HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-08; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 308; Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel-
‘. i.
!
% .a
. . 5 5
is Fi ii
8
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION- A
AB# 308 TITLE- --
MTG. 618199 CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL
DEPT. H/RED RP 98-081CDP 98-48
0 I
;ENDA BILL z I
DEPT. HD. (Gzz
CITY ATTY. F CL
CITY MGR. +--
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3Oa , APPROVING a
Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a Major
Redevelopment Permit (RP 98-08) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-48), with a variance
for a front yard setback which exceeds the maximum standard range, for construction of a 141 room
hotel on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen Way and
Beech Avenue in Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area, as recommended by the
Design Review Board.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 14, 1998, the Design Review Board conducted a public hearing to consider a major
redevelopment permit and coastal development permit for a new development project known as the
Carlsbad Resort Hotel. This project is proposed as a 3-story, 90,000 square foot hotel which will
provide 141 rooms on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Beech
Avenue and Christiansen Way. The Design Review Board recommended approval of the required
Major Redevelopment Permit and a Coastal Development Permit.
At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members all indicated their support for the proposed
hotel project. However, a few minor concerns were raised as related to 1) the choice of colors for the
project, 2) the display of beach towels at the hotel; and 3) schedule for trash collection. These
concerns and the proposed conditions to address them are explained below.
The Board’s first concern was that the colors (off-white, taupe) selected for the building were too
neutral. The Board requested that the applicant add more accent color to the building. According to
the applicant, the proposed landscaping will provide the colorful visual accents desired by the Board.
To ensure that the applicant either revises the color scheme of the building or prepares a final
landscape plan which adequately provides for the desired color accents, the Board recommended
that the requested permits be approved with a condition which requires the developer to add brighter
colors to the project. The Board recommended that the Housing and Redevelopment Director be
authorized to approve the final color and materials board to be submitted by the applicant.
The second concern was that hotel guests might hang their wet beach towels or articles of clothing
over the balcony railings to dry. To address this concern, the Board recommended a condition which
requires the hotel operator to take action to prevent the display of beach towels or articles of clothing on the hotel railings.
The third, and final, concern was related to the schedule for trash collection. Because the trash
dumpster will be stored on the north side of the hotel, within the underground parking area, the Board was concerned that nearby residents might be negatively impacted by the noise of the trash collection
trucks. Therefore, they recommended a condition be placed on the project which requires the
applicant to work with the trash collector and make a good faith effort to have the trash collected after
10:OOam.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 30s
The Design Review Board recommended approval of the project with a 5-O vote. The additional
conditions requested by the Board have been incorporated into DRB Resolution No.265, which has
been attached for review by the Commission. The Board included recommended findings to approve
the only variance required for the project as well. The variance is required to allow greater setbacks in
the front of the building for the drop-off area and enhanced pedestrian amenities. The Design Review
Board Staff Report as well as the minutes of the December 14, 1998 meeting have been attached to
this agenda bill for Commission review.
It is important to note that the conditions of approval include a requirement for the applicant to obtain
a ten foot (10’) street vacation on Christiansen Way from the City Council. The City Council will take
action on the street vacation under a separate agenda bill. If the street vacation is not approved, the
proposed project cannot be completed, since the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approval
is conditioned upon the approval of a street vacation, and it is essential to the project. The project will
need to be redesigned if the street vacation is not approved.
Environmental Review
The Planning Department conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on October 22,
1998 and made available for public review. No comments were received on the environmental
document. Design Review Board Resolution No. 264 recommends approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project by the Commission. Adoption of the attached Housing and
Redevelopment Commission Resolution approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project will have a positive financial impact in terms of increased property tax, transient
occupancy tax, and additional employment opportunities. The applicant has indicated that
approximately 25-30 employment opportunities will be created by the construction of the new hotel.
The hotel will generate approximately $370,000 annually in transient occupancy tax. The current
assessed value of the project site is $1,470,000. With the new construction, it is estimated that the
assessed value will increase to approximately $13 million. The increase in value would result in
additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $115,000
per year.
EXHIBITS
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 3@ , approving RP 98-08 and
CDP 98-48.
2. Design Review Board Resolutions Nos. 264,265 and 266, dated December 14, 1998
3. Design Review Board Minutes, dated December 14, 1998 4. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated November,23 1998
II HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 308
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 98-08)
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP 98-48)
INCLUDING SIGNAGE AND A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT
SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM STANDARD
RANGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 141 ROOM HOTEL ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH
STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
APPLICANT: HERITAGE WEST
CASE NO: RI’ 98-08 /CDP 98-48
9
10
WHEREAS, on December 14,1998, the Carlsbad Design Review Board held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RF’ 98-08) and
11 Coastal Development Permit (CDP98-48), including signage, for a change in land use and
12
13 construction of a new hotel project to be located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard,
14 between Christiansen Way and Beech Avenue, and adopted Design Review Board
15 Resolutions No. 264, 265 and 266 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment
16 Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RI’ 98-08) and Coastal Development Permit
17 (CDP 98-48) be approved; and
18
19
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, on the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
20 recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment
21
22 Permit (RF’ 98-08) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-48); and
23 II WHEREAS, the recommended approval from the Design Review Board
24 includes findings to grant a variance for the front setback which exceeds the standard range;
25 and
26 WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project
27 conducted pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
28
, Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a Mitigated
2 Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on
3 October 19,1998, and recommended for approval along with the Mitigation Monitoring and
4 Reporting Program by Design Review Board Resolution No. 264 on December 14,1998.
5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
7
1. 8 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
That the Major Redevelopment Permit (RI? 98-08) and Coastal Development
Permit (CDP 98-48), including the setback variance, are APPROVED and that the
findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolutions No.
265 and 266, on file in the City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RI’ 98-
08), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 98-08) reflects the
independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the
City of Carlsbad.
6
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of
fees, dedications, reservations for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of project approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government
Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information
with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any
subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their
imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified
fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and
capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application
processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY
HRC RESO NO.
PAGE 2
-
1
to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar
to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
5. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission . The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT:
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be, or
other exactions hereafter collectively referred to sought is governed
by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16.
Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten
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 record,
the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended
to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
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 Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th day
of June 18 ,1999, by the following vote, to wit:
19 AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila & Kulchin
20 NOES: None
ABSENT: Commission Member
ABSTAIN:
27 II (SEAL)
28 HRC RESONO.
PACE'i
I -..- EXHIBIT 2
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 264
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP98-08 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP98-48 TO ALLOW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 141 ROOM HOTEL ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH STREET IN LAND
USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGES RESORT HOTEL
APN: 203-172-12, 21, 23
CASE NO: RP 98-08, CDP98-48
WHEREAS, Heritage West Development Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property
owned by Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel Partnership, Reva C. Hooper, and Stella M. Stamp, “Owners”,
and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-172-12, 203-172-21, 203-172-23 and more thoroughly
described in Attachment A, (“the property); and
WHEREAS, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board of November
23, 1998, was canceled and was continued to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on . .
December 14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 14* day of December, 1998, hold a duly
noticed special public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said special public hearing on the 14* day of December and upon
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
5 II FINDINGS:
6
7
a
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated October 22, 1998,
“PII” dated October 22, 1998 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, attached hereto and made part hereof, based on the following
findings:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 98-08), the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
approving the project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the Design
Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approval of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 98-08,
CDP98-48) reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the
City of Carlsbad.
3. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the initial study, EIA Part II,
and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which may be found at the City of Carlsbad
Community Development Building, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, in
the custody of the City Clerk, Director of Planning.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14” day of December, 1998 by the following vote to
18 /I
wit:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: Chairperson Bill Compas, Board Members: Marquez, Savary,
Marois & Forsyth, Jr.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPl&SON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
-
\
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 264 PAGE 2
:
:
L
c c
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.--
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 265
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP98-08, INCLUDING
VARIANCES FOR FRONT YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE 141 ROOM CARLSBAD
VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN
CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH STREET, IN LAND USE
DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN
LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL APN: 203-172-12, 21, 23 CASE NO: RP 98-09,
WHEREAS, Heritage West Development Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified
r application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property
owned by the Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel Partnership, Reva C. Hooper, and Stella M. Stamp,
“Owners”, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-172-12, 203-172-21, 203-172-23 and more
thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit and a
variance for the front yard setback which exceeds the maximum of the standard range, as shown on
Exhibits A-K, dated November 23, 1998, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, as
provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board of November -
23, 1998, was canceled and was continued to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on
December 14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 14* day of December, 1998, hold a duly
noticed special public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said special public hearing on the 141h day of December, 1998, upon hearing
and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board
considered all factors relating to Major Redevelopment Permit 98-08.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board
as follows:
I A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of a Major Redevelopment Permit for
the Carlsbad Boulevard Resort Hotel Project, RP 98-08, including a variance for
the front yard setback which exceeds the maximum range, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board has recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for
the subject project and has determined that the project will have no significant
environmental impact.
2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of the
iCarlsbad Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of a building
or addition to an existing building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds
ii150,000.
3. The Project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is required.
4. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth
with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a variance
for a front setback that exceeds the standard range:
a) The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development
inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Plan. The Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design
Manual encourages uses, such as hotels, that promote goals and objec%ves of
the Master Plan. The project has been designed with an increased front yard set
back in several locations which improve both the function and physical
appearance of the structure. The increased set back allows for increased
landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard, and for a drop-off point for hotel guests.
The implementation of the standard would result in an inferior design and
decreased functionality.
b) There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls. The
project site is constrained due to the sloping topography of the land. Due to this
constraint, the applicant has designed a project which provides increased
landscaping, a high quality building design, increased building functionality, and
DRl3 RESO NO. 265 PAGE 2
^..
is consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. The applicant has made a
good faith effort to design the remainder of the building with appropriate
building setbacks. The proposed hotel provides setbacks which are similar to
buildings along Carlsbad Boulevard.
c) The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The
setbacks above the maximum will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring
properties because other properties along Carlsbad Boulevard have setbacks
which exceed 10 feet. The applicant has designed the entire project in a manner
which is visually appealin g and architecturally interesting. Therefore, the
increased setback in the front actually assists in the effort to create a more
visually appealing building within the front elevation
d) The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in varying degrees. The portions of
the project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation which
contradicts the intent of the standards established in the subject document. The -- project is well-designed and will meet the needs of the hotel guests community
which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual.
e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further than the
permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting
the structure back to the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village
character of the area. The subject property is in a location which has varying
setbacks. To the south, the residential property is setback in the front by
approximately 15 feet. To the west, buildings such as St. Michael’s Church and
the newly constructed Lutheran Retirement Home have setbacks in excess of 25
feet. It is expected that these buildings will remain for many more years. In
addition, these larger setbacks allow for a design of the building which allows
for more articulation in the building, which ultimately results in a building which
is more visually interesting and appealing.
5. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth
with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a
provisional land use:
a) The hotel has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. The size and scale of the building is compatible with existing
commercial structures to the south and west. The project is adjacent to single
family and multi-family residences to the north and to the east. The single
family homes to the north pose the most significant compatibility issue. The
project has been designed to include a 6 foot masonry wall adjacent to the
existing residences to the north. While there is no minimum or maximum
DRB RESO NO. 265
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-. -
setback requirement along the northern portion of the project, the developer has
provided a 10 foot setback from the property line adjacent to the residences.
Also, the landscape plan calls for tall growing trees that will aid in screening the
hotel. Finally, the existing single family land uses are legal non-conforming
uses. Thus, the homes will be allowed to remain as long as so desired by the
property owners. However, their can be no expansion of the uses. Over the
long term, it is anticipated that these uses will ultimately be replaced with
commercial/retail land uses consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual.
b) The proposed frontage is consistent with the surrounding commercial and non-
commercial uses.
C) The project has been designed so that there will be a minimum impact to
surrounding land uses from parking and loading. Parking will be located at the
rear of the property and below ground. The entrances to the parking areas have
been designed to provided landscaping and screen walls incorporated to lessen
the impact from parking. Also, the project has been conditioned to prohibit any
deliveries in the areas adjacent to the existing residences. r
6) The granting of the ten foot street vacation will have no adverse impact on vehicular
circulation within the area and the surplus right-of-way is not required for future
public street purposes. The project is approved with the understanding that the
required street vacation will be approved by the Carlsbad City Council prior to
approval of the redevelopment permit for the subject project.
GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the area. The
project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective as of January 12, 1996,
because it will provide for a commercial use (hotel) which supports the existing
commercial uses within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopmenf-Area.
b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve
the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been designed in
relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian circulation is
provided through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping, and
hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the
proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a
program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of
pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage
facilities.
DRE RESO NO. 265 PAGE 4
:
:
L
c %
E
7
E
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
--=’
a) The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot which has
appropriate zoning for a hotel facility. The project is also consistent with the
Open Space requirements for new development within the Village
Redevelopment Area.
b) The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building
and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate
fire protection and other safety standards.
The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of = the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or development
fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by the Local
Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, which are applicable to the project. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement
approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s
Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384. -
The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of a Major
Redevelopment Permit, for the Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel , as provided for in
RP 98-08 subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed
to make,
DRB RESO NO. 265
PAGE 5
1
2
2
4
5
E
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
or require Developer to make, all necessary corrections and modifications to the
Major Redevelopment Permit exhibits and/or other documents to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Developer
shall develop the property substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits for the
project.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend
and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees,
agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages,
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the
City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this
Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or
action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use
contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the
facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising
from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or
emissions.
The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar copy
=of the Site Plan for the project as approved by the final decision making body. The
Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the Agency. The plan copy shall
be submitted to the Planning Director and approved prior to building or grading
permit approval, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24” X 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable
Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July
28, 1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.9@of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the
developer’s/subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated May 8,
1998, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this
reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the
General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to the
City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject
to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad’s
Redevelopment Agency has issued a Redevelopment Permit by Resolution No. 265
on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note
the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and
all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for
inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director or the Housing and
Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to
the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by
the developer or successor in interest.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be
of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
=An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing
and Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent
homes or property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In
such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The
plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director or
Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the approval of the grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy
and thriving conditions, free from weeds, trash and debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by
the project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so as to be
plainly visible from the street; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to
their background color.
If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur; or, if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be SO
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall
have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further
DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 7
.
2
c
4
E
E
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
26
25
26
27
28
16)
17)
18)
1%
20)
21)
22)
23)
condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a
successor in interest by the Agency’s approval of this Resolution.
Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer shall construct a six foot (6’) masonry block wall on the eastern
and northeastern property lines. The design of the wall shall be compatible with
the proposed project’s architecture to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
All deliveries to the hotel shall be made either in the front driveway or from the
rear parking lot. At no time shall deliveries be permitted in the parking area off
Beech Street.
The deck area located along the north side of the building shall be set back from
the property line by live (5) feet, or the maximum amount permitted by the Chief
Building Inspector to allow for adequate exiting of the building.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the parking area located on the north
side of the project, located off Beech Street shall be posted with signage that
clearly states that deliveries to the hotel are prohibited at all times. Signage shall
be reviewed and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Landscaping materials identified on the preliminary Landscape Plan for the
planter areas adjacent to the eastern and northeastern property lines shall consist
of trees that are a minimum 36 inch box size and shrubs which are a minimum of
5 gallon size.
The Developer shall construct a minimum live-foot high noise barrier as required
by the mitigated negative declaration. The noise barrier may be constructed as a
wall, berm, or combination of both. The materials used to construct the noise
barrier are required to have a minimum surface density of 3.5 pounds per square
foot. Such materials may consist of masonry, 5/S-inch Plexiglas, 3Knch
tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The required noise barrier
shall be shown on the project’s building plans and be constructed prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide an
acoustical analysis will be required for the project to insure that interior noise
levels will not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB within the hotel rooms. Prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the required
interior acoustical analysis documenting what construction materials or measures
must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter
signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the project
architect’s registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a
building permit certifying that the recommendations of the interior acoustical
analysis have been incorporated into the building plans.
DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24) The Developer shall revise the site plan for the project to provide one additional
parking space. Should the Developer not be able to provide the additional space,
the Developer shall reduce the number of hotel rooms by one room. The
provision of the additional space or the reduction in total rooms shall be reviewed
and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the issuance
of a building permit or grading permit, which ever occurs first.
25) The Developer shall provide signage consistent with the approved building
elevations. All wall signs shall be individual illuminated channel letters. Should
the developer wish to receive provide additional signage which is consistent with
the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual, the additional signs
shall be reviewed and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director
shall be required.
26)
27)
28.
29.
30.
31.
Approval of RP98-08 is granted subject to the approval of CDP98-48.
The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is
further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may
have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of
the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or
resolution and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance
and/or resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay
the linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building
permits, except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned
development for an existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on
approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process
the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this
project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan
and approval for this project will become null and void.
The redevelopment permit shall be subject to review by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director on a yearly basis to determine all conditions of this permit
have been met. After providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, this permit
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the conditions
imposed herein have not been met. _^
The developer shall work with the hotel operator to discourage guests of the hotel
from displaying towels or articles of clothing on balcony railings.
The developer shall work with the trash service provider to arrange for trash to
be picked-up after 10:00 a.m.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer shall submit a final
color and materials board for review and approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
DRB RESO NO. 265
PAGE 9
1
4
t
4
5
a
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route, The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall file and receive approval of a
boundary adjustment application with the City to merge the three existing lots so that
the project site is situated on one lot.
Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall obtain a City right-of-way
permit to install driveway aprons in the public right-of-way on Carlsbad Boulevard,
Christiansen Way, and Beech Street.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing overhead
utilities along the project boundary.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management
practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices
Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive
areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans
shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products. --
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm
drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides,
fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical
treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed
in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 10
:
:
L
c b
f
i
f
E
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans, specifications, and supporting documents
for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In
accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure
with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan and the
following improvements:
0 Proposed street widening of Christiansen Way
0 Proposed street widening of Beech Avenue
The developer shall install street lights along all public and private street frontages in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
The developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the project in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards prior to occupancy of any buildings.
Prior to occupancy of any buildings, the developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the
public street corners abutting the project site in conformance with City of Carlsbad
Standards.
The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles
with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be
submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City as
part of the building site plan review.
Special Conditions:
14. The developer shall install and maintain sight distance corridors at all driveway intersections
with the public streets in accordance with Engineering Standards.
15. The driveway approach to the ramp located on Beech Avenue shall be constructed to a
minimum 30 foot width
16. Prior to the approval of this permit, the developer shall receive City Council approval
and record a street vacation of a portion of Christiansen Way.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer must show proof of
recordation of the quitclaim of the existing SDG&E easements.
WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
1. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be evaluated in
detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met.
2. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits, and charges which will be collected
before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter installations.
3. The Developer shall provide all-weather emergency ingress and egress along the north side of
the building in a manner acceptable to the Fire Marshall.
DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 11 \0
1
2
2
4
5
a
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. The Developer shall upgrade the proposed gravel exit path serving the North end of the
building to landscape, and extend the path along the perimeter of the property to Beech
Street.
5. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. Also
obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate parties.
b) Meet with the District’s Project Engineer to discuss preliminary layouts for public water
line improvements (looped pipeline system).
c) Meet with the District’s Project Engineer to discuss potable water meter, reclaimed
water meter and sewer lateral locations.
d) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and approval
of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e., GPM - EDU).
6. This project is approved under the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the
time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available
until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the project plans.
7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans for
conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the stand and local Fire
Codes. The plans must include a site plan which depicts the following:
a) Location of existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
b) Location of off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
c) Depiction of emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire
Department approval.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following code requirements.
1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within
18 months from the date of final project approval.
3. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance,
except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 12
1
;
c
4
E
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
--
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Building.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual
and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Director.
The project shall comply with recycling collection area requirements pursuant to Section
21.105.060. The recycling area shall be noted on the final plans submitted for applicable
building permits for the project.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with
the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
NOTICE -
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions. ”
You have 90 days from November 23, 1998 to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning,
grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR
DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given.
. . .
. . .
. . .
DRB RESO NO. 265
PAGE 13
- --
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review Board
1
2 of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14’h day of December, 1998 by the following vote to
3 II
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Board Members: Marquez, Savary, Marois &
Forsyth, Jr.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
8 ABSTAIN:
9
10
None.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
11
ATTEST: 12
13
14 DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 14
--
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 266
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP98-48 TO ALLOW
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 141 ROOM THREE STORY HOTEL ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH
STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGES RESORT HOTEL
APN: 203-172-12, 21, 23
CASE NO: CDP 98-48
WHEREAS, Heritage West Development Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a
verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding
property owned by Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel Partnership, Reva C. Hooper, and Stella M. Stamp,
“Owners”, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-172-12, 203-172-21, 203-172-23 and more
thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits A through K dated November 23, on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department, (Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel) (RP98-OS/CDP98-48) as
provided by the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual Chapter; and
WHEREAS, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board of November
23, 1998, was canceled and was continued to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on -
December 14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 14” day of December, 1998, hold a duly
noticed special public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said special public hearing on the 14” day of December and upon
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to the Coastal Development Permit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Coastal
Development Permit (Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel) (CDP98-48), based on
the following findings and conditions:
FINDINGS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Master
Plan and Design Manual and Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, which serves as
the Certified Local Coastal program for the City of Carlsbad Village Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development is
redevelopment of a previously unimproved lot, the development does not obstruct
views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone and no agricultural
r activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the site.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will
adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion, so steep slopes or
native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an
area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction.
The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the improvements will not alter physical or
visual access to the shore.
The granting of the ten foot street vacation will have no adverse impact on vehicular
circulation within the area and the surplus right-of-way is not required for future
public street purposes. The project is approved with the understanding that the
required street vacation will be approved by the Carlsbad City Council prior to
approval of the redevelopment permit for the subject project. -
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board has recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for
the subject project and has determined that the project will have no significant
environmental impact.
2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of a
building, or addition to an existing building, with a building permit valuation which
exceeds $150,000.
DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 2
*
i.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The Project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is required.
4. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth
with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a variance
for a front setback that exceeds the standard range:
a) The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development
inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village
Redevelopment Plan. The Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design
Manual encourages uses, such as hotels, that promote goals and objectives of
the Master Plan. The project has been designed with an increased front yard set
back in several locations which improve both the function and physical
appearance of the structure. The increased set back allows for increased
landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard, and for a drop-off point for hotel guests.
The implementation of the standard would result in an inferior design and
decreased functionality.
b) There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls. The
project site is constrained due to the sloping topography of the land. Due to this
constraint, the applicant has designed a project which provides increased
landscaping, a high quality building design, increased building functionality, and
is consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. The applicant has made a
good faith effort to design the remainder of the building with appropriate
building setbacks. The proposed hotel provides setbacks which are similar to
buildings along Carlsbad Boulevard.
c) The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the
public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The
setbacks above the maximum will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring
properties because other properties along Carlsbad Boulevard have setbacks
which exceed 10 feet. The applicant has designed the entire project in a manner
which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting. Therefoye, the
increased setback in the front actually assists in the effort to create a more
visually appealing building within the front elevation
d)
DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 3
The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in varying degrees. The portions of
the project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation which
contradicts the intent of the standards established in the subject document. The
project is well-designed and will meet the needs of the hotel guests community
which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual.
L.
e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further than the
permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting
the structure back to the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village
character of the area. The subject property is in a location which has varying
setbacks. To the south, the residential property is setback in the front by
approximately 15 feet. To the west, buildings such as St. Michael’s Church and
the newly constructed Lutheran Retirement Home have setbacks in excess of 25
feet. It is expected that these buildings will remain for many more years. In
addition, these larger setbacks allow for a design of the building which allows
for more articulation in the building, which ultimately results in a building which
is more visually interesting and appealing.
5. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth
with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a
provisional land use:
= 4 The hotel has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. The size and scale of the building is compatible with existing
commercial structures to the south and west. The project is adjacent to single
family and multi-family residences to the north and to the east. The single
family homes to the north pose the most significant compatibility issue. The
project has been designed to include a 6 foot masonry wall adjacent to the
existing residences to the north. While there is no minimum or maximum
setback requirement along the northern portion of the project, the developer has
provided a 10 foot setback from the property line adjacent to the residences.
Also, the landscape plan calls for tall growing trees that will aid in screening the
hotel. Finally, the existing single family land uses are legal non-conforming
uses. Thus, the homes will be allowed to remain as long as so desired by the
property owners. However, their can be no expansion of the uses. Over the
long term, it is anticipated that these uses will ultimately be replaced with
commercial/retail land uses consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual.
b) The proposed frontage is consistent with the surrounding commercial a3d non-
commercial uses.
c) The project has been designed so that there will be a minimum impact to
surrounding land uses from parking and loading. Parking will be located at the
rear of the property and below ground. The entrances to the parking areas have
been designed to provided landscaping and screen walls incorporated to lessen
the impact from parking. Also, the project has been conditioned to prohibit any
deliveries in the areas adjacent to the existing residences.
GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-.
a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the area. The
project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective as of January 12, 1996,
because it will provide for a commercial use (hotel) which supports the existing
commercial uses within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve
the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been designed in
relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian circulation is
provided through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping, and
hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the
proposed project.
The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best
management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which
enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities.
c) The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot which has
appropriate zoning for a hotel facility. The project is also consistent with the
Open Space requirements for new development within the Village
Redevelopment Area.
d) The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building
and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate
fire protection and other safety standards.
2. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer-service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
3. The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or development
fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by the Local
Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, which are applicable to the project. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities.
DRB RESO NO. 266
PAGE 5
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement
approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
5. The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s
Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384.
6. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby fmds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by the project.
CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Design Review Board does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the applicant’s
request CDP98-48, for the project entitled “Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel” (Exhibits A-K),
incorporated herein by reference, date November 23, 1998), subject to the conditions herein set
forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary
corrections and modifications to the major Coastal Development Permit exhibits and/or other
documents’to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Developer shall develop the property substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits for the
project.
Approval of CDP 98-48 is subject to approval of RP 98-08. CDP 98-48 is subject to all
conditions contained in Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 265 dated,
November 23, 1998, for RP 98-08, for construction of a 141 room hotel.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity
with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved
Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment
to this approval.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two (2)
years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section
21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. -
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading
permit issued by the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_-
You have 90 days from November 23, 1998 to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning,
grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR
DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar
to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14* day of December, 1998, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Board Members: Marquez, Savary, Marois & r Forsyth, Jr.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRgERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 7
-
. - -,-..
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
6:00 P.M.
December 14,1998
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Board Member Marquez.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Acting Chairperson Compas, Members Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, and Marois
Absent: None
Staff Present: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst
Craig Ruiz, Management Analyst
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Forsyth, and duly seconded, to approve the
Minutes of the meeting of September 28, 1998, as presented.
VOTE: 5-O
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Forsyth, Marois
NOES: None
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the meeting
of October 8, 1998, as presented.
VOTE: 5-O
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Forsyth, Marois
NOES: None
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit, with a variance and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of
a 3-story, 89,943 square foot, 141 room hotel on property located on the east side of Carlsbad
Boulevard, between Christiansen Way and Beech Street in Village Land Use District No. 1.
Management Analyst, Craig Ruiz presented a brief history of the project and summarized the project as
follows: This is a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Boulevard Resort Hotel. The project consists of a 141 room hotel with
169 parking spaces (both surface and underground). It will be a 3-story design of approximately 90,000
square feet. One of the objectives of the Design Review Board is to find that the project is consistent with the
Village Master Plan and Land Use Plan. This project is located in Land Use District 1. Hotels in this district
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998
are allowed, with the approval of a Provisional Use Permit. The Redevelopment Permit will act as the
Provisional Use Permit. The goal of Land Use District 1 is to provide a strong retail and financial services to
the City residents, as well as tourists and regional visitors. The intent of this goal is to promote the pedestrian
shopping environment and other mutually supportive uses. Emphasized are facilities and services, both for
residents as well as travelers. This hotel project will meet both the goal and the emphasis of this land use
area. Provisional Use Permits are examined in three different ways; 1) location criteria; 2) development
criteria; and, 3) findings that must be made. Generally hotels are allowed in any area within Land Use District
1 but the City reserves the right of a Provisional Use Permit because there are some locations that are not as
desirable as other for a hotel. The City want to ensure that any impacts from a hotel will be addressed and
mitigated so they are not impacting on adjacent uses. In areas where there is a strong existing retail frontage
along main streets, the City wants to make sure that a hotel will not impact those retail areas. This project is
located on the north end of Carlsbad Boulevard with only one small retail use adjacent to it and is not likely to
have a great deal of retail impact. Also, this project has been designed for optimum ingress and egress at the
front of the building but will also include other accesses to both ground level and underground parking. The
site is irregular in shape and is limited as far as how things can be changed around. There are some existing
residences on the north and east sides of the project. There is no intense retail activity existing and therefore
no impacts regarding location. The service areas of the hotel will be located away from any of the adjacent
residential uses and signs will be posted restricting hotel deliveries, etc., to the areas. The City has also
required that the loading dock be reduced to the minimum usable size. This hotel will not have a restaurant so
the number of deliveries will be quite limited. Linens will be stored and laundering will be done, on-site,
eliminating the need for a linen delivery service. The project is appropriate for the area and will reach an
allowed height of 45 feet. There will be a series of 6 foot walls to provide screening for the adjacent residential
uses. There will also be some tall, fast growing landscaping put in along the north and east sides of the site.
At this time, the hotel owner feels that it would inappropriate to have any retail use in the hotel and therefore
none is planned. The residences are considered to be a legally non-conforming use and are allowed to stay
indefinitely. Staff feels that the appropriate findings can be made. This project is requesting one variance.
The Master Plan states that this property should have a 10 foot setback along Carlsbad Boulevard. There are
certain findings, however, that can reduce that setback to zero. This project has a variance setback of 0.00
with a Porte cochere from the property line back approximately 25 feet. This design is consistent with other
project in the area. Staff recommends approval to the City Council recommending approval of the Major
Redevelopment Permit No. 98-08, Coastal Development Permit No. 98-48, and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration,
Board Member Forsyth asked if there are any provisions for deliveries should the owner decide on putting in a
restaurant or other retail space.
Mr. Ruiz replied that there are no retail components to this hotel because there isn’t enough space for parking.
Therefore, there will be no retail at a later date.
Board Member Forsyth asked where the refuse bins will be located.
Mr. Ruiz replied that they will be located down the ramp and in the parking garage. The applicant has met with
the trash company and showed them the design and the trash company does not have a problem with that
location.
Board Member Forsyth asked is the 25 foot front variance accommodate the unloading of vehicles at the
entrance.
Mr. Ruiz replied that it definitely accommodates the drop-off spot, which is an important function of the hotel,
and also provides for additional landscaping and pedestrian amenities.
Board Member Forsyth asked how many employee parking spaces will be provided and where will they be
located.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14, 1998 Page 3
Mr. Ruiz replied that the Master Plan does not require designated employee parking versus guest parking. It
only requires 1.2 spaces per hotel room which allows enough parking for both guests and employees.
For clarification, Board Member Forsyth asked if the “hot houses” on the rear of the property on the east side
of the site, will be removed.
Mr. Ruiz replied that those “hot houses” will be removed.
Board Member Savary asked if the swimming pool area will be totally screened from the view of passers-by.
Mr. Ruiz stated that the applicant will answer that and other questions during his presentation.
Applicant, Howard Gaad, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, stated they have worked long and hard to
come up with a design that will produce not only a good looking project but own that will fit in and function well
with the rest of the area. He further stated that the 1.2 parking spaces per room ration, more than allows for
any employees that may park there. Also, he stated this is a limited service hotel which will serve breakfast to
guests but no lunches or dinners will be served and deliveries will be minimal. Mr. Gaad stated that screening
and lighting has been addressed and there is no illumination at the rear and sides that will interfere with the
neighbors.
Board Member Marquez asked what the total cost of this project will be.
Mr. Gaad replied that the total cost, including the land, is approximately $13,000,000.
Board Member Marquez what the average cost per room will be.
Mr. Gaad replied that the cost per room will be $95 per night on average, annualized.
Board Member Marois asked what the total number of staff and employees will be.
Mr. Gaad replied that total staff will vary, depending on the time of day, but the average will be approximately
10 to 15 people at any given time.
Chairperson Compas stated that at one time the applicant was interested in purchasing the property on the
southwest corner, adjacent to this site, and asked if they would be proposing a bigger hotel if they had been
able to acquire that property.
Mr. Gaad replied that he would not have proposed a larger hotel because 141 rooms is about right for that
location and to have a larger hotel would not be appropriate. Also, Mr. Gaad stated that he does not intend
any future expansion.
Board Member Savary asked if they anticipate having a gift shop or like facility within the hotel.
Mr. Gaad replied that there will be a very small area for sundries staffed, by the person running the front desk,
but not a retail shop.
Board Member Forsyth asked if there will be guest rooms in the front portion of the hotel that faces Carlsbad
Boulevard or will that be reserved for administrative offices.
Mr. Gaad replied that there are approximately 4 guest rooms at the front of the building in addition to the
administrative offices located nearer the front entrance.
Board Member Forsyth then asked if there will be guest rooms to the south of the entrance, nearer the
swimming pool area.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14, 1998 Page 4
Mr. Gaad replied that there will be no guest rooms to the south of the entrance. The area south of the
entrance is designed to be a lounge with a fireplace and which leads to a small dining room and the pool area.
Board Member Savary asked if the “electrical” room will create a noise factor for the adjacent guest room.
Mr. Gaad replied that there should be no noise emanating from that electrical room. He added that the walls
will be well insulated.
Understanding that the applicant and the owner of the adjacent property on the southwest corner of the block
have had discussions regarding the possible inclusion of that property into this project , Board Member
Marquez asked the applicant what the outcome of those discussions is.
Mr. Gaad replied that the owner of the property in question decided that they did not want to sell the property.
Mr. Gaad added that if they had been able to purchase that property, they would probably have used it for
aesthetics rather than retail. He explained that retail has to be in the central core of a hotel to prosper.
Chairperson Compas asked if the applicant intends to continue to own and operate this hotel or is there
another plan.
Mr. Gaad replied that they intend to retain ownership but they will probably hire a management company to
operate the hotel.
Chairperson Compas asked if they will serve cocktails in the lounge/library area.
Mr. Gaad replied that the most management companies serve wine and beer in a happy hour type setting and
that in that particular area it would be appropriate to serve those beverages.
Chairperson Compas asked if they intend to have any kind of food service to the rooms.
Mr. Gaad replied that they will not as their food service is very limited and will be in the dining room only.
Bill Kerish, Architect, Solerno Livingston Architects, 363 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, responded to questions
regarding the site itself. He explained that the site is very irregular and that because of its irregularity, they
were able to turn a disadvantage into an advantage, in that it provided a nearly perfect spot for a swimming
pool, in terms of sunlight and views as well as providing views from several of the rooms. Referring to the
exhibits, Mr. Kerish spoke of the landscaping and walkways. He stated that they have discussed and are
considering piping water in from the Alt Karlsbad facility for the spa. Mr. Kerish stated that the colors and
overall architecture meld nicely with the European flavor of the Village and break up straight lines and the
bulkiness of the building.
Chairperson Compas stated that the drawing makes the building appear to be very gray and asked if
something can be done about that.
Mr. Kerish explained that there is a subtle difference in color and that they did not wish to over do the colors.
The basic color is the lighter of the two colors portrayed in the drawing. Mr. Kerish pointed out that the
screening of the pool will be done with trellis style walls which will allow vines to grow on the wall and they are
also entertaining the installation of some glass which will be a noise barrier.
Mr. Gaad interjected and stated that they are using quite a bit of glass from the Porte cochere, south, to allow
people to look in and see that it is a nice and fun place. In addition, he stated that the reason they primarily
use very neutral colors in their building is that colors come in and go out of style with regularity and rather than
be stuck with colors that will “date” the structure, they choose the more neutral colors and enhance them with
different types of landscaping and potted plants of varying colors.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998 Page 5
Mr. Kerish stated that mechanical units will be on the roof but the design of the roof will create the proper
screening for the equipment. Regarding the landscaping, Mr. Kerish stated that there will be many different
plants and trees used in this project. Particular attention has be paid to screening from the residential area
along the north side of the site as well as the screening of the parking area. Mr. Kerish also stated that they
intend to have planter boxes which will be planted with flowers to mirror the flowers in the Carlsbad Flower
Fields at various times of the year.
Board Member Savary asked how the turning in and out of the entrance will affect traffic on Carlsbad
Boulevard, and, will there be a deceleration lane. She voiced her concern for safety regarding the interruption
of the normal flow of traffic.
Mr. Gaad replied that the entrance will only be for people to check-in to the hotel. He further stated that they
have worked with their own traffic engineer as well as the City Engineering Department to work through the
traffic issues. The consensus was that there will be no more of a safety risk than when there is a parking lot
with one or more driveways on a main street. In addition, the entrance will be on an angle and will make
entering and exiting much easier than if it were a normal driveway.
Board Member Savary asked staff to comment.
Mr. Ruiz stated that it is true that the applicant’s traffic engineer and the City’s Engineering Department have
conferred on this issue and it is also true that the angled entrance makes for ease of entrance and exit.
Board Member Marois asked how much shrubbery there will be along the front facade and what size plants will
be planted.
Mr. Kerish replied that, at this point in time, there is no size or species called out for the shrubbery.
Mr. Gaad interjected and stated that 70% of the shrub area will be 5 gallon plants and 30% will be 1 gallon
plants. He went on to explain that, normally, they put a 5 gallon plant in and surround it with 1 gallon plants.
Board Member Marois asked what percentage of the building will not have plantings or shrubbery.
Mr. Gaad replied that while they want to enhance the appearance of the building with landscaping, they do not
want to plant anything that will grow too high and eventually block the views from the rooms.
Mr. Kerish added that the existing palm trees will be saved and are mature enough to be out of the traffic line-
of-sight.
Board Member Marois asked Mr. Gaad if he has given any thought to what would be compatible uses for the
property on the corner to the south.
Mr. Gaad declined to comment other than to say that there are uses they would prefer not to have in that
location but, it is private property and if there is ever a proposed land use change, he feels assured that the
City will make the best determination of use for all concerned.
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Kerish if there is any fill being brought in, and pointed out that the building,
as it goes eastward, appears to be raised.
Mr. Kerish replied that the grade will not change at all.
Board Member Marquez asked if the 6 foot wall will be taken from existing grade.
Mr. Kerish replied affirmatively.
-. -.-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14.1998 Page 6
Board Member Marquez asked what type of roofing will be used.
Mr. Kerish replied that they are contemplating a high profile asphalt shingle, something that is rustic looking or
looks like slate but isn’t as costly as slate.
Board Member Marquez stated that she would like them to use the highest profile shingle so as to give the
appearance of wood. Also, she asked how they are going to handle the elevator profile.
Mr. Kerish explained that elevator profiles, these days, are relatively low and that they probably can get nearly
all of the elevator core inside the building and it will be well below the top of the parapet. He added that the
elevator will be set back inside the slope of the roof.
Board Member Marquez asked how far behind the property line will the Porte cochere be located.
Mr. Kerish replied that it will be approximately 15 feet behind the property line.
Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Gaad if they have made any provision for the scheduling of trash
collection. She pointed out that the trash enclosure is very close to the residences on the north side of the
site.
Mr. Kerish replied that the trash collection point is actually in the underground garage and is nowhere near
those residences. He added that he believes that the trash will be collected approximately 3 times per week
for a 3 cubic yard bin. He pointed out that a hotel of this type does not generate a huge amount of trash.
Board Member Marquez asked if there has been any provision for restricting their guests from hanging towels
on the balconies, especially in the front along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Mr. Kerish replied that they have not given that subject any thought but they would certainly be willing to
address the issue to find a diplomatic way to get the message to their guests.
Assuming that they receive all of the necessary approval and permits, Chairperson Compas asked when
construction will begin, how long will it last, and when do they plan on opening the hotel.
Mr. Kerish replied that it will take about 6 months to complete the working drawings and get the permits and
approximately 12 months of construction. He went on to say that it should be completed by June, 2000,
providing everything goes well.
Chairperson Compas asked if they have a name for this hotel in mind.
Mr. Kerish replied that at the moment, the Carlsbad Resort Hotel is the name they have been using and that
will probably remain.
Regarding the gray appearance of color, Chairperson Compas asked if they would have a problem if the
Design Review Board asked for enhancement of the coloration to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
Mr. Kerish replied that he could see no problem with that request. He added that as long as the color
enhancement is reasonable, there would not be a problem.
Board Member Forsyth asked how many parking spaces will be in the underground parking garage.
Mr. Kerish replied that there will be 124 parking spaces in the underground garage.
Chairperson Compas opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998 Page 7
Ludwig Grigoros, owner of the property on the south side of the side on the corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and
Christensen Way, stated that he likes and supports the project overall but wants to be sure that the project
does not inhibit his opportunity to redevelop his property. His plans are to build a large spa on the ground floor
and there will be no retail, except for the spa customers. The second, third and fourth (if they are allowed a 45
foot height) floors will be a Bed and Breakfast Inn with each room decorated in a different style, similar to the
Madonna Inn in San Luis Obispo.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Compas closed Public Testimony.
Board Member Marquez suggested that the Design Review Board require the applicant to restrict his guests
from hanging towels over their balconies, require trash collection to be scheduled not earlier than IO:00 a.m.,
and the finish colors of the roof and the rest of the building be done to the approval of the Director of Housing
and Redevelopment.
Chairperson Compas stated that the subjects of the towels and the colors have already been discussed.
However, since the subject of a trash collection schedule has not been discussed with the applicant,
Chairperson Compas re-opened Public Testimony and requested Mr. Gaad comments on the trash schedule.
Mr. Gaad stated that he does not have a problem with a trash collection schedule, as long as the trash
company can meet an approved schedule without additional significant cost. In addition, he added that to his
knowledge he would have no control over when they will pick up the trash.
Chairperson Compas asked staff to comment.
Mr. Ruiz stated that the trash company gives a window during which they will pick up the trash. Their
customers cannot dictate schedules, Customers, however, can request specific times but it is up to the trash
company as to whether they will honor the request.
Board Member Forsyth commented that the later the hour of pick up, the better.
Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain stated that Coast Waste Management will usually
work with the applicant to arrive at a reasonable solution but that an individual cannot dictate a time to them.
Chairperson Compas asked if Mr. Gaad would accept a condition they he must work out a reasonable trash
pick-up schedule with Coast Waste Management.
Mr. Gaad replied that he would accept such a condition.
Chairperson Compas closed Public Testimony.
Board Member Forsyth stated that he has no problem with the added conditions as suggested by Chairperson
Compas.
ACTION: Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 264, recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 265, recommending approval of RP 98-08, and adopt Design Review
Board Resolution No. 266, recommending approval of CDP 98-48, to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, including added conditions requiring that management restrict their
guests from hanging towels over the balconies, that the applicant enhance the color of
the roof and colors of the building’s exterior to the satisfaction of the Director of
Housing and Redevelopment, and directing management to work out a reasonable
trash pick-up schedule with Coast Waste Management.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998 Page 8
VOTE: 5-o
AYES: Compas, Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, and Marois
NOES: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain announced that there will be no meeting on December
28, 1998 and a meeting in January, 1999, is not anticipated. The February meeting will be held on February
22, 1999.
CHAIRPERSON REPORT:
None
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: ’
None
ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of December 14, 1998, was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Director of Housing and Redevelopment
City of Ca;rlebad Housixxg a,nd Redevelopment Department
AIRE”PORTTOTXXE
DESXG-N nEw5rRom
AoDlication Complete Date:
September 25, 1998
Environmental Review:
Mitigated Negative Declaration: October 22, 1998
Staff: Craig Ruiz Don Neu
Steve Jantz
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: NOVEMBER 23,1998
SUBJECT: RP 98-081CDP 98-48 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL: Request
for a Major Redevelopment Permit, with a variance, and a Coastal Development
Permit to allow the construction of a 3-story, 89,943 square foot, 141 room hotel
on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between
Christiansen Way and Beech Street in Village Land Use District 1.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 264,
recommending APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 265, recommending
APPROVAL of RP 98-08 and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 266,
recommending APPROVAL of CDP 98-48, to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Heritage West, has requested a major redevelopment permit to allow the
construction of a 141 room hotel on a vacant lot located on the west side of Carlsbad
Boulevard, between Christiansen Way and Beech Street. The proposed project consists of
construction of a three story building totaling 89,943 square feet with surface and underground
parking. A similar hotel project was approved for this site in 1985. However, the project was
never constructed and the approval expired.
III. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual allows for hotels on a provisional basis within Land
Use District 1. This means that the project must be given much more consideration in terms of
compatibility with surrounding land uses. Also, the site is located within the Coastal Zone.
Therefore, consistency with the Village Local Coastal Program is applicable to this project.
3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 2
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual as follows:
Goal 1: Establish Carlsbad Villaqe as a Qualitv ShoaDinq. Workinq and Livinq
Environment. The proposed project will result in development of a new facility which will have a
positive visual impact on the area. The positive visual appeal assists in the effort to create a
quality shopping, working and living environment. In addition, the project will bring additional
visitors and employees to the area which will improve the shopping and working environment.
Goal 2: /mm-ove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Villaqe Area. The project
has been designed to minimize the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along major pedestrian
walkways (Carlsbad Boulevard). The project will provide for parking underground and at the
rear of the site with access off side streets (Christiansen Way and Beech Street).
Goal 3: Stimulate Propertv lmlxovements and New DeveloDment in the Villaqe. The
Master Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development
and/or improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or
rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional
new development. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village
Redevelopment Area, specifically the area along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Goal 4: lmarove the Phvsical Appearance of the Villaqe Area. The applicant has made a
very good effort to design a project which will convert a vacant, blighted site into a physically
attractive project. The proposed project promotes the objective of creating a sense of design
unity and character while also encouraging design diversity.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN
The site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 1 of the Village
Redevelopment Area. Hotels are a provisional use within this district.
The goal of Land Use District 1 is to provide a strong retailing and financial services core
serving city residents as well as tourists and regional visitors. The intent of the land use
standards for this district is to reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment, encourage
mutually supportive uses and provide major activity focus for Carlsbad Village and the City as a
whole. The provision of facilities and services for travelers in the coastal zone are emphasized.
Staff believes that the hotel facility provides for a very important use which supports and is
compatible with the surrounding commercial, retail and residential character of the area.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 9&08/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 3
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH PROVISIONAL USE STANDARDS
Provisional uses within the area, as identified within the Village Land Use Plan, may be
determined to be compatible with existing uses. While hotels are generally acceptable in most
land use districts within the village, the issues of scale and potential conflicts must be
addressed in each individual circumstance. As such, specific findings for the provisional use
must be made to grant the use. The findings are as follows:
1. The scale and character of the hotel is appropriate to its location and the desired
village character. The hotel has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. The size and scale of the building is compatible with existing commercial
structures to the south and west. The project is adjacent to single family and multi-family
residences to the north and to the east. The single family homes to the north pose the most
significant compatibility issue. The project has been designed to include a 6 foot masonry
wall adjacent to the existing residences to the north. While there is no minimum setback
requirement along the northern portion of the project, the developer has provided a IO foot
setback from the property line adjacent to the residences. Also, the landscape plan calls for
tall growing trees that will add in screening the hotel. Finally, it should be noted that the
existing single family land uses are legal non-conforming uses. This means the homes will
be allowed to remain as long as so desired by the property owners. However, their can be
no expansion of the uses. Over the long term, it is anticipated that these uses will ultimately
be replaced with commercial/retail land uses consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual.
2. Street frontage uses are appropriate to the site location and adjacent uses. This
finding is intended primarily for areas that are predominately retail. The proposed frontage
is consistent with the surrounding commercial and non-commercial uses.
3. Loading facilities and access to parking will not adverse/y affect pedestrian
movement and safety. The project has been designed so that there will be a minimum
impact to surrounding land uses from parking and loading. Parking will be located at the
rear of the property and below ground. The entrances to the parking areas have been
designed to provided landscaping and to include screen walls incorporated to lessen the
impact from parking. Also, the project has been conditioned to prohibit any deliveries in the
areas adjacent to the existing residences. Failure to comply with this condition may result in
the revocation of the Developer’s Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permit.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides for two types of standards that every
project must be consistent with in order to receive approval. The first type is known as
“Universal Standards”. Every project within the Village Redevelopment Area must comply with
these Universal Standards. The second type is known as “Individual Standards”. These
standards are specific to the Land Use District in which the project is located.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 4
“Universal Standards” address 1) the issues of General & Redevelopment Plan
Consistency, Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing; and 2) special instructions regarding
the application of individual standards related to parking, building coverage, building height and
setbacks. The following information is provided to indicate how the proposed project meets the
“Universal Standards”.
General and Redevelopment Plan: The General Plan includes the following goals for
the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living,
working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere
and pedestrian scale; and 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by
encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area. The
General Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive
Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for tourist serving uses in an appropriate location
within the Village. Also, the project design reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the
downtown area and assists with the effort to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area
which provides a wide variety of activities for residents and visitors.
In summary, the proposed project supports the Village character for the area. The project is
located within easy walking distance of retail and commercial uses, the beach, and mass
transit. The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also
been determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village
Redevelopment Area.
Residential Densitv and lnclusionarv Housinu Reauirements: There is no residential
proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing
requirements are not applicable to this project.
Parkinq: The parking requirement for a hotel is 1.2 spaces for every hotel room. The
requirement for a 141 room hotel is 169.2 spaces. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
21.44.010 states that fractional requirements must be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Therefore, the requirement for this project is 170 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide
169 spaces, which one space less than the minimum requirement for the project. To meet the
minimum parking requirement, the project has been condition such that the applicant must
revise the site plan to provide one additional space, subject to the review and approval of the
Housing and Redevelopment Director, or reduce the number of hotel rooms to 140. Based upon
staffs review, it appears that there is adequate room to provide the additional parking space.
Parking will be both surface level and in a sub-surface parking garage. Parking will be
accessed from either of the sides streets (Christiansen or Beech), and will be screened from
view along Carlsbad Boulevard.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 5
Buildina Coverase. Heiaht and Setbacks: These standards are established
individually according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area.
The Universal Standards section of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides
information on variances and criteria to be used in setting the standards for individual projects
when a range is set forth for the subject standard. The details of the subject standards are
described below.
“Individual” Develooment Standards set forth specifically for new development within
Land Use District 1 are as follows:
Buildino Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks. In Land Use District 1, there is no minimum or maximum setback
for side and rear yards. The project has been designed with side yard setbacks ranging from 0
to 36 feet while the rear yard ranges from 5 feet to 75 feet.
The Master Plan sets the front setback standard as a range from 0 to 10 feet. The project as
proposed has been designed with a front setback which ranges from 0 to 25 feet. The
increased setback allows for increased landscaping and pedestrian amenities along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Further, the increased setback is consistent with other commercial buildings in the
area. However, while the increased front setback is desirable in this case, the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual does require that a variance be granted for any setback which is
above the maximum or below the minimum.
The findings required to grant a variance for the front setback which exceed the standard
(range) are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted
standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to
the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area.
The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential development and
where increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and
residential development or would protect the liveability of the residential development. (This
finding is not applicable to the subject project.)
Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor dining space
subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to
the subject project.)
The first finding noted above for allowing the front setback which exceeds the maximum
standard (range) is justified as follows: 1) the subject project is in a location which has varying
setbacks. To the south, the adjacent property is setback in the front by approximately 15 feet.
Across Carlsbad Boulevard, buildings such as the newly constructed Lutheran Retirement
Home and Saint Michael’s Church have setbacks in excess of 20 feet. Therefore, staff believes
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-OB/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 6
that the increased setbacks are consistent with the area. These larger setbacks allow for
greater landscaping, and for a building design which is more visually interesting and appealing.
The greater setback also allows for enhanced pedestrian-oriented features which are highly
desirable within the Village.
In addition to making findings for the project to exceed the maximum setback, findings must
also be made to reduce the setback to the minimum of the range for that portion of the building
that has a zero setback. The findings required to reduce the setback to the minimum of the
range are as follows:
1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the
Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use
district in which the project is located.
3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and
visually appealing and reinforces the Village Character of the area.
The first finding noted above for allowing a reduction of the front setback to the minimum of the
range is justified as follows: 1) the subject project is in a location which has varying setbacks
and will, therefore, not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2) the increased
setback allows for greater pedestrian amenities and landscaping. This results in project which
is more pedestrian-orientated, which is a primary objective of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan
& Design Manual. 3) the larger setbacks allow for greater landscaping, and for a building
design which is more visually interesting and appealing.
ODen Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space.
The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters,
open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating
areas. No parking spaces or aisles are permitted in the open space. The project, as proposed,
provides for a total of 24,249 square feet of open space/landscape area, which represents 31%
of the site (77,100 square feet); this exceeds the 20% requirement.
Buildina Coveraqe: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects in
Land Use District 1 is 80% to 100%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 64.7%.
The bottom of the range is considered the desired standard. However unlike the setback
requirements above, a decrease in the standard to below the minimum does not require a
variance. Therefore, the building coverage is determined to be consistent with the desired
standard.
Buildina Heiaht: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 45 feet with a 5:12 roof pitch,
where the commercial project is located over a parking structure. The project proposes a roof
height that is 45 feet. The roof design includes dormers of varying sizes and tower elements.
The tower elements do exceed 45 feet in height. At the highest peak of the tower elements, the
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-OB/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 7
height is 51 feet. Through Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.46.02, the Master Plan allows
architectural features to exceed the maximum height so long as the increased height does not
result in increased floor area. Therefore, the building height is determined to be consistent with
the desired standard.
Parkina: As stated above, the parking requirement for hotels is 1.2 spaces per room.
At 141 rooms, the parking requirement is 170 spaces. The applicant has been conditioned to
either provide 170 spaces or reduce the total number of hotel rooms to 140.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design
a project which is consistent with a village scale and character. The Design Review Board and
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the
applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These
design principles are:
1. Development shall have an overall informal character.
2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity.
3. Development shall be small in scale.
4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged.
5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street.
6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades.
7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details.
8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design.
9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated.
10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project has
provided for an overall informal character in design. The architectural design provides for
variety and diversity through varying roof features, window treatments, building articulation on
all elevations, patio/balcony areas and varied building setbacks. There is also landscaped areas
which add to the variety and diversity of the design. The building has a very strong relationship
to the street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk area and
encourages pedestrian access. The building provides for a variety of architectural features and
details as previously described. The parking is visually subordinate in that is located at the rear
of the property and underground, and is not visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. A summary of the
design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (Exhibit 6).
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
The property is allowed a maximum of 485 square feet of signage for the subject building. As
indicated on the building elevations, the applicant is proposing two wall signs locations located
along the north and south elevations. Both signs will be 8 feet by 4 feet for a total of 64 square
feet. The applicant has indicated, and the project conditioned, that the signs will be internally
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-OB/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 8
illuminated channel letters. At this time, the verbiage for the signs has not been indicated.
Should the applicant wish to provide additional signs at a later date, approval of the Housing
and Redevelopment Director would be required.
X. DEVELOPMENTAPPROVALPROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building which will have a building permit valuation which is greater than
$150,000. The project must have a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final
approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested, consider
the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then
take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the requested variance for the
front yard setback which exceeds the range.
The proposed project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development
Permit is required for the subject project.
XI. OTHER APPROVALS
While the Design Review Board is taking action on the Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit, there are three other related approvals that are necessary for the project.
First, the project is proposing a 10 foot street vacation along Christiansen Way. The street
vacation will allow for additional landscaping along the street. The City’s engineering staff has
analyzed the applicant’s request and has determined that the additional right-of-way is not
necessary to handle future traffic volumes. Thus, staff supports the applicants request. The
project has been conditioned to require that the applicant receive approval of the street vacation
by the City Council prior to the approval of these permits.
Second, the project has been conditioned to require that the overhead electrical utilities be
located underground. To accomplish this, the developer will be required to vacate and
rededicate San Diego Gas and Electric easements on the property. From an aesthetic
standpoint, the undergrounding of the utilities will greatly improve the appearance of the site.
From a functional standpoint, there will not be any disruption in service. While the vacation and
rededication will not require City action, the applicant will need to provide proof of said approval
prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project. This is a typical requirement of any
large development and staff foresees no difficulties in acquiring the approval of SDG&E.
Third, the project site currently consists of the three individual parcels. The City’s subdivision
Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20, does not allow buildings to be constructed
over property lines. Therefore, the project has been required to receive approval of a parcel
merger to merge the three parcels into one contiguous parcel. The applicant must receive the
approval from the City Engineer prior to the issuance of either a building permit or a grading
permit, whichever occurs first.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-OB/CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 9
XII. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION. SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic. The total projected average daily traffic for the project is 1,410 ADTs, based on the most
recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations.
Circulation. Circulation for the project is designed with parking access of Christiansen Way and
Beech Street. Guests of the hotel may be dropped of at the front of the building located off of
Carlsbad Boulevard, at the rear of the property, and from the underground parking .
Sewer service to the project will be provided by two sewer lines available to the project Sewer.
site. There is an 8 inch line along Carlsbad Boulevard and an 8 inch main line along Beech
Street.
Water. Water service will be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The site will be
served by an 8 inch main line located on the eastern side of Carlsbad Boulevard, a 6 inch line
along Beech Street and a IO inch line along Christiansen Way.
Reclaimed Water. The use of reclaimed water will be incorporated where feasible as
determined appropriate by the Water District Engineer.
Gradins: Grading for this project will not be extensive. The project will call for the export of
10,000 cubic yards of export from the project site.
Drainacre and Erosion Control: The project has been adequately conditioned
property will provide for adequate drainage into the City’s storm drain system
Imwovements. Sidewalks will be installed on the perimeter of the property.
need to obtain right-of-way permits to remove and install driveway aprons in
way.
XIII: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
to ensure that the
The applicant will
the public right of
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. Earlier analysis of this
proposed hotel project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA94-01) and
related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) as well as the Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted for the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (SS92-01). With
regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found the cumulative impacts of
the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are significant and adverse due
to the regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no
additional environmental documentation is required.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-081CDP 98-48
NOVEMBER 23,1998
PAGE 10
Based upon staffs analysis of the project, mitigation measures have been developed for the
potential additional significant impacts due to this development related to noise and lighting.
The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration to
ensure the compliance with all identified mitigation measures. In addition, all feasible mitigation
measures identified in MEIR 93-01 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the
Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (SS92-01) which are appropriate to this
project have been incorporated into this project.
As a result of staffs review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project
by the Planning Director on October 22, 1998 and made available for public review. No
comments were received on the environmental document. Adoption of Design Review Board
Resolution No. 264 will recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
XIV. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have significant positive financial impact on the City and
the Redevelopment Agency. First, the development of vacant properties will result in increased
property taxes. This increase in property tax, will result in increased tax increment to the
Redevelopment Agency. Second, the property will generate significant transient occupancy
taxes which will benefit the City as a whole. Third, it is hoped that the project will serve as a
catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings. Finally, the project will result in the construction of a new development and the
elimination of a blighting influence within the area, as a result of the development on a vacant
site.
xv. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project, with findings to grant the variance for the front
setback which exceeds the maximum of the range. The project will have a positive fiscal
impact on the redevelopment area and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the
Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 264, recommending approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 265, recommending approval of RP 98-08
3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 266, recommending approval of CDP 98-48
4. Location Map
5. Project Description with Disclosure Statement
6. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
7. Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated November 23, 1998, including reduced exhibits.
Exhibit A
PARCEL A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 203-172-21 and 203-172-23 ,. ,&-; . .
ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CA.RLSBm, TN THE CITY OF CARtSBAD, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775.
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY
15, 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST kIESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
5S023'25" EAST, 20.00 FEET ALONG BEACH AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O23'25" EAST, 95.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
34O33'25" EAST, 200.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH SS“26'58" EAST, 100 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PORTION OF SAID BLOCK 5 CONVEYED BY
C.B. BRANNERMAN TO HELEN R. KNOWLES BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1899 AND
RECORDED IN BOOK 276, PAGE 200 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO KNOWLES FOR A DISTANCE OF 200
FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 115 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO A POINT 0,; THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5 WHICH IS 100 FEET
NORTHWESTERLY'FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 20 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY
CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 2 OF CITY OF CARLSBAD LOT SPLIT MAP NUMBER 71;
THENCE NORTH 34O33'00" WEST, 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF CHRISTIANSEN WAY
FORMERLY KNOWN AS CEDAR STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT 5 ON THE SOUTHEAST AS
VACATED AND ABANDONED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 1986 AS FILE NO.
86-438978 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
55O24'44" EAST, 115.43 FEET ALONG THE SO- TERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK
5, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNSNG.
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O24'44" EAST 99.60 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
BOUNDARY TO A POINT WHICH IS 225.75 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST
EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTH 34O35'38" EAST, 10.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 55'=24'44" WEST 99.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34O37'20" WEST, 10.00
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL B:
ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY
15, 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
55O23'25" EAST 115.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
NORTH SS"23'25" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 120.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 55O23'25" EAST 135.00'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 80.26;
..,L;.,..“.. -. -:.
-f ,-.- cT.e .--.--- -
THENCE SC' 55”26’S8” WEST 150.00 FEET; * 'NCE NORTH 34O33'25" WEST 200.10
FEET TO 1. . TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL C:
AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO, OVER,
UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERLY S FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
LAND:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 5, OF CARLSBAD IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894, DISTANT THEREON 140 FEET
NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 60 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY
CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CHARLES R. EYMANN, ET UX, RECORDED
AUGUST 13, 1963 AS FILE NO. 142211 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND PARALLEL
WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE
MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION
THEREOF PARALLEL WITH THE NORTIIWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF
65 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EYMANN'S LAND; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 5 FEET OF THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT ONLY TO THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED
JUNE 12, 1980 AS FILE NO. 80-187294 AND APRIL 21, 1989 As FILE NO.
89-210431, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
L-EGAL DESCRIPTION ApN# 203-172-l 2 :’ ,:;‘:.. .,. :. . I ..‘. $.? . :: d
THE SOUTHWESTERLY 65.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 225.00 FEET OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY 200.00 FEET OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15,
1894.
Exhibit A
PARCEL A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 203-172-2? and 203-172-23 +, =J-.. ..C ._
ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY oF CA.RLSBAD, COUNTY oF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE oF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY
15, 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
SS"23'2S" EAST, 20.00 FEET ALONG BEACH AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O23'2S" EAST, 95.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
34O33'25" EAST, 200.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH SS"26'S8" EAST, 100 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PORTION OF SAID BLOCK S CONVEYED BY
C.B. BRANNERMAN TO HELEN R. KNOWLES BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1899 AND
RECORDED IN BOOK 276, PAGE 200 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO KNOWLES FOR A DISTANCE OF 200
FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 115 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO A POTNT 0,; THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5 WHICH IS 100 FEET
NORTHWESTERLY'FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 20 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY
CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 2 OF CITY OF CARLSBAD LOT SPLIT MAP NUMBER 71;
THENCE NORTH 34O33'03" WEST, 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF CHRISTIANSEN WAY
FORMERLY KNOWN AS CEDAR STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT S ON THE SOUTHEAST AS
VACATED AND ABANDONED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 1986 AS FILE NO.
86-438978 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
SS"24'44" EAST, 115.43 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEAS TERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK
5, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O24'44" EAST 99.60 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
BOUNDARY TO A POINT WHICH IS 225.75 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST
EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTH 34"35'38" EAST, 10.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 55O24'44" WEST 99.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34O37'20" WEST, lo.00
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL B:
ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY
15. 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
SSO23'2S" EAST 115.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
NORTH SS"23'2S" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34='33'25" EAST 120.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH SS"23'25" EAST 13S.OO'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 80.26;
. 1
. . . . . . . . /_. .. .‘.
.1 .-.- *-,a ql-...a-- .- -
THENCE SC" 'F 55O26'58" WEST 150.00 FEET; - 'NCE NORTH 34O33'25" WEST 200.10
FEET TO 'I. a' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING-
PARCEL C:
AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO, OVER,
UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERLY 5 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
LAND:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 5, OF CARLSBAD IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894, DISTANT THEREON 140 FEET
NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 60 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY
CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CHARLES R. EYMANN, ET UK, RECORDED
AUGUST 13, 1963 AS FILE NO. 142211 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND PARALLEL
WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE
MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION
THEREOF PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF
65 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EYMANN'S LAND; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 5 FEET OF THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT ONLY TO THE LAN-D DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED
JLNE 12, 1980 AS FILE NO. 80-187294 AND APRIL 21, 1989 As FILE NO.
89-210431, BOTH OF OFFICIAL, RECORDS.
.
: ,
, LiZkAL DESCRIPTION APN# 203-172-12 ‘- . ,:: ’ 2’. _ ,, ‘* . .
>.? . .
THE SOUTHWESTERLY 65.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 225.00 FEET OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY 200.00 FEET OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15,
1894.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
East side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue and
Christiansen Way excluding two parcels containing a total of
10,000 square feet located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad
Boulevard and Christiansen Way, City of Carlsbad, San Diego
County, California.
A 14 1 room three story hotel with underground parking and related
amenities on a 1.77 acre site. The project grading design requires
12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of fill, and the export
of 10,000 cubic yard.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning
Department at (760) 43 8-l 161, extension 4446.
DATED: October 22, 1998
CASE NO: RP 98-08KDP 98-48
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel
PUBLISH DATE: October 22, 1998
. \I\’ MICHAEL J. H&!ZMIl&ER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-1161 l FAX (760) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 98-OZ/CDP 98-48
DATE: October 2. 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel
2. APPLICANT: HeritaPe West Development Company
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 655,
San Dieno, CA 92122 (619) 458-l 141
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 8,1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a
141 room hotel containing 3 stories over underground parking located on the east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue and Christiansen Way excluding two parcels
containing a total of 10,000 square feet located at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and
Christiansen Wav.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
cl Water cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality Ia Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
cl
cl
Ix1
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature
/O-/3-98
Date
Planning Directss Sig/ature Date
2 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but @ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 a7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
cl
d)
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6;#2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6;#2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6;#2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a>
b)
c>
4
4
fl
g)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-
15;#2;#3) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1.15;#2;#3)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l :Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15;#2;#3)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15;#2;#3)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
1 1;#2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
Cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
0
[x1
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
0
cl
q
Less Than Significant Impact
0
cl
0
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No Impact
lxl
Ix1
cl
El
Ix)
w
lx
IXI
El
Ix1
[XI
IXI
[XI
Ix]
El
Ia
[x1
[XI
El
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c>
4
4
0
g)
h)
i>
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-1;#2)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11;#2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((# 1 :Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
b)
c>
d)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12;#2)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12;#2)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12;#2)
Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12;#2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c>
4
e)
cl
g>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1 :Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l :Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22;#2;#5)
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
lxl
Cl
cl
cl
w
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
Cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
q
0
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No Impact
Ix1
Ix)
lxl
IXI
q
IXI
Ix]
Cl
El
El
[XI
q
Ix1
[XI
lx
!a
q
Ix]
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a>
b)
cl
4
e)
VIII.
a>
b)
cl
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24;#2)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(# 1 :Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24;#2)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24;#2)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9;#2)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9;#2)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-l - 5.13-9;#2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a>
b)
4
4
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-
5;#2)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5;#2)
The creation of any health hazard’or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5;#2)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5;#2)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5;#2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15;#2;#4)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15;#2;#4)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
0
cl cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
El
cl
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
0
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
No
Impact
El
Ix)
El
lxl
El
[XI
El
lxl
El
I8
El
[x1
El
El
q
Ix] w
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a>
b)
cl
4
4
fl
g)
XIII.
a>
b)
c)
XIV.
a>
b)
cl
d)
e>
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-I - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.1 l-5$2)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-1 - 5.11-5;#2)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 I-5;#2)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10;#2)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10;#2)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8- 1 -
5.12.8-7;#2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7;#2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
cl
0
cl
Cl
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
q
cl
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
cl
0
cl
0
cl
0
cl
0
El
0
0
cl
0
0
cl
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
cl
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
cl
0
0
No Impact
q El
Ix]
lxl
lxl [XI
IB Ix] (XI [x1
lx
[XI
0
cl Ix1
cl [XI
0 (XI cl El
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 w
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0 0 0 El
Ix1 0
0 txl
0 0
0 0
Rev. 03128196
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed hotel project has been completed through the General Plan
Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) as well as
the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01). The
MEIR is cited as source number 1 in the preceding checklist and the Mitgated Negative
Declaration for the Village Design Manual is cited as source number 2. This proposal is
consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and the Village Design Manual and
within the scope of the projects anticipated by both the General Plan and the Village Design
Manual. Mitigation measures are proposed for the potential additional significant impacts due to
this development. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01) which are appropriate to this
project have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03128196
bf
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel project is a proposal to construct a 141 room three story hotel
with underground p’arking and related amenities on a 1.77 acre site located on the east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Street and Christiansen Way in the Village Redevelopment
Area. The project grading design requires 12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of fill,
and the export of 10,000 cubic yards. The site is currently vacant and contains no structures.
The amount of export proposed is a result of the underground parking garage. Adjacent land
uses to the project site include both residential and nonresidential development as well as public
streets which front the project in three areas. The site is designated as Village (V) on the General
Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Village Redevelopment (V-R). The property is located within
Land Use District Number 1 - Carlsbad Village Center. Hotels are identified as a provisional use
in Land Use District Number 1.
11 Rev. 03128196
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
I. c) Land Use Planning
Residential uses are located adjacent to the eastern and northeastern areas of the project site. The
proposed project must provide an adequate buffer along these areas of the site perimeter to
mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential land uses. To accomplish this a decorative 6
foot high block wall shall be constructed along the eastern and northeastern property lines. The
design of the wall shall be compatible with the proposed project’s architecture to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. In addition, landscaping materials identified on the
Preliminary Landscape Plan for the planter areas adjacent to the eastern and northeastern
property lines shall consist of trees that are a minumum of 36 inch box size and shrubs which are
a minimum of 5 gallon size.
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic
gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San
Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects within the
scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03128196
VI. a) Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
X. b) Noise
The exterior noise assessment prepared for the project by Dudek & Associates contains the
following summary, “the primary noise source at the site is traffic noise from Carlsbad
Boulevard. The future exterior noise level at the hotel’s proposed recreation area and patio area
at the northwestern portion of the site facing Carlsbad Boulevard would exceed the City’s
exterior noise criteria. To mitigate the noise impact will require the construction of a minimum
five-foot high noise barrier along the western portion of the site. In addition, an interior noise
study will be required for the hotel prior to issuance of building permits. The interior noise study
will determine the interior noise level and type of sound insulation required to mitigate the noise
impact. To meet the City’s noise requirement, it is anticipated that air-conditioning and/or
mechancial ventilation will be required, as well as sound-rated windows in certain rooms.”
The required noise mitigation measures are as follows:
1. Mitigation of the noise impacts at the outdoor recreation and patio areas requires the
construction of a minimum five-foot high noise barrier along the western portion of the
site. The location of the required five-foot high noise barrier is shown in the attached
Figure 3. The noise barrier may be constructed as a wall, berm, or combination of both.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
The materials used to construct the noise barrier are required to have a minimum surface
density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Such materials may consist of masonry, 5/8-inch
Plexiglass, 3/8-inch tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The barrier
must be designed and constructed so that there are no openings or cracks. The required
noise barrier shall be shown on the project’s building plans and be constructed prior to
the issuance of an occupany permit.
2. To comply with the City’s interior noise standard, an interior noise analysis is required
for the project. The interior accoustical analysis will be required for the hotel prior to
issuance of building permits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed a CNEL
of 45 dB within the hotel rooms. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the hotel rooms
require air-conditioning and/or mechancial ventilation, and could require sound-rated
windows in certain rooms.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a copy of the required
interior acoustical analysis documenting what construction materials or measures must be
utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed by the
acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect’s registration
stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifiying that the
recommendations of the interior acoustical analysis have been incorporated into the
building plans.
XIII. c). Aesthetics. Light & Glare
The project has the potential to have light and glare impacts on adjacent residential
property. To avoid this potential impact the applicant will be required to comply with the
following mitigation measure:
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting
shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 43 8 116 1, extension 447 1.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-Ol), dated
February 6, 1995, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. Summarv of Field Investigation and Exploratory Drilling for the Carlsbad Hotel Site,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street (Project No. 06043-42-01) , dated April 2, 1998,
GEOCON Incorporated.
4. Carlsbad Village Resort Exterior Noise Assessment (Project No. 1645- 1 l), dated May 11,
1998, Dudek & Associates.
5. Traffic Analysis for the Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel (Project No. 003897), dated April 27,
1998, Urban Systems Associates, Incorporated.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE’1
1. A decorative 6 foot high block wall shall be constructed along the eastern and
northeastern property lines. The design of the wall shall be compatible with the proposed
project’s architecture to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
2. Landscaping materials identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the planter areas
adjacent to the eastern and northeastern property lines shall consist of trees that are a
minimum of 36 inch box size and shrubs which are a minimum of 5 gallon size.
3. Mitigation of the noise impacts at the outdoor recreation and patio areas requires the
construction of a minimum five-foot high noise barrier along the western portion of the
site. The location of the required five-foot high noise barrier is shown in the attached
Figure 3. The noise barrier may be constructed as a wall, berm, or combination of both.
The materials used to construct the noise barrier are required to have a minimum surface
density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Such materials may consist of masonry, 5/8-inch
Plexiglas, 3/8-inch tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The barrier must
be designed and constructed so that there are no openings or cracks. The required noise
barrier shall be shown on the project’s building plans and be constructed prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit.
4. To comply with the City’s interior noise standard, an interior noise analysis is required
for the project. The interior acoustical analysis will be required for the hotel prior to
issuance of building permits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed a CNEL
of 45 dB within the hotel rooms. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the hotel rooms
require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation, and could require sound-rated
windows in certain rooms.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a copy of the required
interior acoustical analysis documenting what construction materials or measures must be
utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed by the
acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect’s registration
stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifying that the
recommendations of the interior acoustical analysis have been incorporated into the
building plans.
5. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting
shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
16 Rev. 03128196
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE‘1
17 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
M-9-W .’
Date Signature
H bwd kc-d
18 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MI’. JATION MONITORING CHECKLIS . . Page 1 of 1
aI-- ZZE :g-G a) E
Es? z 0 Ea ‘f 0 5 .r - ‘5 e?h O,Q c;i .-
2 Eg ‘0’ c ‘3 &g v) “I-E 2 0 a, r, E E Eal g J= .$
Tii z @
&iy- .E 60)
z- .2 .g U-Y c “80
ES E 0 P 1s u 3 -0 gG
Em 0 .Jj 2
au 5 Pig
s”,z .r z u
uqj SE ((J 0 d boa, pa; 8 *E .E 8 a, iQje a, G .- 3 .- c” * c& .gJ 5 6 5 .c 5 z a c a--onI E$gc al CL.2 S--ES ‘= tT ([I 0 s,” .F - .r *g-g E-ti a, 0 roBO -3 n, 5.Q 8
Egg% ~wll~ ‘5 E grr ii E E .o & c7i .r c .g 2 3 Q) mu O-o.Po g .e a3 Ezi cu‘E,- i.5g-g;
-
;; ,
i-v). ,‘,E 9
,,.(lJ’-:
.“&
q&
,,i ,., L,‘.’ ., _
-
j
f
j
;
: : I
j
)
i
?
I
i
;
I !
)
# . .
i
, ,
I
_ i ‘i ,
i
I <
:;
j.’ . . .
“. :.: :I_ :.. . :: .$
p <:
.,’ :-
2
. 11
:.a ‘.:: ,3 “. 5 \a 2 :z .ia i: ‘~ :a ‘.j: 0 ;:
.I.
. . . .
*L
II
u. ,.. x;j- ,: .i; ,.. ,...:
J ::
i ..I 1, -. : . . .. ii . . ;;> 2 ; u Ii b : z
0
1,
_/
:[ 2’ ?. . . i :‘. ;. i- ; .- %? 2
I :;i,
cli. %
;I
I :
I:
I-. ,...
:._
.-
“.
: :‘.
.-.
: - . .
7-‘:... -,-:.
..?’
._ ; .’ : :
j “y.
Exhibit A
PARCEL A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 203-172-21 and 20X-172-23 i . U-.+'.;--" . .
ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OE
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY
15. 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
55O23'25" EAST, 20.00 FEET ALONG BEACH AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 5S023'25" EAST, 95.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
34'=33'25" EAST, 200.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5SO26'58" EAST, 100 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PORTION OF SAID BLOCK 5 CONVEYED BY
C.B. BRANNERMAN TO HELEN R. KNOWLES BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1899 AND
RECORDED IN BOOK 276, PAGE 200 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO KNOWLES FOR A DISTANCE OF 200
FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 115 FEET MORE OR
LESS TO A POINT 0,; THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5 WHICH IS 100 FEET
NORTHWESTERLY'FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 20 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY
CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 2 OF CITY OF CARLSBAD LOT SPLIT MAP NUMBER 71;
THENCE NORTH 34O33'03" WEST, 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF CHRISTIANSEN WAY
FORMERLY KNOWN AS CEDAR STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT 5 ON THE SOUTHEAST AS
VACATED AND ABANDONED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 1986 AS FILE NO.
86-438978 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
55O24'44" EAST, 115.43 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK
5, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNSNG.
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O24'44" EAST 99.60 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
BOUNDARY TO A POINT WHICH IS 225.75 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST
EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTH 34='35'38" EAST, 10.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 55“24'44" WEST 99.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34O37'20" WEST, 10.00
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 8:
ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY
15. 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH
55O23'25" EAST 115.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
NORTH SS“23'25" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 120.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 55O23'25" EAST 135.00'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 80.26;
.f-.*r,7m ,.“. ..-r .- -
.*L:-,-,‘, .. -’
THENCE SC' '7 55='26'58" WEST 150.00 FEET; ' :NCE NORTH 34O33'25" WEST 200.10
FEET TO 'i. 2' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING-
PARCEL C:
m EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO, OVER,
UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERLY 5 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
LAND:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 5, OF CARLSBAD IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894, DISTANT THEREON 140 FEET
NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 60 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY
CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CHARLES R. EYMANN, ET UX, RECORDED
AUGUST 13, 1963 AS FILE No. 142211 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND PARALLEL
WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE
MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION
THEREOF PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF
65 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EYMANN'S LAND; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 5 FEET OF THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT ONLY TO THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED
JUNE 12, 1980 AS FILE NO. 80-187294 AND APRIL 21, 1989 AS FILE NO.
89-210431, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
L&AL DESCRIPTIOi APN# 203-172-12 I' $'!-.. _I ., ..'. .:: ;. I
THE SOUTHWESTERLY 65.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 225.00 FEET OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY 200.00 FEET OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 775,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15,
1894.
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
.?.j! Lo_ Site +laniing: I .,_ .’ : ,, : ‘a’ ,,,:,;‘,,Lif..$ t’-~ iy”i ” Project: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial The are a variety of set-backs along Carlsbad
block front Blvd. The proposed project has front setbacks on
which range from 0 to 25 feet. The adjacent
commercial properties also provide for varying
setbacks along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain Retail Continuity along Pedestrian-Oriented
frontages
Avoid Drive-Through Service Uses
Minimize Privacy Loss for Adjacent Residential Uses
The project provides benches along Carlsbad
Boulevard..
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity.
No drive through service included in project.
A 6’ Masonry Wall will be constructed on the north
and east sides of the property and trees will be
planted to provide privacy for the residential units
located adjacent to the proposed project.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways
The project has been designed to be pedestrian
friendly and encourage pedestrians to walk into
the front of the property.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to Landscaped areas along all sides of the building
create an informal character will provide for an informal character/setting.
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a Not applicable to this project
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
. . : : ‘j&k* ;;:-;:,,.y ., $ .:i (: ‘.-,.‘&‘,b ~$(~,“~~, ;; l_,‘l_s, ) ‘, ‘, .$ Parl;j$ ;abh :&-ces$; ii _I,, ‘~?~:i’ii;i:;~ ,: Tc,,: p: ~:.i) 3w -a~ .*$: _ “( 4 ‘:;:::“~~~iii.~~~~i‘~:-;.~~~~~ : :” ,:$fiLs ,’ ‘-:‘;.~~~ ,-.“*q~>‘ <:“l“i: ‘.I.$~(, ,,:
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots Landscaping is provided within the surface parking
lot area.
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
There is no alley adjacent to the project.
Locate parking at the rear of lots. Parking is located at the rear of the lot and
subsurface.
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping.
All areas not required for parking spaces or aisles
or driveways or the trash enclosure have been
landscaped.
Avoid parking in front setback areas There is a minimum of parking proposed in front
setback (3 spaces).
r their sites and not I features which provide for a
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
ilding is stepped to 10 feet
dents to the north and
er commercra
neighboring buildings to
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and “look at me”
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
The building has been designed with simple lines
and forms but allows for representation of the
Village character desired for the area. The building
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater.
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 5 clay tile roofs
are acceptable.
Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
.,,: ., I.1 I~ ,_, .‘, 8 Building Facade&.' ‘;:.,' ,,:
(, j‘ &;a: 3 'r .-.$) '.“J‘$ L: I ::I_ Y,~ .'): : i: ' I"-"., i'_
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses.
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding;
stucco
4void the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
sizes.
The project provides a composition shingle roof.
The building does not incorporate flat roofs.
This will be a requirement of the project.
Mansard roof not designed into project.
By providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements to all building facades, thereby creating
visual interest in the building. The project makes
good use of window treatment, roof features,
trellises and landscaping..
The proposed project provides for muttons to
divide the larger windows..
The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create shadows and
contrast.
The upper level of this commercial building does
provide for balconies and attractive window
features which reflects special attention in design.
The upper levels of this building will be accessed
through internal stairways. Therefore, no special
treatment of upper level use entries is necessary.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
entire project by design. The window and entrance
designs all provide for detail which adds visual
interest. The balcony areas and central entry way
were also designed to provide for detail in
architecture.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
The walls on the first floor utilize brick veneer.
The upper utilize neutral color stucco..
At this time, none of the noted materials have
carpeting; distressed wood of any type ( been indicated for use.
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
The windows are clear glass. I The applicant will be using dark anodized
aluminum window s and trim.
Avoid metal awnings and canopies. The applicant has proposed no awnings or
canopies.
Utilize light and neutral base colors. 1 The project utilizes a neutral color scheme.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less colors)
The project incorporates 3 colors.
Provide significant storefront glazing. Due to the type of commercial facility, this design
feature is not applicable.
Avoid Large Blank Walls. The project has been design not to have large
blank walls.
Encourage large window openings for restaurants Not applicable; no restaurant proposed within the
proiect.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries.
No fabric awnings to be used; not a retail or
storefront operation.
Emphasize display windows with special lighting. No display lighting. Not applicable to project.
Encourage the use of dutch doors. 1 Dutch doors are not proposed.
Utilize small paned windows The applicant is using small divided paned
windows.
Develop a total design concept. All facade design elements are unified. The
applicant was able to develop a total design
concept with is also functional and visually
interesting.
Provide frequent entries. The project does provides a main entrance along
Carlsbad Boulevard and from the parking area.
Limit the extent of entry openings.
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages,
The extent of the entry openings has been limited
through the design.
The project does not include pull down shutters or
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontaae.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate Fences and walls into the building design.
Not applicable to this project. I Fences and walls have been incorporated into the
building design.
are subordinate in
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Tmes-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
May 28, 1999
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
.%I!! Marcos
Dated at California, this 28th day
of May 1999
-----J&z;+------
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public hearing --_________--__--_________
NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 8, 1999, to consider a request for approval
of a Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction
of a 89,943 square foot, 3 story, 141 room hotel. The requested permits include a request for a variance to allow for an increased front yard set back of up to 25 feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted setback of 10 feet. The project is proposed for property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiinsen Way and Beech Street in Village Land
Use District 1, more particularly described as:
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 203-172-12, 203-172-21, 203-172-23.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposed project are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after June 4, 1999, in the Office of the Carlsbad City Clerk. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Craig Ruiz in the City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2817 or 434-2811.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEQA), and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Director
issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project on October 22, 1998. Staff is
recommending that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. jti? IbfPrB~~ I _,-“I
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit and/or Coastal Development Permit in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corerspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad
at or prior lo, the public hearing.
APPLICANT HERITAGE WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CAILSLUD L
Legal 63343 May 26, 1999
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RP 9&08/CDP 98-48 - CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday June 8, 1999, to consider a request for approval of a Major
Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a 89,943 square
foot, 3 story, 141 room hotel. The requested permits include a request for a variance to allow for an
increased front yard set back of up to 25 feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted setback of 10 feet.
The project is proposed for property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen
Way and Beech Street in Village Land Use District 1, more particularly described as:
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 203-172-12,203-172-21,203-172-23.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposed project are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after June 4, 1999, in the Office of the
Carlsbad City Clerk. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Craig Ruiz in the
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-28 17 or 434-2811.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the subject project on October 22, 1998. Staff is recommending that the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit and/or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: HERITAGE WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
PUBLISH: May 28,1999
ROOSEVELT ST
STATE ST STATE ST
WASHI NGTON S
P 3 E
c in' % s .- ifi tj .- 5 t
CARLSBAD BL
OCEAN ST
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May l&l999 to consider approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (PR98-08) and
Coastal Development Permit (CDP98-48) to allow the construction of a 89,943 square foot, 3 story, 141 room
hotel. The requested permits includes a request for variance to allow for an increased front yard set back of up
to 25 feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted setback of 10 feet. The project is proposed for property
located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen Way and Beech Street in Village Land Use
District 1, more particularly described as:
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 203-172-12, 203-172- 21, 203-172-23
Those persons wishing to speak on the proposed project are cordially invited to attend the public hearing.
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 14, 1999. If you have questions or would like a
copy of the staff report for the project, please contact Craig Ruiz in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at (760) 434-28 17 or 434-28 11. You may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing
and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the subject project on October 22, 1998. Staff is recommending that the-Design Review Board
reeenrmend approva &the $Mitigated Negative Declaration,- /w’<~,i j I .,+ 6 ,/, #.’ .’ iy&, i
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
Case File: RI’ 98-08, CDP 98-48
Case Name: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Publish: Sunday, May 9, 1999
.
203-052-01 ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY PO BOX 3000 CARLSBAD CA 92018
203-172-02 MARY A WELCH 351 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-06 W W & SEVERINE WRIGHT 2510 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-12 REVA C HOOPER 3320 OLEANDER AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069
203-172-20 ROBERT H & JO CAAN 8038 VALLE VISTA DR RANCH0 CUCAMONGA 91730
203-173-01 LWIK GRIGORAS 2802 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-173-05 W H C FOUR INVESTORS L 555 S FLOWER ST FL23 LOS ANGELES CA 90071
*** 21 Printed ***
I -i
I
203-143-01 PARISH OF ST MICHAELS-B PO BOX 127 CARLSBAD CA 92018
203-172-03 TOMARO ANTHONY F 367 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-07 HARRY B VOLLMER 3930 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-14 LUDVIK GRIGORAS 2802 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-21 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTE 110 W C ST 1901 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
203-173-02 CARLSBAD HISTORICAL SOC PO BOX 252 CARLSBAD CA 92018
203-173-09 GERICOS PTNSHP 850 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-143-06 EPISCOPAL ST MICHAELS-B PO BOX 127 CARLSBAD CA 92018
i.
203-172-05 VLADISLAVAMMUNDY 2733 WASHINGTON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-11 JACK D PHILLIPS 3702 INGRAHAM ST SAN DIEGO CA 92109
203-172-16,, JACK D PHILLIPS 3702 INGRAHAM ST SAN DIEGO CA 92109
203-172-23 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTE 110 W C ST 1901 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
203-173-03 RALPH F & LANA BURNETTE 390 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-231-01 CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOM 2400 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803
l
.
203-142-04 OCCUPANT 258 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-143-06 OCCUPANT CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-1'72-06 OCCUPANT 2747 WASHINGTON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-12 OCCUPANT. 352 CHRISTIANSEN AVB CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-16 OCCUPANT 380 CHRISTIANSEN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-23 OCCUPANT CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-231-01 OCCUPANT 2855 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
*** 19 Printed ***
-
i
! j
i
/,
1 1 / I
1
203-143-01 OCCUPANT 2715 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-143-07 OCCUPANT 2775 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-08 OCCUPANT 382 CHRISTIANSEN AVB CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-14 OCCUPANT 2780 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-20 OCCUPANT. 333 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-173-03 OCCUPANT 381 CEDAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
1203-143-02 OCCUPANT 2729 CARLSBAD BLVD 'CARLSBAD CA 92008
1203-172-04 ,OCCUPANT 385 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-11 OCCUPANT ,370 CHRISTIANSEN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008.
203-172-15 OCCUPANT * 2796 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-172-21 OCCUPANT 327 BEECH AVB CARLSBAD CA 92008
203-173-09 OCCUPANT 2858 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008
City of Carlsbad
June 21,1999
Heritage West Development Co.
4370 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 655
San Diego, CA 92122
CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL
RedeveloDment Permit 98-8 and Coastal DeveloDment Permit 9843
Enclosed for your reference are copies of Carlsbad Housing 81 Redevelopment
Commission Agenda Bill No. 308 and Resolution No. 308. These documents
went before the Commission on June 8, 1999, where the Resolution was
adopted, approving the project referenced above.
If you have questions concerning the quitclaim please contact Craig Ruiz, in the
Housing & Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2811 ext. 2817.
‘Kathleen D. Shoup ’
Sr. Office Specialist
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 - (760) 434-2808 @
-