Planning Department HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT Consultation Of Lists of Sites Related To Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5, I have consulted the Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites 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 of the State Government Code. • The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 ofthe State Government Code. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: tioFIVlAi^ tUNi^lf^ei Name: \l\lAx/£O^T -tesPgrs il uuC Address: 5^00 PASTFiig^ q SIT. 15^ Address: g)2.q SSDDKD STRerr, SUiJg A 6k<^LSBAD, CA ^lOce glMClK^TfivS. CA ^10Z<\ Phone Number: Plco) ^^-i4k6 Phone Number: LlU>d) 75'3-2^H0 Address of Site: SOUTHEAST CQRNQ^ OF CAKL^D 6LVD Atsib ^NTO Local Agency (City and Countv): ^'T^ Of CARLSgAP / CDUNIT/ OF "S-AH Ol5Srt) Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: 2I'4T5^0'04 , 2l4-l(;>0-|t), H, I3, 20, 21, 2? Specify list(s): Regulatory Identification Number: Date of List: Applicant Signature/Date, Property Owner Sigjlfature/Date Admin/Counter/HazWaste 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^ Property looking north Property looking west Property looking east Property looking south Property looking southeast City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1100401-2 01/04/2011 98 Tue, Jan 04, 2011 04:05 PM Receipt Ref Nbr: Rl100401-2/0043 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr; 110040102 0043 0051 Trans/Rcpt#: R0062634 SET #; CDP05043 Amount: 1 i $12,400.00 Item Subtotal: $12,400.00 Item Total: $12,400.00 1 :TEM(3) TOTAL: $12,400.00 Check (Chk# 001196) $12,400.00 Total Received: $12,400,00 Have a nice day! **************CUST0MER COPY************* city of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Description CDP05043 Amount 12,400.00 Receipt Number: R0082634 Transaction Date: 01/04/2011 Transaction ID: R0082634 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 12,400.00 Transaction Amount: 12,400.00 city of Carlsbad 163 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92 008 •lllllllilllll Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING Description Amount GR100017 4,229.95 725 0 PONTO DR CBAD Receipt Number: R0081129 Transaction ID: R0081129 Transaction Date: 09/20/2010 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 1072 4,229.95 Transaction Amount: 4,229.95 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 0934401-2 12/10/2009 96 Thu, Dec 10, 2009 03:44 PM Receipt Ref Nbr: R0934401-2/0049 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 093440102 0049 0053 Trans/Rcpt#: R0077415 SET #: CD090016 Amount: 1 @ $656.00 Item Subtotal: $656.00 Item Total: $656.00 1 ITEM(S) TOTAL: $656.00 Check (Chk# 009432) $656.00 Total Received: $656,00 Have a nice day! t*************CUSTOMER COPY************* city of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA lillllllllllllllllll 92008 Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING Description CD090016 Amount 656.00 Receipt Number: R0077415 Transaction Date: 12/10/2009 Transaction ID: R0077415 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 656.00 Transaction Amount: 656.00 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Caslstluring 001 . 0906401-4 03/05/2003 32 Thu, Mar 05, 2009 01:58 PH Receipt Ref Nbr: RC906401-4/0025 PERMITS - PERMITS " Iran Ref Nbr: 09064Q1,G4 0025 0025 Trans/Rcpt#; R0073873 SET #: SDP05014 Amount:. 1 @ $9„M9,14 Item Subtotal; $3/549,14-' Ttera Total : ; V » $9,549.14 ^ PERMITS - PERfilTS Iran Ref Nbr: 090640104 0025 0026 Trans/Rcpt#: R0073872 SET #: CDP05043' Amount: I J $2,186.78 Item Subtotal: ' - $2,186.78 |vitem Total: $2,186.78 1-Pi.SHlTS; ••• PERMIT^: ; ' :, Tren Ref N|3r; 0/'.;^ ' " '.ihi 0027 ; frans/Rcptf: ftflv^Bft bt l #:. CDP09OO4 4 Amount; 1 I $560.00 ' Item Subtotal-: - : r.lseOvOO .Item Total: $560,00 3:: ITEM(S) TOTAL: , $12,295.92 Check (G.hk# 008967)- $12,295.92 J ratal Received: ; $12,295.92 Have a nice day! ' City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING Description Amount SDP05014 9,549.14 7250 PONTO DR CBAD Receipt Number: R0073873 Transaction ID: R0073873 Transaction Date: 03/05/2009 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 9,54 9.14 Transaction Amount: 9,54 9.14 city of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA iniiiiiiiiiiiiD 92008 Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Description CDP05043 Amount 2,186.78 Receipt Number: RO073872 Transaction Date: 03/05/2009 Transaction ID: R0073872 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 2,186.78 Transaction Amount: 2,186.78 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 •••IIIIIIHIII Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING Description CDP09004 72 04 PONTO DR CBAD Amount 560.00 Receipt Number: R0073871 Transaction Date: 03/05/2009 Transaction ID: R0073871 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 5 6 0.00 Transaction Amount: 560.00 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 0908501-1 03/26/2009 75 Thu, Mar 26, 2009 12:23 PM Receipt Ref Nbr: R0908501-1/0012 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 090850101 0012 0013 Trans/Rcpt#: R0074122 SET #: CDP05043 Amount; 1 $89.88 Item Subtotal: $89.88 Item Total: $89,88 1 ITEM(S) TOTAL: $89.88 Check (Chk# 008901) $89.88 Total Received: $89.88 Have a nice day! **************CLIST0MER COPY************* city of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 (OS4R0074122) Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Description CDP05043 Amount 89 . 88 Receipt Number: R0074122 Transaction Date: 03/26/2009 Transaction ID: R0074122 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 8901 89.88 Transaction Amount: 89.88 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA IMIMIllillUlU 92008 Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Description RP050011 Amount 2,508.00 Receipt Number: R0052453 Transaction Date: 09/07/2005 Transaction ID: R0052453 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 6623 2,508.00 Transaction Amount: 2,508.00 PLEASE NOTE: Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is needed to make this application complete. When the application is complete, the processing period will start upon the date of the^completion letter. Applicant Signature: Staff Signature: Date: To be stapled with receipt to the application Copy for file Form 20 FILE COPT City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The following project is located within the City of Carlsbad Coastal Zone. A coastal permit application for the project has been acted upon. SENT TO COASTAL COMMISSION ON: July 24. 2009 Application*: GDP 09-04 Case Name: Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort Applicant: Wave Crest Resorts Filing Date: July 21. 2009 Decision Date: July 21, 2009 Agent (if different): Address: 829 Second Street Suite A Encinitas CA Address- 92024 Phone: (760) 753-2440 Phone: Project Description: Demolition of 10 existing structures and the development of a 215 room, three-story hotel, with 10.385 sq.ft. of conference space, a 5,100 sq.ft. day spa, a 5,100 sq.ft. restaurant, a two-story parking structure, a basement garage, and an outdoor swimrhinq pool. Project Location: East of Carlsbad Boulevard and south of Ponto Drive in the Mello 11 seqment of the Local Coastal Proqram ACTION: • APPROVED • APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DENIED (Copy of final resolution/decision letter is sent to: Coastal Commission, any persons who specifically requested it, and the applicant). COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL STATUS: NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION. Attachment - Location Map to CCC for non-appealable CDPs - Staff Report to CCC for appealable CDPs The time witt)in which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Cartsbad Municipal Code Chapter 16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than ninety (90) days following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten (10) days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such a record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than thirty (30) days following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record ofthe proceedings shall be filed with the CityClerl<, City of Carisbad, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad, Califomia 92008. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ® V LAKESHORE GARDENS MOBILE HOME PARK iNCHOHAUbAV NOT TO SCALE SITEMAP HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT RP 05-11 /CDP 09-04 tr J] :r fU cr m ru 1=1 • • o CO • 1=1 U.S. Postal Service ,. CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comi; OFFICIAL USE Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Deliveiy Fee (Endotsement Required) Total Postage f-1^™, $ Postmaric Hera Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Deliveiy Fee (Endotsement Required) Total Postage f-1^™, Postmaric Hera Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Deliveiy Fee (Endotsement Required) Total Postage f-1^™, Postmaric Hera Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Deliveiy Fee (Endotsement Required) Total Postage f-1^™, Postmaric Hera Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Deliveiy Fee (Endotsement Required) Total Postage f-1^™, <tCDPO1-0W.^Jc* Postmaric Hera Sent To California Coastal Commission Attn: Toni Ross ^'^F- Suite 103 orPOBoxNo. 'cW'sStajzipi 7575 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, CA 92108-4402 PS Form 3800, SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Kerns 1,2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on tiie reverse so tiiat w© can retum the card to you. • Attacti tills card to tiie back of tiie mailptece, or on tiie front If space penults. COMPLETE THIS SECTIC:^ ON DEUVERY 1. Article Addressed to: Califoriiia Coastal Commission Attn: ibni Ross Suite 103 7575 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, CA 92108-4402 a Is delivfery address dlfferertt from Hem 1? • Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: • No 3. Service lype J^iPSerBfied Mail • Express IVIail P Registered J^^etum Receipt for Metchandis- • Insured Mail • C.O.D. 4. RestrictedDertvety?(5rfrafeeJ fjYes 2. Article Numljer (Transfer from senrice label) Form 3811, February 2004 7DDfi imn QDOB 3^si ^t^3 l3oniestic Retum Receipt 102595-02-l*-1540 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAREVG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you tiiat tiie Housing and Redevelopment Commission of ttie City of Carlsbad will iioid a public iiearing at tiie Council Ciiambers, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, to consider a determination tiiat tiie project is witiiin tiie scope of tiie previously certified Ponto Beaciifront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 and tiiat ttie Program EIR adequately describes the activities for the purposes of CEQA and to consider approval of Redevelopment Pemiit RP 05-11 and Redevelopment Coastal Development Pemiit CDP 09-04 to develop a 215 room, three-story hotel with 10,385 square feet of conference space, a 5,100 square foot day spa, a 5,100 square foot restaurant, a two-story parking structure, a basement garage, and an outdoor swimming pool on 8.01 acres of land generally located south of Ponto Drive and east of Carlsbad boulevard in local facilities management zone 22, and more particularly described as: Ail that portion of the south 2/3rds of Lot 4 (southeast quarter of the southeast quar- ter) of Section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian in the County of San DIego, State of California according to official plat thereof and exclud- ing the parcel described as Assessor's Parcel Number 214-590-04-00 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially Invited to attend the public hear- ing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after July 17, 2009. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. If you challenge the Redevelopment Permit and/or Redevelopment Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pub- lic hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carls- bad, Attn: City Clert<'s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT CASE NAME: RP 05-11/CDP 09-04 PUBLISH: July 10, 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT RP 05-11 / SDP 05-14 / CDP 05-43 / CDP 09-04 e Wr TO SCALE PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010&2011\C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego 0,1 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times- Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: April 24^^ 2009 This space is f^lPhe County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publica^-' 41 BP 05-11/SDP t SoHi - Hequesf ron_ previously certified Ponto I > BEACH RE- ire scope oftne ^ , . __. .Ian Program Environmental Im-pact Report EIR 05-05 and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activities tor the purposes of CEQA and a recommendation for approval of a Redevelopment Permit and Redevelopment Coastal Development Permit and approval of a Site Oe-velopment Plan and Coastal Development Pennit to allow for tne demolition of 10 existing structures and the development of a 215 roorn, three-story hotel, with 10,385 sq.ft. of conference space, a 5,l0O sq.ft. day spa, a 5,100 square foot restaurant, a two-story parking structure, a basement garage, and an outdoor swimming pool on 8.01 acres of land located south of Ponto Dnve and east of Carisbad Boulevard in the South Carisbad Coastaf Redevelopment Area, the Mello II Segment of the Carisbad Local Coastal Program, and Local Facilities Management Zone 22. This project is within the scope of Final Program EIR 05-05 and no further CEQA compliance is required. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. 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 Carisbad 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 Thui^ay and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Friday. Those persons wishing to speak on these proposals are cordially Invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the. staff.reports wl" ' ' "-' fD://www.cj.carisbad.ea.us7odfd6cThtrn after tfiel Friday prior to the hean^^ate. n you nave any questions, please call the Planning Department at (760) lable online at M • to the PUBLISH: April 24,2009 CITY OF CARt^^D PLANNING DEPARTMENT NCT 2209098 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at OCEANSIDE, California This 24'^ day of April, 2009 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising City of Carlsbad FILE COPY Planning Department NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The following project is located within the City of Carlsbad Coastal Zone. A coastal permit application for the project has been acted upon. SENT TO COASTAL COMMISSION ON: May 8. 2009 Application*: CDP 05-43 . Case Name: Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort Applicant: Wave Crest Resorts II (Bill Canepa) Filing Date: 09/12/2008 Decision Date: May 6. 2009 Agent (if different): Address: 829 Second Street Suite A Encinitas CA Address- 92024 Phone: 760-753-2440 Phone: Project Description: Request for a determination that the proiect is within the scope of the previouslv certified Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 and that the Program EIR adequatelv describes the activities for the purposes of CEQA and a recommendation for approval of a Redevelopment Permit and Redevelopment Coastal Development Permit and approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of 10 existing structures and the development of a 215 room, three-story hotel, with 10.385 sq.ft. of conference space, a 5.100 sq.ft. day spa, a 5.100 square foot restaurant, a two-story parking structure, a basement garage, and an outdoor swimming pool on 8.01 acres of land Project Location: South of Ponto Drive and east of Carlsbad Boulevard in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area, the Mello II Segment ofthe Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, and Local Facilities Management Zone 22 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DENIED ACTION: • • (Copy affinal resolution/decision letter is sent to: Coastal Commission, any persons who specifically requested it, and the applicant). COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL STATUS: ^ NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION. Attachment: - Location Map to CCC for non-appealable CDPs The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carisbad by Carlsbad IVIunicipat Code Chapter 16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than ninety (90) days following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten (10) days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such a record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than thirty (30) days following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carisbad, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad, Califomia 92008. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us LAKESHORE GARDENS MOBILE HOME PARK ^CHORAGt: AV NOT TO SCALE SITEMAP HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT RP 05-11 / SDP 05-14 / CDP 05-43 / CDP 09-04 m ji un 3- ru ET m ru a • a a rr rR i-=l • a r^ U.S. Postal Service.. ^ CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT ,r. On/v; No Insurance Coverage Prome, "rrinliverv information visit our website at www.usps.com. I OF P 1^ t A L U S E J Postmark Her< Postage Certified Fee Retum Receipt Fee (Endoraement Required) Restricted DellvewFee (Endorsement Required) | ^ . Total postag.—^^^.^ Coastal Commission Attn: Toni Ross s»5eW:TO Suite 103 7575 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, CA 92108-4402 SENDER: COMPLETE^UIS SECTION Complete Items 1,2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front If space penults. 1. Article Addressed to: California Coastal Commission Attn: Toni Ross Suite 103 7575 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, CA 92108-4402 D. Is delivery address different from Item 1 ? • Yes, If YES, enter delivery address below: • No 3. Service Type "^H^Jertlfled Mall • Express Mall • Registered BtBetum Receipt for Merchandise • Insured Mall •'^D C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Exfra Fee; • Yes 2. Article Number; (Tnuisf^r frotrfs&yrice Ia6^l) iTDdsMiasD! DDDa S3;?a: 5bEb PS: Forfn 3811 j F^bruiaiV 2004: Domestic Retum Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 FILE COPT City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the Planning Commission ofthe City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 2009, to consider a request for the following: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: RP 05-11/ SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/CDP 09-04 - Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort April 24, 2009 DESCRIPTION: Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activities for the purposes of CEQA and a recommendation for approval of a Redevelopment Permit and Redevelopment Coastal Development Permit and approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of 10 existing structures and the development of a 215 room, three-story hotel, with 10,385 sq.ft. of conference space, a 5,100 sq.ft. day spa, a 5,100 square foot restaurant, a two-story parking structure, a basement garage, and an outdoor swimming pool on 8.01 acres of land located south of Ponto Drive and east of Carlsbad Boulevard in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area, the Mello II Segment ofthe Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, and Local Facilities Management Zone 22. 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.carlsbadca.qov/planninq/pcvideo.html 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.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. • 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. • Coastal Commission Appealable Project: ^ This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. ^ Application deemed complete: 09/12/2008 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.cl.carlsbad.ca.us LAKESHORE GARDENS MOBILE HOME PARK ^CHWA<?bAV SITEMAP NOT TO SCALE HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT RP 05-11 / SDP 05-14 / CDP 05-43 / CDP 09-04 ru to ru rn jjL'l 11.-, ' ' Co., / foi-f WebSite a7 rn a a a CJ a r^- Here fropoJitan Attn, Suite 7575 in; ^^"^^ Drive SENDER: COMPLETE IHIS SECTION • Completa Items 1,2,V^ ,J 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print yourname and address on the reverse so tliat we can retum ttie card to you. • Attach this card to tiie back of the maiipiece, COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY or ori the front if space permits. 1. ArtIcl#AddFessedto: CaliSrniaEoastal Commission Attn; Toni Ross Suite 103 7575 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, CA 92108-4402 A SlgnaturB • Agent • Addressee C. [)ate of Deiiveiy S-/^-09 0. Is dslhisiyadcfressclifliareiit from Item 1? ^Yes If YES, enter deiiveiy address below: • No 3.SerytealVpe ^^^a^CeitinedMan •ExpressMan • Reglsterad ^BBetum Receipt fbrMeichandlse • Insured Mai! • CO D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Bdra ftae; 2. ArticlalM(«nberi 7DDa imn DDDS 3^HI Msta PS Form 3811, Feiwuary ^004 Domestic Return Receipt 1025g5O2-«)-1S40 ) City of Carlsbad 163 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 (OS4R0074122) Applicant: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Description CDP05043 Amount 89 . 88 Receipt Number: R0074122 Transaction Date: 03/26/2009 Transaction ID: R0074122 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 8901 89.88 Transaction Amount: 89.88 -v. /i/^£- OF- S. 2/3 i-Or ^ I ^02 y 07-11-00 / RNB CHANGES BLK OLD NEW YR CUT 70 3SSI jr/ 71 •*3t7 71 8 •171-/' 78 7m 3& 73 SAN r)lEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 8K 2ti» PQ 16 -S.E.COR. LOT 4 28 SE. ROS S8 09 I SHT'I SAN DIEGO (XXMTY ASSESSOi^'S UAP 214-59 SHT 1 OF 3 1" = 200* 4/10/02 MGF CHA .NOES ax AEir/VW w a airm 36 sao f mjj w a airm 36 -U0-2S 4 et 10004 3 «2 300 t 7ki A COHDO ce 3S4 t K xe i *ie IB too 12 02 034 NOTE: SEE CONOO PLANS FOR BROS k. DISTS 1* CONOO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 1 OOC 00-490762 (SEE SHEET 2) 2* CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 2 DOC 01-021931 (SEE SHEET 3) 3* CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 3 DOC 01-36800 (SEE SHEET 3) 4* CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 4 DOC 01-74126 (SEE SHEET 3) 5» CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHA^ 5 DOC 01-97733 {SEE. SHEET 3) 6* CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 6 DOC 01-160067 (SEE SHEET 2) MAP 13967- CARLSBAD TCT CT 97-22 J 09 214-15 SHT. I OF 2- 400* !5 8/30/02 JK CHANGES BLK OLD'NEW YR CUT ll-IZ 7/ SJJ2 r3-i4- 3^/3 ) /7/ /ft »•'*? p&.r. 73 /9 14 ii4- 'Tl- IS 7+ 2551 /<£> 75 3141 7.5 sse /fckUf Hemts 8Z 4-07G B3 4180 /^cMTM 83 '434-1 ^IIS 5?:'A'!K/LL|84 4158 /S 45^-85 Z7 -n, 4i>S/ 21 10Z7 18 24*25 00 1670 24 PG 59 01 26 25 PG 59 01 10004 17 PG 60 01 69 r 1 i 1 '• dAAC C&AC SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 2 m SHT. I PG OF THIS W WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABIITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBOIVSON OR BUILDING ORDNANCES. PGR SEC 29 - ROS 12828, TI2S-P4W 3326 09 \ 214-17 SHT.20P 3 THIS ms> WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. tC UABlin S ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURAa OF THE DATA SHOWR ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDWISON OR BUIDING OROWANCES. SMnSTEGO COUMTY ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 2I'» rii *7 - SHT 2 OF 3 MAP 7955 - CARLSBAD tCT NO. 71-2 UNIT NO.2 MAP 795H - CARLSBAD TCT NO.71-2 UNIT NO.1 SEC 28 - T12S-RHW - PGR W 1/2 SEC 29 - T12S-RHW - POR E 1/2 ROS 6269 T r- 400' 8/30/02 JK N/ c HANGES OLD NEW CUT /7/ 12 75 /qo 111 f?cK,-Up SI 3503 ni f?cK-Uf mobile. sz 4085 Ml 83 4iSI 171 -73-J^ KILL 82 4275 171 772-/+/ -7^-99. KILL 83 4-299 '7/ za 3b, THfli' 10042. 17/ zo 64 222. /?/ fl*IV./4-as 171 29-35 a& Z7 J7/ Si, 2)4-17 SHT 3 NO SCALE 1/29/03 ^ CHANGES BLK OLD NEW YR CUT TO ) 73 4-17S 70 03 84 4SZ0 70 Oi, 66 KILL. SS 4-283 73 0(t KILL 8S-435'3 73 3C 88 4332 7/ 14. Al\0 72 82 9/ 4370 X> 93 r/ Of 71 PICKUP 4286 70 PICKUP 16 99 4226 70 PICKUP 18 00 4304 72 PICKUP 13 01 4058 72 PICKUP 19 01 4203 72 13 Kia 01 4329 71 PICKUP 68 02 6000 73 PICKUP 41 03 4233 73 PICKUP 40 03 4284 SPACE PARCEL NUMBER i TO 99 772-141 -70-Oi TO 99 100 TO 199 772-141 - 71- 00 TO 99 200 TO 299 772-141 - 72-00 TO 99 300 TO 384 772- 141 - 73-00 TO 84 SAN OlEGO COUNTY ASSESSORS IMAP BOOK 214 PAGE . JT. SHT. 3 OF 3 THIS MAP WAS PfJEPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO UABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR-SPARCB.^ MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISK)N OR BUILDING ORDINANCES. LAKESHORE GARDENS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY MAPPED FOR MOBILE HOME ASSESSMENT ONLY 09 I SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 216 PG 01 216-01 too 4 CHANGES BLK OLD NEW YR CUT 2 72 5f>ZS THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISDH OR BUILDING ORDIMANCES. SEC 32 - T12S-RHW - POR NE 1/4 (LOT I) I" : 100' 07-11-00 / RNB CHANGES BLK OLD NEW YR CUT /6 30-21 70 3SSI liffSl 71 4-317 32^3 34$3& 11 8 -17/-/' 7S 7S7Z Z(>f30 3C 73 6.34f 1 69 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 2|ii PG 16 ^-S.E.COR. LOT 4 '28 09 SAN OECO COUNTY AS^SSOR'S MAP 214-59 SHT 1 OF 3 1" = 200* 4/10/02 MGF OK sao mum HEtm 1 mi 3 m Of mm 30 -/»-» 4 01 10004 i tcaio 02 m t itCONDO 02 354 » m 02 SK J tio 02 too 02 034 NOTE: SEE CONOO PLANS FOR BROS & DISTS 1* CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 1 DOC 00-490762 (SEE SHEET 2) 2» CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 2 DOC 01-021931 (SEE SHEET 3) 3* CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 3 DOC 01-36800 (SEE SHEET 3) 4* CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 4 DOC 01-74126 (SEE SHEET 3) 5» CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 5 DOC 01-97733 (SEE SHEET 3) 6» CONDO HANOVER BEACH COLONY-PHASE 6 DOC 01-160067 (SEE SHEET 2) MAP 13967- CARLSBAD TCT CT 97-22 J 09 SHT. rOF^'-^-^ ^ r= 400' 8/30/02 JK y CHANGES BLK OLD'NEW YR CUT //-/2 7/ S3J2 3-»4-72 /7/ p&.r. 73 /9 //£>/z: . 14 ITI- 19 /(S 3141 8Z 407<o ^Clfl}t S3 4180 /PcK-Up^'lifM S3 4341 p. ly /' .i'*'»''*lfi4. 41 IS 771-/4I 4158 4-ii^S Z7 — 40SSL. 7i _ Ai>si i"/ 18 24&25 00 1670 24 PC 59 01 26 25 PG 59 01 10004 17 PG 60 01 69 i 1 CAAC C&AC SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 2iit PG 15 SHT. i OF 2 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY, NO LWBlfTY S ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISON OR BUILDING ORDNANCES. POR SEC 29 - ROS 12828, TI2S-P4W 3326 09 4- 214-17 SHT.20P 3 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLt NO LWBm S ASSIWED FOR TV€ ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. «SE^S PARCaS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISON OR BUIOING ORDINANCES SMTSTEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 2IH rG "7 . SHT 2 OF 3 MAP 7955 MAP 795H SEC 28 SEC 29 - ROS 6269 - CARLSBAD TCT N0.71- - CARLSBAD TCT NO 71* T12S-R4W - POR W 1/2 T12S-RHW - POR E 1/2 2 UNIT NO. 2 2 UNIT NO. 1 \ T r- 400' 8/30/02 JK y ICHANGESJ SI /?/ 22 7$ ni SI 3B03 171 Rci^-Uf mobile 8Z 4085 \7I flCK-UP nam It r Hints 83 4lS/ 171 KILL 83 427S 171 T7Z-/*I -71-99. KILL 83 4-299 .17/ t,37 o * !004Z 17/ ZO 84 2n /?/ /s es 171 29-35 ^214 focoi Si 27 /7l 8i> 214-17 SHT 3 1^0 SCALE 1/29/03 ''^ CHANGES BLK OLD NEW YR CUT 70 Rck.Up (id" / 73 u 4-ns 70 03 84 4SZ0 70 Oi, 66 KILL. &s 4-283 73 0& KILL es 435-3 73 3C 88 433£ 1\ 14. Vi AZIO 72 82 9/ 4370 35 93 r/ a/ 71 PICKUP 61 4286 70 PICKUP 16 99 4226 70 PICKUP 18 00 4304 72 PICKUP 13 01 4058 72 PICKUP 19 01 4203 72 13 KILL 01 4329 71 PICKUP 68 02 6000 73 PICKUP 41 03 4233 73 PICKUP 40 03 4284 SPACE PARCEL NUMBER i TO 99 772-141 -70-01 TO 99 100 TO 199 772-141 -71-00 TO 99 200 TO 299 772-141 - 72-00 TO 99 300 TO 384 772- 141 - 73-00 TO 84 SAN mm COUNTY ASSESSOR^ HiWf BOOK ei4.PAGE .i7.. SHT. 3 OF 3 THIS WAS PREPAi^D FOR ASSESSMENT PUi«^SES ONLY NO UABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCaS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISION OR BUILDING ORDINANCES. LAKESHORE GARDENS MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY MAPPED FOR MOBILE HOME ASSESSMENT ONLY 09 216-01 100 r4 I SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 216 PG Oi b y > CHAN 3ES BLK OLD MEW YR CUT 2 72 / / / / / / ...J / / THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDIVISION OR BUILDING ORDINANCES. SEC 32 - T12S-RHW - POR NE 1/H (LOT I) 09 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSulENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABirTY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL SUBDiViSON OR BUIDING ORDNANCES. 216-14 I I (O CN A. N.70''or45''E, B. N.44'48'07"E, C. N.3*'20'H'*E. D. N.74°09'40''E. E. N6ri5'3:^E. F- N4I^''46"E NB^ne'scfE H. KJ2raa'i8"E I. Sief04'IO"Ey„^ 80.62 J R-628, ITI.95 K R-7i2, 194.95 L R-628. 22.87 M R-20. 32.14 N 55r25'I6''E, 161.24 88.60 57 28 81.10 78 33.80 37 66 86.70 146.24 400' 5/12/00 JGRO .4 pi?o i .\,ih-ie //-/'!• 5 ISO-// 2lp tSO-ot /6 SS /0/S3 »S23 /7'/9 Si /2/ //i-13 ?<>/// s» /3ZO iS 22^23 86 1299 P&.4Z S7 147 26 38 1007 .24 3Z433 es /9ZS 34-36 ?/ iS&S 37/je m\ l7.lt,Z7. w.»*f7 44>96> 88 30&31 13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 8K 216 <>G IH MAP II6I6 - CARLSBAD TCT.85-14 PHASE-I MAP 11290-CARLSBAD TCT 82-I8CC0NDM) SEC 28 - T i2S-R4W - POR SW 1/4 SEC 32 - T12S-R4»» - POR NE m SEC 33 - T12S-RH*! - NVl 1 4 ROS 1676.6561.15600 o o CM O O CO o cn 09 DETAIL "A" SCALE 1"=10D' 8* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 6 00C99-0037S54(SEE SHT 3) 9* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE B D0C99-22995&99-37SS5 (SEE SHT 3) 10* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 9 0OC99-096673 (SEE SHT 2) n* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 10 D0C99-096676 (SEE SHT 2) 12* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 11 00C99-2S6372 tc 491307 (SEE SHT 3) 13* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHA% 13 0OC99-491306 (SEE SHT 3) 14* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 15 OOC99-491309(SEE SHT 3) 15* CONDO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 12 0OC99-67S480 (SEE SHT 2) 16* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE U-1 0OC99-67S48I (SEE SHT 2) 17* CONDO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE U-2 00C99-675482 (SEE SHT 2) SAN DKGO COUNTY ASSESSORS UAP 216-51 SHT 1 OF 3 1" = 200* 03/30/01 MGF ^ VOID HA NOP aur IfKAfH m arm no a mios im u OJ ojtmito ato It 2 P6S3SMII t2.KS2 as n rmjia UBMU » tl II 14 mt m 30 miH 13 tota 1« 1042 21 to (tr 24 tl m 141 1/ 2/'2l COMBO 00 SIT ce lS*2t M 00 i2l cc its JIBWJO 00 74 30»2S 00 i4l CC 3tt32 00 s« cc tU4J 4<4i4e* com 00 SOS 2M4I 4/M4i t corns 00 sas cc H 43040 00 str oc —M torn •to- 34 3403 arco 00 t40 SliS2 00 tss JSitS3 iS* COMM 00 tie 40 CWOO 01 sit U PRIVATE ST 2» OPEN SPACE 3* CONDO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 2 00C98-688023 (SEE SHT 2) 4* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 3 00C98-757057 (SEE SHT 2) 5* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 5 00098-757060 (SEE SHT 2) 6* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 7 D0C98-757063 (SEE 2) 7* CONOO VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO PHASE 4 00C99-0022989(SEE SHT 3) SCALE 1"=50' MAP 13803-CARLSBAD TCT NO 97-19 POINSETTIA SHORES AREA D MAP 13616-CARLSBAD TCT NO 94-08 POINSETTIA SHORES AREA B-1 MAP 13181 - CARLSBAD TCT NO 94-01 UNIT 1 j 09 VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO-PHASE 3 DOC 98 - 757057 POR LOT 1. MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-26 SUB ID EH- VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIF[CO-PHASE 2 DOC 98 - 688023 POR LOT 1, MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-21 SUB ID [SI - Ej SAN OIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 1 216-51 1 SHT 2 S 1" = 100' 03-24-99 / RNB CONDOMINIUM o CM to m 09 VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO-PHASE 8 DOC 99 - 22995&99-37555 POR LOT 1. MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-42 SUB ID EB - D!] ANCHORAGE mm mm mm m\2 mm C9131 mm 31130 VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO-PHASE 6 DOC 99 - 037554 POR LOT 1, MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-30 SUB ID [QD - QH VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO-PHASE 4 DOC 99 - 037553 POR LOT 1. MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-27 SUB ID [m] - Gi] VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFIC0-PHASE11 DOC 99 - 286372&:491307 POR LOT 1. MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-44 SUB ID [SS - HI] SAN OICCO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S UAP 216-51 SHT 3 1" = 100' 03/30/01 MGF ^ AVE [Bail? 09119 B2116 saiiB mm 02121 mm OI35 m\i2 03137 ei36 I QSi39 03138 mm mm 010124 mm mm QZI140 POINT AVE 0387 OS85 KS88 0386 0S183 0284 0381 iSD79 0982 Q280 7 VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO-PHASE 13 DOC 99 - 491308 POR LOT 1, MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-50 SUB ID - DD OS77 0375 03378 0976 VISTAMAR AT SAN PACIFICO-PHASE 15 DOC 99 - 491309 POR LOT 1, MAP 13616 ASSESSMENT PAR NO 216-510-54 SUB ID [Oil - QT] o m CONDOMINIUM Notice of Determination FILE copy To: • Office ofPlanning and Research From: CITY OF CARLSBAD P.O. Box 3044 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 El SD County Clerk (760) 602-4600 Attn: Anthony J. Consul Mail Stop A-3 3 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92101 Project No: RP 05-11/CDP 09-04 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort Project Title 2007031141 City of Carlsbad, Christer Westman (760) 602- 4614 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number South of Ponto Drive and east of Carlsbad Boulevard in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area, the Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, and Local Facilities Management Zone 22, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: Wave Crest Resorts II Applicant's Address: 829 Second Street Suite A Encinitas CA 92024 Applicant's Telephone Number: (760) 753-2440 Project Description: Request for a determination that the project is SVithin the scope of the previously certified Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activities for the purposes of CEQA and a recommendation for approval of a Redevelopment Permit and Redevelopment Coastal Development Permit and approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of 10 existing structures and the development of a 215 room, three-story hotel, with 10,385 sq.ft. of conference space, a 5,100 sq.ft. day spa, a 5,100 square foot restaurant, a two-story parking structure, a basement garage, and an outdoor swimming pool on 8.01 acres of land. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on May 6, 2009, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment 2. The project is within the scope of the previously certified Ponto Beachfi-ont Village Vision Plan Environmental Impact Report. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Environmental Impact Report with comments and responses and record o/fDroject approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. DON NEU, Planning Director Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised December 2004 Notice of Determination To: Kl Office ofPlanning and Research From: CITY OF CARLSBAD P.O. Box 3044 fs" n n n=3 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 T " ^ E 0635 Faraday Avenue . ''''"^''""'•«-«"n,c^arlsbad,CA 92009 • ^ 13 SD County Clerk nr-p ^ C^^^) 602-4600 4 Attn: Anthony J. Consul '^^^ 0 5 2007 Mail Stop A-33 D. Ffcke^S JAN 200fi 1600 Pacific Highway BY ^ ^'^ ^""^ San Diego, CA 92101 Pfe"ningD« Project NorCD^Oi^l/GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI OS^I^^^ Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 ofthe Public Resources Code. PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Project Title 2007031141 City of Carlsbad. Christen Westoaii (760)602- 4614 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number Generally located between Carlsbad Boulevard and San Diego Northem Railroad, north of Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Ponto Road Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: City of Carlsbad Applicant's Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 . Applicant's Telephone Number: 760-602-4614 Project Description: The Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan will be identified in the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program as an area of Special Consideration and the Plan establishes goals and guidelines for futvu-e development to create a mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere and unique character of design. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on December 4, 2007 and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will have a significant effect on the environment 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. IS ayaiiaoie to tne ui DON NEU, Planning Director Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised December 2004 000021 STATE OF CAUFORNIA -^E RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Lead Agency: City of Cailsbad County/State Agency of Filing: San Diego Project Title: Ponto Beachfront Village Plan *321154* Date: 12/05/2007 Documert No.: 014322 Project Applicant Name: City of .Carlsbad Project Applicant Address: 1635 Faraday Ave City Carisbad state CA Zip Code 92008 Phone Number (760) 602-4614 Project Applicant (check appropriate box): I I Local Public Agency [UJ School District [Z] Other Special District Q State Agency [/] Private Entity Check Applicable Fees: Environmental Impact Report Negative Declaration Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs County Administrative Fee Project that is exempt from fees I I Notice of Exemption I I DFG No Effect Detemiination (Fonn Attached) D _. , TOTAtRECi . Fickess Signature and title of person receiving payment S2.500.00 $1,800.00 $850.00 $850.00 $50.00 2,500.00 WHTfE - PROJECT APPUCM4T YEUOW-DRS/FASB PlfJK-LEAD AGENCY GOUXNFtOO - COUKTY OERK DFG 753.5a (R«. 1«7) *321154* 000020 V" i ^^Gregory J. Smith COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 103 San Diego, CA 92101-2480 Tel. (619)236-3771 * Fax (619) 557-4056 www.sdarcc.coni RECORDERyCOUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Higljway, Room 260 P.O. Box 121750 • San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Tel. (619)237-0502 • Fax (619)557-4155 Transaction #: 165348720071205 Deputy: DFICKESS Location: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 05-Dec-2007 15:29 FEES: 2,500.00 Qty of 1 Fish & Game Env Impact (2500) 50.00 Qty of 1 Fish and Game Filing Fee 2,550.00 TOTAL DUE PAYMENTS: 2,550.00 Check 2,550.00 TENDERED EFFECTIVE Jan 1,2008 - Passports are required to re-enter the United States. Passport applications are available at the County Administration Center in Room 402 and passport photos in Room 273. SERVICES AVAILABLE AT OFFICE LOCATIONS Tax iBill Address Changes Records and Certified Copies: Birth/ Marriage/ Death/ Real Estate Fictitious Business Names (DBAs) Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies Assessor Parcel Maps Property Ownership Property Records Property Values Document Recordings (Except in Kearny Mesa) SERVICES AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT www.sdarcc.com Forms and Applications Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Grantor/ Grantee Index Fictitious Business Names Index (DBAs) Property Sales Weddings on the Web On-Line Purchases Assessor Parcel Maps Property Characteristics Recorded Documents CHULA VISTA 590 Third Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910-2646 (619)498-2277 BRANCH OFFICES AVAILABLE TO SERVE YOU Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturdays at the Keamy Mesa Office 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. EL CAJON 200 South Magnolia Ave. El Cajon.CA 92020-3316 (619)401-5750 KEARNY MESA 9225 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. San Diego. CA 92123-1211 (858) 505-6226 SAN MARCOS 141 E Carmel Street San Marcos, CA 92078-4309 (760)940-6858 000023 state of California—The Resources flfpicy DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH R^^F»^^'-. "'1-^02009 000428 SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON t^EVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY RECEIPT* (\TE CLEARING HOUSE # (ifapplicable) 1)7031141 LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD DATE 05-15-2009 COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO DOCUMENTNUMBER 090117 PROJECT TITLE HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT PROJECT APPLICANT NAME WAVE CREST RESORTS II PHONENUMBER 760-753-2440 PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS 829 SECOND STREET, SUITE A CITY ENCINITAS STATE CA ZIPCODE 92024 PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): • Local Public Agency • School District • Other Special District a State Agency IZI Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: • Environmental Impact Report Q Negative Declaration Q Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) • Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs • County Administrative Fee • Project that is exempt from fees Q Notice of Exemption • DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) • Other PAYMENT METHOD: • Cash • Credit • Check • Other 9093 $2,768.25 $ $1,993.00 $ $850.00 $ $941.25 $ $50.00 $ TOTAL RECEIVED $ $2,768.25 $50.00 $50.00 SIGNATURE X L. Kesian TITLE Deputy REM: 7/2002 ROT: 208338 II ORIGIMAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK FG 763,5a (Rev. 7/08) Notice of Determination To: • Office ofPlanning and Research From: CITY OF CARLSBAD. P.O. Box 3044 Planning Dj^rtment 4 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 IF D [L H © 1635 Faraaiiy Avenue David Butler, Recorder/County Clerk Carlsbarfj jC A 92008 ^ SD County Clerk ^..^ K; 9nnQ (t60) 602-4600 ; Attn: Anthony J. Consul ! 0 aJUa ^ • ^ ^, Mail Stop A-33 B/ L. Kesiafi \^ «^ X? 1600 Pacific Highway DEPUTY , ' • ' San Diego, CA 92101 ^ - 1^ v • ' Project No: SDP 05-147CDP 05-43 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort Project Title 2007031141 City of Carlsbad, Christer Westman (760) 602- 4614 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number South of Ponto Drive and east of Carlsbad Boulevard in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area, the Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, and Local Facilities Management Zone 22, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: Wave Crest Resorts II Applicant's Address: 829 Second Street Suite A Encinitas CA 92024 Applicant's Telephone Number: (760) 753-2440 Project Description: Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activities for the purposes of CEQA and a recommendation for approval of a Redevelopment Permit and Redevelopment Coastal Development Permit and approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of 10 existing structures and the development of a 215 room, three-story hotel, with 10,385 sq.ft. of conference space, a 5,100 sq.ft. day spa, a 5,100 square foot restaurant, a two-story parking structure, a basement garage, and an outdoor swimming pool on 8.01 acres of land. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on May 6, 2009, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment 2. The project is within the scope of the previously certified Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Environmental Impact Report. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Environmental Impact Report with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. NEU, Planning Director M ^f j / r. Date Date received for filing at OPR: < : • L. KGSian Revised December 2004 Notice of Detei#..iation To: Office ofPlanning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 602-4600 County Oak County of San Diego Mailstop 833, Attn: Wendy PO Box 121750 San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Project No: EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178/LFMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code BRESSI RANCH Project Title F a L E D Gregory J. Smith. Recorder/Cnuntv Clei1( DEC 2 1 2007 DEPUTY 99041010 City of Carlsbad, Christer Westman (760)602-4614 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number South of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC. Applicant's Address: 5780 Fleet Street Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant's Teleplione Number: 760-918-8858 Project Description: Request for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for approval of a Master Plan identifying six industrial planning areas, seven residential planning areas, one mixed use planning area, one community facilities planning area, and six open space planning areas for the purpose of regulating the future development of up to 623 residential units, 2.16 million square feet of industrial buildings, 130,000 square feet of commercial buildings, and 138,000 square feet of community related services and/or facilities; General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivision map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permits for the purpose of designating the type, location, and infrastructural needs of development within,a 585.1 acre site. ' This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above descnbed project on July 9, 2002, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental liapact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition ofthe approval ofthe project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. 5. Findings were made pinsuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is avulable to ibt General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. MICHAEL J. HOEZMlLtER. Planning Di LidSR, Planning Director '€>Z. Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised December 2001 NOTE ADDITIONAL FEES. STATfe DEPARTMENT OFFISH & GAME Cities and Counties throughout California has been notified of legislation (AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990) which became effective on January 1, 1991. This law requires the State of California Department of Fish and Game to levy a fee to ali project applicants (public and private) subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. Projects which are categorically exempt from CEQA and which have no adverse impact on fish and wildlife or projects which are denied, are not subject to the fee. All other projects are subject to the following fees: Projects with Negative Declarations Projects with EIRs Due to State Law constraints the City of Carlsbad will collect the fee where applicable and pass it to the County of San Diego. - After submission, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department will make an Environmental Assessment of your application. After this initial assessment the Planning Department will notify you if the fee is required. State Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento CA 94244-2090 (916)445-3531 Check Payable to: County Clerk County "of San Diego Mailstop 833 Attn: Wendy PO Box 121750. San Diego CA 92112-1750 7o AMOUNT: ACCQUMT HOr/On/ /D Q^^^^—-^-^ P.O. NO: : \ APPROVED BY- ?!;• N t-t:fe£^ Taxable Yet SaiMTaxOninvoiot (VM, MndkwoiGf k Rnaim) .Ye». EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04 MP 178/ LTMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/SUP 99-03/ SUP 01-01 - BreBsl Ranch STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY 208338 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME . ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT L..6AZT'''^''(j\i cT QgrL^toa ^ Date:2jMM ment No.: O ^ County J State Agency of Filing: -•• ^'' '--i Document No.: W-ntle: ftrig<>5\ tondn ^ r - Project Applicant Name: Project Applicant Address: Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency Q School District Other Special District Q State Agency [[^ Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0^'_ ^Environmental Impact Report $850.00. S 03*^' ) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ ) Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 S .g ) County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ ) Project that is exempt from fees ^ ^ C Signature and title of person receiving payment: OgjAL RECEIVED WHITE-PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOM/-DFG/FASB \J PINK-LEAD AGENCY GOLDEKROO-STATE AGENCY OF FILING <^ CITY OF ^CARLSBAD Memorandum November 27, 2012 To: John Coates, Interim City Manager From: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Neighborhood Services Directot?"^^^ Re: Hanover Resident Meeting to discuss resident Issues and concerns For the City Council's information, attached is a letter and issues/responses summary forwarded to the residents in the Hanover Beach Colony residential development last week for their information. A final resident meeting is scheduled for Saturday, December 1, 2012 within the Hanover neighborhood to review the work coordinated to date by City staff to address resident issues and/or concerns about the new Hilton Beachfront Resort and Spa in the Ponto Area. The attached letter and issues/responses summary is provided forthe information ofthe City Council only. No action is required, and neither the Mayor nor any of the City Council members are requested to attend the resident meeting. The Housing and Neighborhood Services Director along with the Hotel Owner (Bill Canepa) and Hotel Manager (Bob Moores) will attend the resident meeting to address any final questions regarding the issues addressed to date and how future issues will be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the meeting or the attached summary. Thank you, Attachment cc: Bryan Jones, Transportation Skip Hammann, Transportation Gary Barberio, Community and Economic Development Christer Westman, Community and Economic Development Don Neu, Community and Economic Development Lt. Marc Reno, Police Department Gary Morrison, Police Department Housing & Neighborhood Services 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2810 I 760-720-2037 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov <^ 0tk- CITY OF ^CARLSBAD Housing & Neighborhood Services www.carisbadca.gov November 20, 2012 Resident Hanover Beach Colony Residential Community Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 On July 10, 2012, several residents of Hanover Beach Colony spoke at the City Council meeting regarding their concerns/issues/problems with the new Hilton Beachfront Resort and Spa that was recently constructed and began operations adjacent to the Hanover neighborhood. The Mayor requested that the residents provide a comprehensive list of their concerns and to share their desired solutions. City staff was instructed to meet with the Hanover residents and work to address as many ofthe identified concerns as possible. Since July, 2012, City staff has been working with the hotel owner, manager and a number of the Hanover residents to problem solve and address operational impacts from the new hotel on the residential community. A resident meeting was held on July 18, 2012 and again on October 20, 2012 in an attempt to address concerns and to develop acceptable solutions to address them. Attached is a summary ofthe identified issues, concerns and responses. Many ofthe original issues and concerns have been addressed, and a few are still a work in progress for issue resolution. The City would like to thank the residents that have been involved in the problem solving process, and the various subcommittees who worked with the hotel owner and his staff as well as city staff to develop successful solutions. A follow up meeting to discuss the attached summary of issues and solutions will be held in the Hanover neighborhood on December 1, 2012 at 10am for any additional questions from the residents on the solutions developed or actions taken to date. The attached summary is provided at this time to all residents to update you on this matter. You are also invited to the resident meeting on December 1^* to discuss the summary or hear the resident subcommittee reports. Thank you for sharing your concerns with the City, and once again thank you to those residents who have been assisting the City to problem solve. If you have any questions or comments on the attached summary, please contact my office at (760) 434-2815 or by email at debbie.fountain@carlsbadca.gov. :;erely, Debbie Fountain Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Housing & Neighborhood Services 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2810 I 760-720-2037 fax Hanover Neighborhood \y CITY OF Hilton Hotel Issues, Concerns and Responses CARLSBAD (November, 2012) Concern #1. Vehicle Traffic, including delivery trucks to the Hilton Hotel, driving through the Hanover neighborhood. Resident Issue: Employees and all deliveries should enter off of Avenida Encinas to Ponto Drive, not off Carlsbad Blvd to Ponto Drive; median at loading dock location should be removed to allow deliveries into the loading dock from the south. The general public, as well as guests, employees and others are using the streets and sidewalk in Hanover neighborhood. These are private streets. If the public is going to have access to the Hanover streets, the project needs to be rezoned and the streets made public. Response: To address the issue of traffic from deliveries, the hotel manager is working to limit deliveries to the hours of 10am to 2pm. The hotel is educating the drivers and indicated to them that they will only accept deliveries during the times noted. The drivers will also be told to not park on Ponto Drive to make deliveries. The developer/manager will continue their education program, and work to change the driver behaviors as they become more familiar with the site and delivery restrictions. While access to the hotel can be provided off of Avenida Encinas, there is no legal or practical way to restrict the use of Ponto Drive for any drivers, delivery or otherwise. Ponto Drive is a public street that was intended to provide access to the Ponto Area as well as Hanover. As a result, the hotel was designed and approved to have deliveries made from Ponto Drive (trucks traveling south on Ponto), and then exit to the South. If, however, the trucks make a u-turn and return on Ponto Drive traveling north, there is no restriction. It just is not the most efficient travel path for them. Per the City's Land Use Engineering Manager, the most northern corner where Ponto Drive and Ponto Road connect (at the future proposed Beach Street) is too narrow, and there are existing obstructions which make it impossible for an 18-wheeler to make a smooth, one-pass turn at this intersection. Therefore, the path of travel from Avenida Encinas would not be possible for these larger vehicles. At this time, no revisions to the delivery path of travel are being required by the City. However, all types of traffic may continue to enter or exit from Avenida Encinas if they choose to do so. The hotel owner indicated that he would encourage employees to enter from Avenida Encinas. The Police Department will assist with the street parking education process, and will begin ticketing drivers not in compliance with parking restrictions on Ponto Drive. The streets were made private in Hanover because the developer proposed street widths and other improvements that did not meet city standards. The project was approved as submitted by the developer, and the streets will remain private. If the homeowner' association chooses to restrict access to the public, then the HOA must enforce the regulations. The Police Department may not enforce parking restrictions, speed limits, etc. on private streets. The Police Department has advised that the HOA speak directly with a local tow company to understand the laws under which vehicles may be towed, or consult with an attorney with expertise in this area. The HOA may also want to consider requesting approval to add security gates to the development to restrict access. Concern U2. Excessive/too bright hotel lights. Resident issue: Lighting plan should be reconsidered. Reduce number of lights or their intensity. Lights should not remain on all day. The lights coming from the ballroom hallways should be buffered with curtains or shutters that can be closed at night (if they truly must remain on all night as hotel operator stated to resident); light diverters are needed or lighting needs to be muted. Response: Currently, action is underway by the hotel owner/manager to shield or reduced lighting wattage/power to address the resident concerns. In addition, consideration will be given to turning off lights at night that are not needed for safety reasons. The hotel has received some suggestions from the City and agreed to implement them to reduce the impact of the lights. The hotel owner indicated that they would complete the lighting revisions by the first week of December. Concern #3. Crime/danger (RV storage/homes/cars); increase in transients: there have been increase in thefts and break-ins: cars. RV storage and homes. Resident Issue: Extra security patrol required for Hanover; Hotel operators should be required to have their security patrol the Hanover neighborhood as well, especially when there is a special event at the hotel. Response: There is currently 24 hours security patrol, seven days a week for the hotel property. The security officer is dressed in a black suit (not standard security guard uniform) and patrols the hotel property, including the parking structure, every hour. The hotel does not feel that it is appropriate for the security guard to also patrol the private streets and residential community of Hanover for liability and operational reasons. Residents should contact the Police if there is a problem in their neighborhood of a criminal nature. Concern #4. Traffic Speed on Ponto near our entrv streets; Speeding through the Hanover neighborhood: no posted speed signs. Valets driving too fast out of garage to return cars to guests. Hotel sign creates a blind spot: difficult to see past the sign for oncoming vehicles. Hanover has a speed limit of 15 mph within its neighborhoods: Ponto Drive needs posted speed limit and caution signs to slow down the traffic dramaticallv. Other traffic calming measures also need to be installed: stop signs, speed bumps. Resident Issue: Need a stop sign at Leeward and Ponto, and at the exit from the parking garage for hotel. Security gates for Hanover entries will assist with reducing speeds into their neighborhood. Hotel monument sign needs to be revised. Response: At the resident meeting on October 20, 2012, a committee of four Hanover residents (Liam Feurgeson, Mike Burner, Pat Kerins, and Mark O'Donnell) agreed to meet with Bryan Jones, Engineering ManagerAraffic Engineer, to discuss the locations of one or more stops signs to slow traffic down on Ponto and to assign the right-of-way where appropriate. The committee was to meet with city and hotel staff to discuss the need for the stop sign(s) further, and report back at the next resident meeting. Two associate engineers from the Transportation Department and Bryan Jones recently met with the resident sub-committee. After walking the entire roadway and intersection looking at all the various approaches on Ponto, a collaborative decision was made that a stop sign in either direction was not the solution at this time at Ponto and Leeward. Installing a stop sign in one direction will add to driver confusion and we do not want to implement a solution that creates a new problem. Stop signs do not always prevent collisions from occurring and in some cases can just change the type of collision that occurs depending on the compliance with the stop sign. One ofthe issues observed with the intersection was that a challenge is created by the fact that the median islands are pulled back from the intersection and that it does not feel like a normal tight intersection. Drivers are making longer diagonal mianeuvers instead of more direct left- turns in the intersection. To address this issue, the City will be adding painted medians to extend the nose ofthe medians closer to the intersection itself to help facilitate a tighter intersection and encouraging left-turns rather than diagonal maneuvers in both the eastbound and westbound direction. This should help motorists to limit their exposure to traveling a longer distance across the intersection rather than making a direct left- turn (which is generally a quicker and safer maneuver). A sketch ofthe improvements is attached. In addition, in the westbound direction, the City will be adding a sign indicating intersection ahead and also narrowing the travel lane from 12' to 10' with a left-side yellow stripe a couple feet off of and parallel to the median. This should help enhance the safety of the roadway from a driver's perspective become more aware of the intersection. Narrowing travel lanes with paint has proven to be effective to reduce speeds on the roadway. We realize that it will not slow everyone just as everyone does not stop at a stop sign. The Police Department has monitored speed limit enforcement on and near Ponto. To date, there has actually been fairly good compliance on the posted speed limit (25 miles per hour), which was installed on August 21, 2012. Unfortunately some do drive faster than the speed limit and that is why we set it at 85 percent rather than 100 percent. When the speed survey was completed to establish the posted speed limit 85 percent of the vehicles were driving at or below 24 MPH. That is a lot better than many of our residential streets throughout the city. Our Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program's highest priority residential streets have 85th percentile speeds in the 32-39 MPH range. The ongoing speeding concern has, however, been reported to the Police Department for continuing monitoring. City will continue to evaluate the solutions implemented, and if they do not seem to be working the sub-committee will be reconvened to continue the discussion on additional solutions. As a final note, if Hanover wishes to install security gates or otherwise revise access or make other design changes, an application for a Planned Development Permit will need to be submitted for review with the required application fee. The proposed gate design would need to comply with Engineering and Fire Department requirements. An initial review ofthe potential for a gate has been completed by our Land Use Engineering Team and they believe security gates could be added that meet the standards. However, neither the hotel nor the City will pay to have these gates designed and installed. Staff suggests that the HOA contact a security gate contractor to discuss the options and design. Concern #5. Hotel employees directing traffic off Ponto like it is their street/driveway Resident Issue: The employees need to stop doing this. All traffic should go around to parking garage or to loading dock, or into the entryway without back up onto the public street. Better signage, especially during special events, is necessary. Guests and others should be directed to access the hotel off of Avenida Encinas, to Ponto Road, to Ponto Drive. They should not be using Carlsbad Boulevard to Ponto Drive. Limit hours for special events. Response: The hotel was designed to take access off of Ponto Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard. Therefore, no change is recommended for this access. The employees will be directed to remain on the hotel property when directing traffic. The police will cite employees or the hotel if its employees are directing traffic in the street without the appropriate permits to do so. However, if necessary, the City's Transportation Department will work with the hotel owner to develop a plan for directing traffic when large numbers of guests are expected to keep the traffic moving on the city street. The City staff is not supportive of requiring a limitation on the events at the hotel because there are no conditions or EIR mitigation requirements which would allow us to do so. However, the hotel owner has indicated that all events in the outdoor event area will end at 10pm, and all music or amplified sound will end at 9pm. Concern #6. Speed of traffic on Carlsbad Blvd/Signals. Resident Issue: Reduce speed limit on Carlsbad Boulevard to 30 or 35 mph; traffic is moving too fast and presents a safety issue. Add pedestrian crossing signs at intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Ponto Drive. Response. The Transportation Department will consider this suggestion for the future as the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard is considered from a project development standpoint. However, at this time, no action is proposed to reduce the speed on Carlsbad Boulevard. Additional pedestrian crossing signs can't be installed per State Law since there is already assignment of right-of-way control provided by the traffic signal and automated pedestrian crossing signals. Concern #7. Hotel guests walking/bicvcling/skate boarding through, and parking within, the Hanover neighborhood; guests using the Tot Lot Park in Hanover; guests from the campground are also doing these same things. . Resident Issue: Guests need to be notified by hotel operator that Hanover is a private community and that they are required to respect the privacy ofthe residents - no trespassing, no parking. Hotel operator also needs to provide signs for Hanover during special events to let guests know that they are not permitted to park in the Hanover community and that they will be towed if they do. Residents understand the concerns for blight from the signs, but believe that they are necessary to prevent continued negative impacts on their neighborhood. Hotel operator needs to provide security during special events to prevent negative impact to Hanover residents. Security gates, as already mentioned, will also assist in addressing this issue. Response: The hotel will make every effort to ensure that their guests are aware of the amenities provided at the hotel to assist with reducing the amount of impact on the residential community. The hotel is supportive of a strict policy at Hanover to tow non-resident vehicles to deter this behavior by beach users as well as their hotel guests. The hotel owner and manager will not be providing any temporary special event signage at this time. However, if this continues to be a problem in the future, steps will be taken to re-evaluate the situation and take additional action at a later date. The hotel was not willing to provide security for the residential neighborhood, but will have its security continue to patrol the property and address any issues that arise. Residents should contact the police department directly for assistance with any criminal activity within their neighborhood. As noted above, Hanover residents can submit a Planned Development Permit Amendment application for the review of security gates if desired by the residents. The residents, however, will need to pay for the gates. Concern #8. Hotel guests/workers/emplovees using Hanover entrv corners for lunch/pick-up. Employees sit on the corner entrv to Hanover and eat, smoke and talk on their phones; disturbs the residents. Resident Issue: Employees need to be instructed that they need to find a new location for breaks. They should not be sitting in front ofthe homes within Hanover to eat, drink, smoke, etc. In addition, there needs to be an employee entrance through the loading area for employees to enter and leave the site; need a specific break area for employees which does not impact the residents. Response: Per the hotel owner and manager, there is an employee entrance through the loading/unloading dock. The employees do not enter at the front ofthe hotel. There is also a very nice employee lounge. Therefore, the employees have appropriate accommodations which should limit the impact on the residents. The hotel will continue to encourage the employees to use the hotel amenities specifically developed for their employees. Concern #9. Hotel employees using Main Entrance access to and from work; they should be coming off of Avenida Encinas. Resident Issue: Employees should be instructed to access the property from the south (off of Avenida Encinas) and to park or be picked up in a manner which does not have a negative impact on Hanover. Response: Hotel owner has indicated that he will encourage employees to access the property off of Avenida Encinas. Concern #10. Noise from hotel vendors/party set-up deliveries breaking down; delivery trucks queuing on Ponto Drive waiting to pick UP equipment and other items. Resident Issue. Require all deliveries to be made from the south (Avenda Encinas); queuing needs to occur south of hotel; limit hours for deliveries and pick-ups from the hotel; late night pick-ups of equipment should hot be permitted regardless of liability. They are not quiet when they pick up equipment, and are not respecting the residents' rights to quiet enjoyment of their home. Maybe should have the hotel post a sign on Avenida Encinas indicating that is the street to use to access the entrance to the Hilton Hotel. Response: Please see notes above on deliveries. The hotel owner and manager intend to restrict the deliveries and pick-ups to the property. In addition, all deliveries/pick-ups will be at the loading dock only; no front entrance deliveries/pick-ups. Equipment will be transported from the loading dock to the other areas of the hotel, including the outdoor event area. The hotel has also indicated that the owner/manager are working to better coordinate with chartered buses and other private transportation of guests to ensure that they are dropping off or picking up passengers in a manner which has the least amount of impact on the resident neighbors. Valet staff will be instructed to direct all buses to the south lobby entrance to stage and pick up and drop off hotel guests. 6 Concern #11. Deliveries to hotel made using Main Entrance coming/leaving; not using Avenida Encinas to Ponto (as promised^ Resident Issue: See comments above. Response: See comments above. Concern #12. Illegal parking on Ponto during events and at other times: requires residents to drive on the wrong side of road to get into their homes. Resident Issue: More police patrol needed; tickets need to be issued; need to keep traffic flowing. Paint a red curb to clearly show that no parking or stopping is permitted on Ponto. Maybe considering installing a "fire lane" to ensure that fire trucks can easily access the hotel and residential properties. Make loading dock more functional; not working correctly. Hotels needs to notify delivery truck operators that they can't park on Ponto and wait for the time to pick up equipment; need to find another location for this staging, (see photos of problem) Response: The hotel is working with the delivery truck drivers to ensure that they comply with all applicable rules, such as delivery times, no deliveries from the street, no parking, etc. The Police will regularly patrol the area, and will begin issuing tickets to those persons parked on Ponto Drive. The Transportation Department did not believe that a painted curb "fire lane" was necessary because there are already no parking signs. See notes above on deliveries. The loading/unloading dock is working as intended and designed. No changes are being required of the hotel. Concern #13. Hotel parking garage not large enough to accommodate parking needs for special events and other hotel uses. Resident Issue: Extra security required for all special events to direct traffic out of Hanover, and to prevent guests from parking in Hanover. Need more parking for the large special events; identify an off-site parking area as overflow parking. Install special event signs to direct and prohibit certain activities (no parking in Hanover; parking garage ahead; enter here for registration); need more "wayfinding" signage for hotel amenities like parking, hotel entrance for registration, deliveries, etc. Response: There are 400 parking spaces provided by the hotel. A100 space underground parking garage is used to park the valet cars, and it has the ability to park more cars if necessary. Employees are required to park in the lower level ofthe parking structure. All remaining parking is available for guests. The hotel is implementing a green initiative to encourage employees to car pool, ride the bus, or find alternative methods for getting to work to reduce on-site parking needs and reduce pollution and traffic. The hotel can also park employees at other locations and shuttle them to the hotel if needed in the future due to parking shortages. The hotel owner also has other options for overflow parking if needed. Concern #14. State beach visitors, including surfers, parking in Hanover neighborhood. Resident Issue: More signage prohibiting access and other activities, and security gates at the entry to prevent vehicles of non-residents. Response: See comments above. If desired, the HOA could have signs installed at the entry to the residential neighborhoods to share the private nature of the community and alert non-residents to the private status of the streets and that they can be towed if parked there. Concern #15. Significant noise from the hotel guests who are attending outdoor events on the property, or sitting outside talking, smoking, etc.; events, including event clean UP and equipment pick-up occurring outdoors after 9pm (time Bill Canepa promised events would end). Resident Issue: There should be no outdoor speakers for music, etc. If there are speakers, they need to be reduced significantly in volume and have very limited hours. Need noise regulations applied to the events to prevent negative impact on the residents in the neighborhood. Increase police patrol and issue citations for violators of any applied noise regulations. Response: The hotel has taken steps to ensure that doors remain closed for the indoor event space to ensure that noise from attendees and bands does not impact the neighbors. The doors no longer can be propped open and security and other hotel staff check the doors frequently to ensure they remain shut. In the outdoor area, all guests are required to leave or move inside at 10pm; all music and/or amplified sound will end at 9pm On October 20, 2012, a resident meeting was held to discuss the actions taken to date and the various pending actions under consideration. A three person resident committee (Mark O'Donnell, Pat Kerins and Larry Meron) agreed to meet with hotel representatives to discuss other actions that could be taken by the hotel to address the noise issues from the outdoor event area. The committee met with the hotel owner and manager and agreed to the following additional actions or policies. The outdoor patio area will no longer host loud live bands and DJs. The hotel will install its own ground level speaker system and most importantly control the sound levels to the appropriate Db levels. A client will be able to connect his/her Ipod and that will be the music played during the event. This will be background music. DJs and live bands will only be allowed to perform/play in the pool area. Additional landscaping will be installed on the interior side ofthe wall that will grow to approximately 8 feet above the wall to mitigate sound and block out the event noise as well as the equipment stored within the outdoor event area Concern #16. Air conditioning units (blowers) operate 24 hours a day; constant hum is very annoying; disturbing the residents quiet enjoyment of their homes: can hear even with their own windows are closed; needs sound mitigation. Resident Issue: Shut the blowers off at night or provide some additional sound attenuation improvements to significantly reduce the noise from the blowers specifically. Response: The hotel owner has taken some actions to address this issue. A large very noisy air conditioning compressor was relocated to the underground garage to address the noise issues. The other noises are believed to be associated with the exhaust fans for the kitchen. These fans are now turned off at 11pm every night. Parapets (wall-like barrier) were also constructed, and other options are being reviewed for additional sound attenuation. At the resident meeting on October 20, 2012, the hotel owner agreed to review the source ofthe noise again for the residents across the street and living closest to the hotel, and discuss further sound attenuation with his maintenance staff if determined to be necessary. The owner subsequently had measurements taken for the sound coming from the hotel, and found no sounds exceeding 20 decibels from the existing rooftop equipment. Therefore, no additional actions have been proposed by the owner for sounds attenuation purposes related to this equipment. Concern #17. Asphalt berm on Ponto Drive, near intersection of Ponto Road is too dark to see at night; need reflectors or reflective paint. Resident Issue: Use reflective paint on the asphalt berms, or install reflectors so that drivers can see the berm at night. Response: The Transportation Department will review this issue, and install reflectors or consider other options as appropriate to address the concern. Concern #18. Increased trash at bus stop on Carlsbad Blvd and at exit; more employees using the bus to get to work. Resident Issue: Install a trash can at the bus stop and regularly have the trash can emptied; keep area clean. Trash cans are also needed at the top of the stairs to and from the beach. Response: Hotel owner has voluntarily agreed to provide funding from room rates to assist in making improvements to the State Campground. Owner will consider some additional improvements to include trash cans by working with the State of California Parks Department. Concern #19. Golf carts are being operated by the hotel on Ponto Drive and on the sidewalks around the property; not a disturbance, but not legal to use golf carts on public streets and right-of-ways. Resident Issue: Notify hotel operator that they are not permitted to drive golf carts on public roads or sidewalks. Response: Hotel has been informed of the regulations and will comply with them. Concern #20. General concern that the hotel does not meet a number of the general conditions for the proiect approval, and has not provided the environmental mitigation required. For example, berm and enhanced landscaping was required for the entry to the hotel to provide mitigation for noise, lights, etc. Residents do not believe this has been provided or adequately provided to address the resident concerns expressed in 2007. Resident Issue: Project conditions need to be reviewed and full compliance needs to be ensured by the City. Environmental mitigation requirements need to be reviewed and full compliance required for these development/operational measures as well. The hotel needs to be in full compliance with all approved conditions and environmental mitigation requirements. Response: The project planner and City Planner have reviewed the conditions of approval for the hotel, as well as the environmental impact mitigation measures for the project, and believe the project is in compliance with the appropriate permits and the EIR. There are a few areas, however, that adjustments can be made to address resident concerns. The lighting is being reviewed and adjustments are being made by the hotel owner to address resident concerns by 1) reducing wattage by one-third and redirecting or shielding lights; and, 2) adding some additional landscaping on entry berm to further buffer residential homes from view and noise of hotel entrance. Concern #21. Early morning noise from ongoing construction activity, such as landscaping trucks dumping large amounts of soil at 5:30am and 5:45am. Resident Issue: Comply with the construction noise requirements; no construction before 7:00am. Response: The hotel has been informed ofthe regulations and intends to comply with applicable rules and regulations ofthe City related to construction start time. The City, however, has no noise regulations related to landscaper start times and other general hotel operations. However, the hotel owner has indicated that they intend to be a good neighbor and will respect the residents and their desire for quiet enjoyment of their home. 10 Concern #22. Unsightly storage of umbrellas and outdoor heaters off of Ponto (within the outdoor event area). Resident Issue: Outdoor storage of equipment should not be permitted; store items out of sight; it would be better for hotel and for residents. Response: The hotel owner intends to plant some additional landscape shrubs to buffer the visual and sound in the outdoor event area. C oncern #23. Landscaped Berm does not comply with approved plans. Resident Issue: The hotel owner needs to install appropriate landscaping to screen the residential homes from the noise and lights from the Port- Cochere. Response: The music in the port-cochere is now turned off between 9pm and 7am. The landscaping has been installed as approved. However, the hotel owner has agreed to install some additional landscaping to further buffer the residential from the activities in the port-cochere. The project planner has reviewed the approved plans and the project has satisfied the requirements. There is acknowledgement, however, that the landscaping is still new and young. It will take time for the landscaping to be mature and fully screen the neighbors. As noted above, however, efforts are being made to modify the lighting and add landscaping materials. Concern #24. Parking Structure does not have adequate landscaping to buffer the view from the residential neighbors. Resident Issue: The hotel owner needs to be required to comply with Condition # 17 for the approved project which requires that special attention be focused on this area. Response: The project planner has reviewed the conditions of approval and has found that the project complies with the conditions of approval in this area. Concern #25. Flags are clanking at night when the wind blows and disturbing the residents. Resident Issue: Remove the flags at night. Response: The hotel is removing the flags at night as requested. 11 CITY OF ^ CARLSBAD Memorandum October 20, 2012 To: John Coates, Acting City Manager From: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Re: Hanover Resident Meeting to discuss resident issues and concerns On Saturday, October 20, 2012, several city staff and hotel representatives met with approximately 30 to 35 residents of the Hanover residential community to discuss their ongoing issues and concerns with the new Hilton Beachfront Resort and Spa in the Ponto Area. The meeting was held on-site from about 10am to 1pm. Although there were some challenges due to variety of issues and concerns and the large number of attendees, the meeting ended in a fairly productive manner. A couple of committees were established to discuss the issues of greatest concern: significant noise from the outdoor event area and stops signs (or other traffic control devices). Attached is a summary ofthe issues, concerns and responses from both the hotel and the city staff. Many ofthe original issues have been addressed. There are only a few remaining issues. However, these issues are the center of some of the greatest concerns from the residents, and those which the residents believe have the most direct negative impact on their quality of life. The committee work is to be completed within the next 30 days, and then another resident meeting will be schedule to report out the work ofthe committees. It is anticipated that the next resident-meeting will be held December 1- or December 8'^ Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the meeting or the attached summary. Thank you. Attachment cc: Bryan Jones, Transporation Gary Barberio, Community and Economic Development Christer Westmao/ Community and Economic Development| Don Neu, Community and Economic Development Lt. Marc Reno, Police Department Housing & Neighborhood Services 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2810 I 760-720-2037 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov Hanover Neighborhood Hilton Hotel Issues, Concerns and Responses (October, 2012) ^ Concern #1. Vehicle Traffic, including delivery trucks to the Hilton Hotel, driving through the Hanover Traffic, i j ; Resident Desired Solution: Employees and all deliveries should enter off of Avenida Encijnas to Ponto Drive, not off Carlsbad Blvd to Ponto Drive; median at loading dock location should be removed to allow deliveries into the loading dock from the south. The general public, as wiell as guests, employees and others are using the streets and sidewalk in Hanover neighborhood. These are private streets. l| public is going to have access to the Hanover streets, the project needs to be rezoned and the streets made public. j Hotel Owner Response: To address the issue of traffic from deliveries, the hotel manager is working to limit deliveries to the hours of 10am to 2pm. The hotel is educating the drivers and indicated to them that they will only accept deliveries during t|he times noted. The drivers will aljso be told to not park on Ponto Drive to make deliveries. The developer/manager will continue their education program, and work to change the driver behavibrs as they become more familiar with the site and delivery restrictions. I i ! i! City Response: While access ^o the hotel can be provided off of Avenida Encinas, there is no way to restrict the use of Porjto Drive for any drivers, delivery or otherwise. Ponto Drive is a public street that was intended to provide access to the Ponto Area as well as Hanover. As a result, the hotel was designed and approved to have deliveries made from Ponto Drive (trucks traveling south on Ponto), and then exit to the South. If, however, the trucks make a u-turn and return on Ponto Drive traveling north, there is no restriction. It just is not the most efficient travel path for them. j Per the City's Land Use Engineering Manager, the most northern corner where Ponto Driive and Ponto Road connect (at tl^e future proposed Beach Street) is too narrow, and there are existing obstructions which make it impossible for an 18-wheelerito make a smooth, one-pass turn pt this intersection. Therefore, the path of travel from Avenida Encinas would not be possible for these larger vehicles. At this time, no revisions to the delivdjry path of travel are being required by the City. However, all types of traffic may continue to enter or exit from Avenida Encinas if they choose to do so. | The Police Department will assist with the parking education process, and will begin ticl^eting drivers not in compliance with parking restrictions on Ponto Drive. The streets were made private in Harlover because the developer proposed street widths and other improvements that did not meet city standards. The project was approved as submitted by the delveloper, and the streets will remain private. If the homeowner' association chooses to restrict access to the public, then the HOA must enforce the regulations. Tl e Police Department may not enforce parking restrictions, speed limits, etc. on private streets. The Police Department has advised that the HOA speak directly with a local tow company to understand the laws under which vehicles may be towed, or consult with an attorney with expertise in this area. The HOA may also want to consider requesting approval to add security gates to the development to restrict access. Concern #2. Excessive/too bright hotel lights. Resident Desired Solution: Lighting p an should be reconsidered. Reduce number of lights or their intensity. Lights should not remain on all day. The lights coming from the ballroom hallways should be buffered with curtains or shutters that can be closed at night (if they truly must remain on all night as hotel operator stated to resident); light divi rters are needed or lighting needs to be muted. Hotel Owner Response: The hotel ovOner indicated his willingness to work with the City on the lighting and modify if directed by the City Planner, and if the proposed changes won't impact the qverall safety of the hotel guests. Currently, consideration is being given to shields or reduced lighting wattage/power to address the resident concerns. In addition, consideration will be given to turning off lights at night that are not needed for safety reasons. The hotel has received some suggestions and agreed to implement them to reduce the impact ofthe lights. The hotel has plans to meet with its electrician the week of October 22"" and proceed according!^. The hotel owner indicated that they would complete the lighting revisions by the first week of December. the City Response: The lighting plan for staff to review the lighting and discusk the owner has agreed to implement tnem Concern #3. Crime/danger (RV stqrage/homes/cars); increase in transients; there have been increase in thefts and break-ins: cars. RV storage hotel was approved by the City. However, adjustments can be required by the City Planner. CED staff will work with HNS if any adjustments are required to address the resident concern. Suggestions have been provided to the hotel owner, and to reduce impact on the neighbors. and homes. Resdend Desired Solution: Extra security neighborhood as well, especially when patrol required for Hanover; Hotel operators should be required to have their security patrol the Hanover there is a special event at the hotel. Hotel Owner Response: There is curr« standard security guard uniform) and security guard to also patrol the priva ntly 24 hours security patrol, seven days a week for the hotel property. The security officer is dressed in a black suit (not patrols the hotel property, including the parking structure, every hour. The hotel does not feel that it is appropriate for the e streets and residential community of Hanover for liability and operational reasons. City Response: Residents should contilct the Police if there is a problem in their neighborhood of a criminal nature. Concern #4. Traffic Speed on Ponto near our entrv streets; Speeding through the Hanover neighborhood: no posted spe^d signs. Valets driving too fast out of garage to return cars to guests. Hotel sign creates a blind spot; difficult to see past the sign for oncoming vehicles. Hano|fer has a speed limit of 15 mph within its neighborhoods: Ponto Drive needs posted speed limit and caution signs to slow down the traffic dramaticallv. Other traffic calming measures also need to be installed: stop signs, speed bumps. j Resident Desired Solution: Need a stop sign at Leeward and Ponto, and at the exit from the parking garage for hotel. Secuifity gates for Hanover entries will assist with reducing speeds into their neighborhood. Hotel monument sign needs to be revised. || il Hotel Owner Response: The developer has agreed to install stop signs as part ofthe final construction "punch list" items a|t Leeward and Ponto Drive if the Hanover HOA Board of Directors (as representatives of all the residents) supports this action with an affirmative vote. The HOA Board has indicated that a stop sign could be helpful, but wants the City to make the final determination according to its requirements for installing stop sjjgns. ii At the resident meeting on October 20, 2012, a committee of four residents (Liam Feurgeson, Mike Burner, Pat Kerins, an<jl Mark O'Donnell) agreed to meet with Bryan Jones, Engineering Manager/Traffic Engineer, to discuss the locations of one or more stops signs to slow traffic'jdown on Ponto and to assign the •i right-of-way where appropriate. The committee will meet with city and hotel staff to discuss the need for the stop sign(s) further, and report back at the next resident meeting (within approximately 30 days). ] City Response: The City's Transportation Department installed 25 mile an hour speed signs on Ponto Drive on August 21, 2012. If Hanover wishes to install security gates or otherwise revise access or make other design changes, an application for a Planned Development Permi| will need to be submitted for review with the required application fee. The proposed gate design would need to comply with Engineering and Fire Department requirements. An initial review ofthe potential for a gate has been completed by our Land Use Engineering Team and they believe security gates could be added that meet the standards. However, neither the hotel nor the City will pay to have these gates designed and installed. Staff suggests that the HOA contact a security gate contractor to discuss the options and design. Concern #5. Hotel employees directing traffic off Ponto like it is their street/drivewav Resident Desired Solution: The employees need to stop doing this. All traffic should go around to parking garage or to loacling dock, or into the entryway without back up onto the public street. Better signage, especially during special events, is necessary.Guests and others shbjuld be directed to access the hotel off of Avenida Encinas, to Ponto Road, to Ponto Drive. They should not be using Carlsbad Boulevard to Ponto Drive. Limit houijis for special events. Hotel Owner Response: The hotel will limit events in the outdoor event area to end at 10pm, with all music or amplified s<(iund ending at 9pm. This time restriction will apply Monday through Sunday. The hotel, however, was not willing to limit the total number of events in the outdoor space. City Response: The hotel was designed to take access off of Ponto Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard. Therefore, no change is recommended for this access. The employees will be directed to remain on the hotel property when directing traffic. The police will cite employees or the hojtel if its employees are directing traffic 3 in the street without the appropriate plan for directing traffic when large limitation on the events at the hotel permits to do so. However, if necessary, the City's Transportation Department will work with the hotel owner to develop a r|umbers of guests are expected to keep the traffic moving on the city street. The City staff is not supportive of requiring a because there are no conditions or EIR mitigation requirements which would allow us to do so. Concern #6. Speed of traffic on Cirlsbad Blvd/Signals. sjeed limit on Carlsbad Boulevard to 30 or 35 mph; traffic is moving too fast and presents a safety issue.Add pedestrian Boulevard and Ponto Drive. Resident Desired Solution: Reduce crossing signs at intersection of Carlsbad Hotel Owner Response: None. City Response. The Transportation Di^partment will consider this suggestion forthe future as the realignment of Carisbad Boulevard is considered from a project development standpoint. However, at this time, no action is proposed to reduce the speed on Carlsbad Boulevard. Additional pedestrian crossing signs can't be installed per State Law since there is already assignment of right-of-way control provided by the traffic signal and automated pedestrian crossing signals. Concern #7. Hotel guests walking/bii:vcling/skate boarding through, and parking within, the Hanover neighborhood; guests using the Tot Lot Park in Hanover; guests from the campground are alsli) doing these same things. Resident Desired Solution: Guests need to be notified by hotel operator that Hanover is a private community and that they are required to respect the privacy ofthe residents - no trespassing, no parking. Hotel operator also needs to provide signs for Hanover during special events to let guests know that they are not permitted to park in the Hanover conlmunity and that they will be towed if they do. Residents understand the concerns for blight from the signs, but believe that they are necessary to prevent continijied negative impacts on their neighborhood. Hotel operator needs to provide security during special events to prevent negative impact to Hanover resident:;. Security gates, as already mentioned, will also assist in addressing this issue. Hotel Owner Response: The hotel wijl make every effort to ensure that their guests are aware of the amenities provided at the hotel to assist with reducing the amount of impact on the residential community. The hotel is supportive of a strict policy at Hanover to tow non-resident vehicles to deter this behavior by beach users as well as their hotel guests. The hotel owner and manager were willing to consider temporary special event signage. However, they asked that the residents provide assurances that the remainder ofthe residents will find this acceptable because the signs will be unsightly and may not represent the quality of the residential neighborhood in Hanqver. The hotel was not willing to provide security for the residential neighborhood, but will have its security continue to patrol the property and address any issues that arise. City Response: Residents should con Hanover residents can submit a Plan however, will need to pay for the gat ct the police department directly for assistance with any criminal activity within their neighborhood. As noted above, ed Development Permit Amendment application for the review of security gates if desired by the residents. The residents. Concern #8. Hotel guests/workers/emplovees using Hanover entrv corners for lunch/pick-up. Employees sit on the corner entrv to Hanover and eat, smoke and talk on their phones; disturbs the residents. Resident Desired Solution: Employees need to be instructed that they need to find a new location for breaks. They shouldj within Hanover to eat, drink, smoke, etc. In addition, there needs to be an employee entrance through the loading area fo- site; need a specific break area for employees which does not impact the residents. Hotel Owner Response: Per the hotel owner and manager, there is an employee entrance through the loading/unloading the front ofthe hotel. There is also a very nice employee lounge. Therefore, the employees have appropriate accommodaitions the residents. not be sitting in front ofthe homes employees to enter and leave the dock. The employees do not enter at which should limit the impact on City Response: None. i Concern #9. Hotel employees using Main Entrance access to and from work; they should be coming off of Avehida Encinas. ii Resident Desired Solution. Employees should be instructed to access the property from the south (off of Avenida Encinas|and to park or be picked up in a manner which does not have a negative impact on Hanover. Hotel Owner Response: No additional comments. See above. j City Response. No additional comments. See above. Concern #10. Noise from hotel vendors/party set-up deliveries breaking down; delivery trucks queuing on Ponto Drive waiting to pick UP equipment and other items. Resident Desired Solution. Require all deliveries to be made from the south (Avenda Encinas); queuing needs to occur soujth of hotel; limit hours for deliveries and pick-ups from the hotel; late night pick-ups of equipment should not be permitted regardless of liability. They are not and are not respecting the residents rights to quiet enjoyment of their home. Maybe should have the hotel post a sign on street to use to access the entrance to the Hilton Hotel. ^uiet when they pick up equipment, Xvenida Encinas indicating that is the Hotel Owner Response: Please see notes above on deliveries. The hotel owner and manager intend to restrict the deliveries and pick-ups to the property. Late night pick-ups of equipment are only permitted for bands with equipment because the hotel does not want to be liable foj- the loss of these items. Typically, however, these picks up are very quick and can be completed within 30 minutes maximum. For events, all special items delivered to the site may not be picked up until the next day (usually between Sam and 10am). Manager will inform the bands that they need to be more respect instruments and sound equipment late at night. ul ofthe residents when picking up City Response: None. Concern #11. Deliveries to hotel t^ade using Main Entrance coming/leaving; not using Avenida Encinas to Ponto (as promised). Resident Desired Solution: See comnijent above. Hotel owner Response: See commenjc above. City Response. None Concern #12. Illegal parking on Poihto during events and at other times; requires residents to drive on the wrong side of road to get into their homes. Ite Resident Desired Solution: More pol stopping is permitted on Ponto. Mayt^e loading dock more functional; not working up equipment; need to find another patrol needed; tickets need to be issued; need to keep traffic flowing. Paint a red curb to clearly show that no parking or considering installing a "fire lane" to ensure that fire trucks can easily access the hotel and residential properties. Make correctly. Hotels needs to notify delivery truck operators that they can't park on Ponto and wait for the time to pick l(i!)cation for this staging, (see photos of problem) Hotel Owner Response: The hotel is deliveries from the street, no parking, working with the delivery truck drivers to ensure that they comply with all applicable rules, such as delivery times, no etc. City Response: The Police will regula did not believe that a painted curb "fi dock is working as intended and desig patrol the area, and will begin issuing tickets to those persons parked on Ponto Drive. The Transportation Department re lane" was necessary because there are already ho parking signs. See notes above on deliveries. The loading/unloading ned. No changes are being required of the hotel. Concern #13. Hotel parking garage not large enough to accommodate parking needs for special events and other hotel uses. Resident Desired Solution: Extra seciiritv required for all special events to direct traffic out of Hanover, and to prevent guests from parking in Hanover. Need more parking forthe large special (no parking in Hanover; parking garagi^ registration, deliveries, etc. evdhts; identify an off-site parking area as overflow parking. Install special event signs to direct and prohibit certain activities ahead; enter here for registration); need more "wayfinding" signage for hotel amenities like parking, hotel entrance for Hotel Owner Response: To date, the 400 parking spaces provided by the necessary. Employees are required to 6 parking has been adequate to accommodate the needs for the hotel guests, including the special event areas. There are hptel. A 100 space underground parking garage is used to park the valet cars, and it has the ability to park more cars if park in the lower level ofthe parking structure. All remaining parking is available for guests. The hotel is implementing a green initiative to encourage employees to car pool, ride the bus, or find alternative methods for getting to work to reduqje on-site parking needs and reduce pollution and traffic. The hotel can also park employees at other locations and shuttle them to the hotel if needed in the fiiture due to parking shortages. The hotel owner also has other options for overflow parking if needed. This, however, has not been needed to date. The parkijpg structure has many vacant spaces during events. The hotel does not understand why some of their guests may be parking in the Hanover neighborhood. It [ s not necessary. It may be a matter of education, and once the guests understand the hotel layout they will use the hotel amenities. jl City Response: None. Concern #14. State beach visitors, including surfers, parking in Hanover neighborhood. Resident Desired Solution: More signage prohibiting access and other activities, and security gates at the entry to preven| vehicles of non-residents. Il Hotel Owner Response: None. i City Response: See comments above. If desired, the HOA could have signs installed at the entry to the residential neighbcjrhoods to share the private nature of the community and alert non-residents to the private status ofthe streets and that they can be towed if parked there. 1 Concern #15. Significant noise from the hotel guests who are attending outdoor events on the property, or sitting outside talking, smoking, etc.; events, including event clean up and equipment pick-up occurring outdoors after 9pm (time Bill Canepa pronjjised events would end). Resident Desired Solution There should be no outdoor speakers for music, etc. If there are speakers, they need to be redpced significantly in volume and have very limited hours. Need noise regulations applied to the events to prevent negative impact on the residents in the neighborhood. Increase police patrol and issue citations for violators of any applied noise regulations. • i Hotel Owner Response: The hotel has taken steps to ensure that doors remain closed for the indoor event space to ensure that noise from attendees and bands does not impact the neighbors. The doors no longer can be propped open and security and other hotel staff check the doors frequently to ensure they remain shut. In the outdoor area, all guests are required to leave or move insideat 10pm; all music and/or amplified sound will e^d at 9pm. The hotel has indicated that they will not allow for bands in the outdoor area. However, individual musicians are used and there is a DJ for various evejpts. An effort is being made by the hotel to limit the sound impacts on residents. The hotel owner is giving consideration to additional actions to assist with |he reduction of noise impacts. Ij On October 20, 2012, a resident meeting was held to discuss the actions taken to date and the various pending actions urider consideration. A three person resident committee (Mark O'Donnell, Pat Kerins and Larry Meron) agreed to meet with hotel representatives to discuss other actions that could be taken by the hotel to address the noise issues from the outdoor event area. The committee agreed to meet within the following week pr so, and have a report back to the larger resident group within approximately 30 days. spare spal:e City Response: The outdoor event amplification of sounds within this related to disturbance ofthe peace issue a citation or require the event to was approved as part of the permits for the hotel development. There, however, were no specific conditions related to . While there are no specific conditions for the City to enforce related to this issue, the police will respond to requests R|^sidents may contact the non-emergency phone number for the police. The police officers will use their judgment and end if disturbing the neighbors. Concern #16. Air conditioning unit:^ (blowers) operate 24 hours a day; constant hum is very annoying; disturbing the residents quiet enjoyment of their homes: can hear even witH their own windows are closed: needs sound mitigation. Resident Desired Solution: Shut the bl blowers'specifically. Dwers off at night or provide some additional sound attenuation improvements to significantly reduce the noise from the Hotel Owner Response: The hotel owf er the underground garage to address thi turned off at 11pm every night. Parapets has already taken some actions to address this issue. A large very noisy air conditioning compressor was relocated to noise issues. The other noises are believed to be associated with the exhaust fans for the kitchen. These fans are now were also constructed, and other options are being reviewed for additional sound attenuation. City Response: The City and Hotel Owiier and Manager are still considering other noise attenuation actions. At the resident meeting on October 2d[ to the hotel, and discuss further sound days ofthe resident meeting. The actitjin , 2012, the hotel owner agreed to review the source of the noise again for the residents across the street and living closest attenuation with his maintenance staff. The owner intends to identify source of noise and take some action within 30 taken will be reported out at the next resident meeting scheduled for the first week of December. Concern #17. Asphalt berm on Ponto Drive, near intersection of Ponto Road is too dark to see at night: need reflectors or reflective paint. Resident Desired Solution: Use reflective paint on the asphalt berms, or install reflectors so that drivers can see the berm at night. Hotel Owner Response: None. C|ty Response: The Transportation Deijiartment will review this issue, and install reflectors or consider other options as appropriate to address the concern. Concern #18. Increased trash at bul Is stop on Carlsbad Blvd and at exit; more employees using the bus to get to work. Resident Desired Solution: Install a trci! the stairs to and from the beach. Hotel Owner Response: Hotel owner Lh can at the bus stop and regularly have the trash can emptied; keep area clean. Trash cans are also needed at the top of Owner will consider some additional irpprovements to include trash cans. 8 las voluntarily agreed to provide funding from room rates to assist in making improvements to the State Campground. City Response: No additional action taken on this item to date. Il i| Concern #19. Golf carts are being operated by the hotel on Ponto Drive and on the sidewalks around the property; not a disturbance, but not legal to use golf carts on public streets and right-of-ways. Resident Desired Solution: Notify hotel operator that they are not permitted to drive golf carts on public roads or sidewa ks. Hotel Owner Response: Hotel will comply with regulations. City Response: Hotel has been informed ofthe regulations, and the hotel has agreed to comply. I Concern #20. General concern that the hotel does not meet a number Of the general conditions for the proiect approval, and has not provided the environmental mitigation required. For example, berm and enhanced landscaping was required for the entry to the hotel to provide mitigation for noise, lights, etc. Residents do not believe this has been provided or adequately provided to address the resident concerns expressed in 2007. Resident Desired Solution: Project conditions need to be reviewed and full compliance needs to be ensured by the City. Environmental mitigation requirements need to be reviewed and full compliance required for these development/operational measures as well. The hotel needs to be in full compliance with all approved conditions and environmental mitigation requirements. ij Hotel Owner Response: Hotel will comply with conditions of approval, and believe they have done so to date. Additional action, however, is being taken to address enhancements. City Response: The project planner and City Planner have reviewed the conditions of approval for the hotel, as well as the environmental impact mitigation measures for the project, and believe the project is in compliance with the appropriate permits and the EIR. There are a few areas, however, that adjustnrients can be made to address resident concerns. The lighting is being reviewed and adjustments will be made to address residient concerns. Concern #21. Early morning noise from ongoing construction activity, such as landscaping trucks dumping large amounts of soil at 5:30am and 5:45am. |i Resident Desired Solution: Comply with the construction noise requirements; no construction before 7:00am. } Hotel Owner Response: The hotel intends to comply with applicable rules and regulations ofthe City. City Response: Hotel has been informed ofthe rules. Concert'i #22. Unsightly storage of Resident Desired Solution: Outdoor st) Hotel Owner Response: No additional City Response: No further action beinj C oncern #23. Landscaped Berm d rage of equipment should not be permitted; store items out of sight; it would be better for hotel and for residents, comments at this time. considered at this time. ' es not comply with approved plans. Resident Desired Solution: The hotel i Cochere. the landscaping is still new and young.i being made to review the lighting planj Resident Desired Solution: The hotel be focused on this area. imbrellas and outdoor heaters off of Ponto (within the outdoor event area). wner needs to install appropriate landscaping to screen the residential homes from the noise and lights from the Port- Hotel Owner Response: The music in he port-cochere is off between 9pm and 7am. The landscaping has been installed as approved. However, the hotel owner has agreed to install some additional lalndscaping to further buffer the residential from the activities in the port-cochere. City Response: The project planner hal reviewed the approved plans and the project has satisfied the requirements. There is acknowledgement, however, that It will take time forthe landscaping to be mature and fully screen the neighbors. As noted above, however, efforts are Concern #24. Parking Structure dofes not have adequate landscaping to buffer the view from the residential neighbors. wner needs to b6 required to comply with Condition # 17 for the approved project which requires that special attention Hotel Owner Response: Landscaping installed as required and approved. City Response: The project planner haJ; reviewed the conditions of approval and has found that the project complies with the conditions of approval in this area. Concern #25. Flags are clanking atjnight when the wind blows and disturbing the residents. Resident Desired Solution: Remove thi flags at night. Hotel Owner Response: The hotel is removing the flags at night as requested. City Response: No additional respons 10 I© Wll^l AKJP) WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. NL/ 2691 Richter Avenue, Suite 114 A/^/^l 10X1/^0 Irvine, CA 92606 /\V_.WUO liV_,0 Tel: 949.474.1222 noise Et vibration consultants Fax: 949.474.9122 www.wielandacoustics.com May 6, 2009 Project File 970-07 Mr. Bill Canepa Wave Crest Resorts II LLC 829 Second Street, Suite A Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Response to Comments Regarding the Noise Study for the Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Reference: Acoustical Evaluation of Potential Noise Impacts Associated with the Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa, Carlsbad, CA. Wieland Acoustics, Inc. December 18, 2007. Dear Mr. Canepa: The purpose of this letter is to provide our response to the public comments dated May 5, 2009. In the interests of brevity, I have not repeated the public comments in this letter, but the numbering of my responses corresponds to the numbering ofthe comments. 1. The comnnenter concludes that Table III-2 Is a calculation ofthe existing CNELat the residences. However, this is not the case. The table shows a calculation of the estimated future CNEL that will be generated by activities In the hotel's parking structure. The existing ambient CNEL at the residences was not measured (due to a lack of secure locations at which to place the equipment), nor analyzed (since the purpose of the project was solely to ascertain compliance ofthe project's noise levels with the City's standard). With respect to the calculated CNEL for the parking structure activities being higher than the midnight, morning and evening noise levels, this is to be expected. The CNEL metric is an average, as the commenter mentions, but it is a weighted average. The noise levels between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. are weighted (i.e., increased) by 5 dB, and the noise levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are weighted by 10 dB to account for people's greater sensitivity to noise during these hours. The commenter concludes that the CNEL at Mr. Lipsey's residence is "much lower" (i.e., "around 48 dBA") than the CNEL calculated in Table III-2 (i.e., 57.7 dB). However, there is no basis for this conclusion. CNEL (which is a 24-hour measure of noise exposure) cannot be derived or assumed on the basis of a 20-minute measurement. And, as stated above. Table III-2 has no relation to the existing ambient CNEL at the residences. As discussed above, the existing ambient CNEL is unknown. WI ELAN D WAVE CREST RESORTS 11 LLC ArOI RTir*^ Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort a Spa /^V..won v_0 Project File 970-07 - FINAL 2. The commenter's conclusion that any additional noise from the hotel is likely to cause the CNEL threshold of 60 dB to be exceeded is based on his/her assumption that the estimated CNEL of 57.7 dB derived in Table III-2 represents the existing ambient noise level. As discussed in #1, above, this is an incorrect assumption; therefore, the conclusion is also incorrect. The commenter states that the noise study indicates that the future CNEL with the hotel will be less than the existing CNEL. However, this is untrue. The study does not make this claim, nor could it because, as indicated in #1 above, the existing CNEL is unknown. 3. The assumptions used in the analysis of traffic noise levels were obtained from the project proponent and his/her consultants. 4. Car alarms were not included in the analysis because they do not contribute significantly to the overall CNEL generated by the project. Measurements obtained for a previous study indicate that typical keyless entry "beeps" produce a maximum noise level of about 64 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Each event lasts about 1 second. To generate a CNEL of 60 dB would require about 7,500 "beeps" evenly distributed over a 24-hour day. Clearly, this will not occur. 5. The commenter states that the noise study failed to address whether the hotel noise will result in sleep disturbance. This is not the case, however. The CNEL standard of 60 dB used in the study is taken from the City's Noise Element of the General Plan. The stated goal of the Noise Element is "...to achieve and maintain an environment which is free from objectionable, excessive or harmful noise." Among the goals of the Noise Element policy that implements the City's 60 dB standard are: (1) "A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise"; and (2) "A City with industrial and commercial land uses which do not produce significantly adverse noise impacts". It is assumed that the City considered a number of factors when developing its goals, policies, and standards, one of which was sleep disturbance. Because the CNEL generated by the hotel's activities is expected to be less than 60 dB, it may be concluded that the City's goals are also met. 7. (Note: There is no comment #6.) No cumulative analysis was conducted because it is not required for a noise study. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to these comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 949.474.1222. Sincerely, WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. David L. Wieland Principal Consultant www.wielandacoustics.com 2 May 6, 2009 PROJECT NAME: Date: Project Number: Staff Planner: CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Prevention Division Land Use Review Report Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort 04/01/09 CDP 05-43/ SDP 05-14/ RP 05-11 C. Westman Engineer: Proiect conditions: (Note: The following identifies specific conditions necessary to achieve Fire Department approval.) Fire has reviewed this application and has no additional comments or conditions. GR City of Carlsbad Engineering Development Services April 8, 2009 To: Christer Westman, Project Planner From: Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer r / SUBJECT: SDP 05-14 CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA The Engineering Department has completed its review of the project. The Engineering Department is recommending that the project be approved, subject to the following conditions: Engineering Conditions NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of this proposed development, must be met prior to approval of a building or grading permit, whichever occurs first. General 1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project. Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. 2. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance. 13. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. 14. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans or Grading Plans, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer written approval from North County Transit District (NCTD) demonstrating mass-transit improvement requirements for this project have been satisfied. XI. Developer shall cause property owner to submit and process the parcel map for minor subdivision MS 05-23 that consolidates the existing parcels into the proposed hotel property boundary. All right-of-way dedications and proposed easements shall be reflected in the parcel map. Fees/Agreements 15. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 16. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement. 18. Developer shall cause property owner to process, execute and submit an executed copy to the City Engineer for recordation a City standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Maintenance Agreement for the perpetual mjiintenance of all treatment control, applicable site design and source control, post-construction permanent Best Management Practices prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, or the recordation of a parcel map, whichever occurs first for this Project. X2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, developer shall pay a pro-rata fair share contribution of the cost of the intersection and roadway improvements located on and along La Costa Avenue, including the improvements to the La Costa Avenue/Vulcan Avenue intersection, the La Costa Avenue/Railroad Bridge crossing, the La Costa Avenue/Coast Highway 101 intersection and associated street widening, as more specifically described in Appendix G-2 to the Ponto EIR (collectively, the "Intersection Improvements"). The aggregate fair share contribution from all the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area landowners/developers/applicants is 50% of the Intersection Improvements. The pro-rata fair share from each of the landowners/developers/appUcants shall be determined based on the traffic generation from each of the landowners/developers/applicants' projects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. X3. Developer shall pay the project's pro-rata fair-share contribution of the costs of the "Core" improvements of Ponto Drive from its intersection with Avenida Encinas to its intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard, and the costs of the "core" improvements of Beach Way from Ponto Drive to its intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard. "Core" improvements shall consist of design and construction of full-width grading, two 15- ft wide paved lanes, median curbs, street drainage facilities, and fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Beach Way. The pro- rata fair share costs shall be determined based on the traffic generation of all the projects that benefit from the streets' improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall be credited for the costs of constructing the "core" improvements along the project's frontage. 25. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project. Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer for the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. X4. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation a Maintenance Agreement to maintain the sidewalk, fire lane, trees, landscaping and irrigation along the project's frontage on Carlsbad Boulevard. X5. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation a Maintenance Agreement to maintain parkway and median trees, landscaping and irrigation along the project's Ponto Drive frontage. Grading 30. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and technical studies/reports, for City Engineer review, and shall pay all applicable grading plan review fees per the City's latest fee schedule. 31. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer. Developer shall pay all applicable grading permit fees per the City's latest fee schedule and shall post security per City Code requirements. 34. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the project unless Developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy, to the City Engineer, a temporary grading, construction or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the temporary grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance and/or consistency determination from both the City Engineer and Planning Director. 35. Developer shall comply with the City's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution treatment practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above requirements. 36. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer receipt of a Notice of Intention from the State Water Resources Control Board. 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. Developer shall submit for City approval a Tier 3 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (TIER 3 SWPPP). The TIER 3 SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The TIER 3 SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project. 39. Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)." The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order R9-2007-0001 issued by the San Diego Region of the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 40. Developer shall incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) design techniques, on all final design plans submitted to the City, to reduce the amount of mn-off by mimicking the natural hydrologic function of the site by preserving natural open-spaces and natural drainage channels, minimizing impervious surfaces, promoting infiltration and evaporation of mn-off before mn-off leaves the site. Developer shall incorporate LID techniques using current County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook (Stormwater Management Strategies). LID techniques include, but are not limited to: vegetated swale/strip, rain gardens, and porous pavement, which can greatly reduce the volume, peak flow rate, velocity and pollutants. X6. Prior to approval of grading and improvement plans. Developer shall obtain approval for the undergrounding or relocation of the existing overhead utilities within the project boundary, and for the quitclaim of the conflicting underlying easements. Dedications/Improvements 49. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All private drainage systems (12" diameter storm drain and larger) shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees for private drainage systems. 50. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to City Engineer approval of said plans, shall execute a City standard Development Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public improvements shown on the site plan. Said improvements shall be installed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, liiese improvements include, but are not limited to: A. Half-street improvements of Carlsbad Boulevard along the project frontage. Half-street improvements shall include a 32-ft paved half- street width consisting of two 12-ft traffic lanes, an 8-ft bike lane, curb and gutter, meandering sidewalk, street lights, fire hydrants, median curb, median grading, parkway and median landscaping and irrigation, and street drainage facilities, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. B. Dedicated left-turn lane on north bound Carlsbad Boulevard at its intersection with Ponto Drive, including modifications to the existing traffic signal, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. "Core" improvements to Ponto Drive from its intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard to the project's southern boundary as shown in the site plan. "Core" improvements consist of design and construction costs of full-width grading, two 15-ft wide paved lanes, median curbs, and street drainage facilities, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. Temporary improvements to Ponto Drive from the "core" improvements terminus listed above to its intersection with Beach Way, including a transition, with safety features, from the "core" improvements elevation to the existing ground elevation, and a transition to Beach Way's existing improvements, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. E. Complete half-street improvements for Ponto Drive along the project frontage. The improvements shall consist of curb, gutter, sidewalk, five-ft bike lane, street lights, fire hydrants, median hardscape, parkway and median landscaping and irrigation, street drainage facilities, and street signs, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees. Improvements listed above shall be constmcted within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 55. Prior to issuance of building permits. Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the project boundary. Developer shall coordinate with all affected utility companies regarding potential conflicts with the location of the underground utilities. 57. Developer shall design, and obtain approval from the City Engineer, the stmctural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to tmck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of grading, the final stmctural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Utilities 60. Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 61. Developer shall design and constmct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-foot wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the District or City Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. 62. Prior to issuance of building permits. Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. 63. The Developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer. 64. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 65. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the City Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 66. The Developer shall design and constmct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer and City Engineer. 69. The Developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Leucadia Wastewater District, and other affected utilities, regarding the proposed surface improvements to be constructed within their respective easements or over their facilities. 72. The Developer shall submit a detailed sewer study, prepared by a Registered Engineer, that identifies the peak flows of the project, required pipe sizes, depth of flow in pipe, velocity in the main lines, and the capacity of the existing infrastmcture. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 73. The Developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a Registered Engineer that identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Code Reminders The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 81. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 ofthe City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the site plan are for planning purposes only. MEMORANDUM March 17, 2009 TO: SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTER WESTMAN FROM: Associate Engineer - Frank Jimeno j SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT AND SPA ENGINEERING ISSUES Engineering Department staff has completed an additional review of the project. Following is a list of engineering comments. The comments are mainly to clarify the exhibits that will be used at the hearings. Engineering is ready to condition the project, with the understanding that the exhibits will be corrected on time to proceed with the scheduled hearing. 1. Add the street name Beach Way in sheet A-1. 2. The underground parking within the hotel footprint does not seem to meet building code exiting requirements (sheet A-2). Even though this is not an engineering issue, it could become a problem at building permit review stage. 3. Section 1 in sheet A-9 is missing the underground parking. 4. Sheets A-14, A-15 and A-15.2 still do not reflect the ground elevations outside the parking structure as shown in the proposed grading plans C-5 and C-6. See comments in plans. 5. New Section D1-D1 in sheet C-2 should be located in the portion of Ponto Road just northerly of Beach Way in sheet C-1. 6. The existing/proposed retaining wall at the south property line (C-4 & 0-6) is not clear Show a cross-section to clarify. Also show how drainage will be handled. 7. The retaining walls in the parking structure in sheets C-5 and C-6 are still not clear It is suggested that the following elevations be shown: FF: Parking Structure basement Finish Floor elevation (45.00) FS: Finish Surface elevation at the exterior of the parking structure TW: Top of Wall elevation of the structure's basement restraining wall 8. The project's preliminary Storm Water Management Plan and Preliminary Drainage Study will be finalized with the grading plan review. 9. Note comments in attached redlined check prints CS, A-1 through A-18, and C-1 through C-8. The applicant must return these documents with the resubmittal to assist staff in our continued review. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-2758. Senior Civil Engineer Van Peski CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 23. 2009 REVIEW NO: -A^^ TO: 1^ Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley • Police Department - J. Sasway PLANNING DEPT ^ Fire Department - Greg Ryan TRACKING DESK lEI Building Department - Will Foss PPCD*^// l<^fi__ • Recreation - Mark Steyaert KtV# UO/f--/< - - 13 Redevelopment - Austin Silva • ^Water/Sewer District 13 Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District n North County Transit District - Planning Department • Sempra Energy - Land Management n Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) • Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/ RP 05-11 PROJECT TITLE: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING PROPOSAL: HOTEL AND PARKING STRUCTURE Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to MEGHAN JACOBSON. Senior Office Specialist in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 03/16/09 . If you have "No Comments", please so state. If you have any questions, please contact CHRISTER WESTMAN . at X4614 . Thank you COMMENTS: C^of-Xf^ei^T ^ . PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 23.2009 REVIEW NO: <5 TO: 13 Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley • Police Department - J. Sasway 13 Fire Department - Greg Ryan 3 Building Department - Will Foss • Recreation - Mark Steyaert 3 Redevelopment - Austin Silva • Water/Sewer District 3 Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District • North County Transit District - Planning Department n Sempra Energy - Land Management • Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) • Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT "REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): SDP 05-14/ CDP 05-43/ RP 05-11 PROJECT TITLE: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING PROPOSAL: HOTEL AND PARKING STRUCTURE Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to MEGHAN JACOBSON, Senior Office Specialist in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, bv 03/16/09 . If you have "No Comments", please so state. If you have any questions, please contact CHRISTER WESTMAN , at X4614 . Thank you , COMMENTS: AJZ) C^/nl^O^T^ T/Z/C Tf^^. , fifin^ Flyftn^Jc^^i^ i-/eP^f^i<r '^^stA^(r- PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 MEMORANDUM January 14, 2009 TO: SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTER WESTMAN FROM: Associate Engineer - Frank Jimeno SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT AND SPA ENGINEERING ISSUES Engineering Department staff has completed an additional review of the project. Following is a list of engineering issues that need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to recommendation of approval: 1. Change telephone company to AT&T in sheet C-1. 2. Add the street name Beach Way as shown in plans. 3. Change the railroad name to San Diego Northern Railroad. 4. Section D-D in sheet C-2 needs to reflect the right-of-way dedication requirement: one foot on the west side of Ponto Road where there is room within the project. 5. An email has been received from SDG&E. It does not approve the proposed undergrounding/relocation of their existing utilities throughout the site, but indicates that if the relocations are approved, they will quitclaim the existing easements. The project will be conditioned to obtain approval of the undergrounding/relocation prior to approval of grading and improvement plans. 6. Note that existing easement 3 was originally for Southern Counties Gas Co. The easement is not plotted and no gas lines are shown within the site. 7. Show the existing building in parcel 214-160-29. 8. Sheets C-3, C-4, and C-6 need to show the existing driveways along Ponto Road consistently. The grading operation needs to assure continuous access during and after construction. 9. Sheet C-4 shows an existing retaining wall at the property line with the adjacent parcel to the south (214-160-04). A portion is to remain in place and a portion is to be removed. It is not clear if the grading can be performed without encroaching into the adjacent property. Show a cross-section. A temporary construction easement might be required. 10. Clarify the retaining walls in the parking structure in sheets C-5 and C-6. Some of the TW/BW elevations do not seem to indicate a retaining wall. 11. Section 1 in sheet A-9 shows adjacent house 15 ft away from the property line. sheet C-4 shows it on the property line. Clarify and make consistent. 12. The building basement parking shown in sheet A-2 needs to provide for a vehicle turnaround similar to that shown in sheet A-13 for the parking structure. 13. Clarify how pedestrians will leave the parking structure (sheet A-12). 14. In sheets A-14 through A-16 the ground elevations outside the parking structure do not match those shown in the proposed grading plans C-5 and C-6. 15. The project will be conditioned for half street improvements along the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage. As agreed in the October 8, 2008 meeting, a credit will be given for the construction ofthe Ponto Rd. half median not in the project's frontage. 16. The project will be conditioned to incorporate safety features in the design of the juncture ofthe new and existing Ponto Road. 17. The project's preliminary Storm Water Management Plan was prepared prior to the adoption of the City's current SUSMP. It should be updated to incorporate all the requirements of RWQCB's Order 2007-01. The project will be conditioned to meet the new requirements. Note that Low Impact Development measures will be required. 7. Note comments in attached redlined check prints CS, A-1 through A-18, and C-1 through C-8. The applicant must return these documents with the resubmittal to assist staff in our continued review. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-2758. Senior Civil Engineer Van Peski City of Carlsbad HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM December 23, 2008 TO: Christer Westman, Planning Department FROM: Austin Silva, Housing and Redevelopment Department SUBJECT: EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT Housing & Redevelopment Department staff has completed a review of the above referenced project plans received December 8, 2008. Staff has identified issues of concern that must be adequately resolved/addressed prior to application resubmittal. Additional issues of concern may be identified on subsequent reviews with more complete information. Issues of Concern 1. Please add architectural detail to the blank wall outside of rooms "A" that are located to the south of the basement entrance. 2. Please provide more information regarding the detail of the windows. How deep will the windows be recessed? What type of window will be used? What is the thickness of the plaster trim beneath the windows? What is the color of the window trim? 3. Please provide examples of lighting fixtures to be used throughout the building. 4. Please provide colored elevations so staff can evaluate the design in fiirther detail. If you or the applicant has any questions, please call me at 760-434-2813. c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director December 11,2008 ffiU* S8K TO: Christer Westman, Senior Planner SEC - • ^'^/MO^pw-i Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst Meghan Jacobson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 3'^'' Review Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa, SDP05-14, CDP05-43, RP05-11 Carlsbad Boulevard @ Ponto Road PELA file: 298 - Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa - Con3 Landscape Architect: Spurlock Poirier, Phone: (619) 681-0090 Please advise the applicant to make the following corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. REPEAT COMMENTS 1 -4 Completed. 5. Generally identify all existing woody plant material to be removed or retained. Trees over 12" in caliper diameter shall be identified on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and labeled to be retained or removed. 2"*^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Information is shown on Demolition Plan Refer to Civil Sheet C-4." The civil plan does not identify existing trees or indicate sizes. Please fully address on landscape plans. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Information has been added to the Demolition Plan, refer to civil sheet C-4. All existing trees on site will be removed. Information was provided on civil sheet/demo plan since all landscaping is proposed to be removed and it comes through more clearly on this plan. " Please provide a copy of the revised civil plans for cross checking. 6-7 Completed. 8. Show 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. 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Comment Noted." No bio-swales or detention basins are shown on the plans. Civil plans show a vegetated swale and detention basin at the southeast comer of the property. Please show and label on the landscape plans and provide appropriate plantings. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Landscape plans have been revised to be consistent with the civil plans showing the detention basin in southeast corner. See revised sheet L3-1. " Plans show a vegetated swale. Appropriate plantings have not been provided in the swale. Vegetated swale plantings require a filtering plant (i.e. grasses). Please provide appropriate grasses in the bottom of the swale that will thrive in a moist condition (i.e. Carex, Juncus, etc.). Plantings will need to be planted at spacings as appropriate to fill in prior to building occupancy. 9-15 Completed. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa December 11, 2008 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 16. Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points. 25' outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). The same height limitation applies at driveways 25' fi-om the edge of the apron outward along the curb then 4 5-degrees in toward the property. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show all sight lines and insure these requirements are met. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 2"** Review: Please graphically show sight lines and provide for all above requirements. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Sight lines are provided. Engineering Department has reviewed the sight lines and their relation to the landscaping including some trees etc and have agreed to the revisions proposed on the plan. See revised sheets L3-I, Ll-1. " The Landscape Manual requires this vehicular sight line to be shown with no plantings over a 30"height located within this area. This is in addition to any Cal Trans sight distance standards. See below: Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C. 4). The same height limitation applies at driveways 25 'from the edge of the apron outward along the curb then 45-degrees in toward the property. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show the sight lines as previously requested and insure no plantings over 30 " in height within this area. 17-29 Completed. 30 RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. 1 A. Please explain this note. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Per conversations with Engineering department at 10/8/08 meeting, Carlsbad Blvd median is proposed to be constructed only in a temporary state with curb and erosion control as shown on L3- 1 and civil plans. " Please add a note indicating that the median landscaping shall be as approved by the City of Carlsbad. 2A-4A Completed. 5 A. Please address landscaping of all areas within the property line. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Discussed in meeting with City 10/8/08-A portion of this area is future roadway and access is necessary to adjacent properties, etc. City acknowledged situation and requested erosion control and temporary landscaping. The erosion control/temporary landscaping is provided in areas that woidd be graded/disturbed for the project as shown on L3-1." Grading plans previously provided show grading in this area. Please address landscaping. Please provide a copy of the latest civil grading plans for cross checking of all areas. 6A. Completed. December 11,2008 TO: Christer Westman, Senior Plarmer Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst Meghan Jacobson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 3'^'' Review Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa, SDP05-14, CDP05-43, RP05-11 Carlsbad Boulevard @ Ponto Road PELA file: 298 - Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa - Con3 Landscape Architect: Spurlock Poirier, Phone: (619) 681-0090 Please advise the applicant to make the following corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. REPEAT COMMENTS 1-4 Completed. 5. Generally identify all existing woody plant material to be removed or retained. Trees over 12" in caliper diameter shall be identified on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and labeled to be retained or removed. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Information is shown on Demolition Plan Refer to Civil Sheet C-4." The civil plan does not identify existing trees or indicate sizes. Please fully address on landscape plans. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Information has been added to the Demolition Plan, refer to civil sheet C-4. All existing trees on site will be removed. Information was provided on civil sheet/demo plan since all landscaping is proposed to be removed and it comes through more clearly on this plan. " Please provide a copy of the revised civil plans for cross checking. 6-7 Completed. 8. Show 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. 2"^* Review: The applicant has responded: "Comment Noted." No bio-swales or detention basins are shown on the plans. Civil plans show a vegetated swale and detention basin at the southeast comer of the property. Please show and label on the landscape plans and provide appropriate plantings. 3'''^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Landscape plans have been revised to be consistent with the civil plans showing the detention basin in southeast corner. See revised sheet L3-1. " Plans show a vegetated swale. Appropriate plantings have not been provided in the swale. Vegetated swale plantings require a filtering plant (i.e. grasses). Please provide appropriate grasses in the bottom of the sM'ale that will thrive in a moist condition (i. e. Carex, Juncus, etc.). Plantings will need to be planted at spacings as appropriate to fill in prior to building occupancy. 9-15 Completed. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa December 11, 2008 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 16. Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street comers within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). The same height limitation applies at drivewavs 25' from the edge of the apron outward along the curb then 45-degrees in toward the property. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show all sight lines and insure these requirements are met. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 2"** Review: Please graphically show sight lines and provide for all above requirements. 3'''^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Sight lines are provided. Engineering Department has reviewed the sight lines and their relation to the landscaping including some trees etc and have agreed to the revisions proposed on the plan. See revised sheets L3-1, Ll-1. " The Landscape Manual requires this vehicular sight line to be shown with no plantings over a 30 "height located within this area. This is in addition to any Cal Trans sight distance standards. See below: Landscape elements over 30 " in height (includingplanting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C. 4). The same height limitation applies at driveways 25 'from the edge of the apron outward along the curb then 45-degrees in toward the property. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show the sight lines as previously requested and insure no plantings over 30" in height within this area. 17-29 Completed. 30. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. lA. Please explain this note. 3'^'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Per conversations with Engineering department at 10/8/08 meeting, Carlsbad Blvd median is proposed to be constructed only in a temporary state with curb and erosion control as shown on L3- 1 and civil plans. " Please add a note indicating that the median landscaping shall be as approved by the City of Carlsbad. 2A-4A Completed. 5A. Please address landscaping of all areas within the property line. 3''^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Discussed in meeting with City 10/8/08 - A portion of this area is future roadway and access is necessary to adjacent properties, etc. City acknowledged situation and requested erosion control and temporary landscaping. The erosion control/temporary landscaping is provided in areas that would be graded/disturbed for the project as shown on L3-1. " Grading plans previously provided show grading in this area. Please address landscaping. Please provide a copy ofthe latest civil grading plans for cross checking of all areas. 6A. Completed. CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: DECEMBER 8,2008 REVIEW NO: 4 TO: 1^ Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley O Police Department - J. Sasway 13 Fire Department - Greg Ryan lEI Building Department - Will Foss O Recreation - Mark Steyaert 13 Redevelopment - Austin Silva • Water/Sewer District 13 Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District O North County Transit District - Planning Department n Sempra Energy - Land Management O Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) n Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): SDP 05-14/ CDP 05-43/ RP 05-11 PROJECT TITLE: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING PROPOSAL: HOTEL AND PARKING STRUCTURE Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to MEGHAN JACOBSON. Senior Office Specialist in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, bv 12/24/08 . If you have "No Comments", please so state. If you have any questions, please contact CHRISTER WESTMAN . at X4614 . Thank you COMMENTS: CJ^I^i^ ^meiO UAUU (i^^ P(fnj^ C<J^ PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 MEMORANDUM October 8, 2008 TO: SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTER WESTMAN FROM: Associate Engineer - Frank Jimeno' SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT AND SPA ENGINEERING ISSUES Engineering Department staff has completed additional review of the project. Following is a list of engineering issues that need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to recommendation of approval: 1. The location of the median nose just south of the north parking structure entrance (sheets C-5) needs to be at the standard setback (A/2 - 10'). 2. The cross-walk from the parking structure to the hotel entrance needs to use the median as a refuge area. After the location of the median nose is determined, the pedestrian path from the parking structure exit needs to be directed toward a crossing that leads to the median. This needs to be reflected in the architectural and landscape drawings. 3. The left turn pocket on northbound Carlsbad Boulevard at Ponto Road needs to meet the minimum required length of 250 feet plus transition. 4. The juncture of the new and existing Ponto Road needs to incorporate transitions. The maximum allowable street grade is 12%. Safety features need to be incorporated in the design. 6. Even though the portion of Ponto Road from Beech Way to the hotel is temporary, the pavement should be able to withstand regular traffic. The structural section should meet minimum design standards, with the final section based on R values. 7. Note comments in attached redlined check prints C-1 through C-8. The applicant must return these documents with the resubmittal to assist staff in our continued review. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-2758. Senior Civil Engineer Van Peski CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO TRACKING DtSlV DATE: AUGUST 19,2008 REVIEW NB^^'D',I I 1/^ • TO: 3 Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley • Police Department - J. Sasway 13 Fire Department - Greg Ryan 3 Building Department - Will Foss n Recreation - Mark Steyaert 3 Redevelopment - Austin Silva • Water/Sewer District • Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA • School District n North County Transit District - Planning Department O Sempra Energy - Land Management • Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) n Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): SDP 05-14/ CDP 05-43/ RP 05-11 PROJECT TITLE: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING PROPOSAL: HOTEL AND PARKING STRUCTURE Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to MEGHAN JACOBSON. Senior Office Specialist in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 09/09/08 . If you have "No Comments", please so state. If you have any questions, please contact CHRISTER WESTMAN . at X4614 . SMENTS: ^ — a. 6^pjJ^ fj^ ,reui^4^ i^'cl PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: TO: AUGUST 19. 2008 REVIEW NO: 3 • • • • • • • • • Engineering, Development Services - Terie Rowley Police Department - J. Sasway Fire Department - Greg Ryan Building Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Redevelopment - Austin Silva Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy - Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT NO(S): SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/ RP 05-11 PROJECT TITLE: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING PROPOSAL: HOTEL AND PARKING STRUCTURE Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to MEGHAN JACOBSON, Senior Office Specialist in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, bv 09/09/08 . If you have "No Comments", please so state. If you have any questions, please contact CHRISTER WESTMAN , at X4614 . Thank you COMMENTS: fee: 4 PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 09/07 City of Carlsbad HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM September 2, 2008 TO: Christer Westman, Planning Department FROM: Austin Silva, Housing and Redevelopment Department SUBJECT: EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT Housing & Redevelopment Department staff has completed a review of the above referenced project plans received August 20, 2008. Staff has identified issues of concem that must be adequately resolved/addressed prior to application resubmittal. Additional issues of concem may be identified on subsequent reviews with more complete information. Issues of Concem 1. Special attention should also be given to wayfinding signage within the Ponto Beachfront Village. The Vision Plan provides specific example of the types of wayfinding signage envisioned for the area on Page 36, Chapter 2. This type of signage will be appropriate in alerting the general public of the location of the Coast Side Grill/Pool Bar, the activity center, and the restaurant. Directional banners cannot be incorporated into the light poles. Please find an altemative method to providing wayfinding signage. 2. Staff encourages the use of windows, architectural detailing, and/or landscaping that will cover the blank wall spaces facing the parking lot on the south elevation If you or the applicant has any questions, please call me at 760-434-2813. c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director August 18, 2008 REC'i TO: Christer Westman, Senior Planner Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst Meghan Jacobson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape ArchitMQflM PIANMIMG & ENGINEERiNG RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 2"'' Review Hilton Carisbad Beach Resort & Spa, SDP05-I4, CDP05-43, RP05-i I Carlsbad Boulevard @ Ponto Road PE1,A RU: 29% - Hilton Carlsbad Bench Resort & Spa • Con2 Landscape .Architect: Spurlock Poirier, Phone: (619) 681-0090 Please advise the applicant to make the foiiowing corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Completed, 2. Please show all slopes on the planting plans consistent with the grading plans. .Address slope revegetation as follows: On all slopes (all heights) that abut streets or sidewalks: Standard "A": • "A"- Cover crop plus straw mat. Straw mat required if installed August 15 - April 15 On all slopes 3' and greater: ".A B & C" • "B" - Groundcover spaced to provide 100% coverage in one year, (ex: flats spaced at 12" O.C) • "C" - Low spreading woody shrubs to provide a minimum of 70% cover at maturity. This is in addition to the requirements of "D" below. On all slopes that are 8' and greater: "A. B. C & • "D" - Trees and/or large shrubs at a rate of 1 per 200 square feet. Areas graded flatter than 6:1 require Standard #1 (cover crop) when they have one or more of the following conditions: a. Sheet graded pads not scheduled for improvements within 6 months of completion of rough grading. b. A potential erosion problem as determined by the City. c. Identified by the City as highly visible areas to the public or have special conditions that warrant immediate treatment 2"'^ Review: Please add the notes shown in bold above to the plan noiex. 3-4 Completed. 5, Generally identify all existing woody plant material to be removed or retained. Trees over 12" in caliper diameter shall be identified on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and labeled to be retained or removed. 2"'^ Review: The appUcanI ha.s responded: "Information i.s .shown on Demolilion Plan Refer to Civil Sheet C-4. " The Hilton Cartsbad Beach Resort & Spa August 18, 2008 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 civil plan does not identijj! existing trees or indicate size.s. Please fully address on landscape plam. 6, Indicate the tbilowing percentages: a. Percent of the total site used for landscaping. b. Completed. maintenance. This should be the responsibility ofthe project owaef, /"^Review: The applicant has responded: "Note was removed from Drawings. " Pkmse clearly outlim (he areas of landscape maintenance responsibihties (private, common area homeowners' association, City, etc.). 8, Show 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, 2'"^ Review: The applicanl has responded: "Commeiil Moled. " No hio-.swales or detention basins are shown on the plans. Civil plans show a vegetated swale and detention basin at the .southeast corner of the property. Please show and label on the landscape plans and provide appropriate f)lantings. 9, Please label all streets on ail sheets. Provide street name. 10-11 Completed, 12. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. See comment number .3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 2"*' Review: Please provide additional large evergreen trees on the south and we.si .sides of the parking garage. Please provide large evergreen trees along (he .south .side of the parking lot at the .south property line. Additional large evergreen trees (Monterrey Cypress) are needed along Carlsbad Boulevard to soften and enhance the bialdings. See red line plans for l<x:ations. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. -See-eemrHefit-numbeF -3-abeve, Ptease-pfwide-ffleFe--deteiled-iftfeHHatH>t^^ 2''^ Review: See comment number 12 above. 14-15 Completed. 16, Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn froni twg points,„2^^^ from the beginning of curves and end of curv-es, (See Appendix C,4). The same height limitation applies at drivewavs 25' from the edge of the apron outward along the curb then 45-degrees in toward the property.. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show ali sight lines and insure these requirements are met. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement caii be checked. 2"'^ Review: Please graphically show sight lines and provide for all above reqitiremems. 17-19 Completed. 20. If the streetscape is along a major or prime arterial, the street tree planting shall conform to the "Arterial Road Themes" (refer to Section IV,D,4 and .Appendix C, 1). The specific trees creating a streetscape theme have been pre-seiected by the City. Each theme shall Hilton Carisbad Beach Resort & Spa Conceptual Plan Review- August 18, 2008 Page 3 21 be made up of four (4) types of trees: "Theme", "Support", "Median", and "Project Identity/Accent Trees", (See Appendix C) % of Total Streetscape Trees (includes street tree requirement plus adjacent setbacks) a. Median Island Trees N/A (These trees shall be installed as part of the required street improvement.s) b. Theme Trees 50% (These trees set the overall character ofthe streetscape and are located along the roadside but outside the right-of-way (See D,3-1.2-3) c. Support Trees 30% (These trees were selected to complement the theme tree. Select trees from those listed which fit the project site conditions.) d. Project Identify/Accent Trees 20% (These trees are not pre-selected, rather the applicant can choose the best tree for their project and submit it for City approval. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: ".According to the Landscape Mainrnl we are io provide: 10 theme trees (Monterrey Cypress), 6 support trees (Pink Melaleuca), 5 project identity trees (various Palm n-ees per L3-2J. However, due to fire lane, sight line, and view corridor requirements, we are [proposing the following hreak-iiown: 5 theme trees (hTonterrey Cypress), 16 .support trees (Pink Melaleuca), 2~project identify trees (various Palm trees per U-2). Note thai we are proposing more than twice the minimum immher of trees required for the .site. " The reason for deleting 5 required theme frees is nol understood. Theme trees are the most important tree which will esiabUsh the Landscape Manual designated theme. There appears to he room for these trees. Please provide all required theme trees (see comment number 12 above). As far as providing extra trees, trees are required to he provided to both accentuate and enhance arcliiieciure and screen .soften new improvements. These trees are needed to accomplish all of these requirements. . Locate street trees: a. A minimum of 3' outside the public right-of-way (except within the "Redevelopment Zone (VRZone) and Beach Area Overlay Zone" where street trees may be allowed within the right-of-way I' in tight spaces and within the right-of-way if approved by Engineering, 2"" Review: It is noted (hat street trees are located within the right-of-way. Plea.se relocate unless otherwise approved by Engineering. b. A minimum of 5' from paving. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa .August 18, 2008 Conceptual Plan Review Page 4 c. A minimum of 7" from any sewer line, d. Not in conflict with public utilities. e. Not to be allowed on street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' from the beginning of curves and end of cur\-es or within sight lines as described under "Sight Distance" above. (See Appendix C.4), 22. The median layout shall be in conformance with the ''Arterial Median Layout" (see Appendix C.2). Concrete c-olor and pattern shall be as specified under ".Arterial Streetscape Themes" (see .Appendix C.l) and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. Shmbs shall be 5 gallon minimum size. Shiub spacing shall be such that 100% coverage will occur within one year. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Comment Noted. " Please address median land.scaping. 23-26 Completed. 27. Please provide a colored water use plan indicating where proposed use of recycled and potable water will be used. 2''"' Review': Ihe colored water use plan has been forwarded to Pubhc Works Maintenance and Operations for review. Any comments will be forwarded back to the applicant. 28. 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 address on plans. 2'"^ Review: Please re-word note -1 as follows: Woody .shrubs .shall be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% of the grotutdcover area at maturity. 29. Please show all storm drains and insure trees are not planted over them. 2""* i^tnvVH-.- There appear to be cotiflicts. Please resolve. 30. RETURN RE D LINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conser\'ation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal NEWCO,MM,ENTS 1 A. Please expl ai n thi s not e. 2.A, Please provide a north arrow on all plan sheets, 3.A, Please define "Ponto Road Planting". Clarify what plants will be used. Landscaping shall be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing neighborhoods. 4.A, Please indicate who is responsible for the maintenance of the Ponto Road and Carlsbad Boulevard median landscaping. If proposed to be City maintained, the plans will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department 5A. Please address landscaping of all areas within the property line. 6A. Please note that a minimum of 50% ofthe shrubs (except on slopes 3:1 or steeper) shall be a minimum 5 gallon size. CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ^^^CUJ Fire Prevention Division Land Use Review Report PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Beach Resort and Spa Date: 12/11/07 Project Number: CDP 05-43/ SDP 05-14/ RP 05-11 Staff Planner: C. Westman Engineer: Proiect conditions: (Note: The following identifies specific conditions necessary to achieve Fire Department approval.) Fire has reviewed this application and has the following comments or conditions, 1. Each inhabitable building shall be provided with an approved overhead fire sprinkler system of the appropriate design standard. 2. The main resort, hotel and parking structure shall be provided with Class 1 Fire Standpipe systems throughout. Hose valve locations shall be based upon 150 foot hose length. 3. The fire alarm system shall also provide voice annunciation for evacuation. 4. The parking structure shall also be provided with audible/visual fire alarm notification devices located properly. 5. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 90 linear feet from any backflow prevention device or fire department hose connection. Fire hydrants shall be no more than 300 feet apart. And there shall be no less than four (4) fire hydrants within 350 lineal feet of the main building. 6. At least one (1) elevator car shall be of sufficient size so as to accommodate and ambulance stretcher 84 by 24 inches in dimension in the full flat or prone position. GR City of Carlsbad HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM December 7, 2007 TO: Christer Westman, Planning Department FROM: Austin Silva, Housing and Redevelopment Department SUBJECT: EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT Housing & Redevelopment Department staff has completed a review of the above referenced project plans received November 20, 2007. Staff has identified issues of concem that must be adequately resolved/addressed prior to application resubmittal. Additional issues of concem may be identified on subsequent reviews with more complete information. Issues of Concern 1. Ponto Road is envisioned as a two-lane roadway with a planted median, bike lane, parkways, and ample sidewalks. The applicant should review Chapter 2 Page 19-27 of the Vision Plan for more information related to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation envisioned in the Ponto Beachfront Village. Landscape medians and bike lanes will be required along Ponto Road. Suggestions related to types of landscaping envisioned around the bicycle and pedestrian circulation areas can be found on Page 33 (Chapter 2). We do not believe that the landscaped median needs to be eliminated for the entire road segment fronting your project. Although there may be breaks needed, we believe adequate areas remain for the landscaped medians. 2. Please provide a detailed drawing of the proposed gateway signage at the southeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard, and Ponto Drive The gateway signage shall include attractive rockwork, informal landscaping, and special crosswalk paving should be included at the gateway intersections. Please refer to Chapter 2 Page 31 of the Vision Plan for more details on gateway signage envisioned for the area. 3. Special attention should also be given to wayfinding signage within the Ponto Beachfi-ont Village. The Vision Plan provides specific example of the types of wayfinding signage envisioned for the area on Page 36, Chapter 2. This type of signage will be appropriate in alerting the general public of the location of the Coast Side Grill/Pool Bar, the activity center, and the restaurant. 4. Staff encourages the use of windows, architectural detailing, and/or landscaping that will cover the large blank wall to the north of the delivery area. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort Page 2 of 2 December 8, 2005 5. Staff encourages the use of plaster trim or banding across the blank wall space on the main ballroom roof structure. 6. Please identify the "x" shaped sections of the parking structure on the key note legend. Are there openings throughout the parking structure, or does this reflect an architectural feature? If so, please indicate. 7. The beach sand along the west property line encroaches into the public right-of-way. Perhaps with the removal of the portion of sand that encroaches into the right-of-way, lighted bollards can be used on both sides of the adjacent path to create a more welcoming walkway. 8. Staff encourages the use of enhanced paving to act as a crosswalk from the parking structure to the hotel. The path of travel from the parking structure to the hotel can be dangerous for pedestrians because of its close proximity to the bend on Ponto Road. 9. Please provide a detailed drawing for the wall and water feature at the entrance of the hotel. Perhaps the northeast facing side of the wall could include signage for the hotel, a water feature on that side as well, or an open fountain that is viewable from all sides. If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or call me at 760-434-2813. c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director December 5, 2007 TO: Christer Westman, Senior Planner Michele Masterson, Management Analyst Meghan Jacobson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - Review Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa, SDP05-14, CDP05-43, RP05-11 Carlsbad Boulevard Ponto Road PELA file: 298 - Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa - Conl Landscape Architect: Spurlock Poirier, Phone: (619) 681-0090 Please advise the applicant to make the following corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concem. 1. Please show and label all existing and proposed easements and right-of-ways on the planting plans, hisure no trees are located within the easements. 2. Please show all slopes on the planting plans consistent with the grading plans. Address slope revegetation as follows: On all slopes (all heights) that abut streets or sidewalks: Standard "A": • "A"- Cover crop plus straw mat. Straw mat required if installed August 15 - April 15 On all slopes 3' and greater: "A. B & C" • "B" - Groundcover spaced to provide 100% coverage in one year, (ex: flats spaced at 12" O.C.) • "C" - Low spreading woody shrubs to provide a minimum of 70% cover at maturity. This is in addition to the requirements of "D" below. On all slopes that are 8' and greater: "A. B. C & D" • "D" - Trees and/or large shrubs at a rate of 1 per 200 square feet. Areas graded flatter than 6:1 require Standard #1 (cover crop) when they have one or - more of the following conditions: a. Sheet graded pads not scheduled for improvements within 6 months of completion of rough grading. b. A potential erosion problem as determined by the City. c. Identified by the City as highly visible areas to the public or have special conditions that warrant immediate treatment. 3. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for all shrubs and ground covers which may be very different in size and character. Please provide a separate symbol for each type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen shrub, medium size shrub, small flowering accent shrub, etc.) and ground covers. Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete plans. 4. Please indicate the approximate quantity of each shrub to be used. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa December 5, 2007 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 5. Generally identify all existing woody plant material to be removed or retained. Trees over 12" in caliper diameter shall be identified on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and labeled to be retained or removed. 6. Indicate the following percentages: a. Percent of the total site used for landscaping. b. Percent of the landscaped area (as defined in Appendix G) of each planting zone as described in Section A. 5-3 and Appendix A. 7. Please explain why the City is expected to be responsible for the right-of-way maintenance. This should be the responsibility of the project owner. 8. Show 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. 9. Please label all streets on all sheets. Provide street name. 10. Please obtain review and approval for all trails from Liz Ketabian in Recreation Administration 11. Landscaping shall be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing neighborhoods. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 12. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soflen new improvements. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 13. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed infonnation so this requirement can be checked. 14. Landscaping shall be used to provide and enhance opportunities for outdoor recreation, relaxing, and eating. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 15. Spacing of some shrubs does not appear to be appropriate (i.e. Ceanothus 'Julia Phelps' spaced at 24" on center). Please review and provide appropriate spacings for all shrubs. 16. Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street comers within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). The same height limitation applies at driveways 25' from the edge of the apron outward along the curb then 45-degrees in toward the property. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show all sight lines and insure these requirements are met. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement • can be checked. 17. Please explain what 'reinforced turf' is. 18. 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. 19. Provide a minimum of one tree for every 40' of street frontage. Trees may be planted on center or grouped. 20. If the streetscape is along a major or prime arterial, the street tree planting shall conform to the "Arterial Road Themes" (refer to Section IV.D.4 and Appendix C.l). The specific Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa December 5, 2007 Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 trees creating a streetscape theme have been pre-selected by the City. Each theme shall be made up of four (4) types of trees: "Theme", "Support", "Median", and "Project Identity/Accent Trees". (See Appendix C) % of Total Streetscape Trees (includes street tree requirement plus adjacent setbacks) a. Median Island Trees N/A (These trees shall be installed as part of the required street improvements) b. Theme Trees 50% (These trees set the overall character of the streetscape and are located along the roadside but outside the right-of-way (See D.3-1.2-3) c. Support Trees 30% (These trees were selected to complement the theme tree. Select trees from those listed which fit the project site conditions.) d. Project Identify/Accent Trees 20% (These trees are not pre-selected, rather the applicant can choose the best tree for their project and submit it for City approval. 21. Locate street trees: a. A minimum of 3' outside the public right-of-way (except within the "Redevelopment Zone (VR Zone) and Beach Area Overlay Zone" where street trees may be allowed within the right-of-way 1' in tight spaces and within the right-of-way if approved by Engineering. b. A minimum of 5' from paving. c. A minimum of 7' from any sewer line. d. Not in conflict with public utilities. e. Not to be allowed on street comers within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' from the beginning of curves and end of curves or within sight lines as described under "Sight Distance" above. (See Appendix C.4). 22. The median layout shall be in conformance with the "Arterial Median Layout" (see Appendix C.2). Concrete color and pattern shall be as specified under "Arterial Streetscape Themes" (see Appendix C.l) and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. Shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum size. Shrub spacing shall be such that 100% coverage will occur within one year. 23. Planting or any combination of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to provide screening from adjacent property or streets of the parking area to a height of 3'. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa December 5, 2007 Conceptual Plan Review Page 4 24. At all vehicular access points, landscape elements shall be less than 30" in height (including plants measured at maturity). See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 25. At least three percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved shrubs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and boimded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. 26. Water conservation plans shall include the following: 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. c. Accommodations for reclaimed water (existing or future) and outline planting areas proposed to use reclaimed water. d. Written description of water conservation features including addressing xeriscape principles (see Appendix B) within the project. 27. Please provide a colored water use plan indicating where proposed use of recycled and potable water will be used. 28. 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 address on plans. 29. Please show all storm drains and insure trees are not planted over them. 30 RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal. City of Carlsbad HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM December 8, 2005 TO: Barbara Kermedy, Plaiming Department FROM: Cliff Jones, Housing and Redevelopment Department SUBJECT: EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT Housing & Redevelopment Department staff has completed a review of the above referenced project plans received November 3, 2005. Staff has identified issues of concem that must be adequately resolved/addressed prior to application resubmittal. Additional issues of concem may be identified on subsequent reviews with more complete information. Issues of Concern 1. Please read the application checklist and make sure all items on the checklist have been addressed prior to next submittal. 2. Provide multiple cross-sections of the site to demonstrate differences in grade, especially as it relates to the view and height of adjacent properties. 3. On the building elevations please change the height in relationship to sea level to the height from grade so that the public is not confused. The plans could easily be mis- interpreted (by the public) to indicate the proposed building to be 95 feet tall. 4. Ponto Road is envisioned as a two-lane roadway with a planted median, bike lane, parkways, and ample sidewalks. The applicant should review Chapter 2 Page 19-27 of the Vision Plan before formal project submittal for more related to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation envisioned in the Ponto Beachfront Village. Landscape medians and bike lanes will be required along Ponto Road. Suggestions related to types of landscaping envisioned around the bicycle and pedestrian circulation areas can be found on Page 33 (Chapter 2). Staff will need to discuss this matter further intemally before a decision can be made to allow altemate design of the public street. 5. As mentioned by other City Departments the retaining wall proposed at the terminus of Ponto Road is unacceptable. Please identify how properties to the south will have access off Ponto Road. 6. Gateway signage will be required at the comer of Ponto Road and Carlsbad Boulevard. The gateway signage shall include attractive rockwork, informal landscaping, and special Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort Page 2 of 3 December 8, 2005 crosswalk paving should be included at the gateway intersections. Please refer to Chapter 2 Page 31 of the Vision Plan for more details on gateway signage envisioned for the area. 7. Staff has a concem about the parking stmctures design/appearance. Please include elevations depicting the appearance of the parking stmcture with next submittal. 8. As mentioned in the Plaiming Department comments, the third story of the hotel should be stepped back in order to reduce the visual impacts to surroimding properties. 9. Please clarify whether or not the dining room and bar are intended to be the public restaurant envisioned within the "Garden Hotel" description within the Ponto Vision Plan. If so consideration should be given to moving the restaurant to the westem portion of the site in order to take advantage of the ocean views. The Vision Plan calls for restaurants with outdoor patios, which offer views to the ocean. A restaurant within the hotel helps to ensure that the general public will have the opportunity to view the scenic beauty of the area. This was given a high priority in a City survey a few years ago. 10. The north elevation wall, which screens the service yard, is relatively flat and has little building articulation. Additional building articulation or other building design enhancements should be considered along this elevation since this side of the building is very visible from Ponto Drive. 11. Special consideration and attention should be given to street fiimiture, public art, paving, lighting, and bicycle rack furniture within the Ponto Beachfront Village. Please refer to Chapter 2 Page 36 of the Vision Plan for further information and examples. Staff suggests the selected elements be incorporated throughout the project site(s). Please identify the proposed location of these amenities on the plans with formal submittal. 12. Special attention should also be given to wayfinding signage within the Ponto Beachfront Village. The Vision Plan provides specific example of the types of wayfinding signage envisioned for the area on Page 36, Chapter 2. This type of signage will be appropriate in alerting the general public of the location of the Coast Side Grill/Pool Bar, the activity center, and the restaurant. 13. In order to make the Coast Side Grill/Pool Bar more inviting to the public please continue the enhanced concrete paving westward and sign appropriately in order to inform the public that they are welcome. 14. The public spaces at the west ofthe site should incorporate the street fiimiture indicated within the Vision Plan and these areas should be larger, perhaps in the shape of a semi- circle, in order to make them more inviting to the pubUc. 15. Please provide additional screening along the south elevation. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort Page 3 of 3 December 8, 2005 If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or call me at 760-434-2813. c: Debbie Fountain, Housing & Redevelopment Director City of Carlsbad ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM T^l 17, 2005 TO: Barbara Kennedy, Planning FROM: Jeremy Riddle, Engineering SUBJECT: 1^^ REVIEW OF HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT & SPA, SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 (APN: 214-590-04, 214-160-10,11,13,19,20,21,24,& 29) Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the application submittal documents for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete and unsuitable for fijrther review due to the following missing or incomplete items: Ijtclnttiplete Items 1. Revise the exhibits to show/callout the existing and proposed parcels, parcel areas and parcel lines that are proposed as part of this project. This information is not clearly identified on the exhibits. Complete the design. 2. Revise the exhibits to clarify the property owners within the subdivision boimdary. The exhibits list Wavecrest Resorts, as Owner. However, the preliminary title report lists Wave crest Resorts II, LLC, Metro Ocean Group and the Wang Family Tmst owning certain properties all within this subdivision boundary. Revise the Site Plan and Tentative Parcel Map to show the correct ownership within the subdivision boundary. 3. Revise the exhibits to show/callout the entire property boundary. Show/callout the bearings, distances and curve data for the property boundary. Refer to redline for clarification. 4. Prepare an engineering alignment study (vertical, horizontal, utility, right-of-way, grading, etc) for Carlsbad Blvd from Ponto Road to a point south of the intersection of Avenida Encinas. Properties along these limits are responsible to contribute their fair- share contribution toward completing the ultimate public road improvements for Carlsbad Blvd. The draft Ponto Vision plan began this process, but this process must be completed before projects develop in this corridor. Refer to items in the engineering issues section for more information. 5. Revise the exhibits to show all proposed public road improvements required along the frontage of Carlsbad Blvd. The current plans only show sidewalk improvements proposed along Carlsbad Blvd, however, there are public improvements required to completed as part of this project. This includes improving Carlsbad Boulevard to public standards which include but is not limited to: removing and replacing existing SDP 05-14, Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort 8c Spa Page 2 of7 October 17, 2005 deteriorated pavement, extending new curb, butter, sidewalk, drainage facilties, restriping, bike lanes, signage, sfreet lights, northbound deceleration lane, northbotmd left tum pocket, pedestrian crossings, signal modifications, continue median landscape/hardscape/irrigation, etc. We have attached the schematic lane assignments for Carlsbad Blvd at Ponto Road for your assistance in revising the exhibits and record drawings for improvements completed just to the north of this project limit. Revise the exhibits as necessary. 6. Revise the exhibits to depict and callout the limits of existing Ponto Drive that currently serves existing residents. Revise these plans to callout the removal of existing paving of Ponto Drive necessary to develop this project. Where pavement removal ends (you need to call this out too), revise the exhibits to provide a new cul-de-sac terminus on Ponto Drive to maintain emergency vehicle tum-arounds. Complete the design of this project. 7. Revise the exhibits to show the complete existing intersection of Carlsbad Blvd and Ponto Road. Show the existing lane striping and left tum pocket on southbound Carlsbad Blvd. Verify the pocket length is adequate to serve the existing residents and proposed development. The traffic study should address the length required. Show the proposed left tum pocket on northbound Carlsbad Blvd at Ponto Road. Complete the ultimate requirements required at this intersection. 8. Revise the exhibits to show/callout the undergrounding of overhead utilities along the project frontage with Carlsbad Blvd. 9. Revise the exhibits to show/complete Ponto Road improvements within the subdivision/property boundary. These exhibits only show partial improvements to Ponto Road. Ponto Road must be fiilly-improved and dedicated within the property boundary. Terminating Ponto Road with a 7-ft retaining wall at the end is not acceptable. Revise the exhibits to show how Ponto Road will interface/match to serve the adjacent properties to the south of the hotel stmcture. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 10. Provide correspondence from NCTD regarding approval or facilities required to support this project. Revise the exhibits to provide NCTD facilities, if any. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 11. The sidewalk along Ponto Road (Hotel side) is depicted in inconsistent locations. The site plan shows a proposed non-contiguous sidewalk with a portion located outside the right-of-way. However, existing improvement plans (dwg 380-5) shows it as existing contiguous sidewalk along Ponto and within the right-of-way. Clarify the discrepancy. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. SDP 05-14, Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Page 3 of 7 October 17, 2005 12. The draft Ponto Vision Plan includes landscaped medians constmcted along Ponto Drive and the exhibits in the preliminary review (PRE 05-22) also showed proposed medians on Ponto Road. These exhibits do not show any medians. Revise this project to demonstrate consistent facilities with the draft Ponto Vision Plan and the preliminary review. On the preliminary review, we also made comments regarding the median design that have not yet been addressed. Please revise the exhibits to address our previous comments. 13. Revise the exhibits to provide right-of-way or public pedestrian access easements required for sidewalks that meander outside existing or proposed right-of-way (typical). This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 14. Revise the exhibits to show median landscape/irrigation on Carlsbad Blvd. The median improvements should match those just north of the project. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 15. Provide a preliminary Geotechnical study that identifies feasibility and subsurface recommendations for the proposed development as it relates to the site. Address limits of remedial grading required, if any. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 16. Revise the exhibits to depict left-tum lane pockets along Ponto Road for vehicles to enter the parking garage. Revise the exhibits to show proposed striping and lane assignments to verify lane widths are adequate for pocket widths. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 17. Revise the exhibits to depict the include future grading, slopes, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. and profile information for the future extension of Ponto Road measured 200-feet beyond the project frontage. Demonstrate feasibility of the roadway constmction. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 18. Provide multiple cross-sections of the site to demonstrate differences in grade, especially as it relates to adjacent properties. Refer to the redlines for clarification. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 19. Staff has continued concemed about the northerly pedestrian crossing on Ponto Road between the parking garage and the north hotel stmcture. This current proposed pedestrian crossing is located just south of a sharp curve on Ponto Road. Ponto Road will include parkway and median landscaping and vehicles may have a difficult time to see pedestrians as they travel south on Ponto Road around the curve.(using line-of-sight per Caltrans stopping sight distance). This conflict must be resolved. With a multi-level parking garage serving this hotel, a pedestrian bridge may be warranted to avoid conflict or consider moving the crosswalk south to increase sight distance for safety. Revise the SDP 05-14, Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Page 4 of 7 October 17, 2005 exhibits to depict the line of sight that ensures pedestrian safety. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 20. Consider incorporating fraffic-calming methods (e.g.: traffic circle, mid-block chokers, etc.) on Ponto Road to slow vehicles. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 21. It appears the ultimate point-of-cormection for the sewer serving this project is south of Avenida Encinas. However as an interim solution, until sewer is extended south of this project, a private pump station has been proposed that will drain to the existing sewer in Ponto Road. However, this project is required to constmct of the gravity sewer that will serve this project in the fiiture. Provide a sewer study to demonstrate the gravity sewer is constmcted at the proper location to serve this hotel as well as others to the south, once extended. The study should demonstrate what elevations the adjacent lots must be at in order to gravity sewer to the proposed sewer in Ponto Road. 22. Revise the exhibits so the private sewer pump station is located in a place that allows for it to be decommissioned (removed) in the future once gravity sewer becomes available in Ponto Road to the south. Add notes to the exhibits that memorialize this. Refer to the redlines for clarification. 23. Indicate all existing surface improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, lane assignments, access-holes, inlets, power poles, street lights, adjacent driveways, vaults, transformers, etc.) along the property fronting Carlsbad Blvd and Ponto Road. The exhibits only show a portion of improvements along Carlsbad Boulevard, but the entire right-of-way improvements must be shown. The exhibits show Ponto Road with proposed non-contiguous sidewalk, but record drawings already show existing contiguous sidewalk in place. Clarify these discrepancies. 24. Revise the plans to include a typical sfreet section of Carlsbad Blvd that indicate existing and proposed improvements (pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, centerline, sfreet lights, median landscape/hardscape/irrigation, fire hydrants, etc.). This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 25. Revise the exhibits to show/callout all existing fire hydrants located within 300-ft of the subdivision. 26. Provide a letter from SDG&E stating they have reviewed this project and do not object to it. The proposed parking garage is located over an existing SDG&E easement. 27. Provide a letter from the easement holder of the existing railroad spur and utility easement stating they do not object to development within the existing easement. This SDP 05-14, Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Page 5 of 7 October 17, 2005 parking garage is proposed within the easement. Will this easement be quitclaimed as part of the project? See page C3 for clarification. 28. Revise the project to incorporate measures to address the increase in storm water mnoff resulting from this project. Based on a review of the preliminary hydrology report, the pre-development mnoff is approximately 8.9 cfs, while the post- development mn-off is approximately 15.2 cfs. This represents a 70% increase in mn-off as a result of the project. Revise this project/hydrology report to address/mitigate drainage impacts. Below I have also listed engineering concems that should be addressed prior to final determination or conditioning: Engineering Concerns 1. This project is located within the boundaries of the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (PBWP). Please note this vision is not approved by City Council. Once approved, this project is subject to certain findings, guidelines and development conditions set forth is said vision plan. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 2. The proposed PBWP includes different altematives to re-align Carlsbad Blvd. This re- alignment requires further alignment evaluation and approval by the City together with fair-share participation by the properties (or other funding mechanism). The fair-share obligations and/or flinding mechanisms for these improvements have not yet been determined. The obligations of this property relative to this facility realignment must be addressed prior to project approval. Please contact David Hauser with Planning & Programs (760-602-2739) or Bill Plummer with Engineering Design (760-602-2768) to resolve this process. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 3. The transportation analysis has been forwarded to Traffic Department for review. We will forward comments once they become available. 4. Revise the exhibits to use a light-shading symbol for proposed AC paving. Refer to redlines for clarification. 5. It is our understanding since this project (for the interim) is a single-entry development and Fire Department will require hydrants and other access features along Carlsbad Blvd to serve the project. Revise the exhibits to provide public water and fire-fighting facilities, as required. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 6. Revise the exhibits to address how the parking garage will operate with respect to public vehicular traffic. Will a gate be used to prevent public parking? Where will the gate be placed? What happens to cars that enter the parking garage driveway enfrance and find SDP 05-14, Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Page 6 of 7 October 17, 2005 they need to back up without gate clearance? And if someone is behind them? This interface should be evaluated to clear up conflicts. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 7. Revise the exhibits to callout the hotel entryway as "one-way" as shown on the redlines. Two-way circulation will add conflicting movements (vehicles tuming left) on the curvature of Ponto Road considering the median and Parkway landscaping along Ponto Road. Revise the site plan, preliminary grading plans and preliminary landscape plan to depict and callout the line-of-sight (Caltrans stopping sight distance) for vehicles exiting the southerly Hotel A driveway. Eliminate discrepancies with the line-of-sight. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 8. The southerly sewer appears to be constmcted "flat". Please redesign sewer to provide gravity flow per City Standards. Refer to redlines for clarification. 9. Revise the exhibits to eliminate the proposed PVC storm drain within Ponto Road right- of-way. Facilities within City right-of-way must be constmcted to public standards. RCP is permitted and must be a minimum of 18" diameter. The facility must also be located within the street paving and not in the parkway. Refer to redlines for clarification. 10. Revise the exhibits so storm mn-off is not directed toward the foundations of adjacent stmctures. Refer to redlines for clarification. 11. The onsite private vegetated swales appear to be proposed all throughout the site, but do not appear to specifically treat areas that generate pollutants-of-concem (such as AC paving areas on the driveways). Redesign the bmps so they are installed to freat areas that contribute pollutants to them using numeric sizing criteria per Order 2001-01 and the City SUSMP. 12. The hydrology report provides 2-year nmoff figures for certain basins. However, the report does not demonstrate how the chosen bmp's will treat those sub-areas. Revise the preliminary SWMP and site plan to provide bmp's that meet minimum freatment requirements. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 13. Revise the hydrology calculations in the preliminary SWMP to clarify/demonsfrate the effect the desiltation basins have on the existing hydrology calculations. If this has been accounted for, revise the calculations to explain it. 14. Revise the exhibits and legend to clarify which swales will be grass-lined and which ones will be concrete-lined (typical). SDP 05-14, Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Page 7 of 7 October 17, 2005 15. Revise the exhibits to clarify which inlets will be outfitted with inlet filter(s) and which ones will not. The current exhibits to not clarify which inlet(s) the detail on sheet C2 applies to. 16. Provide copies of those instmments that encumber the property as requested on the returned redlined exhibits and redlined preliminary title report. 17. Revise the exhibits to add dimensions to all drive aisles (typical). 18. Revise the exhibits or add a separate sheet to explain what will be demolished onsite as part of the project. 19. Revise the exhibits so drainage from ac paving areas is treated via vegetated (bio) swales versus inlet filters. Inlet filters are less efficient at removing the target pollutants of concem as compared to bio-swales. Therefore, revise the exhibits and preliminary SWMP to use more effective bmp measures or demonsfrate why it is infeasible to use more effective bmp measures. 20. Revise the exhibits to clarify how drainage may affect adjacent properties where drainage appears to be concentrated with rip-rap fields. Staff is concemed how drainage is directed beyond the rip-rap and whether the added flows will impact adjacent properties. 21. Revise the exhibits to add the slopes (percent) of all proposed driveways as they approach Ponto Road (typical) 22. Revise the constraints map to clarify whether the sight easements along Ponto are existing or proposed. If proposed, please show them as sign distance corridors per City Standards to be maintained by property owner. These corridors must also be shown on the site plan for the SDP, Tentative Parcel Map and conceptual landscape plan. 23. A redlined check print is enclosed for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print should be returned with the formal application submittal to facilitate continued staff review. If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or call me at 760-602-2737. Attachment c: Glenn Pmim, Deputy Public Works Director Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer - Development Services David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer - Plarming & Programs Bill Plummer, Deputy City Engineer - Design Discretionary file City of Carlsbad Engineering Development Services MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 12, 2005 BOB JOHNSON, DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER' 3t JEREMY RIDDLE, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW FOR EIR 05-03, HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT & SPA (MS 05-23/CDP 05-43/SDP 05-14) Please review the attached transportation analysis prepared for this project prepared by Urban Systems, dated August 4, 2005. We request your assistance to enstire this document uses the appropriate traffic forecast models for current/near-term/build-out scenarios, fraffic generation assumptions, lane assignments, distribution assumptions, roadway configurations and mitigation requirements ofthe project. Once received, I will forward your comments to the Developer/Applicant. If you need to meet to discuss this project or if you have any questions please call me at ext. 2737. Thank you. c: Barbara Kermedy, Project Plarmer Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer discretionary project file CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Prevention Division PROJECT NAME: Date: Project number: Staff Planner: Land Use Review Report Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort and Spa 10/04/05 CDP 05-043 / SDP 05-014 B. Kennedy Engineer: Project conditions: (Note: The following identifies specific conditions necessary to achieve Fire Department approval.) Fire Department has reviewed this application and provides the following comments: 1. Fire Department access to this building shall have to be reviewed and likely re designed. 2. Fire hydrant distribution shall have to be revised. GR City of Carlsbad Police Department Date: September 21, 2005 To: Barbara Kennedy - Planning Department From: J. Sasway, CPS - Police Department Subject: Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort and Spa Plan Review Recommendations The foUowing recommendations arc optimal security suggestions utilizing Crime Prevent Through Environmental Design and are provided by Carlsbad Police Department's Crim« Prevention Unit. The purpose of this document is to safeguard property and public welfare 1^ reviewing and regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. The Crime Prevention Unit presents recommendations in two sections, site considerations and building recommendations. Site Considerations Building Placement - Creating Defensible Space Strategies to consider: Provide clearly defined transitions from public to private space creating a buffer zone. Use landscaping, fencing and ground cover to create territoriality and ownership for the property. Locate common well-used areas where there is good surveillance. Use natural barriers to designate space and separate activities that may conflict. Design space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Consider that if people feel comfortable and safe in all areas, they are more likely to use the areas. Lighting All vehicular drive surfaces, open parking areas should be illuminated with a minimum maintained one foot-candle of light at ground level during the hours of darkness. All exterior common area pedestrian walkways and recreation areas should be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.25 foot-candle of light at ground level during the hours of darkness. Open stairways and enclosed common area corridors should be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 foot-candle of light on all landings and stair treads during the hours of darkness. Enclosed stairways shall be illuminated at all times with a minimum maintained one foot- candle of light on all landings and stair treads. Trash enclosures, and other common areas located on the exterior should be illuminated with a minimum maintained one foot-candle of light, measured within a five-foot radius at ground level, during the hours of darkness. Recessed areas of building or fences, which have a minimum depth of two feet, a minimum height of five feet, and do not exceed six feet in width and are capable of human concealment, shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.25 foot-candles of light at ground level 2560 Orion Way • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7280 • (760) 931-2100 • FAX (760)931-8473 ^ during the hours of darkness. This requirement applies to defined recessed areas that are within six feet of the edge of designated walking surface with an unobstructed pathway to it, not hindered by walls or hedgerow landscaping a minimum of two feet in height. Accessible luminaries utilized to meet the requirements of this section shall have vandal resistant light fixtures and be not less than three feet in height from the walking surface when used to illuminate walkways and a minimum of 78 inches in height above the driving surface when illuminating surfaces associated with vehicles. Light fixtures shall be deemed accessible if mounted within 15 feet vertically or six feet horizontally from any accessible surface or any adjoining roof, balcony, landing, stair tread, platform or similar structure. The light source utilized to comply with this section to meet parking and drive surface lighting shaJl have a rated average bulb life of not less than 10,000 hours. Landscaping For surveillance and security. Tree canopies should not be lower than five feet. Do not allow trees to provide access to roofs or balconies. Let landscaping augment, not deter from lighting. Plant low profile shrubs, below three feet. Apply security plants where necessary to prevent loitering and tampering Install walls and fences that are see through for surveillance. Lock gates and install gates that allow surveillance. Building Considerations Addressing Each individual unit within the complex should display a prominent identification number not less than four inches in height, contrasting in color to the background to which it is affixed and cleEo-ly visible to approaching vehicles and/or pedestrians. Numerals should be no less than four inches in height and illuminated during the hours of darkness. There should be positioned, at each entrance of a multiple family dwelling complex with more than four buildings, an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex, which depicts the location of the viewer and the unit designations within the complex. It sliould be lighted during the hours of darkness. Entrances Keep £dl entranceways clear of clutter. Ensure you allow vision from the door to the area outside the door. Parking Structures It is recommended that the entrance to the underground parking be gated or the access controlled or secured for protection of the vehicles and people parking. Lighting Lighting is the most important security feature in a parking facility. Vertical illuminance is an equally important consideration in parking facility lighting. Uniformity is also critical. Passing from light to dark areas creates problems because the eyes inability to adjust rapidly. It is imperative to get light to the edge of parking stalls. The minimum illuminances in any one point should be 2 foot-candles. Glare reduces the contrast of an object against its background, making it difficult to see depth accurately. Glare can be minimized by the careful selection and positioning of light fixtures. Position lights over vehicles or near beams rather than in drive aisles. Or choose fixtures with built in shields to reduce glare. Check with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (lESNA) for currently industiy safety standards. Natural Surveillance Natural surveillance is the next most critical parking facility design issue after lighting. Long- span construction and high ceiling create openness and aid lighting the facility. Dead end parking and nooks and crannies should be avoided. Elevators Elevator cabs, the interiors of which are not completely visible when the door is open from a point centered on and 36 inches away from the door, shaU have shatter resistant mirrors or other equally reflective material so placed as to make visible the entire elevator cab from this point. The elevator cab shall be illuminated at all times with a minimum maintained two foot- candles of light at floor level. Stairways Interior doors shaJl have glazing pemels a minimum of five inches wide and 20 inches in height and meet requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Areas beneath stairways at or below ground level shall be fully enclosed or access to them restricted. Stairways shall be designed to be completely visible from either the interior or exterior or both, unless mandated by the Uniform Building Code to be enclosed. Fully enclosed interior or exterior stairways with sohd walls, when required, shall have shatter resistant mirrors or other equally reflective material at each level and landing and be designed or placed in such a manner as to provide visibility around comers. Doors Install wooden doors of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one and three- fourths (1-3/4) inches. This includes the garage or any other pedestrian door. F\irther, equip all doors with a single cylinder dead-boit lock using a 5-pin tumbler. Connect the deadbolt to the inner portion of the lock by connecting screws. Ensure the lock has a one- inch throw that can withstand a cutting tool attack. Choose a deadbolt that embeds at least one inch into the strike plate. Arrange all entry and exit doors to dwelling units so that the occupant has a view of the area immediately outside the door without opening the door. Except doors requiring a fire protection rating that prohibits them, a door viewer having a field of view of not less than 190 degrees may provide such a view. Mounting height should not exceed fifty-four inches from the floor. Further, install no glass panels within forty inches of a locking device. Doors that are partially glass should have a single cylinder dead-bolt lock. Equip these doors with a burglar resistant glaze to prevent someone from breaking the glass to enter the home. Latch covers are suggested on sdl common area doors or garage area doors. Strike Plates Strike plates for deadbolts on all wood framed doors should be constructed of a minimum 16 U.S. gauge steel, bronze, or brass and secure to the jamb by a minimum of two screws, which should penetrate at least two inches into the solid backing beyond the surface to which the strike is attached. Double Doors When pairs of doors are used, a one-piece assembly attached to the full-length edge of the inactive door leaf, incorporating an astragal and flush-bolts for the header and threshold, will take the place of a strike plate, provided the assembly is constructed of aluminum or steel and is a minimum of one-eighth inch in thickness. Windows Choose movable windows with security heu-dware to prevent them from being lifted from the frame or forced to slide. Sliding Doors Install metal guide tracks at the top and bottom of horizontal sliding door. The bottom track should be so designed that the door cannot be lifted from the track when the door is in the locked position. Ensure the door has the appropriate hardware preventing it from being forces to slide or rise. 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. Front Desk It is recommended that the front desk and any other area that deals with money or cash be equipped with a panic button. Access Control Exterior and interior doors for guest only should be equipped with key card access control to prevent non-guests from entering. This is for the protection of guests. The exterior of the property should be controlled and access limited to guest only areas with one entrance for non-guests. By, Jodeene R. Sasway Crime Prevention Specialist Carlsbad Police Department (619) 931-2195 W WORDEN WILLIAMS AP R.'P'eS¥nting Public Ag July 26,2012 c R.'P'eS¥nting Public Agt!;^aes, Pnvati: fr.'.sii'i un:! Irikiii'^duaii 1 J'JL 2 7 2012 iii '"TlTYOFCAHLSBAD rJTY CLERKS OFFiCE Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad ViUage Drive Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Re: Follow-Up Regarding Land Use Conflicts Of The Hilton Carisbad Oceanfront Resort And Spa Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am writing as a follow-up to the presentation made by several Hanover Beach Colony residents during your July 10th meeting, in which they raised concems regarding excessive noise, hraffic hazards and other compatibility issues with respect to the recently completed Hilton Carlsbad Oceanfront Resort & Spa ("Hotel"). This office represented several homeowners from the Hanover Beach Colony in 2005 through 2009, during the time in which the Ponto Vision Plan and the Hotel were approved. I have included a brief summary of our involvement as Attachment A, which details our many efforts to avoid the very same conflicts that are now occurring between the Hotel and the adjacent residential uses. 1 note that the Hotel owner, Bill Canepa, was aware of our client's concems, despite recent statements to the contrary, and promised to address them while developing his Hotel. While I repeatedly urged the City to relocate or redesign the Hotel, 1 was, unfortunately, not successful. The City did, however, include mitigation measures and conditions that give the City the authority, and duty, to address the current concems raised by the residents. The City has the power to revoke or modify the approval of the Hotel. Specifically, Condition Number 1 of Resolution 6556, which approved the site development permit for the Hotel, stated "If any of the following conditions...fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted...." (Attachment B.) w Mayor and City Council City of Carkbad July 26, 2012 Page 2 There are numerous problems with the Hotel and its current location and operation, but I would like to focus on a few critical issues. 1. The Blowers. The Hotel has various "blowers" that operate 24 hours a day. It Is not clear If they are positioned on the roof, or If there are specific ventilation shructures in which they are located. At night, when the ambient noise level is lower, the blowers become the predominant noise source. The prevailing winds carry the noise toward Hanover Beach Colony, seeming to amplify the noise. In addition, the sound of the blowers reflects off the flat surfaces of the homes in Hanover Beach Colony, creating a secondary "echo." These blowers are not shielded properiy in order to reduce the noise to adjacent residents and additional shielding needs to be constructed. In accordance with Mitigation Measure N-4a of the Ponto Vision Plan (Resolution 6338), and Condition Number 21 (Resolution 6556) of the Site Development Permit, noise monitoring should be initiated to confirm that the electrical and mechanical equipment noise has been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. (Attachment B.) 2. The Flags. The Hotel has placed three flag poles near the entrance of the Hotel. The flags are not removed at night, and continuously flap and "clink" all night long in the night winds coming off the ocean. The Hotel should remove the flags each night. 3. Loading. The Hotel has used the street in front of the entrance way as a loading zone. Enclosed are pictures with trucks unloading on the street as Attachment D. I specifically raised concems about having a loading area near Hanover Beach Colony, and as a result the loading area was moved to elsewhere in the Hotel. The Hotel should load and unload in the designated loading area only. w Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad July 26, 2012 Page 3 4. Traffic. There are no posted speed limits on Ponto, and drivers speed around the curve by the Hotel entrance. The valets are constantly speeding to park or rehim the vehicles for guests. This is a residential neighborhood. The City needs to post safe speed limits, and the Hotel needs to properiy fraln the valets to follow the speed limits. 5. The Port-Cochere. The Port-Cochere is not appropriately landscaped and buffered. The Port-Cochere is located directly aaoss from Hanover Beach Colony. Guests arrive and depart at all hours of the day, talking and slamming car doors. Music is constantly playing. It is a hub of activity for the Hotel. There are low lights Illuminating the pathways, which on their own are very bright, but in addition there are tall light standards which will illuminate the whole area, shining Into the bedroom windows of residents In Hanover Beach Colony at night. Enclosed is a visual simulation of the proposed enfrance way to the Hotel as Attachment E. Note the numerous tall hees that were supposed to screen the Port-Cochere. At the time, the residents were concemed that this saeening would not be adequate, and Bill Canepa agreed to add visual screening, if needed. Enclosed Is a picture of the reality today as Attachment F. Note that the tall hrees have been replaced by short bushes, which do not provide visual or noise saeening at all. The landscaping is not adequate to shield the light and noise from the Port-Cochere and the Hotel needs to provide additional buffering. In accordance with Mitigation Measure N4a (Resolution 6338) and Condition Number 17 (Resolution 6556) of the Site Plan for the Hotel, the design of the Port-Cochere and the landscaping at the Hotel should be revised to include more tall trees, visual and acoustic screening. (Attachment B.) 6. The Parlting Structure. The Hotel did not plant any trees between the parking structure and Hanover Beach Colony despite the fact that Condition Number 17 specifically required that special attention be focused on this area. Attached as Exhibit G are photos of the area between Hanover and the parking st^lcture. Therefore, in accordance with Mitigation Measure N4a (Resolution 6338) and Condition Number 17 (Resolution 6556) of the Site Plan for the Hotel, additional trees and visual screening need to be installed. Vv Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad July 26, 2012 Page 4 The residents look to you, their elected officials, to ensure that the current land use conflicts are adequately addressed. Sincerely, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC D. Wayne Br^htel, Esq. dwbco) wordenwilliams. com DWB-.lg Enclosures cc: Ron Ball, City Attorney Planning Director Robert Moore, Hilton Carlsbad Oceanfront Resort & Spa Hanover Neighborhood Issues of Concern/Problems with new Hilton Hotel No. Issue/Concern Resident Identified Solutions 1 Vehicle Traffic (driving through Hanover neighborhood), including delivery trucks to the hotel. Employees and all deliveries should enter off of Avenida Encinas to Ponto Drive, not off Carlsbad Blvd to Ponto Drive; median at loading dock location should be removed to allow deliveries into the loading dock from the south. 2 Excessive/too bright hotel lights Lighting plan should be reconsidered. Reduce number of lights or their intensity. Lights should not remain on all day. The lights coming from the ballroom hallways should be buffered with curtains or shutters that can be closed at night (if they truly must remain on all night as hotel operator stated to resident); light diverters are needed or lighting needs to be muted. 3 Crime/danger (RV storage/homes/cars); increase in transients; there have been increase in thefts and break-ins: cars, RV storage and homes. Extra security patrol required for Hanover; Hotel operators should be required to have their security patrol the Hanover neighborhood as well, especially when there is a special event at the hotel. 4 Traffic Speed on Ponto near our entry streets; Speeding through the Hanover neighborhood; no posted speed signs Valets driving too fast out of garage to return cars to guests. Hotel sign creates a blind spot; difficult to see past the sign for oncoming vehicles Hanover has a speed limit of 15 mph within its neighborhoods; Ponto Drive needs posted speed limit and caution signs to slow down the traffic dramatically. Other traffic calming measures also need to be installed: stop signs, speed bumps. Need a stop sign at Leeward and Ponto, and at the exit from the parking garage for hotel. Security gates for Hanover entries will assist with reducing speeds into their neighborhood. Hotel monument sign needs to be revised. 5 Hotel employees directing traffic off Ponto like it is their street/driveway The employees need to stop doing this. All traffic should go around to parking garage or to loading dock, or into the entryway without back up onto the public street. Better signage, especially during special events, is necessary. Guests and others should be directed to access the hotel off of Avenida Encinas, to Ponto Road, to Ponto Drive. They should not be using Carlsbad Boulevard to Ponto Drive. Limit hours for special events. 6 Speed of traffic on Carlsbad Blvd/Signals Reduce speed limit on Carlsbad Boulevard to 30 or 35 mph; traffic is moving too fast and presents a safety issue. 7 Hotel guests walking/bicycling/skate boarding through, and parking within, the Hanover neighborhood; guests using the Tot Lot Park in Hanover; guests from the campground are also doing these same things. Guests need to be notified by hotel operator that Hanover is a private community and that they are required to respect the privacy ofthe residents - no trespassing, no parking. Hotel operator also needs to provide signs for Hanover during special events to let guests know that they are not permitted to park in the Hanover community and that they will be towed if they do. Hotel operator needs to provide security during special events to prevent negative impact to Hanover residents. Security gates, as already mentioned, will also assist in addressing this issue. 8 Hotel guests/workers/employees using Hanover entry corners for lunch/pick-up Employees sit on the corner entry to Hanover and eat, smoke and talk on their phones; disturbs the residents. Employees need to be instructed that they need to find a new location for breaks. They should not be sitting in front ofthe homes within Hanover to eat, drink, smoke, etc. In addition, there needs to be an employee entrance through the loading area for employees to enter and leave the site; need a specific break area for employees which does not impact the residents. 9 Hotel employees using Main Entrance access to and from work; they should be coming off of Avenida Encinas. Same as comments noted earlier; employees should be instructed to access the property from the south (off of Avenida Encinas) and to park or be picked up in a manner which does not have a negative impact on Hanover 10 Noise from hotel vendors/party set-up deliveries breaking down; delivery trucks queuing on Ponto Drive waiting to pick up equipment and other items. Require all deliveries to be made from the south (Avenda Encinas); queuing needs to occur south of hotel; limit hours for deliveries and pick-ups from the hotel; late night pick-ups of equipment should not be permitted. Maybe should have the hotel post a sign on Avenida Encinas indicating that is the street to use to access the entrance to the Hilton Hotel. 11 Deliveries to hotel made using Main Entrance coming/leaving; not using Avenida Encinas to Ponto (as promised). See comment above. 12 Illegal parking on Ponto during events and at other times; requires residents to drive on the wrong side of road to get into their homes. More police patrol needed; tickets need to be issued; need to keep traffic flowing. Paint a red curb to clearly show that no parking or stopping is permitted on Ponto. Maybe considering installing a "fire lane" to ensure that fire trucks can easily access the hotel and residential properties. Make loading dock more functional; not working correctly. Hotels needs to notify delivery truck operators that they can't park on Ponto and wait for the time to pick up equipment; need to find another location for this staging, (see photos of problem) 13 Hotel parking garage not large enough to accommodate parking needs for special events and other hotel uses Extra security required for all special events to direct traffic out of Hanover, and to prevent guests from parking in Hanover. Need more parking for the large special events; identify an off- site parking area as overflow parking. Install special event signs to direct and prohibit certain activities (no parking in Hanover; parking garage ahead; enter here for registration); need more "wayfinding" signage for hotel amenities like parking, hotel entrance for registration, deliveries, etc. 14 State beach visitors, including surfers, parking in Hanover neighborhood. More signage prohibiting access and other activities, and security gates at the entry to prevent vehicles. 15 Significant noise from the hotel guests who are attending outdoor events on the property, or sitting outside talking, smoking, etc.; events, including event clean up and equipment pick-up occurring outdoors after 9pm (time Bill Canepa promised events would end). There should be no outdoor speakers for music, etc. If there are speakers, they need to be reduced significantly in volume and have very limited hours. Need noise regulations applied to the events to prevent negative impact on the residents in the neighborhood. Increase police patrol and issue citations for violators of any applied noise regulations. 16 Air conditioning units (blowers) operate 24 hours a day; constant hum is very annoying; disturbing the residents quiet enjoyment of their homes; can hear even with their own windows are closed; needs sound mitigation Shut the blowers off at night or provide some additional sound attenuation improvements to significantly reduce the noise from the blowers specifically. 17 Asphalt berm on Ponto Drive, near intersection of Ponto Road is too dark to see at night; need reflectors or reflective paint Use reflective paint on the asphalt berms, or install reflectors so that drivers can see the berm at night. 18 Increased trash at bus stop on Carlsbad Blvd; more employees using the bus to get to work Install a trash can at the bus stop and regularly have the trash can emptied; keep area clean. 19 Golf carts are being operated by the hotel on Ponto Drive and on the sidewalks around the property; not a disturbance, but not legal to use golf carts on public streets and right-of-ways. Notify hotel operator that they are not permitted to drive golf carts on public roads or sidewalks. In order to operate a golf cart in the street the street must be a "Golf Cart Zone" per the vehicle code. This is not a golf cart zone and cannot become one. In order to become a golf cart zone the zone was be adjacent to a golf course. The resorts golf carts cannot be operated on a public side walk, on the public street or used to cross the public street into the parking structure. 20 General concern that the hotel does not meet a number ofthe general conditions forthe project approval, and has not provided the environmental mitigation required. For example, berm and enhanced landscaping was required for the entry to the hotel to provide mitigation for noise, lights, etc. Residents do not believe this has been provided or adequately provided to address the resident concerns expressed in 2007. Project conditions need to be reviewed and full compliance needs to be ensured by the City. Environmental mitigation requirements need to be reviewed and full compliance required for these development/operational measures as well. The hotel needs to be in full compliance with all approved conditions and environmental mitigation requirements. <i.0h CITY OF V CARLSBAD Planning Division May 6, 2011 FiLE COPY www.carlsbadca.gov Greenman, Lacy, Klein O'Harra & Heffron Attn: Michael Klein 900 Pier View Way PO Box 299 Oceanside, CA 92049-0299 RE: APN 214-160-28-00 Dear Mr. Klein: This letter is intended to sen/e as a follow-up to your phone inquiry regarding property located at 7200 Ponto Drive. Upon completion of file research it was determined that the wrecking yard operation at this location did have approval from the City Council (City Council Resolution No.3053) granted in 1973 to operate under a conditional use permit (CUP). However, that CUP approval was limited to a ten year term. After expiration of the CUP in 1983, the City took action in 1984 (City Council Resolution No. 7527) to declare the wrecking yard a public nuisance and abated the use. Any current operation of a wrecking yard is in violation of the existing Zoning Ordinance which designates the property as Tourist Commercial (C-T) and Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M). The City also has a concern that this operation shows signs of potential soil contannination, hazardous waste accumulation and spoilage caused by petroleum, lubricating oils, and other hazardous wastes. In addition, through our records search it was determined that the surfboard repair business at 7200 Ponto Drive is being conducted within a structure that the City must assume does not meet the minimum requirements of the California Building Code since there is no record of a building permit being issued and there is no record that it is being operated with an approved City of Carlsbad business license. Be advised that a surfboard repair business is not a use that is allowed in either the Commercial Tourist (C-T) or the Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) zones. Attached is a list of allowed uses for the Tourist Commercial and Residential Density-Multiple zoning designations. Furthermore, it appears from a site inspection by the Fire Department that the surfboard repair business is conducting fiberglass installation and repair, which involves polyester resins and organic peroxides which are all regulated by US EPA; CA State under the Health and Safety Code as well as the Fire Code; South Coast Air Quality Management District; and, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. It appears that the business is using these materials without the benefit of permits or regulation by any of the aforementioned regulatory bodies or the City of Carlsbad Fire Department. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (760) 602-4614 Sincerely, (RISTER WESTMAN, AlCP Senior Planner c: Gary Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director Debbie Fountain, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Don Neu, City Planner File 1535 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 0 (\',IMi.^'T! HI^I I/O /Ax f ILE COPY VCARLSBAD Planning Department www.carlsbadca.gov April 9, 2010 Hofman Planning and Engineering Attn: Joe Cohan 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF RESTRICTION - RP 05-11/SDP 05-14/CDP 06-43/CDP 09-04 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT Dear Applicant: Please find the enclosed Notice of Restriction that needs to be signed, notarized, and returned for recordation. This is to fulfill a condition of approval of the Redevelopment Permit, Site Development Plan, and Coastal Development Permits. Please ensure the following items are addressed prior to returning the Notice of Restriction: ^ Correct Notary Acknowledgement Required (Effective January 1. 2008. all Certificates of Acknowledgement used by a California notary on a document that will be recorded in the State of California must NOT HAVE "PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME" in the acknowledgement. (Assembly Bill 886, Chapter 399)) ^ Document must be properly notarized. *^ Name on signature page and name on Notarial Acknowledgement must match. Property owner's signatures/initials must be the same as on Notary Acknowledgement. ^ Notary Seal cannot be blurry/too light (County will not record the document if any portion of the Notary Seal is blurry or too light). ^ include property owner's name in the designated space above the owner's signature. ^ Please pay particular attention to the signature requirements at the bottom of the signature page. It is our goal to assist you in getting the Notice of Restriction recorded expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions or need additional assistance, please call Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst at (760) 602-4615 or via email at michele.masterson@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely Senior Planner c: Senior Management Analyst File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1(760) 602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 © City of Carlsbad Public Works ^ Engineering October 30, 2009 Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, California 92010 FINAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Project ID: MS 05-23 Project Name: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT AND SPA Whereas no review of the Preliminary Approval letter dated September 25, 2009 was requested within the required time, the subject tentative parcel map has been approved per the findings and conditions set forth in said Preliminary Approval letter. As required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.24.140(e), notice of this final decision will be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. Per Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.24.140(b) and the California Subdivision Map Act Section 66452.5, any interested person adversely affected by this decision of the City Engineer may appeal the decision to the City Council. Such appeal must be filed in writing with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the date of this notice. At the time of filing the appeal, the appeal fee as listed in the current Carlsbad Development Fees schedule must be paid. If you have questions regarding the appeal process, please contact the City Clerk's office at (760) 434-2808. If you have any firoject-related questions, please contact the Project Engineer, Frank Jimeno, at 760-602-2758 or via email at frank.jimeno@carlsbadca.gov. If you have any planning-related questions, please contact the Project Planner, Christer Westman, at 760-602-4614. Sincerely, Robert T. Johnson, Jr., PE City Engineer by: David A. Hauser, PE Deputy City Engineer cc: Engineer of Work Project Engineer, then file Christer Westman, Planner ^ Planning Senior Management Analyst Senior Office Specialist, Dev. Svcs. Doo DR-06-27 01/05/2009 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 ^ 0 FILE COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION May 7, 2009 Hofman Planning & Associates Ste. 150 5900 Pasteur Crt. Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: RP 05-11/ SDP 05-14/ CDP 05-43/ CDP 09-04 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT At the Planning Commission meeting of May 6, 2009, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0-0 to RECOMMEND APPROVAL/ APPROVE AS AMENDED. 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. Sincerely, DON NEU Planning Director DN:CW:lt cc: Data Entry File Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6555, 6556, 6558, 6559 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us W WORDEN WILLIAMS A PC Representing Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals May 5, 2009 Hand Delivered Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Re: Agenda Item 4; Hearing of May 6, 2009 Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort RP 05-11/SDP 05-14 / CDP 05-43 / CDP 09-04 ARFAS OF PRAfTK E IH'HIIC ACENC Y 1 AND l!SE \m FWIKONMENTAL RFAl ESTATE PtRSONAl INIUKY ESTATE PLANNING A.\n ADMINISTRATION ( IVIL LITIGATION BUSINESS Dear Honorable Planning Commission: This office represents Bob Lipsey and Paull and Stephanie Connelly who own and live in homes within the Hanover Beach Colony that sit directly across from the proposed entrance to the Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort ("Hotel"). They appreciate steps that have been taken to propose a Hotel in conformance with the Vision Plan. However, they submit that the failure to relocate the Hotel entrance so that it does not face their front yards is not consistent with good planning practices, mitigation requirements or policies within the Vision Plan and land use regulations which require developments to avoid adverse impacts to the surrounding communities. They ask that the Planning Commission direct that the proposed entrance for the Hotel be relocated so that it does not sit direct in front of residential homes. ATTORNEYS TRACY R. RICHMOND D. WAYNE liRECHTEL KEN A, CARIFEE TERRY M. GIBBS KRISTEN M'BRIDE D nWIGHT WORDEN 1)1 Counsel VV, SCOTT VVILIIAMS Retired ISHT. Lipsey and the Connellys have consistently raised concems regarding the compatibility of the proposed Hotel and the Hanover residential community. When the Ponto Vision Plan was under consideration by the City Council in 2007, we raised the concems of the homeowners - specifically, that allowing a hotel and conference facilities so close to residential uses had the potential to result in significant impacts and incompatible land uses. We urged the City at the 2007 hearing (and in numerous previous communications) to change the proposed use for this area, or at minimum, to direct the Hotel to redesign its entrance so that it is not located adjacent to existing residential uses. (Copies of our previous letters to the City are attached and are incorporated by reference.) OFFICE 4(>2 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA '11075 (858) TtllT'lKiNl r M-'ilOH > A( SIMM I w \ vvv AV o r d t' n w i II i .1 111 s, c 0 m w Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 2 In response to the issues we raised, the Planning Commission modified a mitigation measure to address some of the homeowners' concems. '3. Mitigation Measure N3-b under the heading of (5) Noise Onsite Vehicular Noise in Exhibit "A "; and Mitigation Measure N3-b in Exhibit 'B "shall be amended to read as follows: Through site plan review and to the satisfaction of the final decision makers, the location o/driueioays, service areas and building entrances associated with hotel uses in the Tourist Commercial zone, to the greatest extent feasible, shall be located and physica//y buffered with a combination of setbacks, landscaping, berms, and or walls to minimize mobile and stationary; noise impacts on residential uses." (PC Resolution No. 6338, p. 4.) Based on this mitigation measure, the Planning Commission found thatthe noise impacts from the Vision Plan would be mitigated to below significance. The mitigation measure was ultimately approved by the City Council through Resolution No. 2007-303. At the hearing before the City Council, we voiced our primary concern respecting the land use conflict caused by the location of the Hotel's main enhrance (a 24-hour entry way and service yard) directly across from the front yards of the residences. Although we again urged the City Council to specifically condition the Vision Plan to require the Hotel enh"ance to be relocated, the Council declined to do so, because the Vision Plan was merely "conceptual." The Hotel developer asked that any consideration of the details should wait until a specific proposal is under consideration.^ The Council agreed to defer a more detailed analysis ofthe Hotel project to the time when the specific application for it was before the City. Now the specific proposal is before the Planning Commission and it is apparent that very little has been altered from the original Vision Plan design to address the concerns of the Hanover Beach Colony homeowners. Specifically, the main entrance to the Hotel is in the exact same ^ We 1*6 just asking, after six years, to have the opportunity to present our project without having a lot of preconceived notions about what the effects of it might be and to go in more or less with our hands tied because sometimes that rrjoy end up with not as good a project if certain things are preordained a head of time. (Bill Canepa, excerpt of testimony to City Council, November 13, 2007.) w Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 3 spot as in the Vision Plan, and little has been done to mitigate the potential noise and visual impacts to the adjacent residents from the location of the Hotel entrance. Mr. Lipsey and the Connellys do not ask that the Planning Commission deny the proposed Hotel use. They do, however, ask that the Commission condition the approval so that it is compatible with the adjacent residential community. It is crucial at this stage that the Planning Commission specifically analyze and address the homeowners' concerns - that is, that locating the main entrance to this 215 room Hotel, with conference facilities, restaurants, and a day spa directly across from their families' front yards will result in significant unmitigated impacts and should be redesigned. Hotel Design The principal issue with the Hotel design is the placement of the Hotel entrance directly across from the Hanover residential community, rather than moving it to one side or the other as previously requested. The location of the uses and building orientation on the site are not designed to be compatible with the adjacent residential uses, and do not protect the residential character of the community. Therefore, the project does not comply with the land use element of the General Plan, and the conclusion on page 5 of the Staff Report is not supported by substantial evidence. For the same reason, the project does not comply with the noise element of the General Plan and the conclusion in the Staff Report is not supported by substantial evidence. (Staff Report, p. 6.) The various design features listed in Table A of the Staff Report used to assess whether the project complies with the noise element of the General Plan area are addressed individually. Design Feature Locating Hotel service area southerly on Ponto Drive. Comment We agree that this will help with noise, and is an improvement over the previous proposal. Design Feature Incorporating outdoor courtyard on the west side of the site. Comment This was in the original proposal and Is not a change. Design Feature Shielding Hotel lobby entrance through the use of noise attenuating berming and retaining walls. Comment While on paper this sounds like a good idea, unfortunately the end result does not achieve the spirit and intent of shielding the residential uses from w Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 4 Hotel noise. Ponto Road is at an elevation of about 60-feet above sea level. The ground level of the residential structures is also at about 61- feet above sea level. The second story of the structures is at approximately 71-feet above sea level, or 10-feet above ground level. The berm is around 7-feet in height, or about 67-feet above sea level. However, the entrance road is almost at 65-feet above sea level, so the berm is at best 3-feet above the entrance. The second story bedrooms, which are the most sensitive part of the homes from a noise perspective, are located significantiy above the berm. If the entrance road and doorway into the Hotel were much lower, perhaps the berm would help attenuate noise, but as it is proposed, the berm will amplify the noise toward the residential second story bedrooms. It might also help if the entrance was enclosed by some sort of structure. Of course, the real solution is to require the entrance to the Hotel to be moved further to the south, perhaps where the proposed surface parking lot is located. We urge the Planning Commission to require the developer to redesign his project so that the entrance of the Hotel is not facing the existing residential uses. There are in fact a number of potential practical solutions to this problem, the most viable of which are to require redesign of the main entrance so that it is located further to the south, where there are no homes directly across the street, or to turn the entrance so that it is facing south, where there are also no homes. Environmental Review The Ponto Vision Plan EIR was a program EIR. No specific projects were analyzed. This is the first time the environmental impacts of this specific project are being analyzed. We therefore do not believe that the use of a program EIR is appropriate to analyze this specific project. Furthermore, the Hotel will result in significant impacts that were not addressed at the program level, and a subsequent environmental document needs to be prepared. As stated above, the City previously found that there would be no long term noise impacts to adjacent residences because it imposed mitigation measure N3b, which required that "the location of drivewa\;s, service areas and building entrances associated with hotel uses in the Tourist Commercial zone. . . shall be located ... to minimize mobile and stationary) noise impacts on residential uses." Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 5 This has not been done. In fact, there has been no change in the location of the main enhrance since the Vision Plan was considered at the November, 2007 City Council hearing, despite the representations and assurances to the residents at that meeting. In addition, mitigation measure 4b required a bermed/landscaped buffer to distance future land uses from existing residential uses. (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, p. 35.) As discussed hereinabove, the currentiy designed berm is clearly inadequate as it does not practically provide either noise or visual buffers. Additionally, mitigation measure 4b did not limit the buffer to solely the Hotel entrance, but to the entire property boundary, which also has not been followed. As currently designed, the project does not comply with the Vision Plan EIR mitigation measures. The impacts from the project are simply not mitigated and cannot be determined to have been addressed by the previous document. These unmitigated significant impacts mandate preparation of a new project specific EIR. To the extent there was any environmental review specific to this project, it is inadequate for the following reasons. Noise Study There are several concerns with the noise study. Some of the numbers do not appear to be accurate, and most importantiy, the study appears to conclude that noise will actually go down after the Hotel is put into place. 1 explain in more detail below. 1. The noise study does not report the existing CNEL measurement, but apparentiy Table III-2 in the Appendices is an attempt to calculate the existing CNEL. Table 111-2 indicates that the noise level at midnight is 48.3 dBA. In the morning the noise goes up to 55 dBA and then in the evening the noise increases to 56.1 dBA. The CNEL is apparently calculated to be 57.7. This is not logical because the CNEL measurement (which is an average) is actually louder than any of the individual measurements, which does not make sense. Nevertheless, assuming that the CNEL was calculated correctly, these were measurements at a distance 50-feet from the centroid of the parking shructure. However, an hourly average measurement taken on the sidewalk at Mr. Lipsey's house (7130 Leeward Drive ) was much less, only 52.4 dBA. Mr. Lipsey and his neighbors, therefore, enjoy a much lower CNEL than calculated in Table 111-2. The CNEL for the residences is more likely to be around 48 dBA. If that is the case, then the noise from the Hotel would be a significant increase over existing noise levels, especially at night. w Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 6 2. Assuming the CNEL in Table III-2 is correct, then the existing CNEL is almost at the threshold of 60 dBA. Any additional noise is likely to cause the CNEL to increase to above the threshold of 60 dBA. However, even though the Hotel will add noise, the noise study reports that the future CNEL will actually be less than existing conditions. The noise study indicates that the Hotel will result in a CNEL of 44.5 for vehicle motors, 27 for car doors and tmnk lids and 44.5 for human activities. 3. The assumptions regarding the number of vehicles that will use the entry driveway has no basis in fact. Why would only 30% of the vehicles use the driveway entrance and not 90%? There is no data to support this assumption. 4. In addition, the noise study failed to account for the noise from elechronic locking of vehicles. Each "beep-beep" will increase the overall noise level, and has an annoyance factor that cannot be accounted for in an average noise measurement. 5. The noise study failed to address whether the noise will result in sleep intermption. The residential bedrooms are all located on the second floor. The current configuration of the entryway, which is elevated above the existing street, will result in an amplification of the sound towards the residences and especially towards the second story bedrooms. What will the noise level be in the bedrooms at night? Furthermore, sleep interruption occurs when there are short bursts of sudden noise events, something that cannot be appropriately addressed using a CNEL standard, which averages the noise over a 24-hour period. However, if we assume that the assumptions of the noise study are correct, which we do not believe they are, then if 10% of the 2,150 vehicles will leave between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., that will equate to 215 vehicles per night! One does not need a noise study to know that 215 cars entering and exiting per night would result in significant sleep interruption. 7. No cumulative analysis was done adding in the existing noise and the new noise from the Hotel. Conclusion Mr. Lipsey and the Connellys appreciate the Commission's consideration of the concerns outiined above. They ask that the Commission exercise its discretion to ensure that the project w Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 7 is redesigned in a manner that does not place a hotel entrance directiy across the front yards of existing residential homes. This is a reasonable request that can be accomplished in a manner that allows development of a world class hotel as desired by the applicant. Very truly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@wordenwilliams.com DWB:lg Enclosures City of Carlsbad Planning Department April14, 2009 Hofman Planning & Engineering Attn: Michele Alves 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: RP 05-11/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/CDP 09-04 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, April 22, 2009, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on April 27, 2009. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 AM. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring the following required information with you to this meeting or provide it to your planner prior to the meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission: 1. Unmounted colored exhibit(s) of your site plan and elevations 2. A PDF of your colored site plan and elevations The 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, vour proiect could be rescheduled to a later time. The PDF of your colored site plan and elevations will be used in the presentation to the Planning Commission and the public at the Planning Commission Hearing. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) and the PDF here by the scheduled time above. Should you wish to use visual materials in your presentation to the Planning Commission, they should be submitted to the Planning Department no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Digital materials will be placed on a computer in Council Chambers for public presentations. Please label all materials with the agenda item number you are representing. Items submitted for viewing, including presentations/digital materials, will be included in the time limit maximum for speakers. All materials exhibited to the Planning Commission during the meeting (slides, maps, photos, etc.) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Planning Department for at least 60 days after final action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Christer Westman at (760) 602-4614. Sincerely, DON NEU Planning Director DN:CW:sm c: Wave Crest Resorts, LLC, Attn: Bill Canepa, 829 Second Street, Suite A, Encinitas, CA 92024 File Copy Project Engineer Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us FilE COPY 3'/0-0f City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 10, 2009 Michelle Alves Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: RP 05-11/CDP 09-04/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT AND SPA Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2009. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by April 9, 2009, 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) 10 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 SYi" 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) 100' 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. FaracJuy Avenu>-? « Carlsbad, CA 9^:008-7014 « (780) eiJ'^-4oOO » FAX (/GO) 602-8050 • vw-vv.ci.oarlsbad.CH.U£; %f '^14/CDP 05-43 - HILTON CARLSBAftE ' RP 05-11/CDP 09-04/SDP W-14/CDP 05-43 - HILTON CARLSBAC«EACH RESORT & SPA March 10, 2009 Page 2 C) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius and occupants within a 100 foot radius 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 ACCEPTABLE (with APN) 209-060-34-00 Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 MRS JANE SMITH Carlsbad, CA 92008 APT 3 123 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. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN Senior Planner CW:lt Attachment c: File Hofman Planning & Engineering Planning Civil Engineering Fiscal Services Coastal February 23,2009 Christer Westman 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 Carlsbad Beach Hilton Resort & Spa Dear Christer, The numbered responses below correspond to the numbered comments from the letter dated December 31, 2008 listing planning issues, and memorandums dated December 11, 2008 listing Landscape issues and Engineering issues dated January 20,2009. Issues of Concern Planning: 1. In a preliminary review comment from Barbara Kennedy, it was stated that the spa parldng can be counted as part of the hotel use and therefore no additional parking spaces for the spa are required. The comment goes further to say that the conference facilities and parking must be considered as additional requirements beyond the hotel parking requirement. We have listed the required and provided parking under the "Parking Summary" on the cover sheet which shows the breakdown of parking by the hotel, conference rooms and restaurant uses. In response to engineering comment #12, minor revisions were made to the hotel basement parking area (A-2) and level three (A-13) of the parking structure to allow adequate tumaround area. The revisions included converting ten spaces to compact, which allow the turnaround area and increase the proposed parking by five spaces. Therefore, the project as proposed, has a surplus of twenty-five spaces for an allowance of up to 1,550 SF of outdoor dining. 2. A note has been added to the site plan (A-1) stating that the portion of the hotel located within Planning Area 1 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, is well below the maximum allowed square footage of building coverage. 3. Sheet A-6 provides a building roof plan illustrating the location of roof-mounted equipment. Sections illustrating how the roof-mounted equipment will be a screened by parapets are provided on Sheet A-9. 4. A 5 ft. decorative wall beside the pre/post function space on the north side of the building will mitigate the potential for noise and visual disturbance to the existing residential neighborhood the north. See wall detail on Sheet Ll-1. 5. Noted. 3152 Lionshead Avenue • Carlsbad • CA 92010 • (760) 692-4100 • Fax: (760) 692-4105 6. Both colored elevation and renderings have been supplied for staff review. Redevelopment: 1. Please refer to the colored elevations for architectural detail. 2. The depth of the window recess will be at minimum .5" and window ledges will be approximately 2.5". Please see Sheet A-18 for examples of the window/ledge type proposed. These construction details will be more clearly defined during building permit review. 3. A photo collage of Lighting Concepts of fixtures is provided on Sheet A-18. 4. Colored elevations and project rendering are provided for staff review. Landscape Repeat Comments: 5. It was detennined by city staff, during an on-site meeting on January 21, 2009, that there are no native trees on the project site. The Demo Plan on C-6 shows all existing trees on site to be removed. 8. A symbol has been added to Sheet L3-1 to depict the location of the swale. Please see Sheet L3- 2, "Zone 4 - Native Planting" for proposed planting in the swale. 16. The Engineering Department has detemined the proposed trees located within the site lines will not create an obstmction. Planning Department staff stated plantings could be supported as proposed based on the Engineering Department acceptance. IA. Note has been added indicating that the median landscaping shall be approved the City of Carlsbad on Sheet L3-1. 5A. No grading is proposed within the remainder parcel. Therefore, no erosion control/temporary landscaping is proposed. Please see Sheet C-6 for the southern limits of grading for the project. Engineering: 1. The telephone company name has been changed to AT&T. 2. The civil sheets have been revised to include the street name Beach Way. 3. The railroad name has been changed to San Diego Northern Railroad. 4. See Sheet C-2 for revision to Section D-D. 5. We understand that the intent of your proposed condition is to receive confimiation from SDG&E that they have reviewed and will approve of the undergrounding\relocation of their utilities prior to city approval of grading or improvement plans. We have begun the process of communicating with SDG&E to accomplish this. 6. The easement is shown on Sheet 0-3. 7. The existing building is shown on Sheet C-3. 8. Only parcel 214-160-28 takes access from Ponto Rd. A note has been added to C-4 to allow continuous access to that property. 9. The proposed project will not encroach on to adjacent property. Existing retaining wall to remain. 10. Sheets C-5 and C-6 have been revised to indicate location of retaining walls. 11. Sheet A-9 has been revised to accurately show the existing structure on the property line. 12. The basement parking area A-2 has been revised to allow adequate tumaround area. 13. The plans have been revised to include pedestrian access on the north and south ends of the structure. 14. Sheets A-14 to A-16 have been revised to show portion of parking structure to be located below grade. 15. Noted. 16. Noted. 17. Noted. 18. Redlines are enclosed. If you have any questions please call me at 760-692-4017. Thank you, Michelle Alves Associate Planner • • FILE COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 20, 2009 Leslie Weinheimer Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA ISSUES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Dear Ms. Weinheimer, Your project was deemed complete on September 17, 2008. There are Engineering issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. Please contact me at (760) 602-4614, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, Senior Planner CW:sm c: Wave Crest Resorts II, LLC, 829 Second Street, Suite A, Encinitas CA 92024 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer Austin Silva, Redevelopment Planner File Copy Data Entry Enclosure 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 11«» SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 -IDARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA January 20, 2009 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Engineering: Engineering Department staff has completed an additional review of the project. Following is a list of engineering issues that need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to recommendation of approval: 1. Change the telephone company to AT&T in sheet C-1. 2. Add the street name Beach Way as shown in plans. 3. Change the railroad name to San Diego Northern Railroad. 4. Section D-D in sheet C-2 needs to reflect the right-of-way dedication requirement of one foot on the west side of Ponto Road where there is room within the project. 5. An email has been received from SDG&E. It does not approve the proposed undergrounding/relocation of their existing utilities throughout the site, but indicates that if the relocations are approved, they will quitclaim the existing easements. The project will be conditioned to obtain approval of the undergrounding/relocation prior to approval of grading and improvement plans. 6. Note that existing easement 3 was originally for Southern Counties Gas Co. The easement is not plotted and no gas lines are shown within the site. 7. Show the existing building in parcel 214-160-29. 8. Sheets C-3, C-4, and C-6 need to show the existing driveways along Ponto Road consistently. The grading operation needs to assure continuous access during and after construction. 9. Sheet C-4 shows an existing retaining wall at the property line with the adjacent parcel to the south (214-160-04). A portion is to remain in place and a portion is to be removed. It is not clear if the grading can be performed without encroaching into the adjacent property. Show a cross-section. A temporary construction easement might be required. 10. Clarify the retaining walls in the parking structure in sheets C-5 and C-6. Some of the TW/BW elevations do not seem to indicate a retaining wall. 11. Section 1 in sheet A-9 shows the adjacent house as 15 ft away from the property line, sheet C-4 shows it on the property line. Clarify and make it consistent. 12. The building basement parking shown in sheet A-2 needs to provide for a vehicle turnaround similar to that shown in sheet A-13 for the parking structure. 13. Clarify how pedestrians will leave the parking structure at the south end (sheet A-12). 14. In sheets A-14 through A-16 the ground elevations outside the parking structure do not match those shown in the proposed grading plans C-5 and C-6. SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 -^RLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT ^D SPA January 20, 2009 Page 3 15. The project will be conditioned for half street improvements along the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage. As agreed in the October 8, 2008 meeting, a credit will be given for the construction ofthe Ponto Rd. half median not in the project's frontage. 16. The project will be conditioned to incorporate safety features in the design of the juncture of the new and existing Ponto Road. 17. The project's preliminary Storm Water Management Plan was prepared prior to the adoption of the City's current SUSMP. It should be updated to incorporate all the requirements of RWQCB's Order 2007-01. The project will be conditioned to meet the new requirements. Note that Low Impact Development measures will be required. 18. Note the comments in the attached redlined check prints CS, A-1 through A-18, and C-1 through C-8. Please return these documents with the re-submittal to assist staff in our continued review. If you have any questions regarding these Engineering issues, please contact Frank Jimeno at (760) 602-2758. FILE COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 31, 2008 Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPLICABILITY/PROCESS DETERMINATION This is to advise you that after reviewing the application for the project referenced above, the City has determined that the following environmental review process (pursuant to CEQA) will be required for the project: The project is subject to the provisions of CEQA; however, the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed by the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR 05-05) for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. No additional environmental review is required. For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination, please contact the project planner,^rister Westman, at (760) 602-4614 or cwest(gci.cartsbad.ca.us. Sincerely, DON NEU Planning Director DN:CW:sm c: Wave Crest Resorts II, LLC, 829 Second Street, Suite A, Encinitas, CA 92024 Chns DeCerbo, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us FILE copy CItv of Carlsbad Planning Department December 31, 2008 Leslie Weinheimer Hofman Planning and Engineenng 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA ISSUES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Dear Ms. Weinheimer, Your project was deemed complete on September 17, 2008. There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. Please contact me at (760) 602-4614, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN Senior Planner CW:sm c: Wave Crest Resorts II, LLC, 829 Second Street, Suite A, EncinitaSi CA 92024 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer Austin Silva, Redevelopment Planner File Copy Data Entry Enclosure 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us IfciLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT jlfe SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - (3PIRLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT mb SPA December 31, 2008 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The number of parking spaces required for the 5,000 square foot spa must be added to the total project parking requirement. The spa parking ratio is one space for every 200 gross square feet of facility (25 spaces). The result is a total project requirement of 460 parking spaces. A 15% percent reduction may be allowed for common facilities, if approved by the Planning Commission, which results in a minimum onsite parking requirement of 391 parking spaces. A parking space count resulted in a total of 390 onsite parking spaces. One additional parking space is needed in order to meet the minimum requirement with a 15% reduction for common facilities. 2. Per the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, 21,780 square feet of building coverage is allowed. Please verify with a graphic and note on the site plan that the portion of the hotel that is within Planning Area 1 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan is at or below the maximum allowed. 3. Provide a building roof plan illustrating the locations of roof mounted equipment and roof/parapet sections illustrating how the roof mounted equipment will be satisfactonly screened by the parapets. 4. The outdoor pre/post function space located on the north side of the building continues to be of some concern to staff. The concern is the potential for noise and visual disturbance to the existing residential neighborhood to the north. Although limiting the functions in the space to daylight hours will help reduce the concern, enclosing the space with a low garden wall and landscape will provide even more separation. Please enclose the space with a low garden wall and landscaping along the northern edge. 5. The project falls within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR 05-05) for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. No further environmental analysis will be required. However, the EIR must receive final approval by the court before it can be used for this project. A public hearing date will be partially affected by the final approval date of the EIR. 6. A greater contrast in color for the shingle siding is encouraged. Engineering: Under Separate Cover Redevelopment: 1. Please add architectural detail to the blank wall outside of rooms "A" that are located to the south of the basement entrance. 2. Indicate the depth of the window recess. Indicate the thickness of the plaster tnm beneath the windows. 3. Please provide examples of lighting fixtures to be used throughout the building. 4. Please provide colored elevations so staff can evaluate the design in further detail. Landscape: See attached comments. RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENT LETTER - 12/2/08 September 17, 2008 Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: 3rd REVIEW FOR SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Cartsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit, applications nos. SDP 05-14 and CDP 05-43, as to their completeness for processing. The items requested from you eartier to make your Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit, applications nos. SDP 05-14 and CDP 05-43 complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved pnor to scheduling the project for public heanng. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. At this time, the City asks that you address the issues identified and provide 5 complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. Please contact your staff planner, Chnster Westman, at (760) 602-4614, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, DON NEU Planning Director DN:CW:lt c: Wave Crest Resorts II LLC. Suite A, 829 Second Street, Encinitas CA 92024 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer Austin Silva, Redevelopment Planner File Copy Data Entry SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - ^LSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT >^ SPA September 17, 2008 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Although some modifications have been made to the architecture, more of the same and additional new techniques need to be applied to the overall building to make it visually and aesthetically interesting if it is going to set the appropriate architectural standard for all future development within the Ponto Beachfront Village. All elevations of this hotel are important to the Ponto Beachfront Village and must be treated accordingly. This objective goal may be achieved through the extended use of materials such as stone veneer for ground floor features, outlookers, more distinctive window ledges and tnm, honzontal siding and shingles. The architecture and design treatments of the entire building must truly reflect the overall "craftsman" style of the project. (See comments on plans for additional direction) To assist in the evaluation, details ofthe materials, colors, dimensions, and textures need to be provided. Examples include the width and depth of window trim, dimensions of trellis pillars and rafter tails, shingle and siding materals. RESPONSE: Additional architectural detail has been addressed through revisions to the A-7 thru A-8.7. As requested by the City, a photo collage sheet has been added to provide the general character ofthe specific elements such as windows, railings, etc. as shown on sheet A-18. Materials/color boards are being prepared to provide additional information and will be following this submittal. 2. The outdoor space proposed on the north side of the conference building including the netlawn is not encouraged since it may create noise nuisance conflicts with the existing residential uses to the north. RESPONSE: Comment noted. Intent of outdoor space is for pre-function activities or small outdoor ceremonies. Applicant would be willing to have restrictions on hours of use to be during daylight hours. 3. All decorative paving within the automobile travelway should be visually distinctive but should have a smooth texture so as not to increase tire noise. RESPONSE: Comment noted and materials discussed at meeting with city on 10/8/08. Decorative paving will be enhanced concrete paving or exposed aggregate. Please see revised sheet L-1.1 4. Pedestrian access from the parking garage shall be relocated to take advantage of the median in Ponto Road. RESPONSE: Pedestrian access from parking garage has been relocated to utilize median per engineering comments. Please see revised sheets A-1, Ll-1 and C-5. 5. Include decorative pillars, gnll-work, and/or other elements on the visible portions of the parking structure. Just as with the hotel, the parking structure will be very visible within and from outside of the Beachfront Village and must appropriately reflect the Vision Plan design aesthetic. RESPONSE: Additional design/decorative elements have been added to parking structure. Please see revised sheets A-14 thru A-15.2. SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CmLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT ATlD SPA September 17, 2008 Page 3 6. It is not clear what the cross-lines on the parking structure represent as shown on the elevations. Please clarify or remove them. RESPONSE: The cross-lines on the parking structure have been removed. Please see revised sheets A-14 thru A-15.2 7. The plans are not clear regarding the length of the five foot high site wall proposed at the hotel service entrance. Please clarify this on the plans and incorporate adequate landscaping into the plan to visually screen this area. RESPONSE: Per meeting on October fl^^ staff requested wall be removed and that area instead provide a nice surface treatment. Wall has been removed and surface treatment ofnetlon has been applied. Please see revised sheet Ll-1. 8. The berming at the front entrance should be extended and wrapped in front of the northern most parking stalls. RESPONSE: Berming at front entrance has been extended to wrap around the northern edge of parking stalls. Please see revised sheets Ll-1, L1-3 and L3-1. 9. The six foot tall retaining wall located on the southern property line will visually impact the property to the south. Please redesign this area to reduce the wall height to three foot maximum. RESPONSE: Per city request, applicant has reduced size of wall. Parking lot grade increased which will bring wall down to around 3 feet. This was acknowledged as acceptable by staff. Please see revised sheet C-6. 10. Please indicate the intended method of air conditioning for the hotel rooms. A central air conditioning system must be adequately screened and located in an area that will have the least amount of noise and aesthetic impact on adjacent residential areas. Individual room air conditioning units must be integrated into the building design and not proposed as window units. RESPONSE: As discussed at city meeting on 10/8/08, applicant confirmed there will be no window units for air, it will be a centralized system incorporated on roof. The potential units on roof were already incorporated into the acoustical analysis. 11. Please revise the architectural sheets to correctly indicate the size and locations of room balconies and patios. RESPONSE: Sheets revised to show balcony/patio sizes/locations. Please see revised sheets A-3 thru A-5. 12. Comments on the conceptual landscape plan are attached. RESPONSE: Landscape response to comments are included with this re-submittal. SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - (^LSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AWB SPA September 17, 2008 Page 4 Redevelopment: 1. Special attention should also be given to wayfinding signage within the Ponto Beachfront Village. The Vision Plan provides specific examples of the types of wayfinding signage envisioned for the area on Page 36, Chapter 2. This type of signage will be appropriate in alerting the general public of the location of the Coast Side Grill/Pool bar, the activity center, and the restaurant. Directional banners cannot be incorporated into the light poles. Please find an alternative method to providing wayfinding signage. RESPONSE: The directional banners incorporated in the light poles were acknowledged by Redevelopment as an example provided in the Ponto Vision Plan (pg 36) and is an acceptable concept for the wayfinding signage. SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - (J^LSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AIW SPA September 17, 2008 Page 5 Engineering: The Engineering Department has completed a partial issues review. Once Engineering's review is completed, a letter with additional issues will be forthcoming. 1. Tentative Parcel Map comments will follow under separate cover. RESPONSE: Parcel Map comments were provided verbally in meeting on 10/8/08. 2. There are some design issues on Ponto Road as shown in the site plan. After a review is completed a meeting will be set up to discuss their resolution. RESPONSE: Additional comments were provided by city and addressed in attached memo dated 10/8/08. 3. The sight distance corridors layer did not print in sheet C-3. The sight lines shown at the project driveways in sheet Ll-1 seem to be too short. Follow the street design criteria as listed in Table A of the Engineering Standards and coordinate with the Landscape Architect. RESPONSE: Revised sight line information previously provided to engineering and planning for review, was okay'd and has been incorporated into plan set, please see revised sheet C-3 and Ll-1. 4. Submit a letter from the appropriate utility companies concurring with the proposed undergrounding/relocation of the existing utilities throughout the site. RESPONSE: Per phone message from Glen Van Peski, this information is not necessary at this stage. 5. The length of the left turn pocket on northbound Carisbad Boulevard at Ponto Road is under review. RESPONSE: City provided direction in second set of engineering comments dated 10/8/08 regarding necessary length of 250ft plus transition. Plans have been revised accordingly, see sheet C- 7. 6. Change the sewer district to the City of Carisbad in sheet CS. RESPONSE: Comment noted, please see revised sheet C-1. 7. Show the sight line at the intersection of Carisbad Boulevard & Ponto Road in sheet L3-1. RESPONSE: Revised sight line information previously provided to engineering and planning for review was okay'd and has been incorporated into plan set, please see revised sheet L3-1. 8. Submit specifications for the "Netlon" material proposed to be used for the fire lane. The fire requirements are specified in section 17.04.100 ofthe Carisbad Municipal Code. RESPONSE: Planning Department already met with Fire Department on the project regarding use of Netlon for fire lanes. Fire Department reviewed and gave approval for use Netlon in fire lanes. 9. The location of the gateway sign at the intersection of Carisbad Boulevard and Ponto Road in sheet Ll-1 is under review. RESPONSE: No additional comments provided by city. 10. We will advise you regarding NCTD's request regarding the bus shelter upgrade. RESPONSE: No additional information has been provided by City. MEMORANDUM October 8, 2008 TO: SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTER WESTMAN FROM: Associate Engineer - Frank Jimeno |/| SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11: HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT AND SPA ENGINEERING ISSUES Engineering Department staff has completed additional review of the project. Following is a list of engineering issues that need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to recommendation of approval: 1. The location of the median nose just south of the north parking structure entrance (sheets C-5) needs to be at the standard setback (A/2 - 10'). 2. The cross-walk from the parking structure to the hotel entrance needs to use the median as a refuge area. After the location of the median nose is determined, the pedestrian path from the parking structure exit needs to be directed toward a crossing that leads to the median. This needs to be reflected in the architectural and landscape drawings. 3. The left turn pocket on northbound Carisbad Boulevard at Ponto Road needs to meet the minimum required length of 250 feet plus transition. 4. The juncture of the new and existing Ponto Road needs to incorporate transitions. The maximum allowable street grade is 12%. Safety features need to be incorporated in the design. 6. Even though the portion of Ponto Road from Beech Way to the hotel is temporary, the pavement should be able to withstand regular traffic. The structural section should meet minimum design standards, with the final section based on R values. 7. Note comments in attached redlined check prints C-1 through C-8. The applicant must return these documents with the resubmittal to assist staff in our continued review. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-2758. Senior Civil Engineer Van Peski SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - J^LSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT A^ SPA September 17, 2008 Page 6 RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COMMENTS dated 10/8/08 (original comments attached on next page) 1. The location of the median nose has been shifted per engineering comments, please see revised sheet C-5. 2. The crosswalk from parking structure has been revised to utilize the median as a refuge area. Pathway has been revised to direct to crosswalk through median. Please see revised sheet C-5, Ll-1 and A-1. 3. Left turn pocket revised to 250 feet plus transition, please see revised sheet C-7. 4. Juncture of new /existing Ponto Road incorporates transitions southbound and street grade is 12%. Transition northbound is not needed since there is sufficient room within full width pavement for transition. Please see revised sheet C-6. 5. The pavement on Ponto will withstand regular traffic by meeting minimum design standards. Please see revised sheet C-2. 6. Redlined check print notes incorporated and included with this re-submittal. RESPONSE TO LANDSCAPE COMMENT LETTER For your reference, the original landscape comments dated August 18'*^ are attached. REPEAT COMMENTS 2. Notes have been added, please see revised sheet L3-1. 5. Information has been added to the Demolition Plan, refer to civil sheet C-4. All existing trees on site will be removed. Information was provided on civil sheet/demo plan since all landscaping is proposed to be removed and it comes through more cleariy on this plan. 6. Percent of total site used for landscaping provided on sheet L3-1. 7. All areas, with exception of Carisbad Blvd. median will be responsibility of developer. Carisbad Blvd median is typically the responsibility of the City and this project will follow that precedent. Note added to plan, see revised sheet L3-1. 8. Landscape plans have been revised to be consistent with the civil plans showing the detention basin in southeast corner. See revised sheet L3-1. 9. Streets are names have been added to sheet L2-1. 12. Per meeting with Christer Westman (10/16/08): Additional evergreen trees were added to parking garage area as shown including Monterey Cypress and White Mulberry. It was agreed that large trees would not work for south side of parking lot at south property line and that shrubs would be incorporated near retaining wall. Additional evergreen trees along Carisbad Blvd have been added but limited to a few locations as shown on revised plans per discussions with Christer regarding concerns over ocean views. See revised sheet L3-1. 16. Sight lines are provided. Engineering department has reviewed the sight lines and their relation to the landscaping including some trees etc and have agreed to the revisions proposed on the plan. See revised sheets L3-1, Ll-1 20. Discussed in meeting with Christer on 10/16/08. Majority of theme trees added back in. Please see response to comment #12. 21. Location of trees within right of way and utility easements along Carisbad Blvd. was discussed with city and it was determined to be acceptable for discretionary review. Trees are included in median/ROW on Ponto Blvd to comply with the Ponto Beach Village Vision Plan and given okay in meeting with Christer on 10/16/08. 22. Per conversations with Engineering department at 10/8/08 meeting, Carisbad Blvd median is proposed to be constructed only in a temporary state with curb and erosion control as shown on L3-1 and civil plans. 27. No additional comments have been received by applicant. 28. Note has been revised as requested, see revised sheet L3-1. 29. Storm drains reflected on plans and in utility/easement exhibits previously provided for City review. Per city engineering/planning, proposed planting is considered acceptable. NEW COMMENTS IA. Per conversations with Engineering department at 10/8/08 meeting, Carisbad Blvd median is proposed to be constructed only in a temporary state with curb and erosion control as shown on L3-1 and civil plans. 2A. North arrow provided on plan sheets, see Ll-1, L2-2, L2-1, and L3-1. 3A. Ponto Road Planting now defined with specific planting, please see revised sheet L3-1. 4A. Ponto Median maintenance will be responsibility of developer. Carisbad Blvd median will be responsibility of City as is the typical procedure. Note has been added to plans, see revised sheet L3-1. 5A. Discussed in meeting with City 10/8/08 - A portion of this area is future roadway and access is necessary to adjacent properties, etc. City acknowledged situation and requested erosion control and temporary landscaping. The erosion control/temporary landscaping is provided in areas that would be graded/disturbed for the project as shown on L3-1. 6A. Note has been added, please see revised sheet L3-2. August 18, 2008 REC TO: Christer Westman, Senior Planner Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst Meghan Jacobson, Senior Office Specialist D C rr D FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Archit^OFMAN PIANNING & ENGINEERING RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 2"'' Review Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa, SDP05-I4, CDP05-43, RP05-II Carlsbad Boulevard @ Ponto Road M;L. \ lile; 29S - HiKon C;irl-sbaii ffaicli ResiMt & Spa Covii Landscape Architect: Spurlock Poirier, Phone: (6!9) 681-0090 Please advise the applicanl to make the following con'ections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the comment concern, REPEAT COMMENTS L Completed. 2, Please show all slopes on the planting plans consistent with the grading plans. .Address slope revegetation as follows; On all slopes (all heights) that abut streets or sidewalks: Standard " A": • "A"- Cover crop plus straw mat. Straw mat required if installed August 15 - .April 15 On all slopes 3' and greater: ''.4, B & C" • "B" - Groundcover spaced to provide 100% coverage in one year, (ex: flats spaced at 12" O.C.) • ''C - Low spreading woody shiubs to provide a minimum of 70% cover at maturity. This is in addition to the requirements of "D" below. On all slopes that are 8' and greater,; "A, C & D" • "D" - Trees and/or large shrubs at a rate of 1 per 200 square feet. Areas graded flatter than 6:1 require Standard #1 (cover crop) when they have one or more of the following conditions: a. Sheet graded pads not scheduled for improvements within 6 months of completion of rough grading. b. A potential erosion problem as determined by the City. c. Identified by the City as highly visible areas to the public or have special conditions that warrant immediate treatment 2"" Review: Please add (he notes shown in hold above lo the plan fioies. 3-4 Completed. 5. Generally identify all existing woody plant material to be removed or retained. Trees over 12" in caliper diameter shall be identified on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and labeled to be retained or removed. 2"'' Review: The applicant has responded: "Information is .shown on Demolition Plan Refer io Civil Sheet C-4. " The Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Conceptual Plan Review August 18, 2008 Page 2 civil plan does not identify existing trees or indicate sizes. Plea.se fully address on landscape plans. Indicate the following percentages: a. Percent ofthe total site used for landscaping, b. Completed. fy-ef-the projec-f-ev^w^-. 2"'fierieu': The applicant has responded: "Note was removed from T)rawings. " Please clearly outline the areas of land.scape maintenance respoimbilities (private, common area homeowners' association. City, etc.). 8. Show 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. 2^"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Comment Noted '' No hio-swales or detention basins are shown on the plans. Civil plans show a vegetated swale and detention basin at the southeast comer of the property. Please show and label on the landscape plans and provide appropriate plamings. 9, Please label all streets on all sheets Provide street name 10-11 Completed. 12. Landscaping consi.sting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soflen new improvements. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 2"" Tieview: Please provide additional latge evergreen trees on the south and we.st sides of the parking garage. Ptea.se provide laige evergreen trees along the .south .side of the parking lot at the .southproperly hue. .Additional large evergreen trees (Monterrey Cypre.ss) are needed along Carlsbad Boulevard to .soften and enhance the buildings. See red hue plans for locations. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. See-eemowftt-mifftbeF 3~abeve, l%aise-pRwid€-+»eFe-detafled4«feima^- 2"'^ Review: See comment number 12 above. 15 Completed, Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points. 25' outward from,.tlie beginiiin^^^^ (See .Appendix C,4). The same lieight limitation applies at drivewavs 25' from the edge ofthe apron outward along the curb then 45-degrees in toward the ptoperty. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, Cal frans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show all sight lines and insure these requirements are met. See comment number 3 above. Please provide more detailed information so this requirement can be checked. 2"'^ Re\'iew: Plea.se graphically show .sight lines and provide for oil a bo ve requirements. 17-19 Completed. 20, If the streetscape is along a major or prime arterial, the street tree planting shall conform to the ~'Art.erial Road Themes" (refer to Section IV,D.4 and Appendix C. I). The specific trees creating a streetscape theme fiave been pre-selected by the City. Each theme shall 13 14- 16. Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort & Spa Conceptual Plan Review- August 8, 2008 Page 3 be made up of four (4) types of trees: "Theme", "Support", "Median", and "Project Identity/Accent frees". (See Appendix C) % of Total Streetscape Trees (includes street tree requirement plus adjacent setbacks) a. Median Island Trees N,/.4 (These trees shall be installed as part ofthe required street improvements) b. Theme Trees 50% (These trees set the overall character of the streetscape and are located along the roadside but outside the right-of-way (See D.3-1.2-3) c. Support Trees 30% (These trees were selected to complement the theme tree. Select trees from those listed which fit the project site conditions.) d. Project Identify/Accent Trees 20% (These trees are not pre-selected, rather the applicant can choose the best tree for their project and submit it for City approval. 2"'^ Review: The applicant has responded: ''According to the landscape Manual we are to provide: 10 theme trees (Monterrey Cypress), 6 support trees (PinkMelakitca), 5 project identity trees (various Palm trees per L3-2). However, due to fire lane, sight hue, and view corridor requirements, we are proposing the following break-down: 5 tlietue trees (Monterrey (j'press), 16 support trees (Pink Melaleuca), 27pixijecl identify trees (various Palm trees per 1.3-2). Note that we are proposing more than twice the mimtmim number of trees reqidred for the site. " The reason for deleting 5 required theme trees is not tmderstood. Thetne trees are the most important tree which will establish the lxmd.scape Manual designated theme. There appears to he room for these trees. Plea.se provide all required theme trees (see comment number 12 above). .As far as providing extra trees, trees are required to he provided to both accentuate and enhance architecture and .screen .soften new improvements. The.se trees are needed to accomplish all of these requirements. Locate street trees; a. A minimum of 3' outside the public right-of-way (except within the '"Redevelopment Zone (VR Zone) and Beach .4rea Overlay Zone" where street trees may be allowed within the right-of-way V in tight spaces and within the right-of-way if approved by Engineering. 2"'^ Review: It is luued that street trees are located within the right-of-way. Please relocate unless olherwi.se approved by Engineering. b, A minimum of 5" from paving. Hilton Carisbad Beach Resort & Spa August 18, 2008 Conceptual Plan Review Page 4 c. A minimum of 7' from any .sewer line. d. Not in conflict with public utilities. e. Not to be allowed on street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' from the beginning of curves and end of curves or within sight lines as described under "Sight Distance" above, (See Appendix C,4). 22. The median layout shall be in conformance with the ".Arterial Median Layouf (see Appendix C.2), Concrete color and pattern shall be as specified under "Arterial Streetscape Themes" (see Appendix C. 1) and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. Shrubs shaH be 5 gallon minimum size. Shrub spacing shall be such that \00% coverage will occur within one year, 2"^ fU'view: The applicant has responded: "Comment Noted. " Plea.se address median landscaping. 23-26 Completed. 27. Please provide a colored water use plan indicating where proposed use of recycled and potable water will be used. 2"'' Review: The colored water use plan has been forwarded to Public Works Maintenance and Operations far review. Any cumimnts will be forwarded back io the applicant. 28, Per the water conservation section ofthe manual (C.3-4.6), woody shrubs must be planted over herbaceous groundcover to cover 60% ofthe groundcover area at maturity. Please address on plans. 2'"' Review: Please re-word note " 1 asfollow.s: Woody .shrubs .shall be planted over herbacetuts groundcover to cover (yO% ofthe groundcover area at maturity. 29. Please show ali storm drains and insure trees are not planted over them. 2"'^ Review: There appear to be conflicts. Plea.se re.solve. 30, RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, and colored water use plan) on the next submittal NEW COMMENTS 1 A. Please explain this note. 2A. Please provide a north arrow on all plan sheets. 3 A, Please defme "Ponto Road Planting", Clarify what plants will be used. Landscaping shall be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing neighborhoods, 4A. Please indicate who is responsible for the maintenance ofthe Ponto Road and Carlsbad Boulevard median landscaping. If proposed to be City maintained, the plans will need lo be reviewed by the Parks Department, 5 A, Please address landscaping of all areas within the property line. 6.A, Please note that a minimum of 50% ofthe shrubs (except on slopes 3:1 or steeper) shall be a minimum 5 gallon size. FILE COPY City of Carlsbad 7. /g-.os Planning Department September 17, 2008 Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: 3rd REVIEW FOR SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Cartsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit, applications nos. SDP 05-14 and CDP 05-43, as to their completeness for processing. The items requested from you eartier to make your Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit, applications nos. SDP 05-14 and CDP 05-43 complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved pnor to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or othenwise supplement the basic information required for the application. At this time, the City asks that you address the issues identified and provide 5 complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. Please contact your staff planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, DON NEU Planning Director DN:CW:lt c: Wave Crest Resorts II LLC. Suite A, 829 Second Street, Encinitas CA 92024 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer Austin Silva, Redevelopment Planner File Copy, Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us nOOM^ ff • 1 • *^ ^SDre-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA * ^ September 17, 2008 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Although some modifications have been made to the architecture, more of the same and additional new techniques need to be applied to the overall building to make it visually and aesthetically interesting if it is going to set the appropriate architectural standard for all future development within the Ponto Beachfront Village. All elevations of this hotel are important to the Ponto Beachfront Village and must be treated accordingly. This objective goal may be achieved through the extended use of materials such as stone veneer for ground floor features, outlookers, more distinctive window ledges and trim, horizontal siding and shingles. The architecture and design treatments of the entire building must truly reflect the overall "craftsman" style of the project. (See comments on plans for additional direction) To assist in the evaluation, details of the materials, colors, dimensions, and textures need to be provided. Examples include the width and depth of window trim, dimensions of trellis pillars and rafter tails, shingle and siding materals. 2. The outdoor space proposed on the north side of the conference building including the netlawn is not encouraged since it may create noise nuisance conflicts with the existing residential uses to the north. 3. All decorative paving within the automobile travelway should be visually distinctive but should have a smooth texture so as not to increase tire noise. 4. Pedestrian access from the parking garage shall be relocated to take advantage of the median in Ponto Road. 5. Include decorative pillars, grill-work, and/or other elements on the visible portions of the parking structure. Just as with the hotel, the parking structure will be very visible within and from outside of the Beachfront Village and must appropriately reflect the Vision Plan design aesthetic. 6. It is not clear what the cross-lines on the parking structure represent as shown on the elevations. Please clarify or remove them. 7. The plans are not clear regarding the length of the five foot high site wall proposed at the hotel service entrance. Please clarify this on the plans and incorporate adequate landscaping into the plan to visually screen this area. 8. The berming at the front entrance should be extended and wrapped in front of the northern most parking stalls. 9. The six foot tall retaining wall located on the southern property line will visually impact the property to the south. Please redesign this area to reduce the wall height to three foot maximum. 10. Please indicate the intended method of air conditioning for the hotel rooms. A central air conditioning system must be adequately screened and located in an area that will have the least amount of noise and aesthetic impact on adjacent residential areas. Individual room air conditioning units must be integrated into the building design and not proposed as window units. SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - C^RLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AM SPA September 17, 2008 Page 3 11. Please revise the architectural sheets to correctly indicate the size and locations of room balconies and patios. 12. Comments on the conceptual landscape plan are attached. Engineering: The Engineering Department has completed a partial issues review. Once Engineering's review is completed, a letter with additional issues will be forthcoming. 1. Tentative Parcel Map comments will follow under separate cover. 2. There are some design issues on Ponto Road as shown in the site plan. After a review is completed a meeting will be set up to discuss their resolution. 3. The sight distance corridors layer did not print in sheet C-3. The sight lines shown at the project driveways in sheet Ll-1 seem to be too short. Follow the street design criteria as listed in Table A of the Engineering Standards and coordinate with the Landscape Architect. 4. Submit a letter from the appropriate utility companies concurring with the proposed undergrounding/relocation of the existing utilities throughout the site. 5. The length of the left turn pocket on northbound Carisbad Boulevard at Ponto Road is under review. 6. Change the sewer district to the City of Carisbad in sheet CS. 7. Show the sight line at the intersection of Carisbad Boulevard and Ponto Road in sheet L3- 1. 8. Submit specifications for the "Netlon" material proposed to be used for the fire lane. The fire requirements are specified in section 17.04.100 ofthe Cartsbad Municipal Code. 9. The location of the gateway sign at the intersection of Cartsbad Boulevard and Ponto Road in sheet Ll-1 is under review. 10. We will advise you regarding NCTD's request regarding the bus shelter upgrade. Redevelopment: 1. Special attention should also be given to wayfinding signage within the Ponto Beachfront Village. The Vision Plan provides specific examples of the types of wayfinding signage envisioned for the area on Page 36, Chapter 2. This type of signage will be appropriate in alerting the general public of the location of the Coast Side Grill/Pool bar, the activity center, and the restaurant. Directional banners cannot be incorporated into the light poles. Please find an alternative method to providing wayfinding signage. FlU COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 18, 2007 Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Cartsbad CA 92010 SUBJECT: 2nd REVIEW FOR SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit, applications no. SDP 05-14 and CDP 05-43, as to their completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, 2u>l DON NEU Planning Director DN:CW:aw Gary Barberio, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 9R SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA December 18, 2007 Page 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: 1. Please submit a site specific noise analysis. The analysis should evaluate all stationary and mobile sources of noise generated by the typical operation of the hotel and their impacts on adjacent properties. 2. Provide spot elevations for adjacent properties and their structures. 3. Label the existing onsite contours more clearty so that it is easy to determine the difference behween the existing grade and the proposed finished grade. 4. Provide cross sections of the transition from the project site to the adjacent properties to the south. Development of this site should not adversely affect adjacent properties. 5. Expand the sections of the parking structure shown on sheet A-16 to include the properties to the north, south, and east. 6. The project is a long building which requires the use of a small scale on the drawings if the entire building is to be illustrated. However, the small scale does not provide the ability to illustrate details. Please include larger scale vignettes at %-scale of key segments of the building. Segments should include the entry, 80 - 100 foot sections of the north, south, east, and west hotel elevations, and a similar 100 foot segment of the parking structure. 7. Provide information regarding the building's use of "green" materials and "green" design. Would the building qualify for any level of LEED certification? 8. Provide an Average Daily Trip distribution study based on the proposed Ponto Road improvement design which does not extend south of the hotel project and based on the improvement of Ponto Road all the way south to connect with the existing improved Ponto Road. Engineering: 1. Re-submit the Tentative Parcel Map in order to coordinate the review with this submittal. 2. Submit a recent Preliminary Title Report; the one in our files is from 2005. 3. The project is located in Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 22. Submit an analysis to determine if the project needs to update the LFMP to reflect the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (PBWP) impacts on the zone facilities. 4. The PBWP envisions the Ponto area sewering by gravity to a railroad under-crossing at the southeast corner of the PBWP. Submit an analysis of how your proposed sewer system differs from the plan and how you propose to address the environmental impacts not covered in the certified EIR. 5. Ponto Road traverses from its intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard, by the proposed project, through its offset intersection with the future Beach Way and on to Avenida SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA December 18, 2007 Page 3 Encinas. The proposed project fronts Ponto Road or the road right-of-way is within the project boundary from Carisbad Boulevard to Beach Way. In order to design the final alignment of Ponto Road, a definitive alignment study needs to be completed. The alignment study needs to address horizontal location, vertical grades, adjacent property grades and access, street intersections, grading, utilities (especially gravity sewer), and any other factors affecting the final design. In order to establish grades at the intersection of Ponto Road and the future Beach Way, the connection of Beach Way and Cartsbad Boulevard needs to be analyzed. The street improvement obligations for the proposed project will include all of Ponto Road within the project boundary. A determination will need to be made as to the extent of improvements along the hotel frontage. It is possible that only partial improvements will be required for the balance of the road to Beach Way. 6. Ponto Road needs to reflect the adopted cross-section in the PBWP. 7. Show existing utilities along the Carisbad Boulevard project frontage. 8. Include in detail the complete existing intersection of Cartsbad Boulevard and Ponto Road. Show the existing lane striping and left turn pocket on southbound Carlsbad Boulevard. Verify that the existing left turn lane complies with the approved EIR traffic analysis. Show the proposed left turn pocket on northbound Carlsbad Boulevard at Ponto Road as required in the EIR. 9. Contact NCTD to determine if they have any future plans to service this area. Submit correspondence from them regarding their decision and reflect any requirements in the site plan as needed. SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA December 18, 2007 Page 4 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan was created by the City to address the coordination of development within the Ponto area, including the long term infrastructure needs, as well as establish a cohesive design direction for the entire area. Two major elements of infrastructure needed for the Ponto area and associated with the Hilton development properties are the construction of Ponto Road south to connect to future Beach Way and a complete, north to south, gravity sewer system. The project as proposed does not provide critical segments of either. The project needs to be designed to include these onsite improvements. 2. This project will set the tone for development of the remainder of the Ponto area. The project must include elements of community design including the guidelines described for Ponto Road, private parking, community amenities, and parking structure design. Building segments that need to include better design and detail include the ballroom, the second and third floor elevations facing north, the east hotel elevation, the south hotel elevation, and all visible elevations ofthe parking structure. 3. A pitched roof design with an open interior for volume may be a more interesting design solution than a flat roof with parapet. A different design solution for the ballroom that can be attractive outside as well as inside is strongly encouraged. 4. Additional berming, landscape and ornamental walls should be used at the hotel entrance to strengthen the buffer behween the existing residential uses and the future hotel use. 5. Please study the potential of designing a teardrop driveway with a single point of vehicular entry/exit to the lobby? If such a design is feasible and functional, it could reduce some vehicle trips for that segment of Ponto Road in between the parking structure and Leeward Street. 6. The project includes several nice design elements like the use of shingled facades, rafter tails and gable roofs. Those design elements should be applied consistently throughout the project. Given the location and configuration of the property, there are no building elevations that will not be seen by customers of the hotel, residents of the adjoining neighborhoods, and the traveling public. All sides must be detailed just as if they are the front door. 7. The design of the parking structure should carry over design elements from the hotel such as stone and shingle veneers, decorative wood beams and brackets, and wood trellises. 8. As scaled on sheet C-3, the Poinsettia Shores Specific Plan 40 foot building setback is not being met by a couple of feet at the southernmost edge of the parcel. The support posts for the trellises along this elevation are also subject to the 40 foot setback. Please rectify. 9. The City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village vision Plan on December 4, 2007. A determination must still be made as to SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA December 18, 2007 Page 5 whether this project falls within the scope of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan analysis. Please be aware that if the proposed project is not within the scope, additional studies may be required as well as a supplemental CEQA process. 10. Signage approval is a separate administrative process typically performed after discretionary approvals are granted. It maybe beneficial to submit signage concepts for review concurrently with discretionary review of the hotel. Housing and Redevelopment: 1. Ponto Road is envisioned as a two-lane roadway with a planted median, bike lane, parkways, and ample sidewalks. The applicant should review Chapter 2 Page 19-27 of the Vision Plan for more information related to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation envisioned in the Ponto Beachfront Village. Landscape medians and bike lanes will be required along Ponto Road. Suggestions related to types of landscaping envisioned around the bicycle and pedestrian circulation areas can be found on Page 33 (Chapter 2). We do not believe that the landscaped median needs to be eliminated for the entire road segment fronting your project. Although there may be breaks needed, we believe adequate areas remain forthe landscaped medians. 2. Please provide a detailed drawing of the proposed gateway signage at the southeast corner of Carisbad Boulevard and Ponto Road. The gateway signage shall include attractive rockwork, informal landscaping, and special crosswalk paving should be included at the gateway intersections. Please refer to Chapter 2 Page 31 of the Vision Plan for more details on gateway signage envisioned for the area. 3. Special attention should be given to wayfinding signage within the Ponto Beachfront Village. The Vision Plan provides specific examples of the types of wayfinding signage envisioned for the area on Page 36, Chapter 2. This type of signage will be appropriate in alerting the general public of the location of the Coast Side Grill/Pool Bar, the activity center, and the restaurant. 4. Staff encourages the use of windows, architectural detailing, and/or landscaping that will cover the large blank wall to the north ofthe delivery area. 5. Staff encourages the use of plaster trim or banding across the blank wall space on the main ballroom roof structure. 6. Please identify the "x" shaped sections of the parking structure on the key note legend. Are there openings throughout the parking structure, or does this reflect an architectural feature? If so, please indicate. 7. The beach sand along the west property line encroaches into the public right-of-way. Perhaps with the removal of the portion of sand that encroaches into the right-of-way, lighted bollards can be used on both sides of the adjacent path to create a more welcoming walkway. 8. Staff encourages the use of enhanced paving to act as a crosswalk from the parking structure to the hotel. The path of travel from the parking structure to the hotel can be dangerous for pedestrians because of its close proximity to the bend on Ponto Road. SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43 - CARLSBAD BEACH HILTON RESORT AND SPA December 18, 2007 Page 6 9. Please provide a detailed drawing for the wall and water feature at the entrance of the hotel. Perhaps the northeast facing side of the wall could include signage for the hotel, a water feature on that side as well, or an open fountain that is viewable from all sides. Fire: 1. Each inhabitable building shall be provided with an approved overhead fire sprinkler system ofthe appropriate design standard. 2. The main resort, hotel and parking structure shall be provided with Class 1 Fire Standpipe systems throughout. Hose valve locations shall be based upon 150 foot hose length. 3. The fire alarm system shall also provide voice annunciaition for evacuation. 4. The parking structure shall also be provided with audible/visual fire alarm notification devices located properly. 5. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 90 linear feet from any backflow prevention device or fire department hose connection. Fire hydrants shall be no more than 300 feet apart. And there shall be no less than four (4) fire hydrants within 350 lineal feet of the main building. 6. At least one (1) elevator car shall be of sufficient size so as to accommodate an ambulance stretcher 84 by 24 inches in dimension in the full flat or prone position. W WORDEN WILLIAMS APC Representing Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals November 9, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan General Plan Amendment Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: This letter is written on behalf of Bob Lipsey, a resident of the Hanover Beach Colony to the north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey resides at 7130 Leeward Shreet, Carlsbad, California 92011. Mr. Lipsey's home, and several homes on each side of his, are in the unique position of directly facing property within the Draft Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey's home faces the property that is currently designated for the "Garden Hotel" in the Draft Vision Plan. We have provided several letters to the City detailing Mr. Lipsey's concerns regarding the Ponto Vision Plan, which are incorporated by reference. While we appreciate that Staff has made some effort to address Mr. Lipsey's concerns, unfortunately at this point the efforts are not enough. The Ponto Vision Plan General Plan Amendment continues to provide a "concept" for the Hilton Garden Hotel that will result in significant land use conflicts. ^ We urge the City Council to amend the Vision Plan to specifically require a different "concept" for the Garden Hotel. An Application for the Garden Hotel is currently on file with the City. The application is for 215 hotel rooms, a conference facility, public spa, restaurant, caf^ and 3 story parking garage. (SDP 05-14; RP 05-11; CDP 05-43.) If the Vision Plan is not amended, then the application will be processed without appropriate guidance to ensure that the land use conflicts are minimized. Copies of some site plan and elevation plan pages that have been submitted as part of the development application are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. As it stands, the application appears to meet the "concept" of the Vision Plan and demonstrates how the Vision Plan "concept" will result in significant land use impacts, and that the Vision Plan is without adequate standards to reduce the significant land use impacts of this application. AREAS OF PRACTICE PUBLIC AGENCY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REAL ESTATE PERSONAL INJURY ESTATE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CIVIL LITIGATION BUSINESS ATTORNEYS TRACY R. RICHMOND D.WAYNE BRECHTEL KEN A. CARIFEE TERRY M. GIBBS KRISTEN M'^BRIDE KEITH A. LIKER D. DWICHT WORDEN Of Counsel W. SCOTT WILLIAMS Of Counsel OFFICE 462 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-6604 TELEPHONE (858) 755-5198 FACSIMILE www.wordenwilliams.com Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9,2007 Page 2 In addition, the EIR must identify the significant land use conflict and require appropriate mitigation. The currently proposed mitigation does not adequately reduce the significant land use impacts that will result from development of the Garden Hotel to below significance. Description Of The Garden Hotel Concept In The Vision Plan The Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan has decided that out of all of the uses that are consistent with the CT zone across from the Hanover Beach Colony, for some reason a hotel is the best use for this location. The Vision Plan proposes a 24-hour Hotel and Conference Facility.^ Permitted uses for this Garden Hotel are specified on Chapter 2, page 16. The Vision Plan states that the Hotel is intended to be a moderate-priced, full-service visitor hotel with a conference center, meeting facilities and a restaurant.^ On page 11 of Chapter 2, the Vision Plan contemplates a rather large 24-hour facility, and provides the following specifics about what kind of hotel should be here. it should be a 3 story hotel with a conference center. its main entrance and hotel facades should be oriented toward the Hanover beach colony. second and third stories should be stepped back, it should continue the public trail along the east side of Carlsbad blvd. it should have a 2 story parking garage for guests and employees it should be oriented to allow access to ocean views. • it should have a tied pool and patio it should have a restaurant. • it should have a unique community amenity. • the corner should be landscaped to serve as a gateway feature. The Significant Impacts That Will Result From The Garden Hotel Concept Fundamentally, the "concept" in the Vision Plan that this land be developed as a hotel and conference center will result in significant land use conflicts with the adjacent single family residential neighborhood. We have detailed these conflicts in our previous letters. We have pointed out why such a proposal conflicts with the General Plan policies. We renew all of these comments for the record. ^ The application on file does not specify the total square footage of the development, but indicates that the meeting rooms alone are over 12,000 square feet. The EIR indicates that the Hotel would have 215 rooms in a 24,000 square foot facility. (DEIR p. 5.5-7.) This number is not supported by the documents within the application file. ^ The Vision Plan states that if the market does not support a hotel at this location, then "it is intended that neighborhood or visitor-serving commercial uses could be located here." (Chapter 2, pages 16-17.) w Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page 3 We believe that the Vision Plan should propose a different use for this area, one more in keeping with the original intent of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan for commercial services such as restaurants or convenience stores, or even a public park that will serve the residents of Hanover Beach Colony and beach users. The EIR Has Failed To Identify The Significant Land Use Impacts The thresholds of significance set forth in the DEIR provide that "A significant land use impact would occur if the proposed project would: ... create incompatibilities of land use on-site or with adjacent uses ..." (DEIR, p. 5.11-9.) However, the Vision Plan EIR failed to identify that there is a significant land use conflict between the 24-hour Garden Hotel and Conference Center and the adjacent single family residential uses. Significant land use compatibility impacts include, among others, a 24- hour entry way and a service yard directly across from homes. (Exhibit A, p. 1.) The vehicular and pedestrian traffic, light and noise from this "zone of activity" would be continuous and completely alter the quiet residential characteristic of the neighborhood. The residential homes adjacent to the Hotel will become de facto parts of a hotel resort enterprise whether they like it or not. If the residents wish to be part of a resort experience, they will be in luck. However, for those who wish to go home and get away from the commercial resort facility, there will be no escape. The FEIR must acknowledge that placement of the Garden Hotel as proposed would completely alter the character of his currently, quiet residential neighborhood and represents a significant impact. We raised this issue in our comment letter, and City Response L-7 stated "The City does not concur that the proposed project would result in an incompatible use." We believe the evidence does not support this statement. First, at least one Planning Commissioner stated that they believed the conflict existed, but felt that they were limited to suggest other uses for the Vision Plan because of the CT zone. There is no requirement in any planning documents, or in the CT zone itself, that prohibits the City from changing the use in the Vision Plan to something other than a hotel. Because the Planning Commission believed they could not change the use, one planning commissioner suggested that a complete redesign of the Garden Hotel was needed. Staff assured the Commissioner that the Vision Plan was only a "Concept" and that the redesign should be deferred until the actual Garden Hotel Applicatton comes before the Planning Commission. Given these findings of significant impacts, the FEIR must be amended to disclose the significant land use conflict that will occur as a result of the Garden Hotel. w Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page 4 The EIR Has Failed To Mitigate The Impacts To Below Significance Despite the fact that the FEIR does not identify the land use conflict, the FEIR makes an attempt to mitigate the impacts by a series of mitigation measures in the noise section of the FEIR. In fact, additional mitigation was added in the FEIR as a result of our comments on the DEIR. We appreciate the attempts to mitigate the impacts, and in a good faith effort we proposed language changes to the mitigation measures in order to address our concerns. However, our revised mitigation measures were not adopted by the Planning Commission, although one mitigation measure was modified by the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the mitigation measures, as currently drafted, do not reduce the significant land use conflict to below significance. We urge the City Council to adopt the following changes and/or clarifying language: Mitigation Measure N-3a (Page 2-35) Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a site-specific noise analysis to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonsttates that mobile and stationary noise sources would not exceed maximum interior noise level criteria established for residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum exterior noise levels have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible for all existing and proposed residential uses within or adjacent to the Ponto Area. The acoustical reports shall also be prepared pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelmes Manual. The analysis shall verify that existing and proposed residences are adequately shielded and/or located at an adequate distance from mobile and stationary noise sources in order to comply with the City's noise standards. Individual developments shall, to the maximum extent feasible, implement site-planning techniques such as: • Increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; • Using non-noise sensitive sttuctures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; Orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source; • Orienting non-noise generating uses toward existing adjacent residential uses; • Routing commercial truck ttaffic away from more noise-sensitive existing and proposed uses within and adjacent to the Ponto Area. • Individual developments shall incorporate architectural design sttategies, which reduce the exposure of existing and proposed noise-sensitive spaces to stationary noise sources (i.e., placing bedrooms or balconies on the side of the house facing away from the noise sources). These design strategies shall be implemented based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page 5 individual developments as required by the City to comply with City noise standards; • Individual developments shall incorporate noise barriers, walls, or other sound attenuation techniques, based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for individual developments as required by the City to protect existing and proposed residential uses and comply with City noise standards; and, • Elements of building construction (i.e., walls, roof, ceiling, windows, and other penettations) shall be modified as necessary to provide sound attenuation for existing and proposed residential uses. This may include sealing windows, installing thicker or double-glazed windows, locating doors on the opposite side of a building from the noise source, or installing solid core doors equipped with appropriate acoustical gaskets. Mttigation Measure N-3b -as modified by the Planning Commission on 9/19/2007'^ Through Site Plan review, and to the satisfaction of the final decision makers, the location of driveways, service areas and building enfrances associated with hotel uses in the Tourist Commercial zone, to the greatest extent feasible, shall be located away from existing residential uses and physically buffered with a combination of setbacks, landscaping, berms, and or walls to minimize mobile and stationary noise impacts on residential uses. Hotel operations are to be conducted so as not to intrude upon or impact adjacent residential uses. The City will retain jurisdiction to work with the Hotel Operator to address neighbor complaints, if any, and reduce land use incompatiblities. Mitigation Measure N-4a (Page 2-36 though 2-37) Elecfrical and mechanical equipment (i.e., ventilation and air conditioning units) shall be located away from existing and proposed sensitive receptor areas. Additionally, the following considerations should be given prior to installation: proper selection and sizing of equipment, installation of equipment with proper acoustical Mitigation Measure N-3b (FEIR Page 2-36) Through Site Plan review, and to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, the location of driveways, and service entrances, and entrances to the lobby and other principle public entrances associated with hotel uses within the Commercial Tourist (CT) zone shall be restricted to locations where such drivewavs and entrances access pointo are not directly across from existing residential uses. Hotel Operations are to be conducted so as not to intrude upon or impact adjacent residential uses. The City will retain jurisdiction to work with the Hotel Operator to address neighbor complaints, if any, and reduce land use incompatibilities. "^^Z Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9,2007 Page 6 shielding, and incorporation of the use of parapets into building design. Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a subsequent site-specific noise analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonstrates that noise from elecfrical and mechanical equipment would not exceed maximum interior and exterior noise level criteria established for existing and proposed residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum exterior noise levels have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure N-4b (Page 2-37) A bermed/landscaped buffer at least 50 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the property boundary within areas zoned as Commercial-Tourist (CT) to distance future land uses from existing adjacent residential uses. Consistent with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, a Landscape Plan illusfrating the buffer and the landscaping proposed. The Landscape Plan shall be consistent with the City's Landscape Design Manual. Adjacent landowners shall be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the Landscape Plan prior to approval by the City Planning Director. Mitigation Measure Via (new measure not in FEIR) All outdoor lighting proposed with development of lands adjacent to existing residences in the Commercial-Tourist (CT) zone shall be selectively placed and directed away from existing residences. Outdoor lighting proposed with development plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the application review process to reduce potential impacts relative to light and glare. The internal circulation plan of the development plan will be reviewed to ensure that vehicle lighting is not consistentiy directed at adjacent residences. Implementation of the mitigation measures as described above would provide appropriate and enforceable standards to ensure the ultimate land use across from the Hanover Colony will, in fact, be designed in a manner that does not create incompatible land use impacts. They provide sufficient flexibility for an appropriate project, and at the same time, provide City staff with the tools necessary to implement enforceable and legally adequate mitigation measures. From a practical point of view, they would go a long way towards ensuring that the Council appropriately protects both the businesses and homes within the City. ^^W^ Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9,2007 Page 7 We respectfully request that the Council amend the Ponto Vision Plan, or in the alternative, implement the mitigation measure changes outiined above so that the Ponto Vision Plan can be something that is beneficial to the entire community. Very truly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@wordenwilliams.com DWB:lg Enclosures cc: Client EXHIBITA Page 1 of 3 NORTH ELEVATION Scale 1/16- = V-0" WEST ELEVATION Scale 1/16 " - I'-O" 0 16 32 «S HG A5.0 EXHIBITA Page 2 of 3 HG • 'i. SOUTH ELEVATION Scale 1/16" = I'^O" Hi EAST ELEVATION Scale 1/16" - W 0 IS 32 4S A5.1 EXHIBITA Page 3 of3 m X 55 CITY OF CARLSBAD PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Garden Hotel Taking advantage of views toward the ocean and beautiful landscaping and plazas, the three-story Garden Hotel provides both hotel lodging and a small conference facility. Main entrance and hotel facades oriented toward the street create an architectural edge and attractive view from neighboring res/dent/a/ streets. Second and third stories are stepped back. Landscaped corner creates serves as a gateway feature. Public trail continues along the east side of Cartsbad Boulevard. Two-story parking garage provides ample parking for guests and employees. Building is oriented to allow access to potential ocean views. A tiered pool and patio area offer views to the ocean. // - ' / / A restaurant is included as part of die Garden Hotel development •^"'.JJ . An Augusta-style putting course provides a unique community amenity in an otherwise difficult to develop slope. •' CHAPTER 2 - PACE 11 CITY OF CARLSBAD PONTO BEACHFRONTVILLACE VISION PLAN SECTION 4.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION To implement individual projects, developers must • Obtain needed permits from City of Carlsbad for specific project implernentation. • Areas of private development that are under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game will need to obtain permits from those agencies for identified jurisdictional impacts, including: ° 401 Water Quality Certification ° 404 Clean Water Act Permit ° 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (combines the previous 1601 and 1603) • Land in the City-ov/ned right-of-way that is under jurisdiction of the above resource agencies, becomes vacated, and is used for private development will need to obtain the apprppriate permits listed above in conjunction with future private development • Process projects through environmental review. The following pages list the Vision Plan's major character areas, the parcels included in each area, and a summary list of anticipated actions required to permit the land uses. The summary list is not intended to be inclusive of all actions that will be needed to proceed with development Developers are advised to meet with appropriate City departments in advance of initiating project design to determine which type of permits will be needed for a specific project <;ARDEN HOTEL Property APNs: 214-590-04; 214-160-19; 214-160-24 REGULATORY INFOR/AATION Existing GP Land Use: TRIG Travel / Recreation Commercial / Commercial (APN 214-590-0- RMH/T-R Residential Medium High/Travel / Recreation Commercial (214-160-19:214-160-24) Existing Zoning: CT Commercial Tourist Other Applicable Regulatory Documents: Poinsettia Shores Specific Plan (214-590-04) South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area Plan (214-160-19, -24) Local Coastal Program DEVELOPER ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT PONTO BEACHFRONTVILLA6E VISION PLAN • Redevelopment Permit • Coastal Development Permit • Environmental Review • Improvements Agreement with City CHAPTER 4 - PAGE 5 W WORDEN WILLIAMS A PC Representing Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals September 5, 2007 Hand Delivered Christer Westman Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Comments on the Final EIR ("FEIR") for the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan Dear Mr. Westman: This letter is written on behalf of Robert Lipsey, a resident of the Hanover Beach Colony to the north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. This office provided a letter on Mr. Lipsey's behalf during the public review of the DEIR, which is incorporated by reference. We have reviewed the responses to our comment letter. While we appreciate that the City has made an attempt to respond to the issues raised within our comment letter, we do not believe that the City's responses are adequate. We therefore renew all of our objections for the record, and provide the following specific concerns for your consideration. Mr. Lipsey resides at 7130 Leeward Street, Carlsbad, California 92011. Mr. Lipsey's home, and several homes on each side of his, are in the unique position of directly facing property within the Draft Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey's home faces the property that is currently designated for the "Garden Hotel" in the Draft Vision Plan. An application to construct a Hotel on the site is currently on file with the City.^ Mr. Lipsey is extremely concerned about the juxtaposition of the main entrance of the hotel and his house, and also any maintenance or delivery service that may occur near his home, and we raised these issues in our comment letter. It appears that the City has focused on the "driveway" for the Hotel, as opposed ^Copies of some site plan and elevation plan pages that have been submitted as part of the development application are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. There are differences between the conceptual hotel plan identified in the Vision Plan and the pending application. This mitigation measures proposed in this letter are designed to address both. AREAS OF PRACTICE PUBUC AGENCY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REAL ESTATE PERSONAL 1N]URY ESTATE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CIVIL LITIGATION BUSINESS ATTORNEYS TRACY R. RICHMOND D. WAYNE BRECHTEL KEN A. CARIFEE TERRY M. GIBBS KRISTEN M'^BRIDE KEITH A. LIKER D. DWIGHT WORDEN Of Counsel W. SCOTT WILLIAMS Of Counsel OFFICE 452 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-6604 TELEPHONE (858) 755-5198 FACSIMILE www.wordenwilliams.com w Christer Westman September 5, 2007 Page 2 to the actual "entrance" of the Hotel. Mr. Lipsey is concerned about both, and whether the single family residential character of his home will be altered, and therefore does not believe that the proposed mitigation measures are adequate to address his concerns. Mr. Lipsey is concerned that the Hotel lobby entrance will be visible from his front windows and yard, so that he will hear and see all guests arriving and departing no matter what time of day or night. His bedroom windows are in the front of the house. He will watch the valets as they help guests arrive. He is concerned about the noise from their vehicles and their voices. He is concerned that there will be constant illumination of the enfrance, as well as vehicle headlights, which will create lighting and glare problem for all windows of his home facing the enfrance. He is concerned about whether he will be looking at atfractive landscaping or an unatfractive wall or fence. Unfortunately, the Vision Plan, as currently drafted, does not ensure that these impacts will not occur, and the mitigation proposed in the FEIR is not adequate. We do not believe that merely moving the driveway enfrance will solve these concerns, and without more detail about the landscaped berm, we are not certain that it will sufficiently block the noise, light and glare impacts. We have reviewed the proposed mitigation measures, and offer the following comments and/or clarifying language: Mitigation Measure N-3a (Page 2-35) Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a site-specific noise analysis to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonsfrates that mobile and stationary noise sources would not exceed maximum interior noise level criteria established for residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum exterior noise levels have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible for all existing and proposed residential uses within or adjacent to the Ponto Area. The acoustical reports shall also be prepared pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. The analysis shall verify that existing and proposed residences are adequately shielded and/or located at an adequate distance from mobile and stationary noise sources in order to comply with the City's noise standards. Individual developments shall, to the maximum extent feasible, implement site-planning techniques such as: w Christer Westman September 5,2007 Page 3 Increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; Using non-noise sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; Orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source; Orienting non-noise generating uses toward existing adjacent residential uses; Routing commercial truck fraffic away from more noise-sensitive existing and proposed uses within and adjacent to the Ponto Area. Individual developments shall incorporate architectural design sfrategies, which reduce the exposure of existing and proposed noise-sensitive spaces to stationary noise sources (i.e., placing bedrooms or balconies on the side of the house facing away from the noise sources). These design sfrategies shall be implemented based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for individual developments as required by the City to comply with City noise standards; Individual developments shall incorporate noise barriers, walls, or other sound attenuation techniques, based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for individual developments as required by the City to protect existing and proposed residential uses and comply with City noise standards; and, Elements of building construction (i.e., walls, roof, ceiling, windows, and other penefrations) shall be modified as necessary to provide sound attenuation for existing and proposed residential uses. This may include sealing windows, installing thicker or double-glazed windows, locating doors on the opposite side of a building from the noise source, or installing solid core doors equipped with appropriate acoustical gaskets. Mitigation Measure N-3b (Page 2-36) Through Site Plan review, and to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, the location of driveways, and service enfrances. and enfrances to the lobby and other principle public enfrances associated with hotel uses within the Commercial Tourist (CT) zone shall be resfricted to locations where such driveways and enfrances access points are not directly across from existing residential uses. Hotel Operations are to be conducted so as not to intrude upon or impact adjacent residential uses. The City will retain jurisdiction to work with the Hotel Operator to address neighbor complaints, if any, and reduce land use incompatibilities. w Christer Westinan September 5, 2007 Page 4 Mitigation Measure N-4a (Page 2-36 though 2-37) Elecfrical and mechanical equipment (i.e., ventilation and air conditioning units) shall be located away from existing and proposed sensitive receptor areas. Additionally, the following considerations should be given prior to installation: proper selection and sizing of equipment, installation of equipment with proper acoustical shielding, and incorporation of the use of parapets into building design. Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a subsequent site-specific noise analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonsfrates that noise from elecfrical and mechanical equipment would not exceed maximum interior and exterior noise level criteria established for existing and proposed residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum exterior noise levels have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure N-4b (Page 2-37) A bermed/landscaped buffer at least 50 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the property boundary within areas zoned as Commercial-Tourist (CT) to distance future land uses from existing adjacent residential uses. Consistent with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, a Landscape Plan illusfrating the buffer and the landscaping proposed. The Landscape Plan shall be consistent with the City's Landscape Design Manual. Adjacent landowners shall be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the Landscape Plan prior to approval by the City Planning Director- Mitigation Measure Via (new measure not in FEIR) All outdoor lighting proposed with development of lands adjacent to existing residences in the Commercial-Tourist (CT) zone shall be selectively placed and directed away from existing residences. Outdoor lighting proposed with development plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the application review process to reduce potential impacts relative to light and glare. The internal circulation plan of the development plan will be reviewed to ensure that vehicle lighting is not consistently directed at adjacent residences. w Christer Westman Septembers, 2007 Page 5 Conclusion. Mr. Lipsey appreciates the opportunity to comment on the FEIR. He asks that the FEIR be revised to include the above mitigation measures in order to reduce those impacts to a level below significance. Very fruly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC D. Wayne Biechtel dwb@ wordenwilliams. com DWB:lg Enclosures cc: Client EXHIBltA Page 1 of 3 NORTH ELEVATION Scale 1/16" = V-0" MATCH EHIRY LEVEL-k MATCH WEST ELEVATION Scale 1/16 " = I'-O" 0 16 32 HG HILU GLAZIER "Kl '^1 6 If; ^ o 5 < fa I DATE: Sq>t 1. 2005 SCALE AS NOIBJ A5.0 EXHIBITA Page 2 of 3 HG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD "Scale r=30'-0" H— 30 60 REVISIONS 5V DATE: 5«pt 1, 2005 SCALE: AS NOTED A2.1 W WORDEN WILLIAMS APC Representing Public Agendh, Private Entities, and Individuals May 29, 2007 Hand Delivered Christer Westinan Planning Departinent City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RECEIVED m 1 s w CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Re: Comments on the Draft EIR ("DEIR") for the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan Dear Mr. Westman: This letter is written on behalf of Bob Lipsey, a resident of the Hanover Beach Colony to the north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey resides at 7130 Leeward Sfreet, Carlsbad, California 92011. Mr. Lipsey's home, and several homes on each side of his, are in the unique position of directiy facing property within the Draft Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey's home faces the property that is currently designated for the "Garden Hotel" in the Draft Vision Plan. An application to constiruct a Hotel on the site is currentiy on file with the City.-^ This office provided a letter on Mr. Lipsey's behalf during the scoping phase of this DEIR, which is incorporated by reference. Overall, the DEIR failed to address many of the environmental issues identified in Mr. Lipsey's scoping letter and failed completely to identify and address the significant impacts that would result from consfruction of the large hotel and convention facility directiy across from Mr. Lipsey's home. Detailed comments addressing these and other important issues are set forth below. ^Copies of some site plan and elevation plan pages that have been submitted as part of the development application are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. There are differences between the conceptual hotel plan identified in the Vision Plan and the pending application. In some instances, their characteristics overlap. In others, they do not. Thus, where appropriate, this letter distinguishes between the two by referring to the conceptual hotel in the Vision Plan as the "Garden Hotel Concept" and the pending development application as the "Garden Hotel Development." AREAS OF PRACTICE PUBLIC AGENCY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REAL ESTATE PERSONAL INJURY ESTATE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CIVIL LmCATION BUSINESS ATTORNEYS TRACY R. RICHMOND D. WAYNE BRECHTEL KEN A. CARIFFE TERRY M. GIBBS KRISTEN M'^BRIDE KEITH A. LIKER D. DWIGHT WORDEN Of Counsel W. SCOTT WILLIAMS Of Counsel OFFICE 462 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-6604 TELEPHONE (858) 755-5198 FACSIMILE www.wordervwillianns.com w Christer Westinan May 29, 2007 Page 2 1. The DEIR Failed to Address Several Important Environmental Issues Identified in Mr. Lipsey's Scoping Letter. Mr. Lipsey's scoping letter provided a detailed overview of potentially significant impacts that could result from implementation of the Vision Plan and requested that they be addressed in the DEIR. Of particular importance, it identified a number of significant impacts that could result from constmction of a Hotel directiy across from Mr. Lipsey's front yard. (Exhibit A, p. 1. ) Furthermore, because an application for development of the Hotel was on file, detailed information was and remains available for a thorough environmental review of both the Garden Hotel Concept, and the Garden Hotel Development. Mr. Lipsey's scoping letter requested that analysis of both be included in the DEIR. However, the DEIR, while somewhat confusing, appears to only include general information regarding the Garden Hotel Concept, and to analyze on the conceptual hotel, rather than the specific project. Mr. Lipsey's scoping letter also requested that the DEIR consider alternative sfreet alignments that would not direct fraffic in front of the Hanover residential community. Specifically, Mr. Lipsey requested that Ponto Road not become a major thoroughfare for the entire Vision Plan area. This alternative that could reduce significant land use, noise, fraffic and air quality impacts was not considered. Mr. Lipsey requested that the DEIR consider alternative methods of accomplishing the Vision Plan goals without placement of a major commercial facility adjacent to the residential community, specifically the Garden Hotel. The DEIR appears to take the position that because zoning provides for a hotel, no alternative uses or designs are feasible. This is improper. The DEIR should consider all options for reducing environmental impacts, including alternative locations for uses currentiy planned for the northern portion of the Vision Plan site. 2. The DEIR Failed to Include an Adequate Project Description. The DEIR must be revised to incorporate the Garden Hotel Development into its Project description, and to analyze the application on a project specific basis. As currentiy drafted, the DEIR includes a description and analysis of the Garden Hotel Concept from the Draft Vision Plan. There are numerous differences between the Garden Hotel Concept and the pending application. The conceptual design in the Vision Plan has a smaller development footprint than the pending application, does not include the circular entryway connecting to Mr. Lipsey's access road and does not identify a service yard directiy across from Mr. Lipsey's home. (To provide a visual comparison, a Vision Plan exhibit showing the Garden Hotel Concept is attached hereto as Exhibit B; plans showing the Garden Hotel Development are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The DEIR acknowledges that there is a pending development application for the Garden Hotel, but does not include the application as part of the project description, and does w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 3 not analyze the impacts of the pending application. This is improper because detailed information regarding the Hotel is available, and the DEIR will be the only environmental review that is conducted for the Project.^ While CEQA allows agencies to tier environmental review, going from an analysis of a program or policy to a site specific document, tiering does not excuse the City from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable impacts, nor does it justify deferring such analysis. (CEQA Guidelines §15151.) In this case, given that there is a sufficient level of detail regarding the specific project to be developed once the Vision Plan is adopted, the DEIR must include analysis of that project as part of the project description. Furthermore, the concept of tiering environmental review means that there will, in fact, be a second level EIR at another time. However, in this case the City knows that no further review will be required. The hotel applicant abandoned its plans to prepare a separate environmental document and, instead, elected to rely upon the Vision Plan DEIR for analysis of the Garden Hotel Development. Given that the hotel is an allowed use under the current zone, the City will be poised to approve the Garden Hotel Development after certification of the DEIR. No second level EIR review will be required, and no additional alternatives analysis will be conducted. Accordingly, the DEIR must include available information in its analysis to adequately identify potentially significant impacts of the Garden Hotel Development, identify feasible mitigation measures, and identify feasible alternatives. The Garden Hotel Development is more than a concept, and its impacts are not speculative. It is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of adoption of the Vision Plan. CEQA Guidelines § 15151 provides that an EIR must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information that enables them to make a decision which intelligentiy takes account of environmental consequences. An EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376; 253 Cal.Rpfr. 426. ^"The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR is intended to assess potential environmental impacts on a programmatic scale, rather than requiring individual owners with the Plan Area to prepare individual environmental documentation prior to development. The EIR will allow for areas affected by the Vision Plan to be fully analyzed for potential environmental impacts and for project alternatives to be analyzed to reduce potential impacts." (DEIR. p. 3-2) w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 4 "[T]he ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide the decision- makers, and the public, with the information about the project that is required by CEQA." {Santiago County; Water Dist. v. Cou^^^y of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829 [173 Cal.Rpfr. 602].) The en-or is prejudicial "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City o/Han/ord (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712 [270 Cal.Rpfr. 650].) In a similar situation, the City of Los Angeles was found in violation of CEQA when it failed to consider foreseeable noise impacts in a Specific Plan EIR [Los Angeles Unified School District V. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cat. App. 4th 1019; 68 Cal.Rpfr. 2d 367). The issue in the Los Angeles case was potential noise impacts to a neighboring school. The City asserted that noise impacts would be too speculative to study, and deferred further analysis to a later document. The Court of Appeal rejected the City's position: We recognize a premature environmental analysis may be meaningless and financially wasteful. (Laure/Heights/mprouement Assn. v. Regents of University; of California, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 396.) "On the other hand, the later the environmental review process begins, the more bureaucratic and financial momentum there is behind a proposed project, thus providing a sfrong incentive to ignore environmental concerns that could be dealt with more easily at an early stage of the project. This problem may be exacerbated where, as here, the public agency prepares and approves the EIR for its own project." (Id. at p. 395, italics in original.) In our view, in preparing an EIR for a specific plan with several phases of development, an environmental impact issue is ripe for consideration when it is "a reasonably foreseeable consequence" ofthe plan and the agency preparing the plan has "sufficient reliable data to permit preparation of a meaningful and accurate report on the impact" of the factor in question. {Id. at p. 396; accord, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App. 4th 182, 199 [55 Cal.Rpfr. 2d 625] [no basis "for defenring the identification of significant environmental impacts that the adoption of a specific plan can be expected to cause"].) As the record in this case demonsfrates, full build-out under the plan was a sufficientiy foreseeable consequence that it formed the basis for all ofthe analysis in the EIR, including the section on noise. It is only by the City's post hoc w Christer Westinan May 29, 2007 Page 5 reasoning the noise impact on the schools has become too speculative to be considered. Moreover, as pointed out above, sufficientiy reliable data was available to permit preparation of a meaningful and accurate report on the impact of noise on residences within the plan. The City has failed to suggest any reason why the same could not be done for the schools. {Los Angeles Unified School District v. City o/LosAnge/es (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th at 1027-28; 68 Cal.Rpfr. 2d 367) Just as in the Los Angeles case, sufficient information and data regarding the Garden Hotel Development is available, and the Garden Hotel Development is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Vision Plan. The facts require including the Garden Hotel Development as part of the project description, and requfring a detailed analysis of the Garden Hotel Development's environmental consequences. (See plan excerpts attached to this letter as Exhibit A.) Failure to do so, has resulted in a DEIR that has failed to adequately inform the public and the decision makers about the consequences of approval of the Vision Plan, fmsfrating the very purposes of CEQA. There are a number of instances in which the impacts fo the Garden Hotel Concept have been improperly minimized because the DEIR has limited itself to analysis of the Garden Hotel Concept in the Vision Plan, even though the larger Garden Hotel Development is poised for almost immediate approval once the Vision Plan is adopted. 3. The DEIR Failed to Identify Significant Land Use Compatibility Impacts. The thresholds of significance set forth in the DEIR provide that "A significant land use impact would occur if the proposed project would:. create incompatibilities of land use on-site or with adjacent uses..." (DEIR p. 5.11-9.) Consistency of proposed uses, especially proposed tourist oriented uses such as the Garden Hotel, has been made a priority within the City of Carlsbad. The General Plan Land Use Element states that "Travel/recreation commercial uses should be compatible with and designed to protect surrounding properties. (Land Use Element Page 19, emphasis added.) The General Plan also has the following policies and objectives: Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority on the compatibility of adjacent land uses along the interface of different density categories. Special attention should be given to buffering and fransition methods, especially when reviewing properties where different residential densities or land uses are involved. (Implementing Policy C.3, Land Use Element, page 28.) Preserve the neighborhood atinosphere and identity of existing residential areas. (Residential Objective B.2; Land Use Element, p. 31.) w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 6 Despite these statements in the General Plan, the Vision Plan proposes uses that will be incompatible with adjacent residential uses. The most obvious and fundamental significant land use impact of the Draft Vision Plan is the incompatibility of the proposed Garden Hotel Concept and parking facility. The Garden Hotel Concept is proposed to be a combination hotel and convention facility. It is designed to literally merge and become part of the Hanover residential community, sharing a common access route and staring directiy into the living room windows of several homes. The character of the residential community would be forever altered and changed as a result of the Garden Hotel Concept, which is oriented in a manner that directs impacts toward the residential community. The Garden Hotel Concept is to be implemented by the Garden Hotel Development, which will be more imposing than the Garden Hotel Concept. The Garden Hotel Development is to be a 24,000 square foot facility on approximately seven acres. It would have 215 rooms and 12,820 square feet of meeting and event space. A 5,030 square foot restaurant and a 1,990 square foot cafe/bar and spa will also be provided. The parking garage to serve this Hotel will be three stories. (DEIR p. 5.5-7.) The Hotel would, on its own, add 2,150 vehicle frips. (DEIR p. 5.6-20.) Significant land use compatibility impacts include, among others, a 24-hour enti^/ way and a service yard directiy across from homes. (Exhibit A p. 1.) The vehicular and pedesfrian fraffic, light and noise would be continuous and completely alter the quiet residential characteristic of the neighborhood. The residential homes adjacent to the Hotel will become de facto parts of a hotel resort enterprise whether they like it or not. If the residents wish to be part of a resort experience, they will be in luck. However, for those who wish to go home and get away from the commercial resort facility, there will be no escape. Mr. Lipsey does not assert that the hotel enterprise would be a bad or evil enterprise. He enjoys staying at a nice hotel as well as others on vacation. However, no matter how enjoyable a vacation experience might be, everyone reaches a point at which they just wish to return to the quiet of their own home. That will not be possible for those, like Mr. Lipsey, with homes that are less than 100 feet from the enfrance to a hotel convention facility. Mr. Lipsey asks that the DEIR candidly acknowledge that placement of the Garden Hotel as proposed would completely alter the character of his currentiy, quiet residential neighborhood. This is a potentially significant impact that was not acknowledged in the DEIR, and as a result, was not addressed with feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, as discussed in more detail below. The DEIR states that "Implementation ofthe Ponto Vision Plan would not have a harmful effect on off-site land uses." (DElRp. 5.11-10.) As support, the DEIR states that the Vision Plan area "is intended for the uses proposed" and thatthe uses are "allowed under the existing zoning, and therefore, do not represent a conflict with the type of development anticipated for the area." Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 7 The DEIR's reliance on compatibility with zoning is improper. Compliance with a plan or standard, in and of itself, does not guarantee the absence of significant impacts. The City must look to whether there is evidence of unique impacts notwithstanding compliance with the zoning ordinance. (See City ofAntioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App. 3d, 1325, 232 Cal.Rpfr. 507; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City ofHanford (1990) 221 Cal.App. 3d 692,270 Cal.Rpfr. 650; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App. 4th 98,126 Cal.Rpfr. 2d 441) Further, just because a use is allowed, does not mean significant impacts would not occur if it is improperly sited and designed. In this case, the City of Carlsbad's CT zone does not require any setback, and has no limit on lot coverage. (Summary of Zoning Requirements attached as Exhibit C.) Thus, zoning will not ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. A Hotel Project that would be compatible with the community and did not result in significant impacts could be designed. However, that is not what is currentiy proposed in the Vision Plan, nor is it what is on the table given the Garden Hotel Development. The DEIR states that development "would provide a fransition from the existing single-family development to multi-family mixed use, commercial and recreational uses." (DEIR p. 5.11-10.) This statement is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and, in fact, is confradicted by the evidence. There is no fransition between the Garden Hotel and the Hanover community. As discussed above, the Garden Hotel and the residential community are being joined at the hip! The DEIR states that "The Vision Plan includes design guidelines to ensure that development of the site would not conflict with surrounding land uses." (P. 5.11.10.) The DEIR goes on to state that "design features such as landscape buffering and screening, underground parking, and building orientation to allow for continued views would be incorporated into future development projects to maintain the character of the area and protect the existing visual environment. .." {Id.) This statement is erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Building orientation of the Garden Hotel Concept in the Vision Plan does not allow for continued views. The Garden Hotel Concept is designed and oriented in a manner that will completely block ocean views from the north and east. For a substantial number of homes in the Hanover community, including Mr. Lipsey's home, the only remaining view will be of the Garden Hotel. Furthermore, plans for the Garden Hotel Development are already established and do not include the design features identified in the DEIR. The Garden Hotel Development is not designed with a landscape buffer between it and the Hanover community, and the Vision Plan does not contain any design guidelines to address impacts to surrounding uses. The Draft Vision Plan calls for landscaping of parking areas to screen the impacts/rom public streets, but does not mention screening impacts to adjacent residential uses. (Draft Vision Plan, Ch. 3, p. 12.) Finally, underground parking is not provided. Parking for the Garden Hotel Development is to be provided by way of a three-story parking sfructure. w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 8 The DEIR goes on to state that "City policies and other regulations pertaining to noise, hours of operation, building height, setbacks and lighting, among other areas, . . . would further reduce potential conflicts between the proposed uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (DEIR p. 5.11-10.) This conclusory statement is also unsupported by evidence in the record. There are no regulations or policies in existence that will alter the basic incompatibilities of the Garden Hotel proposal. It will be a 24 four hour operation that will have unavoidable noise, light and aesthetic impacts as discussed in more detail below. As stated above, the CT zone does not have any setback requirements. The DEIR states that the "The Vision Plan would result in a lower number of units than that anticipated for the area, thereby reducing projected growth and the overall demand for public facilities and services... . potential impacts as a result of land use impacts are considered less than significant." (DEIR p. 5.11-12.) The DEIR's statement is not supported by substantial evidence and legally incorrect. The DEIR cannot reach a finding of insignificance by comparing what could be done with existing plans in an area to that which is proposed. A comparison of what could be with what is proposed is a classic misapplication of the CEQA process. (£nuironmenta/P/anningand/n/ormation Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal. 3d 350,182 Cal.Rpfr. 317; Wa/-mart Stores, Inc. v. City ofTurlock (2006) 138 Cal.App. 4th 273; 41 Cal.Rpfr. 3d) Further, the DEIR's conclusion that the Vision Plan would reduce the "overall demand for public facilities and services" is not supported by any substantial evidence. Common sense dictates that improvement of the Vision Plan area will create an ability for greater numbers of the public to reach local beaches, thereby creating a significant demand for public services. There is no evidence to support a finding that use and demand of public facilities and services will be reduced by implementation of the Vision Plan. In fact, one of the stated benefits of the Vision Plan will be to provide parking and access for those who wish to visit the local beaches. (DEIR p. 3-4; 5.11-16.) The bottom line is that the Garden Hotel Concept and parking structure proposed at the north end are absolutely incompatible with the adjacent residential land uses. Furthermore, the Garden Hotel Development would increase the severity of the impacts of the Garden Hotel Concept beyond what is currently represented in the DEIR. These are significant impacts that must be acknowledged and properly addressed in the DEIR by way of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives. 4. The DEIR Failed To Adequately Address Traffic Impacts. A fraffic impact is considered significant if it will "cause an increase in fraffic which is substantial in relation to the existing fraffic load." (DEIR p. 5.6-5.) The increased fraffic along Ponto Road, w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 9 adjacent to the Hanover community, will be more than substantial in relation to existing fraffic. Traffic volumes on Ponto Road which is adjacent to and is the access for the Hanover residential community, would increase dramatically. An analysis done by Professional Transportation Planner, Edwin D. Studor, PTP, concluded that fraffic volumes at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Ponto Drive would realize increases of 598% to 622% during peak hour periods. Ponto Drive, itself, would realize a six-fold increase in volume. (Studor comments, dated May 23, 2007 attached hereto as Exhibit C.) The sheer volume of fraffic will, on its own, create significant air, noise, and community character impacts. Further, a large number of potentially significant fraffic impacts were not properly considered by the DEIR. The DEIR failed to provide any information regarding existing fraffic conditions or impacts at the proposed enfrance to the Garden Hotel. (DEIR p. 5.6-1 through 5.6-34.) The Garden Hotel enfrance at the proposed location will focus more fraffic and congestion in the area. The DEIR projects a total of 15,161 vehicle frips per day for the entire Draft Vision Plan area. (DEIR p. 5.6-6.) The Garden Hotel, will generate 2,150 ADT. (DEIR p. 5.6-20). Adding over 2,000 cars adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood represents a huge increase in traffic over existing conditions. Given that there is only one enfrance to the Garden Hotel, that means all 2,000 plus cars will be passing right in front of our client's house, substantially increasing the congestion in this area. The DEIR provided a peak a.m. and p.m. analysis for the 215 room Hotel, but that analysis is not very representative of the way fraffic for a hotel and conference facility occurs. The fraffic may peak at odd times of day depending on the scheduled activities. If the Hotel is hosting a luncheon event, or a wedding, most of the fraffic will occur within a small window of time right before and after the event. There is no analysis of whether there is enough stacking room for these cars, or if the number of cars will interfere with residents of Hanover Beach Colony as they attempt to exit their community. The only exit for the Hanover residents is via Ponto Drive. Will the fraffic on this road, especially at the end of an event when everyone is leaving the Hotel and parking garage, become so congested that these residents cannot exit? Will there be a light at the intersection of Ponto Drive and the enfrance to the Garden Hotel? Will the exit ofthe Hotel be a right turn only? Is there enough stacking room for the cars wanting to make a left tiirn onto Carlsbad Boulevard, or will they back up all the way past the enfrance? It is not clear if the analysis has considered the worst case scenario of a major event occurring during a major beach fraffic day, such as July 4th. How will fraffic flow at the enfrance to the Garden Hotel during such a worst case? The DEIR failed to analyze the fraffic impacts of the proposed Garden Hotel enfrance, and therefore improperly failed to propose any mitigation. w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 10 5. The DEIR Failed To Adequatelv Address Noise Impacts. The DEIR acknowledges that residential neighborhoods are considered sensitive receptors with regard to noise impacts. (DEIR p. 5.5-11.) The DEIR indicates that a substantial periodic increase in the ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels without the Project is considered significant. (DEIR p. 5.5-6.) At all times of the day, there will be more people and activity around the enfrance to the Garden Hotel. Pafrons will arrive, leave and mill about as they walk to their car in the proposed parking garage, increasing the ambient noise level on a periodic basis. It will also increase the night-time noise in the area, as pafrons leave the Hotel after a wedding or other event. The DEIR indicates that conversations in parking areas may be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors, such as single-family homes. (DEIR p. 5.5-11.) While the noise may not exceed the Noise Ordinance, the noise will create a night- time nuisance, and could interfere with sleep due to its intermittent quality. This creates a significant land use incompatibility. The DEIR failed to identify the potentially significant noise impacts of the proposed Garden Hotel enfrance and its parking garage. (DEIR p. 5.5-11.) The plans for the Garden Hotel Development, attached to this comment letter, show deliveries and services to occur near the enfrance of the Hotel, which will also result in more noise for the adjacent residential uses. Delivery vehicles will have to reverse, with the concurrent beeping that must occur for safety reasons, at any and all times of day. The DEIR indicates that delivery vehicles can create noise levels of 75dBA at a distance of 50 feet and that noise generated by loading docks can exceed the City's CNEL noise standard for residential receptors. (DEIR p. 5.5-11.) However, the DEIR failed to identify the potential for significant noise impacts and land use incompatibilities ofthe Garden Hotel Development enfrance. The DEIR identifies one method of mitigating noise impacts as "the establishment of fruck routes to avoid tmck fravel through residential neighborhoods." (DEIRp. 5.5-12.) The Garden Hotel Development proposal fails to implement this mitigation measure. Instead, it has been designed to channel tmcks directiy in front of the Hanover community to reach the Hotel service yard, which is right across from the entry to Hanover. The DEIR identifies another noise mitigation measure as "orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source." (DEIR p. 5.5-13.) Again, the Garden Hotel Development design fails to carry out this mitigation measure, instead, the Hotel enfrance and service yard are oriented to direct noises towards residential, outdoor spaces, particularly sensitive receptors. The DEIR identifies another noise mitigation measure as "orienting non-noise generating uses toward existing adjacent residential uses." (DEIR p. 5.5-13.) Again, this mitigation measure has not been implemented because the Garden Hotel Development design orients the 24-hour hotel convention center enfrance and service yard directiy across from adjacent residential uses. w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 11 The DEIR concludes that "since future development land uses are not anticipated to require significant truck deliveries, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant." (DEIRp. 5.5-11.) This statement is not supported by substantial evidence and is confradicted by the Garden Hotel Development plans, which place the service yard for the large Hotel convention facility directiy across from the Hanover community. There is no evidence in the record to support a finding that there will not be "significant tmck deliveries" to this resort, which includes restaurant and conference facilities. The existing evidence supports a confrary conclusion. The fundamental presumption of the Vision Plan and Garden Hotel Development is that the Hotel will be successful. A successful Hotel that hosts large meetings, conventions and celebrations, along with accommodations for 215 families, is going to generate a significant demand for fruck deliveries. While the DEIR identifies numerous mitigation measures for protecting proposed uses from mobile noise (DEIR p. 5.5-12 through 5.5-13), the only mitigation proposed for long term stationary noise deals with elecfrical and mechanical equipment. (DE1R5.5-13 through 5.5-14.) No mitigation has been proposed in the DEIR to address the potential noise impacts from the Garden Hotel enfrance and parking garage. Furthermore, the design requirements in the Draft Vision Plan do not address the potential for noise impacts to adjacent uses. The only design requirement dealing with noise has to do with landscaping parking areas to minimize noise to pedesfrians. (Draft Vision Plan, Ch. 3, p 11.) There are no design criteria to protect adjacent residential uses in the Draft Vision Plan at all. 6. The DEIR Failed To Adequately Address Light Impacts. The DEIR states that "all future lighting would be shielded and directed toward downward to prevent spillover into adjacent properties." (DEIR p. 5.7-5.) The DEIR fails to acknowledge the lighting that the continuous flow of vehicles will direct towards the residential community. The DEIR acknowledges that operation of the resort and commercial facilities could result in light and glare impacts. (DEIR p. 5.7-5.) The DEIR also indicates that a significant impact will occur if there is a "new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area" or "substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the surroundings." (DEIR p. 5.7-6 through 5.5-7.) The DEIR fails to identify the significance of this impact with regard to the Garden Hotel and its enfrance. The DEIR concludes that lighting and glare impacts will not be significant because "all lighting within the Ponto Area would be subject to City standards for sfructural, sfreet and recreational lighting to ensure that lighting impacts do not occur." (DEIR p. 5.7-5.) However, the City standards will not address the impact of the design of the Garden Hotel Development, which will result in vehicle lights being directed towards the adjacent residences. The Garden w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 12 Hotel Development Plans have a circular driveway that will result in vehicle headlights shining into the windows of the homes across the sfreet as pafrons leave the Hotel enfrance at night. This will create a significant glare impact for the existing homes, potentially interfering with sleep and quiet enjoyment of their property. There are no design standards in the DEIR, Vision Plan or City Regulations that would mitigate this significant light impact. 7. The DEIR Failed to Identify the Significant Visual Impacts. The DEIR incorrectiy concludes that there are no significant aesthetic impacts, either in the short orlongterm, as a result of development consistent with the Draft Vision Plan. (DEIRp. 5.7-14.) As stated above, the Draft Vision Plan requires the enfrance to the Garden Hotel to be oriented to the sfreet, across from the existing residences. According to the Draft Vision Plan for the Garden Hotel Concept, it should be a three-story Hotel, with the second and third stories stepped back. (Vision Plan, Ch. 2, p. 11.) The Draft Vision Plan concept has the stmcture very close to the property line, with barely any setback. According to the Draft Vision Plan, this will create an "architectural edge." With all due respect, stating that a project will provide an architectural edge is not evidence that the structure will not be a significant impact to the character and views within the local area. Plans submitted for the Garden Hotel Development indicate that the Hotel height will be a minimum of approximately 25 feet, ranging up to 35 feet tall. Thus, whether one-story or three-stories, the Garden Hotel Development will provide a complete wall blocking off southerly and western views of the ocean and horizon from a substantial portion of the surrounding community. Figure 5.7 in the DEIR acknowledges that there are views from the existing Hanover community residences toward the ocean. However, the DEIR failed to provide a visual assessment of the impact that the proposed Vision Plan will have on these important scenic views. Rather than conduct a before and after visual assessment looking to the west and the ocean from existing residences, the DEIR provides an assessment looking to the south, which is not where the significant views are. (Viewpoint A on Figure 5.7-3.) Figure 5.7-4 in the DEIR shows the before and after view from this viewpoint. Having the stmcture in the location as depicted in the Draft Ponto Vision Plan has the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, which is one of the criteria for significance. (DEIR p. 5.7-5.) The DEIR must be revised to include an adequate assessment of this aesthetic impact. Analysis should include, at minimum, a visual assessment of the Garden Hotel Concept and Garden Hotel Development on the Hanover community. The DEIR concludes that the architectural design of the Garden Hotel directiy across from the Hanover community will create an "atfractive view." (DEIR p.5.7-7.) There is no evidence in the Draft Vision Plan or in the DEIR that having the main enfrance and Hotel facades oriented toward the sfreet will create an "atfractive view." There are no design or landscaping w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 13 requirements to specify how this view is to be made "atfractive." There is no analysis of what this view will look like in the DEIR. The closest viewpoint in the DEIR is Viewpoint A, which does not include a view of the enfrance to the Hotel, but is instead a view further to the west. No analysis of this enfrance is provided in the DEIR. Given the lack of specificity, there is still the potential for the Garden Hotel to degrade the visual quality of the area, especially from existing residences, absent specific standards regarding setbacks, landscaping and architectural design. The DEIR indicates that the design guidelines in the Vision Plan will mitigate any design impacts (DEIR p. 5.7-10), but the design requirements do not include providing setbacks from existing residential uses, nor do they consider any specific requirements regarding how the view from the adjacent residential uses is supposed to look. In addition, the DEIR improperly failed to include an aesthetic analysis based upon the Garden Hotel Development. While the DEIR acknowledges the existence of the application, it states that "visual simulations were not intended to portray an exact image of how these potential developments would appear, but rather to give an illusfrative view in order to evaluate how potential development would reflect the overall theme and design guidelines established in the Ponto Vision Plan." (DEIR p. 5.7-6.) The visual simulations themselves, contain a disclaimer that they "are not meant as a precise representation of stmctures or landscaping proposed for the Ponto site." (See, e.g.. Figure 5.7-5.) The failure to include visual representations based upon the actual application submitted is improper. The visual simulations set forth in the DEIR not representative of what is proposed for development adjacent to the Hanover community. The Garden Hotel Development is not speculative. It is a concrete proposal with sufficient detail to allow accurate, real representations of the aesthetic impact it would have on the local community. An adequate EIR must include analysis of all reasonably foreseeable impacts of a proposed action. There is no credible case to be made that the Garden Hotel Development is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Ponto Vision Plan. Accordingly, it must be incorporated into the DEIR's analysis, including visual representations that accurately reflect what the Hanover residents can expect to occur if the Ponto Vision Plan is approved. The DEIR failed to analyze the impacts of the Draft Vision Plan's proposed parking garage. (Vision Plan, Ch. 2, p. 11.) This parking garage is proposed directly to the south of existing residences and could substantially degrade the existing visual character, unless it is appropriately designed, and is proposed directiy adjacent to existing single family residences. How high would the garage be compared to the existing residences? Will it create a shadow impact on adjacent residences? Furthermore, the Garden Hotel Development proposes a three-story parking garage, which is a full story higher than that called for in the Draft Vision Plan. The DEIR failed to analyze the visual impacts that could result in the additional story of the parking garage. No before/after simulations of the parking garage were made. Will a three-story parking garage create a w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 14 shadow on the adjacent residences? Will it be appropriately landscaped and buffered from the existing residences, not just the public sfreet? The DEIR is void of analysis on these important issues. The DEIR discloses that constmction of Beach Way and Ponto Road will result in an elevation of "the roadbed 8 to 10 feet above the existing site elevation . . ." (DEIR p. 5.7-13.) The potential visual impact of this roadbed elevation should be analyzed in the DEIR. 8. The DEIR Failed to Address Parking Impacts Associated With Off-Site Users. The DEIR failed to address the fraffic and parking impacts that would be generated by recreational users of the local beach that will take advantage of the parking stmcture adjacent to the Hanover community. In fact, the DEIR acknowledges that proposed development of the Ponto area would provide "additional parking for the State Beach and an underpass under Carlsbad Boulevard to improve access to the State Beach and enhance recreational uses." (DEIR p. 5.11-16.) Thus, the fraffic generated by the Project will be significantiy higher than what would normally be associated with specified uses. The DEIR must be amended to incorporate fraffic generation and parking demands that will result from increased use by State Beach pafrons. 9. The DEIR Altemative Analysis Is Flawed. The DEIR failed to include an alternative design for the Garden Hotel that could drastically reduce significant land use impacte, i.e., an alternative that oriented the enfrance and commercial aspects of the Hotel to the south. In all letters and testimony presented by Mr. Lipsey and other Hanover residents, a key concern has been the compatibility ofthe proposed Garden Hotel/convention center directiy across from the residential community. It is a potentially significant impact that must be acknowledged. An obvious and common-sense alternative would be to redesign the Hotel so that its enfrance was not facing the Hanover community and its commercial service yard and other noisy atfributes were not directiy across from the residential community. This could be accomplished by redesigning the Hotel with the enfrance to the south and orientating commercial service yards and other impactful facilities away from the Hanover community. A buffer could be provided by way of open space and landscaping, and placement of quieter uses, such as hotel rooms directiy across from the Hanover community. This would not eliminate all adverse impacts of the Hotel but would go a long ways towards removing the significant land use incompatibility impacts of greatest concern to Mr. Lipsey and Hanover residents. The DEIR failed to consider a fraffic circulation alternative that removed substantial fraffic increases away from the Hanover community. As currentiy proposed in the Vision Plan and w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 15 the Garden Hotel Development application, the current access for the Hanover community would become a primary fraffic arterial for all facilities within the Vision Plan area. The Hotel, alone, would generate over 2,000 vehicle frips per day. An alternative that reoriented access for Vision Plan facilities away from the Hanover community should be included in the DEIR. This alternative could simply isolate the Hanover access from Vision Plan facilities access or, at minimum, create alternative routes that encouraged vehicles to access the facilities from the south, rather than the northerly access road directiy across from the Hanover community. Our previous comments also suggested that the EIR consider switching the land uses around in the Vision Plan, and are pleased to see that various land use alternative scenarios have been presented in the DEIR. It appears, however, that these alternatives were not necessarily designed in order to reduce potential impacts, nor were they designed in good faith. Each alternative, without an explanation as to why, appears to have been designed with undesirable features so that it could easily be rejected. Conclusory statements are provided to reject these alternatives, without any evidentiary support. For example, the increased residential alternative would not establish a mixed use disfrict, would not include enhancements associated with the State Beach, nor would it include enhancements to the major entiryway into the City at Carlsbad Boulevard and Batiquitos Lagoon. This alternative was rejected. (DEIR p. 6-13.) There is no justification as to why this alternative would not include the enhancements to the major enti:y way to the City. The increased residential/open space alternative, while reducing impacts to the Ponto area, does not include a plan to guide development, and would therefore not establish a southern coastal gateway to the city or provide site design guidelines. (DEIR p. 6-16.) It is not clear why this alternative would not include the Vision Plan itself to guide development. In addition, according to the DEIR, this alternative would also not provide landscape architecture that celebrates the historic past and horticultural heritage of the City. (DEIR p. 6-17.) We note, however, that although the Draft Vision Plan has a goal of providing a landscape that celebrates the historic past and horticultural heritage (Draft Vision Plan, Ch. 1, p. 1), there are no landscaping or design guidelines that actually implement this goal. (Draft Vision Plan, Ch. 3.) Section 3.7 discusses landscaping specifically, and not once does it mention the need to "celebrate the historic past and horticultural heritage of the City." Accordingly, rejecting alternatives for not meeting this goal is disingenuous at best. The Increased TownhomesA/isitor Use alternative was found to be less desirable, because apparentiy it again does not include an overall plan to guide development and a cohesive mix of uses that are economically viable would not be achieved. (DEIR p. 6-23.) These are conclusory statements with no evidentiary support. If the Ponto Vision Plan were changed to provide forthese uses, then wouldn't the Vision Plan "guide" development? Furthermore, there w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 16 is no evidence that the uses are not economically viable. There is also no evidence that this alternative would not provide as cohesive an architectural theme, or provide landscape that would celebrate the historic past and horticultiiral heritage of the city as much as the existing Draft Vision Plan provides these things. There is no reason why this altemative could not provide a Southern Coastal Gateway to the City. (DEIR p. 6-24.) The DEIR states that "The removal of the mixed use component would remove uses that would appeal to visitors." (DEIR p. 6-24.) However, the description of the alternative states "This alternative would allow for a mixture of commercial uses including retail shops and restaurants" and that "the project site would be largely developed with a mixture of uses, similar to the proposed project." (DEIR p. 6-20.) Accordingly, there is no evidence that the alternative does not contain mixed uses that would appeal to visitors. We note that the Increased TownhomesA'isitor Use alternative proposes a park near the existing homes instead of the Garden Hotel. (DEIR Figure 6-5.) The DEIR explains that the park would "buffer the hotel use from the adjacent residential neighborhoods." (DEIR p. 6-20.) While we cannot comment on all of the proposed elements of this alternative, we applaud the DEIR for proposing a buffer and a fransition between the existing single family residences in the Hanover Beach Colony, and the more intense commercial, fravel and recreational uses proposed as part of the vision plan. An alternative with a park in the location of the proposed Garden Hotel would avoid the significant impacts of the currentiy proposed Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan. Having a park at the Garden Hotel does not require the elimination ofthe "mixed use center." The park at the Garden Hotel location does not require that townhomes be constmcted in the rest of the Vision Plan area. We urge the DEIR to develop an altemative that includes a park instead of the Garden Hotel, while maintaining all of the other land uses of the Draft Vision Plan. We believe such an alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. In the alternative, the Draft Vision Plan should be modified to have an alternative enfranceway for the Garden Hotel in order to mitigate the numerous impacts that will occur if a hotel is developed as presentiy envisioned in the Draft Vision Plan. The DEIR should consider a residential alternative along the lines of a "courtyard apartment complex." Page 3.3 of the DEIR states that the Garden Hotel site could be developed as "a courtyard apartment complex." This residential option should be considered in the DEIR. Conclusion. Mr. Lipsey appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. He asks that the DEIR be revised to candidly acknowledge the potentially significant impacts that could result from the proposed Hotel and parking garage proposed for the north end of the Vision Plan. The DEIR must include adequate disclosure of the potential impacts and identify feasible mitigation measures and altematives that could reduce those impacts to a level below significance. Mr. w Christer Westman May 29, 2007 Page 17 Lipsey has made several suggestions that could help alleviate the significant impacts of the proposed Hotel and parking garage Project and asks that they be included as part of the updated DEIR. Very fruly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC 2 Brecht€ D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@ wordenwilliams. com DWB:lg Enclosures cc: Client HG HILt. GUAZICR < cn o cn s 5 PQ 1 U § DATE: Sept 1, 2005 SCALE: AS NOTED A2.1 EXHIBITA Page 1 of 3 NORTH ELEVATION Scale 1/16" = I'-O" MATCH ^^^^^^^^^ HDCHT UtflT A —• SECOND tUXIRfL ^ mumA MATCH WEST ELEVATION Scalel/16 " = I'-O" 0 16 32 HG HILL GLAZIER <; cn 1 cn Pi S PQ J3 DATE: Sept 1. 2005 SCALE: AS UQT£D A5.0 EXHIBITA Page 2 of 3 MATCH SOUTH ELEVATION Scalel/16" = I'-O" EAST ELEVATION Scalel/16" = I'-O" 0 16 32 HG 'Si! Sf s ti 5 DATE; S«pl I. 2005 SCALE: AS NOTED A5.1 EXHIBITA Page 3 of 3 dlTYOF CARLSBAD PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Garden Hotel Taking advantage of views toward the ocean and beautiful landscaping and plazas, the three-story Garden Hotel provides both hotel lodging and a small conference facility. Main entronce and hotel facades oriented toward the street creote on architectura/ edge and attractive view from neighboring residential streets. Second and third stories are stepped back. Landscaped comer creates serves as a gateway feature. Public trail continues along the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard. Tivo-story parking garage provides ample parking for guests and employees. / Building is oriented to allow ; f,:. : occess to potential ocean views. : A tiered pool and patio ; area ofl^er views to the ocean. if ..' / / A restaurant is included as part of the Garden Hotel development An Augusta-style putting course provides a unique community amenity in an otherwise difficult to develop slope. CHAPTER 2 - PACE 11 CITY OF CARLSBAD PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLACE VISION PLAN SECTION 4.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION To implement individual projects, developers must: • Obtain needed permits from City of Carlsbad for specific project implementation. • Areas of private development that are under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game will need to obtain permits from those agencies for identified jurisdictional impacts, including: ° 401 Water Quality Certification ° 404 Clean Water Act Permit ° 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (combines the previous 1601 and 1603) • Land in the City-owned right-of-way that is under jurisdiction of the above resource agencies, becomes vacated, and is used for private development will need to obtain the appropriate permits listed above in conjunction with future private development • Process projects through environmental review. The following pages list the Vision Plan's major character areas, the parcels included in each area, and a summary list of anticipated actions required to permit the land uses. The summary list is not intended to be inclusive of all actions that will be needed to proceed with development Developers are advised to meet with appropriate City departments in advance of initiating project design to determine which type of permits will be needed for a specific project. <;AIIDEN HOTEL Property APNs: 214-590-04; 214-160-19; 214-160-24 RECULATORY INFORMATION Existing GP Land Use: TRIC Travel / Recreation Commercial / Commercial (APN 214-590-04) RMH/T-R Residential Medium High/Travel / Recreation Commercial (214-160-19:214-160-24) Existing Zoning: CT Commercial Tourist OtFier Applicable Regulatory Documents: Poinsettia Shores Specific Plan (214-590-04) South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area Plan (214-160-19, -24) Local Coastal Program DEVELOPER ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT PONTO BEACHFRONTVILLACE VISION PLAN • Redevelopment Permit • Coastal Development Permit • Environmental Review • Improvements Agreement with City CHAPTER 4- PAGE 5 CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS* ZONE PERMITTED USES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PERMITTED USES LOT (minimums) SETBACKS or YARDS (minimums)" BUILDING (maximunre) Area Width Depth Front Side Rear Height Coverage AGRICULTURE E-A Exclusive Agricullure, Chapter 21.07 Agriculture, Allows single- family homes as accessoiy uses only 10 acres <a) 300 ft (b) 40 ft 15 ft 25 ft 30 ft and 2 stories If njof pitch Is at least 3:12 or 24 ft and 2 stories if roof pitch is less than 3:12 40% (c) R-A Residential Agriculture, Chapter 21.08 Agricullure, poultry, animals, and single-family homes 7.800 sf (a) 60 to 80 ft (d) (b) 20 ft (e) Interior 10% of tot width (e), (0 Street: 10 ft 30 ft and 2 stories If roof pitch is at least 3:12 or 24 ft and 2 stories If roof pitch is less than 3:12 40% (c) R-E Rural Residential Estate. Chapter 21.09 Single-family estates and agriculture 1-4 acres (g) 100 ft (b) 70ft(e) Interior. 15 ft Street: 50ft(e) 35 » 20% (b) 'ENTIAL R-1 Single-family Residential, Chapter 21.10 Single-family homes, agriculture, and in limited cases, duplexes 60 to 80 ft (b) 20fl(e) Inteiion 10% of lot width (e},(0 Street: 10 ft Equal to twice the required side setback 30 ft and 2 stories If roof pitch Is at least 3:12 or 24 40% (c) 1 R-2 Two-family Residential, Chapter 21.12 Duplexes, R-1 uses (except fann animals), and, in limited cases, tri- and four plexes 7,500 sf{aj (d) (b) 20fl(e) Inteiion 10% of lot width (e},(0 Street: 10 ft ft and 2 stories If roof pitch Is less than 3:12 50% R-3 Multiple-family Residential, Chapter 21.16 Multi-family dwellings, R-2 uses and, in limited cases, public paridng tots 60 ft (b) 20 fl (e) Interior: 10% of lot width (f) Street: 10 ft 35 ft 60% •'ai.'.',vjii';jjiiJJAUA. RD-M Residential Density- Multiple. Chapter 21.24 All types of dwellings over a broad range of densities 6,000 or 10.000 sf(h) 60 ft 20 ft (e) Interion 5ft(e) Street: 10fl(e) 10 fl 35 ft 50 or 60% (h) m X revised 1/28/03 Page 1 CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS* ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PERMITTED USES LOT (minimums SETBACKS or YARDS (minimums)" BUILDING (maximums) Area Width Depth Front Side Rear Height Coverage R-P Residential Professional, Chapter 21.18 tj3w intensity business and professional offices and all types of dwellings 7,500 sf 60 to 80 It (d) (b) 20 ft (e) Interion 10% of lot width (0 Street: 10 ft 20% of lot width, but need not exceed 20 ft eo% NTIAL R-T Residential Tourist, Chapter 21.20 All types of dwellings. Tourist-serving and other uses allowed by conditional use permit. 7.500 Sf(i3 60 or 75 ft (0 (b) 20 ft Interior Sflone side, 10 ft other Street: 10ft(e) 20ft 35 ft 75% (i) CO R-W Residential Waterway, Chapter 21.22 All types of dwellings centered about a navigable waterway 5,000 Sf 40 fl (b) 10 ft Interior. 5ft Street: Sft 8fl 75% RliaHP Residential Mobile Home Paric, Chapter 21.37 Mobile home parks 3.000 or 3,500 sf per mobile home site <i) 50ft<j) (b) 5ft Intelon 3 fl Street: 5ft(j) 38(1) None 75%(j) . S C-1 Neighboriiood Commercial, Chapter 21.26 Commercial and office uses providing for convenience goods, personal services and day-to-day livirtg needs None(k) None (b) None (1) None{l) None (m) 35 n/3 levels (n) None COMMERC 0-2 General Commercial, Chapter 21.28 Alt C-1 uses plus a vride range of retaU, wholesale, and service uses Nane(k) None (b) None (1) None None (m) 35 n/3 levels (n) None 0 Office, Chapter 21.27 Professional office and limited, related commercial uses 10,000 sf 75 (b) (e) (e) (e) 35 ft/3 levels (n) (0) revised 1/28/03 Page 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS* ZONE PERMITTED USES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PERMITTED USES LOT (minimums SETBACKS or YARDS (minimums)" BUILDING (maximums) PERMITTED USES Area Width Depth Front Side Rear Height Coverage COMMERCAL C-T Commercial-Tourist, Chapter 21.29 Hotels, motels, and restaurants; retail and service uses are pennilled accessoiy uses None(k) None (b) None None (m) None(m) 35 m levels (n) None COMMERCAL C-M Heavy Commeriaal- Limited Industrial, Chapter 21.30 Most uses permitted in any 'C zone, assembly, storage, and manufacturing uses None(k) None (b) None (1) None(l) None (m) 35 fl/3 levels (n) None INDUSTRIAL M Industrial, Chapter 21.32 /Ul C-M uses (except day care centers), industrial uses None(k) None (b) None(l} None (1) None(m) 35 ft/3 levels (m) None INDUSTRIAL P-M Planned Industrial, Chapter 21.34 Light industrial and manufacturing uses, corporate business and office uses not catering directly to the public None(k) None (b) (e) Interion 10 fi Street: (e) 20 ft 35 ft/3 levels (n) 50% UTILITY/ TRANSPORTATION P-U PubUc UUIity. Chapter 21.36 Utility production, storage, transmission, and treatment uses; agriculture; recreation facilities 7,500 sf /\s established by precise development plan (see Zoning Ordlnar ice Chapter 21.36). 50% UTILITY/ TRANSPORTATION T-C Transportation Corridor, Chapter 21.100 Streets, trails and paths, train tracks, transit facilties, energy transmission facilties, agriculture None (p) None None revised 1/28/03 Pages CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS* ZONE PERMITTED USES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PERMITTED USES LOT (minimums) SETBACKS or YARDS (minimums)" BUILDING (maximums) PERMITTED USES Area Width Depth Front ] Side | Rear Height Coverage OTHER C-F Community Facilities, Chapter 21.25 Community uses, such as churches and day care centers, all by site development plan or conditional use permit (q) As required by a piaster plan or residential specific plan. 35 fl and 3 levels if roof pitch Is at least 3:12 or 24 ft and 2 levels if roof pilch is less than 3:12 As required by a master plan or residential specific plan OTHER L-C Umited Control, Chapter 21.33 Interim zone applied to future planning areas. L-C Zone pemiitted uses are the same as E-A Zone pennilted uses Nane(k) None None None OTHER P-C Planned Community, Chapter 21.38 The P-C zone is applied to large tracts of land to ensure their comprehensive and onJerly planning and development. Permitted uses and development standards In the P-C zone are established by master plan. OTHER 0-S Open Space, Chpater 21.33 Public paries and recreation uses, trails, agricullure None (p) None 25 ft (n) None OTHER V-R Village . Redevelopment, Chapter 21.35 The V-R zone is applied lo the downtown village area. The permiUed land uses, development standards, and procedures of the V'R zone are contained in the Carisbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. revised 1/28/03 Page 4 CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS* DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PERMITTED USES LOT (minimums) SETBACKS or YARDS (minimums)" BUILDING (maximums) Area Width Depth Front Side Rear Height Coverage BAO Beach Area Overiay, Chapter 21.82 Provides standards to ensure compatible development In the beach area. PermiUed uses are per the underlying zone. Per underlying zone Per underlying zone 30 ft and 2 slories if roof pitch is at least 3:12 or 24 ft and 2 stories If roof pitch is less than.3:12 Per underiylng zone OVERLAYZONES CA/-SO Commercial Visitor Serving Overiay, Chapter 21.208 Supplements underiylng zoning. Prohibits some underlying zone uses; requires conditional use pemiit for all commercial/visitor serving uses. Per underiylng zone Setbacks for properties in the C/V-SO Zone are established by Zoning Ordinance Section 21,208.100 F. Per underiylng zone OVERLAYZONES F-P Floodplain Overiay, Chapter 21.110 Supplements underiylng zoning. Provides additional regulations for development in flood or mudslide hazard areas. Requires a special use permit for such development. Per underiylng zone Per underlying zone Per underlying zone H-0 Hospital Overiay, Chapter 21.21 Hospitals and accessory uses such as medical offices and laboratories 25.000 sf 100ft (b) (e) 35 ft (n) (0) revised 1/28/03 Pages CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS* DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PERMITTED USES LOT (minimums) SETBACKS or YARDS (minimums)" BUILDING (maximums) Area Width Depth Front Side Rear Height | Coverage S3N0Z. Q QualiHed Development Overlay, Chapter 21.06 Supplements underiylng zoning. Provides additional regulations for development on properties with unique circumstances. Generally, a site development plan is necessary for development in the "Q" Overiay. Per underlying zone (r) Per underlying zone (r) Per underiylng zone (r) 1 OVERLAY S-P Scenic Preservation Overlay, Chapter 21.40 Supplements underiylng zoning. Provides additional regulations for development in designated areas. Permitted uses per the underlying zone. Generally, a special use permit is required for development In a S-P Overiay. Per underiylng zone (r) Per underiying zone (r) Per underlying zone (r) revised 1/28/03 Page 6 CITY OF CARLSBAD SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS Footnotes 'This summary is meant as a general guide only. Please refer to tlie Zoning Ordinance for full information on uses and requimments. Tlie Zoning Ordinance cfiap/er tor each zone is provided In tlie summary. " "Setliack" and yard" are used interctiangably in the Zoning Ordinance. (a) Areas shown are the minimum tot sizes required, unless tha zoning map specifies olhenvise via a minimum tot size foiiowing the zone (e.g.. R-A-10.000 or H-A-15 where the numerical suflbc equals the lot area required in square feet or acres). (b) In alt zones, ttte minimum lot depth Is 90 ft par Subdivision Ordinance Section 20.16.010 (8). Lot depth shall be no more than 3 times the average lot width except for miner subdivisions where Ihe proposed lot depth to width ratio Is less than that of the existing lot. (c) In this zone, buildings and structures used for growing or raising plants do not count towards lot coverage. (d) Minimum lot width required depends on the minimum lot size required. Consult the applicable Zoning Ordinance chapter for spealics. (e) Minimum setback may be different In certain circumstances. Consult the applicable Zoning Ordinance chapter for specifics. (1) Interior side setbacks must be a minimum 5 feet and need nol exceed 10 feet. (g) Minimum lot area depends on average natural slops of the lot. Consult the applicable Zoning Ordinance chapter for specifics. (h) Forthe RD-M zone, minimum lot area and maximum building coverage vary based on a property's general plan designation. Refer to Zoning Ordinancasections 21.24.100 and 21.24.110. (i) For the R-T zone, minimum lot area and width and maximum building coverage can vary subject to City review. Refer to Zoning Ordinance sections 21.20.090,21.20.110 and 2l.2Q.120i til For the RHMP zone, refer to Chapter 21.37 for complete Informallon. Minimum dimensions and areas stated are for individual mobile home sites, rather than lots. Mobile home and building separation standards may affect required setbacks. (k) The zone does not establish a minimum lot size. When a zone does not establish or address lot size, a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet is required per Subdivision Ordinance Section 20.16.010 (2). (1) No setback standards are established unless Ihey are required by (1) certain conditions or (2) a precise plan, use permit, or variance. Consult the applicable Zoning Ordinance chapter for specifics. (m) No rear selbacK is required unless the property's rear lot line abuts property in any "R" (residential) zone. Then, a rear setback of 10 feet (5 feet if along an alley) is required. In the C-T zone, the same standard applies to a side property line abutting R-zoned property. (n) /Additional building height Is permitted in certain circumstances. Consult the applicable Zoning Ordinance chapler for specifics. (o) Maximum building coverage varies based on type of parking facilities provided. Consult Zoning Ordinance Section 21.27.050 (7) for details. (p) Minimum lot area is dependent upon the existing or proposed use. (q) For the C-F zone, refer to zoning Ordinance Section 21.25.070 for minimum area requirements. (r) The Q and S-P overlay zones allow the Cily to Impose requirements lhat may be more restrictive or broad than underlying zone standards. revised 1/28/03 Page 7 Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Draft EIR Traffic Report Comments May 23, 2007 While the projected Level of Servicie on Ponto Drive falls well with acceptable parameters, the increased traffic volumes projected on Ponto Drive as a result of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan are considerably higher than current levels and represent a significant adverse impact to the existing residents ofthe Hanover Beach Colony, particularly those residents that are adjacent to Ponto Drive. Exhibit 4 - Existing Peak Hour Volumes, indicates for intersection #24 - Ponto Drive/Carlsbad Blvd, current peak hours volumes on Ponto Drive of 56 (AM Peak) and 68 (PM Peak). Exhibit 20 - Horizon Year (2030) With Vision Plan Peak Hour Volumes, indicates peak hour volumes of 335 (AM Peak) and 423 (PM Peak) for this same intersection. These volumes represent increases of 598% and 622%, respectively for AM and PM Peak Hours. Table 14 - Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS also confirms this analysis. The last roadway segment: Ponto Drive - Carlsbad Blvd to Avenida Encinas; indicates 2030 volumes without the vision plan that are nearly identical to today's volumes on Ponto Drive at Carlsbad Blvd: 50 (AM Peak) and 58 (PM Peak). With the Vision Plan the volumes jump to 333 (AM Peak) and 429 (PM Peak). Again, the figures indicate traffic volume increases on a magnitude of 6 times current or even projected levels without the vision plan. As such, we strongly recommend that the City consider reorienting the design ofthe vision plan such that more compatible land uses are located adjacent to the existing Hanover Beach Colony, which is the only established residential neighborhood adjacent to the proposed project. And further recommend that more intensive land uses, such as the three proposed resort hotels downplay the use ofthe existing Ponto Drive/Carlsbad Blvd intersection for primary access. We particularly recommend that primary hotel access not be permitted as an extension of Leeward Street, as previously envisioned for the Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort. Submitted by, Edwin D. Studor PTP Professional Transportation Planner 1062 Elm Avenue Beaumont, CA 92223 Phone: (951) 845-5853 Cell: (951) 640-1060 E-mail: edjulie1@verizon.net EXHIBIT 0 Edwin (Ed) Studor Consulting Transportation Planner 1062 Elm Avenue Beaumont, CA 92223 Phone: (951) 845-5853 Cell: (951) 640-1060 E-mail: edjulie1@verizon.net Ed Studor served as the senior transportation program manager for Riverside County for the 16 year period from 1989 through 2005, an era of tremendous growth and development. He has a total of more than 30 years professional transportation planning experience. He has extensive experience in all aspects of transportation planning. Mr. Studor has been responsible for the implementation of various mitigation fee programs to address the traffic impacts of new development. He has also been involved in the update and rewriting of various ordinances regulating the development process, as well as the implementation of those ordinances via the imposition of various conditions for approval. He has prepared traffio impact analysis guidelines and has been responsible for traffic impact analysis review and approval. His advanced planning experience includes various studies such as: precise roadway alignments, traffic modeling and forecasting, environmental studies, and General Plan Circulation Element updates. He served as the manager in charge for the transportation component Riverside County's Community and Environmental Acceptability Process (CETAP), integrating land use, transportation and open space planning on a countywide scale. As a program manager he has been responsible for fiscal control of transportation planning budgets totaling several million dollars per year. His responsiblies have included the supervision of a large technical and professional staff; as well as the use of consultants to supplement staff including consultant selection, contract negotiations and consultant oversight. He has been instrumental in obtaining funds from various State, Federal and local grant programs for road construction projects, trails and advanced planning studies. Mr. Studor has extensive environmental experience, having been responsible to obtain environmental clearances and appropriate permits for road construction projects. He worked very closely with State and Federal regulatory agencies on the CETAP project to obtain agreement on the permitting process for the transportation component of the plan and is very familiar the resource agency requirements. Ed Studor has a Bachelor of Science degree from the School of Architecture and Environmental Design at the California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and an Associate of Arts degree from Mt. San Jacinto College. He has been a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers since 1989. EXHIBIT D Ciirister Westman - Re: Ponto Page 1 From: Christer Westman To: w.oconnell@sbcglobal.net Date: 5/25/07 11:05:53 AM Subject: Re: Ponto Thank You Diane for your correspondence. Your comment and question relates directly to the pending application for a hotel at the northeast corner of Ponto Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard (File SDP 05-14). As part of the review of that project we will be looking at the points of access and will take into account your comment on proximity to hanover beach colony. Christer Westman AlCP cwest(gci.carlsbad.ca.us »> <w.oconnell@sbcglobal.net> 5/25/07 10:50:24 AM »> I am a resident of Hanover and I am concerned that the entrance for the proposed hotel etc is off Ponto. I feel it will greatly impact our community in a negative way. Why can't the access be from the south only, since that development will involve more commercial property than our solely residential neighborhood. I would appreciate a response. Thank you, Diane O'Connell CC: bilocnl@yahoo.com Hofman Planning & Engineering :^:cnnirg tngineering Fiscal Services Ccasrai January 30, 2007 Glenn Pruim 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: EIR 05-03|SDP 05-14|CDP 05-43|RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT This letter is to document our assertion that the alignment for Carlsbad Boulevard, along the project frontage, has been approved by the City and any requirement to do further alignment studies for the project should be eliminated. The project includes Planning Area 1 within Parcel C of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (SP 210). The Specific Plan was approved by City Council on January 20, 1998. (See attached Resolution 98-10). Page 28 of the Specific Plan says in effect, that frontage improvements for Parcel C will not be required if an alignment for the Boulevard is not approved. If no alignment was approved, only an in-lieu cash deposit for frontage improvements would be required. (See attached CIRCUL.ATION AND ROADWAY ALIGNMENT) On June 8, 1999, the City Council approved the tentative map for Planning Area 8 which, with Planning Area 1, constitutes Parcel C of SP 210 (See attached Resolution 99-210). A condition of approval of the tentative map requires the City to enter into a reimbursement agreement for the realigiunent of the Boulevard (See attached pages 12-14 of PC RESO NO. 4526). On December 7, 1999, Council approved the reimbursement agreement (See attached Resolution 99-513). Council's approval ofthe tentative map also included a condition requiring half street improvements to Carlsbad Boulevard. If there was no approved alignment, this condition would be in contradiction to the Specific Plan. Plans for the realignment of the Boulevard, City Project Number 36171, Drawing Number 383-3, were signed by Skip Hammann on April 10,2000. The realignment and frontage improvements for Parcel C have been completed per Drawing Number 383-3. urt • Suite 150 • Carlsbca • CA Q2008 • (760) 433-1465 • Fax: (7oG) In April of 2001 an additional $360,000 was appropriated to "cover the City's reimbursement obligations" for that re-alignment. Therefore, the City has paid $560,000 to place the road where it exists today. (See attached Resolution 2001-116). The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan says that a realignment study was done and determined that moving the southbound lanes further east was most beneficial (See attached Chapter 1, page 15 of Vision Plan). In SECTION 4.5 INFRASTRUCTURE, the Vision Plan addresses the northbound lanes of the Boulevard and states "Existing lane alignment is retained" (See attached Chapter 4 page 8). Although the Vision Plan states that possible realignments between Ponto Drive and Avenida Encinas were reviewed, the realignment altematives exhibit only shows the portion of the Boulevard between proposed Beach Way and Avenida Encinas (See attached FIGURE I-B.l). Based on the City Council actions cited above, the alignment for the Boulevard along the projects frontage as shown on Drawing Number 383-3 has been approved. Furthermore, the Vision Plan does not propose to realign the northbound lanes between Ponto Road and Beach Way. Therefore, this issue should be removed from the project's "incomplete item" and "Issues of Concem" lists. If you need any further information, please call me at 438-1465. Take care, Robert J. Wojcik Director of Engineering Hofman Planning and Engineering c. Bob Johnson, Acting City Engineer (w\o attachments) David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer (w\o attachments) Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer (w\o attachments) Debbie Fountain, Redevelopment Director (w\o attachments) Christer Westman, Senior Planner (w\o attachments) Cliff Jones, Housing and Redevelopment (w\o attachments) Bill Canepa (w\o attachments) W WORDEN WILLIAMS A PC Representing Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals November 4, 2005 Barbara Kennedy Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort and Spa SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/EIR 05-03/RP 05-11 Dear Ms. Kennedy: Please place this office on the mailing list to receive all public notices regarding the above Project, its EIR, and any of its related permits. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter. Very tmly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC Felicia C. Brechtel, Land Use Paralegal fcb@wordenwilliams.com FCB:lg AREAS OF PRACTICE PUBLIC AGENCY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REAL ESTATE PERSONAL INIURY ESTATE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CIVIL LITIGATION ATTORNEYS TRACY R. RICHMOND D. WAYNE BRECHTEL TERRY |. KILPATRICK TERRY M. GIBBS MALINDA R. DICKENSON MICHAEL B. FURMAN, LL.M. Of Counsel \ D. DWIGHT WORDEN Of Counsel W. SCOTT WILLIAMS Of Counsel OFFICE 462 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA ')2075 (858) 755-6604 TELEPHONE (858) 755-5198 EACSIMILE www.wordenwilIiams.com Hofman L_JL_I Planning & Engineering Mr. Christer Westman City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT AND SPA Dear Christer: This letter constitutes our response to the Issues of Concern letters issued by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department on October 25, 2005. We have attached the City's comment letters for your reference. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we have structured our letter to respond to each of the City's incomplete items and issues of concern. We have noted where changes to the plans have been made and provide clarification or additional information where requested. Please contact me at (760) 438-1465 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Leslie Weinheimer INCOMPLETE ITEMS Planning; 1. A second set of plans was previously submitted for Redevelopment review. 2. All parcels are now owned by Wave Crest Resorts II LLC. 3. The Environmental Impact Report for the Vision Plan area addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. In response to the specific comment regarding the preliminary Geotechnical study, a copy was previously provided to the City/EIR consultant. 4. Please see sheet Al for overall site plan. Please see sheets All-13 regarding dimensions on all parking spaces and drive aisles. 5. See sheets A14-15. Activity Center is no longer part of the plan. 6. See sheets A7-A8. 7. No direction has been given regarding LFMP amendment. The project is within LFMP Zone 22, not LFMP Zone 9. When previously discussed, it was assumed amendment would be needed for Zone 9 because it had not been updated and was very outdated. LFMP Zone 22 was updated recently for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and this project does not significantly change those findings and assumptions. 8. Please see Civil Drawings for existing buildings. Engineering 1. See Sheet C-2 2. Exhibits have been revised to reflect Wave Crest Resorts II LLC as property owner. 3. See Sheet C-2 4. A preliminary alignment study was prepared and provided to City at meeting with Frank Jimeno, Glenn Prium and Christer Westman. This exhibit illustrated that the existing alignment along the project frontage could tie in with Alignment 1, 2 or 3 proposed in the Vision Plan. Alignments 1-3 of the Vision Plan do not shift the northbound lanes along the project frontage. This project assumes the alignment of Carlsbad Boulevard will not shift in front of our project. 5. Section and new curb gutter sidewalk is shown on revised plans and section. See sheets Cl- 5 6. Plans revised to include proposed south shift of cul de sac for frontage road; please see sheet C4. 7. No changes are proposed to configuration of intersection including turn pockets, widths, etc. 8. See sheet C-2 9. Full road improvements to Ponto Road are not possible at this stage due to the issues with grading, elevation and access, as previously discussed with staff. A turnaround will be provided temporarily at the end of the road, until future properties southward develop and the road and sewer is constructed. 10. This project is no longer planning to sewer under the railroad tracks, therefore NCTD approval is no longer required. 11. Plans have been revised to show contiguous sidewalks that will tie in with existing contiguous sidewalk. 12. Comment noted. This project does not propose medians along Ponto Drive. For further discussion please see Planning Issues #3. 13. Easements are no longer necessary as the sidewalks are contiguous and do not meander outside of right of way. 14. Plans have been revised to show landscaped median on Carlsbad Boulevard to tie in with improvements to the north. 15. A geotechnical study was addressed through the Vision Plan EIR and in addition, a site specific geotechnical report for our project was provided to City staff and EIR consultant. 16. No medians are proposed for Ponto Road; therefore the left turn pocket is not necessary. 17. Comment addressed through Engineering comment #9 listed above. 18. Cross sections provided, see sheet Cl 19. Crosswalk shifted south to eliminate line of sight issues. 20. Comment noted. 21. The project will connect with sewer to the north. A temporary pump station is no longer needed. 22. No longer applicable. 23. See sheet C-2 Sidewalks are proposed as contiguous and tie into the existing contiguous sidewalks already in place. 24. See sheet C-1 25. See sheet C3, C4 26. It appears no gas line exists running east west through the easement. Further investigation will be conducted and easement will be quitclaimed. 27. No longer proposing development within the railroad spur easement. 28. A Storm water detention system will be added to address increase in stormwater runoff, see revised studies. ISSUES Planning; 1. See sheet C3-C4 regarding complete project boundaries. Retaining wall is no longer proposed. 2. Regarding setbacks, there is a 40ft setback from property line for northern parcel per the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan as shown on the plans. See sheet A-1. The rest of the property does not have that setback requirement as it is outside the Specific Plan and within the CT zone. As for setback along Ponto Road, the parking structure has been redesigned since previous submittal and meets the 10 ft setback requirement. 3. Exhibits have been revised to include gateway feature at northwest corner of property and contiguous sidewalks, consistent with the existing sidewalk on Ponto. See sheet Ll-1. We are not proposing to include landscaped medians. The intent of the landscaped medians will not be met in this stretch of Ponto because there are left hand turns that would require breaks in the medians as well as left turn pockets. This would result in very little ability to have a well landscaped median due to turn pocket length requirements for a median taper. Therefore, while the intent of a landscaped median would be a nice entry statement, in reality the median would be able to have very little landscaping and a lot of concrete through this stretch. Instead we have provided a generous lush landscaping along Ponto Road to provide a welcoming entry to the hotel and the future Ponto Village area. 4. See sheet Ll-1. 5. A bus stop is currently provided at the northeast corner of the intersection of Carlsbad Blvd and Ponto Road. 6. Existing Ponto Drive (frontage road) will continue to provide access to the residential and business uses south of the project site. The cul de sac will be moved southward to the edge of project boundaries as shown on site plan. See sheet A-1 and C4. 7. The hotel is already stepped back adjacent to residential with a one story building on northern parcel. 8. More information on mechanical equipment will be provided with acoustical study. 9. See sheet A14-15. 10. Please see Cover sheet for revisions. 11. Parking has been provided on the southern end of site in both a surface lot and underground parking structure. 12. See sheet L3-1 regarding screening and landscaping provided around drop-off and parking areas. 13. Comment noted. Driveway access options somewhat limited based on grading issues. 14. See revised Landscape/Hardscape plans. Engineering 1. Comment noted. 2. The proposed Vision Plan shows alternative alignments for Carlsbad Boulevard south of proposed Beach Way. An alignment study was previously submitted which illustrates that all three alternatives will work with the existing alignment of Carlsbad Boulevard remaining the same from Ponto Road to proposed Beach Way. Based on discussion and meetings with Engineering/Public Works staff, the existing alignment of Carlsbad Boulevard in front of the project is assumed to remain constant for Alignments 1-3. 3. Comment noted. 4. See sheet C3 - C4. 5. Hydrant revised on C3-C4 6. Comment noted. Parking operations are under discussion. 7. See sheet C-3 8. The project will sewer to the north, connecting with existing sewer line as shown on plans. 9. Private storm drains are moved out of right of way. 10. Run-off directed away from the foundations of adjacent structures. 11. See sheet C4 12. Please see revised SWMP for bmps. 13. No desiltation basins proposed. 14. Vegetated swale and concrete brow ditch have distinct symbols are shown on legend in Cl. 15. No inlet filters proposed as we are treating with vegetated swale. 16. Copies provided with submittal. 17. See sheet C3-C4 18. See sheet C-2 19. No inlet filters proposed as we are treating with vegetated swale. 20. With use of swales, drainage has been diverted to existing storm drain. 21. See sheet C3-C4. 22. See sheet C2 City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 25, 2005 Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: EIR 05-03/SDP 05.14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Environmental Impact Report application, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Redevelopment Permit, application no. EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05- 43/RP 05-11 - Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is 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, September 2, 2005, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal ofthe application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. At this time, the City asks that you provide 5 complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. Please contact your staff planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN.BK.bd c: Gary Barberio, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer Gregory Ryan, Fire Prevention Cliff Jones, Housing and Redevelopment ' ^4la»®opy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^ '^fes/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD B^h EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP (JS^43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: 1. Please note that inadvertently, the plans were not routed to the Housing and Redevelopment Department. Please send a set of plans directly to Cliff Jones, Assistant Planner, for their review and comment. It is recommended that you do not make changes to the plans until you have received all of the comments. 2. Please include Disclosure Statements for all individuals having a financial interest in the property. The Preliminary Title Report (PTR) indicates that Metro Ocean Group and Wang Family Trust also have a financial interest. For corporations or partnerships, please also include the name, titles and addresses of any individual that owns more than 10% of the shares. It would also be helpful to have a map which identifies the parcels listed in the PTR and the respective ownership. 3. Please submit copies of all studies, reports, or assessments that have been prepared for the project. For example, a Phase I and Phase II (if recommended) Environmental Site Assessment for the project should be submitted. It was indicated that a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was completed for the project by Geotechnics Inc. However, copies of that report have not been submitted. The Preliminary Review letter indicated that the project would need the following: verification that any areas containing soils contamination has been remediated, a site-specific biological resources report, and a cultural resources report identifying additional testing and analysis to detemnine the presence/absence of any subsurface cultural resources. The requirement for these studies was based upon the mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (Vision Plan). If these studies have been prepared, please submit them. Otherwise, the requirement to prepare these studies will be included in the Scope of Work for the EIR. 4. Please provide a site plan that shows the entire project ownership boundary. Include dimensions from property lines. Show all proposed slopes and indicate the height of all retaining walls. Show dimensions for parking spaces and drive aisles. 5. Please submit building elevations for the parking structure and for the activity center. 6. The hotel building elevations should be at a scale that is more readable, for example 1/8" = 1'. The proposed building and roof materials need to be identified on the plans. It is also suggested that the renderings incorporate some shadowing so that the building elevation does not appear flat. 7. It has not been determined yet if an LFMP Amendment will be required with the proposal. 8. The Coastal Development Permit will need to discuss the proposed demolition of structures. Please include a site plan showing the location of existing structures and identify the use and the square footage on the plan. Please also provide a summary statement of the proposed demolition. EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 3 Engineering: 1. Revise the exhibits to show/callout the existing and proposed parcels, parcel areas and parcel lines that are proposed as part of this project. This information is not clearly identified on the exhibits. Complete the design. 2. Revise the exhibits to clarify the property owners within the subdivision boundary. The exhibits list Wavecrest Resorts, as Owner. However, the preliminary title report lists Wave crest Resorts II, LLC, Metro Ocean Group and the Wang Family Trust owning certain properties all within this subdivision boundary. Revise the Site Plan and Tentative Parcel Map to show the correct ownership within the subdivision boundary. 3. Revise the exhibits to show/callout the entire property boundary. Show/callout the bearings, distances and curve data for the property boundary. Refer to redline for clarification. 4. Prepare an engineering alignment study (vertical, horizontal, utility, right-of-way, grading, etc) for Carlsbad Blvd from Ponto Road to a point south of the intersection of Avenida Encinas. Properties along these limits are responsible to contribute their fair-share contribution toward completing the ultimate public road improvements for Carlsbad Blvd. The draft Ponto Vision plan began this process, but this process must be completed before projects develop in this corridor. Refer to items in the engineering issues section for more information. 5. Revise the exhibits to show ali proposed public road improvements required along the frontage of Carlsbad Blvd. The current plans only show sidewalk improvements proposed along Carlsbad Blvd, however, there are public improvements required to be completed as part of this project. This includes improving Carlsbad Boulevard to public standards which include but is not limited to: removing and replacing existing deteriorated pavement, extending new curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, restriping, bike lanes, signage, street lights, northbound deceleration lane, northbound left turn pocket, pedestrian crossings, signal modifications, continue median landscape/hardscape/irrigation, etc. We have attached the schematic lane assignments for Carlsbad Blvd at Ponto Road for your assistance in revising the exhibits and record drawings for improvements completed just to the north of this project limit. Revise the exhibits as necessary. 6. Revise the exhibits to depict and callout the limits of existing Ponto Drive that currently serves existing residents. Revise these plans to callout the removal of existing paving of Ponto Drive necessary to develop this project. Where pavement removal ends (you need to call this out too), revise the exhibits to provide a new cul-de-sac terminus on Ponto Drive to maintain emergency vehicle turn-arounds. Complete the design with this project. 7. Revise the exhibits to show the complete existing intersection of Carlsbad Blvd and Ponto Road. Show the existing lane striping and left turn pocket on southbound Carlsbad Blvd. Verify the pocket length is adequate to serve the existing residents and proposed development. The traffic study should address the length required. Show the proposed left turn pocket on northbound Carlsbad Blvd at Ponto Road. Complete the ultimate requirements required at this intersection. 8. Revise the exhibits to show/callout the undergrounding of overhead utilities along the project frontage with Carlsbad Blvd. 9. Revise the exhibits to show/complete Ponto Road improvements within the subdivision/property boundary. These exhibits only show partial improvements to Ponto Road. Ponto Road must be fully-improved and dedicated within the property boundary. Terminating Ponto Road with a 7-ft retaining wall at the end is not acceptable. Revise the ^^I^431RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BS^F EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP D5=43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 4 exhibits to show how Ponto Road will interface/match to serve the adjacent properties to the south of the hotel structure. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 10. Provide correspondence from NCTD regarding approval or facilities required to support this project. Revise the exhibits to provide NCTD facilities, if any. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 11. The sidewalk along Ponto Road (Hotel side) is depicted in inconsistent locations. The site plan shows a proposed non-contiguous sidewalk with a portion located outside the right-of- way. However, existing improvement plans (dwg 380-5) shows it as existing contiguous sidewalk along Ponto and within the right-of-way. Clarify the discrepancy. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter. 12. The draft Ponto Vision Plan includes landscaped medians constructed along Ponto Drive and the exhibits in the preliminary review (PRE 05-22) also showed proposed medians on Ponto Road. These exhibits do not show any medians. Revise this project to demonstrate consistent facilities with the draft Ponto Vision Plan and the preliminary review. On the preliminary review, we also made comments regarding the median design that have not yet been addressed. Please revise the exhibits to address our previous comments. 13. Revise the exhibits to provide right-of-way or public pedestrian access easements required for sidewalks that meander outside existing or proposed right-of-way (typical). This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 14. Revise the exhibits to show median landscape/irrigation on Carlsbad Blvd. The median improvements should match those just north of the project. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 15. Provide a preliminary Geotechnical study that identifies feasibility and subsurface recommendations for the proposed development as it relates to the site. Address limits of remedial grading required, if any. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 16. Revise the exhibits to depict left-turn lane pockets along Ponto Road for vehicles to enter the parking garage. Revise the exhibits to show proposed striping and lane assignments to verify lane widths are adequate for pocket widths. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 17. Revise the exhibits to depict the future grading, slopes, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. and profile information for the future extension of Ponto Road measured 200-feet beyond the project frontage. Demonstrate feasibility of the roadway construction. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter. 18. Provide multiple cross-sections of the site to demonstrate differences in grade, especially as it relates to adjacent properties. Refer to the redlines for clarification. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 19. Staff has continued concerned about the northerly pedestrian crossing on Ponto Road between the parking garage and the north hotel structure. This current proposed pedestrian crossing is located just south of a sharp curve on Ponto Road. Ponto Road will include parkway and median landscaping and vehicles may have a difficult time to see pedestrians as they travel south on Ponto Road around the curve (using line-of-sight per Caltrans stopping sight distance). This conflict must be resolved. With a multi-level parking garage serving this hotel, a pedestrian bridge may be warranted to avoid conflict or consider moving the crosswalk south to increase sight distance for safety. Revise the exhibits to depict the EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 5 line of sight that ensures pedestrian safety. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter. 20. Consider incorporating traffic-calming methods (e.g.: traffic circle, mid-block chokers, etc.) on Ponto Road to slow vehicles. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter. 21. It appears the ultimate point-of-connection for the sewer serving this project is south of Avenida Encinas. However as an interim solution, until sewer is extended south of this project, a private pump station has been proposed that will drain to the existing sewer in Ponto Road. However, this project is required to construct the gravity sewer that will serve this project in the future. Provide a sewer study to demonstrate the gravity sewer is constructed at the proper location to serve this hotel as well as others to the south, once extended. The study should demonstrate what elevations the adjacent lots must be at in order to gravity sewer to the proposed sewer in Ponto Road. 22. Revise the exhibits so the private sewer pump station is located in a place that allows for it to be decommissioned (removed) in the future once gravity sewer becomes available in Ponto Road to the south. Add notes to the exhibits that memorialize this. Refer to the redlines for clarification. 23. Indicate all existing surface improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, lane assignments, access-holes, inlets, power poles, street lights, adjacent driveways, vaults, transformers, etc.) along the properly fronting Carlsbad Blvd and Ponto Road. The exhibits only show a portion of improvements along Carlsbad Boulevard, but the entire right-of-way improvements must be shown. The exhibits show Ponto Road with proposed non-contiguous sidewalk, but record drawings already show existing contiguous sidewalk in place. Clarify these discrepancies. 24. Revise the plans to include a typical street section of Carlsbad Blvd that indicate existing and proposed improvements (pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, centerline, street lights, median landscape/hardscape/irrigation, fire hydrants, etc.). This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 25. Revise the exhibits to show/callout all existing fire hydrants located within 300-ft of the subdivision. 26. Provide a letter from SDG&E stating they have reviewed this project and do not object to it. The proposed parking garage is located over an existing SDG&E easement. 27. Provide a letter from the easement holder of the existing railroad spur and utility easement stating they do not object to development within the existing easement. This parking garage is proposed within the easement. Will this easement be quitclaimed as part of the project? See page C3 for clarification. 28. Revise the project to incorporate measures to address the increase in storm water runoff resulting from this project. Based on a review of the preliminary hydrology report, the pre- development runoff is approximately 8.9 cfs, while the post- development run-off is approximately 15.2 cfs. This represents a 70% increase in run-off as a result of the project. Revise this project/hydrology report to address/mitigate drainage impacts. >fll3/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP (J5543/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 6 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The grading plans need to be revised to show the complete project boundaries and how Ponto Road will connect through to the properties located south of the site. Your plans indicate that a retaining wall is proposed at the terminus of Ponto Road. This is unacceptable and the future design and improvement of Ponto Road must be considered. The transitions to the surrounding properties, particularly on the south end of the site are of utmost concern. Provide cross-sections where the project adjoins existing development. 2. There are several setback issues that will need to be addressed. For example, the hotel does not meet the 40-foot landscape buffer setback from property line that is required along Carlsbad Boulevard. It does not appear that the parking structure meets the minimum 10- foot setback required from Ponto Road. Additionally, it is anticipated that due to the height, bulk and mass of the parking structure, that a greater setback should be provided between Ponto Road and the parking structure. Please label all setbacks from property lines. Refer to the comments in the Preliminary Review letter (PRE 05-22) for additional infonnation. 3. Several of the issues identified in PRE 05-22, under the Site Design Features heading, have not been incorporated into the plan. These issues include providing a gateway feature at the northwest corner of the site and incorporating traffic-calming measures on Ponto Road, which should include non-contiguous sidewalks and a landscaped median. The Engineer's Plan has some discrepancies regarding the sidewalk design in that the plan shows non- contiguous sidewalks and the sections show the sidewalk continuous to the curb. 4. Consider adding bike racks in some ofthe dead space areas within the parking structure. 5. Please contact NCTD to determine if a bus stop will need to be provided along Cartsbad Boulevard. 6. Please indicate what interim measures are proposed for existing Ponto Drive serving the residential and business uses immediately south of the site. Ponto Drive currently ends in a small cul de sac. 7. The third story of the hotel should be stepped back to reduce visual impacts. 8. Please indicate the location of all mechanical equipment and how it will be screened. 9. The parking structure should be designed to complement the hotel buildings, (exterior building elevations not submitted for review) Chapter 3, page 14 ofthe Vision Plan includes design guidelines for parking structures and the proposed structure will be evaluated for compliance with these design concepts. Use similar building materials and possibly integrate heavy wood trellis elements into the architecture and landscape design. Consider adding more small shops to the west side of the parking structure or consider a faux commercial front. Please note that additional parking would not be required for commercial uses that are accessory to the hotel use. 10. On your next submittal, please delete the perspective rendenng on the architect's plans and use an overall site plan as the front cover sheet. The cover sheet should include the project information and a summary of the proposed uses including the number of hotel rooms, restaurant space and meeting rooms (as shown in your parking summary). Please also show (on the site plan) the limits of the outdoor dining area associated with the pool bar/grill. The hotel spa and retail areas can be excluded from the calculations since these uses are EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 7 accessory to the hotel. The 15% parking reduction would take into account the joint use of the kitchen facilities by the restaurant, hotel room service, and conference facilities. 11. Additional parking, spaces should be provided for the general public. One possible option could be to develop the south portion of the site for public parking. 12. Dense screening/mounding or a low decorative wall should be used to screen vehicles in the drop off area and at the parking lot at the south end of the site. 13. The driveway access to the parking area at the south end of the site should be designed so that there is a potential for shared use with the adjacent lots designated for live-work uses. 14. Landscape/Hardscape Plans: a. Provide conceptual details for the entry piers, pergola, and arbor. b. The 10' wide bike path should be labeled "Pedestrian/Bike Path". c. Turf areas should be integrated along the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage so that the enhanced landscape buffer area ties in visually with the landscaped buffers north of the site. Areas with the "Refined Planting" palette should also be incorporated into the frontage near the pedestrian/bike path. The emergency access "turf block" area should be designed to tie into the informal landscape theme rather than appearing as a linear feature. The same comment applies to the adjacent linear sidewalk. d. Native planting should not be used at the southeast corner of the site since this will be adjacent to the future extension of Ponto Road. Sidewalks and street improvements will be required in this area and the planting theme should be similar to the rest of Ponto Road. e. Delete the "turf' symbol at the fire pit area. f. Change the common name of Phoenix canariensis to "Canary Island Date Palm". g. Consider using a narrower tree for screening along the rear of the parking structure within the 10' setback. The species selected have a fairly large canopy that may be inappropriate for the small space. h. The Landscape Guidelines Manual and Vision Plan both specify Mexican Fan Palm for the Carlsbad Boulevard median. Although I do not think this is the palm that is currently planted, any new palms should be the Mexican Fan Palm. i. The dominant theme tree within the landscape buffer along the Carlsbad Boulevard is Mexican Fan Palm. Please use the Mexican Fan Palm as the primary palm with the Windmill Palm as an accent. Engineering: 1. This project is located within the boundaries of the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (PBWP). Please note this vision is not approved by City Council. Once approved, this project is subject to certain findings, guidelines and development conditions set forth is said vision plan. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter 2. The proposed PBWP includes different alternatives to re-align Carisbad Blvd. This re- alignment requires further alignment evaluation and approval by the City together with fair- share participation by the properties (or other funding mechanism). The fair-share obligations and/or funding mechanisms for these improvements have not yet been determined. The obligations of this property relative to this facility realignment must be addressed prior to project approval. Please contact David Hauser with Planning & Programs (760-602-2739) or Bill Plummer with Engineering Design (760-602-2768) to resolve this process. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter 3. The transportation analysis has been fonwarded to Traffic Department for review. We will forward comments once they become available. Sfc/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BE^^ EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05^3/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 8 4. Revise the exhibits to use a light-shading symbol for proposed AC paving. Refer to redlines for clarification. 5. It is our understanding since this project (for the interim) is a singje-entry development and Fire Department will require hydrants and other access features along Carisbad Blvd to serve the project. Revise the exhibits to provide public water and fire-fighting facilities, as required. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review letter 6. Revise the exhibits to address how the parking garage will operate with respect to public vehicular traffic. Will a gate be used to prevent public parking? Where will the gate be placed? What happens to cars that enter the parking garage driveway entrance and find they need to back up without gate clearance? And if someone is behind them? This interface should be evaluated to clear up conflicts. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 7. Revise the exhibits to callout the hotel entryway as "one-way" as shown on the redlines. Two-way circulation will add conflicting movements (vehicles turning left) on the curvature of Ponto Road considering the median and Pari<way landscaping along Ponto Road. Revise the site plan, preliminary grading plans and preliminary landscape plan to depict and callout the line-of-sight (Caltrans stopping sight distance) for vehicles exiting the southerly Hotel A driveway. Eliminate discrepancies with the line-of-sight. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter 8. The southerly sewer appears to be constructed "flat". Please redesign sewer to provide gravity flow per City Standards. Refer to redlines for clarification. 9. Revise the exhibits to eliminate the proposed PVC storm drain within Ponto Road right-of- way. Facilities within City right-of-way must be constructed to public standards. RCP is permitted and must be a minimum of 18" diameter. The facility must also be located within the street paving and not in the parkway. Refer to redlines for clarification. 10. Revise the exhibits so storm run-off is not directed toward the foundations of adjacent structures. Refer to redlines for clarification. 11. The onsite private vegetated swales appear to be proposed all throughout the site, but do not appear to specifically treat areas that generate pollutants-of-concern (such as AC paving areas on the driveways). Redesign the bmps so they are installed to treat areas that contribute pollutants to them using numeric sizing criteria per Order 2001-01 and the City SUSMP. 12. The hydrology report provides 2-year runoff figures for certain basins. However, the report does not demonstrate how the chosen bmp's will treat those sub-areas. Revise the preliminary SWMP and site plan to provide bmp's that meet minimum treatment requirements. This is a repeat comment from the preliminary review tetter. 13. Revise the hydrology calculations in the preliminary SWMP to clarify/demonstrate the effect the desiltation basins have on the existing hydrology calculations. If this has been accounted for, revise the calculations to explain it. 14. Revise the exhibits and legend to clarify which swales will be grass-lined and which ones will be concrete-lined (typical). 15. Revise the exhibits to clarify which inlets will be outfitted with inlet filter(s) and which ones will not. The current exhibits to not clarify which inlet(s) the detail on sheet C2 applies to. EIR 05-03/SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11 - HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT October 25, 2005 Page 9 16. Provide copies of those instruments that encumber the property as requested on the returned redlined exhibits and redlined preliminary title report. 17. Revise the exhibits to add dimensions to all drive aisles (typical). 18. Revise the exhibits or add a separate sheet to explain what will be demolished onsite as part of the project. 19. Revise the exhibits so drainage from ac paving areas is treated via vegetated (bio) swales versus inlet filters. Inlet filters are less efficient at removing the target pollutants of concern as compared to bio-swales. Therefore, revise the exhibits and preliminary SWMP to use more effective bmp measures or demonstrate why it is infeasible to use more effecfive bmp measures. 20. Revise the exhibits to clarify how drainage may affect adjacent properties where drainage appears to be concentrated with rip-rap fields. Staff is concerned how drainage is directed beyond the rip-rap and whether the added flows will impact adjacent properties. 21. Revise the exhibits to add the slopes (percent) of all proposed driveways as they approach Ponto Road (typical) 22. Revise the constraints map to clarify whether the sight easements along Ponto are existing or proposed. If proposed, please show them as sign distance corridors per City Standards to be maintained by property owner. These corridors must also be shown on the site plan for the SDP, Tentative Parcel Map and conceptual landscape plan. 23. A redlined check print is enclosed for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print should be returned with the formal application submittal to facilitate continued staff review. Fire: 1. Fire access to the building needs further review and may need to be redesigned. 2. The Fire Hydrant distribution needs to be revised. Please contact Gregory Ryan, Fire Prevention Division, at 602-4663 to discuss these issues. Police: See attached comments.