HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-12; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 330; Extended Stay America - Amendment to Design, -, LJ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AGEADA BILL @
AB# 39 TITLE:
MTG. \2/,&0 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
AMENDMENT TO DESIGN - RP 99-11
DEPT. H/RED I CITY MGR.
I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. -337 APPROVING
an amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-l 1 to allow for a redesign of a 106-suite
“extended stay” hotel (formerly known as Staybridge Suites) as presented in Exhibit 3 to this
report,
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 1, 2000, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved a Major
Redevelopment Permit for a new 106-suite “extended stay” hotel, known as Staybridge Suites,
located immediately west of Interstate 5 between the terminus of Grand Avenue and the
terminus of Laguna Drive. The approved project includes the construction of a 72,435 square
foot, three-story hotel with on-site amenities including; swimming pool, buffet area, conference
rooms, a business center, library, and guest laundry. Other on-site improvements include; 127
parking spaces, trash enclosure, exterior lights, six-foot tall masonry perimeter wall along the
west property line, six-foot tall wrought iron fence with emergency access only gate along
Laguna Drive and street improvements in the form of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Grand
Avenue and Laguna Drive.
The subject project was approved with a specific architectural design that met the guidelines
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and met the required development
standards with the exception of the setbacks and building height. Part of the project approval
included variances for building setbacks which exceed the maximum standard and an increase
in building height from 35-O” to 40’5”.
I Subsequent to the Housing & Redevelopment Commission’s approval of the project, Extended
Stay America submitted an offer to purchase the property with all entitlements. A new site plan
and building elevations were developed by Extended Stay America with an effort to stay as
close to the approved project as possible while incorporating the room layout design of the
Extended Stay America product. The number of rooms (106) and overall building height (40’-
5”) remains the same as the approved project. However, the redesigned project resulted in an
overall reduced building mass, because Extended Stay America utilizes a studio room design
as opposed to the multi-room suite originally proposed by Staybridge Suites. The result was
the overall building square footage was reduced from 72,435 square feet to 47,367 square feet
and building coverage was reduced from 24,145 square feet to 15,275 square feet. The
smaller individual unit/room size also allowed for removal of the western-most wing of the
original project, which was the portion of the original structure that received the most
objections from nearby residents. The reduced building mass allows for greater building
setbacks on all sides and two-way on-site circulation as opposed to the one-way circulation
pattern approved as part of the Staybridge Suites project.
In staff’s opinion, the site design of the Extended Stay America project is an improvement over
the original project. The design of the building meets the guidelines set forth in the Village
Page 2 -
Master Plan and Design Manual and staff finds the design to be an acceptable alternative to
the original project design. Although staff finds the revised site plan and new building design
to be above satisfactory, the redesign of the project does result in a situation where staff is
unable to make a substantial conformance determination necessary to issue the building
permit for the project. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an amendment to the original
major redevelopment permit to request approval of the new site plan and redesigned building
by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
A unique aspect of this project is that the sale of the property to Extended Stay America is
dependent upon the approval of the amended major redevelopment permit. Without the
amendment, Extended Stay America cannot build the proposed project. At the same time, the
property owner, Sandor Shapery, does not wish to lose the original approval on the Staybridge
Suites project. To clarify, in the event Extended Stay America makes a decision not to pursue
the proposed project, Mr. Shapery, the current property owner, would like to maintain
permission to build the Staybridge Suites project as originally approved by the Commission. In
response to Mr. Shaper-y’s request, staff has added language to the attached resolution which,
in effect, actually allows for the Staybridge Suites project to be constructed as originally
approved if for any reason Extended Stay America decides not to pursue the project which
would be approved by this amendment. In other words, approval of the proposed amendment
would not void the original project approval granted to Mr. Shapery for the Staybridge Suites
project. Denial of the requested amendment would constitute denial of the Extended Stay
America project, but the previous approval of the Staybridge Suites project would be
maintained. Copies of the original site and building design (Exhibit 4) as well as the revised
site and building design (Exhibit 3) for the subject project are attached for consideration.
It should be noted that building design is discretionary. Therefore, the Commission may
approve the redesign as submitted by the applicant or require additional effort to further
enhance the building from an architectural standpoint. The applicant has made a concerted
effort to incorporate similar architectural details as were approved as part of the Staybridge
Suites project while maintaining the individuality of the Extended Stay America product.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approve Major
Redevelopment Permit No. RP 99-l 1 as amended to allow for the revised project design as
submitted by Extended Stay America with all of the same project conditions approved by the
Commission on August 1, 2000. Based on its
improvement over the originally approved site
above satisfactory.
review, staff finds the revised site plan to be an
plan and finds the revised building design to be
Environmental Review:
The development, as redesigned, has reduced the environmental impacts as previously
analyzed in the earlier environmental review for this project approved by the Commission on
August 1, 2000. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary. However, staff
recommends that the Commission re-adopt the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project with an addendum for the revised
project. The attached resolution will approve this action.
. *I .
AE3# 330
Page 3
Fiscal Impact:
The proposed project will provide additional property tax revenue (tax increment) and transit
occupancy tax revenue to the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency.
There are no costs to be incurred by the City or the Redevelopment Agency as a result of
construction of the subject project.
Exhibits:
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 2% approving the
Extended Stay America project (RP 99-1 IA) as shown in Exhibit 3.
2. Location Map
3. Reduced copy of the proposed amendment for the Extended Stay America project.
4. Reduced copy of the previously approved (original) Staybridge Suites project.
5. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 331 originally approving RP
99-l 1 on August 1, 2000, with related Design Review Board Resolutions.
6. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Addendum
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 337
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 99-11)
TO ALLOW FOR A REDESIGN OF A 106SUITE “EXTENDED STAY’
HOTEL (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAYBRIDGE SUITES) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 BETWEEN THE
TERMINUS OF GRAND AVENUE AND THE TERMINUS OF LAGUNA
DRIVE.
CASE NAME: EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
APN: 203-130-15, 18, 20, and 34
CASE NO: RP 99-11 (A)
WHEREAS, on August 1,2000, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider Major Redevelopment Permit No. 99-11 for construction of a
new 106-suite “extended stay” hotel for Staybridge Suites located immediately west of Interstate 5
between the terminus of Grand Avenue and the Laguna Drive, and adopted Housing and
Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 331 approving Major Redevelopment Permit 99-11;
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to approval of Major Redevelopment Permit 99-11, a new
applicant (Extended Stay America) did submit revised plans, specifications and renderings to
redesign said hotel project, and is requesting Housing and Redevelopment Commission approval
of an amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-l 1 to allow for a revised site plan and said
redesign of subject building; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did hold a public hearing on
the date of this resolution to consider the revised plans, specifications and renderings for Major
Redevelopment Permit 99-11, as submitted by the applicant (Extended Stay America), and to
consider the recommendations and hear all persons interested in or opposed to an amendment to
the subject permit to allow for the redesign of the subject building; and
WHEREAS, the development, as redesigned, has reduced the environmental impacts as
previously analyzed in the original environmental review documentation for this project approved
by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on August 1,200O; and
: -. ‘, ‘_
k -.”
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
HRC Resolution No. 337
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission has reviewed the original
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved by the
Commission on August 1, 2000 and the subsequent addendum for the subject project
amendment as submitted herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the redesigned
project is consistent with all applicable design guidelines and development standards with the
variances originally approved by said Commission on August 1, 2000.
3. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the applicant has
redesigned the entire project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally
interesting and is consistent with the design guidelines set forth in the Carlsbad Village Master
Plan and Design Manual.
4. The amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-11 to allow for the
redesign of the proposed hotel project formerly known as Staybridge Suites is hereby approved as
shown on Exhibit 3 as presented to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on the date of
this resolution, and on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department and incorporated
herein by this reference. Development shall occur as shown on the approved exhibit. Any
proposed development different from this approval or that of the original project approval shall
require an additional amendment to this approval by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission,
5. The amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-11 is approved as
indicated in Paragraph No. 4 above and subject to the additional findings and conditions set
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
HRC Resolution No. 337
Page 3
forth in Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 331, approved August 1,2000,
and Design Review Board Resolutions No. 274 and 275,approved June 26, 2000.
6. Approval of the amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit 99-11 does
/I
not invalidate the original project (RP 99-11) approval granted on August 1,200O by the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission. In the event that building permits are not issued for the
amended project (Extended Stay America) within 18 months from the date of the amended project
(RP 99-11A) approval and no extensions are granted, the original project (Staybridge Suites)
which was granted permit (RP 99-l 1) approval on August 1,200O may be constructed subject to
the findings and conditions set forth in Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No.
331 and Design Review Board Resolutions No. 274 and 275, with the exception that the original
II project approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this (original)
project within 36 months of this amended project approval.
7. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad
has reviewed the originally approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and reviewed, analyzed and considered the addendum to the
environmental documentation for the proposed project amendment. The Housing and
Redevelopment Commission finds that there are no additional environmental impacts and hereby
re-adopts the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program with the addendum. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum for
11 RP 99-11 A reflect the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of II the City of Carlsbad.
II 8. 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:
. . .
. . i
I
1 II
HRC Resolution No. 337 Page 4
2
3 “NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
‘This time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by 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.”
10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
11 Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 12th day of
12 December , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
13
AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, NYgaard and Kulchin.
NOES: None
16
17
ia
19
20
II ATTEST:
Ll
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1
Resolution Approving
Extended Stay America Project
EXHIBIT 2
Location Map
SITE
EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
RP 99-11A
Site Plan & Elevations for
Extended Stay America
(proposed amendment)
-
i 1; cIq!y i 19 0:
II
I
">" c ff P :<= .
:gg : 3. -.
i*! $; 0
; * ; I I : 69
I I I
-
ff I
Cjl 0)
.
49
s.
; n
;
1 : Y
-I
-
I
I
+!!?&
I
I +!z&
I
+& I
;t
6 I
$1 I Iv
1: m I : a. -. : n ; : @c -7 I
EXHIBIT 4
Site Plan & Elevations for
Staybridge Suites
(previously approved)
ii=
II i i ;:Q ui
- L
m
‘0
‘.
EXHIBIT 5
Housing & Redevelopment
Commission Resolution No. 331
and Associated DRB Resolutions
(Approving Staybridge Suites)
(RP 99-11)
II HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 331
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 99-11) FOR A
106-SUITE “EXTENDED STAY” HOTEL, INCLUDING VARIANCES
TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS, ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IMMEDIATELY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 BETWEEN THE
TERMINUS OF GRAND AVENUE AND THE TERMINUS OF LAGUNA
DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 3 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1.
APPLICANT: CARLSBAD VILLAGE SUITES, LLC
CASE NO: Iw 99-l 1
9
10
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2000, the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-l 1) for construction of a
11 106-suite “extended stay” hotel on property located immediately west of Interstate 5 between the
12 terminus of Grand Avenue and the terminus of Laguna Drive, and adopted Design Review Board
13
14 Resolutions No. 274 and 275 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that
15 Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-l 1) be approved; and
16 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, on the
17 date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard
18 all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-l 1); and
19 WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting variances for the front,
20 side, and rear yard setbacks which exceed the standard range; and
21
22
WHEREAS, the recommended approval includes findings granting a variance for an increase
in maximum building height from 35-O” to 40’-5” ; and
23
24 WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant
25 II
to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
26 Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
27 issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on April 24, 2000 and recommended for
28 approval along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by Design Review Board II HRC RESO NO. 331
PAGE 1
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
Resolution No. 274 on June 26, 2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 99-l 1) is APPROVED and that the findings and
conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolution No. 275 on file in the City Clerk’s
Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission with the added condition that the wall generally located along Hope
Avenue between Laguna and Grand Avenues be constructed as soon as practicable and no later than
the actual commencement of construction of any buildings.
3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed,
analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 99-ll), 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 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (RP 99-11) reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. That the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, hereby
grants a waiver from the moratorium on the issuance of building permits per NS-516 for the subject
project based on the following findings:
a. The subject project is located in an area where all public improvements, including
curb, gutter, and sidewalk are highly desirable and necessary for the enhancement of
a pedestrian-oriented environment;
b. The project is required to construct public improvements along that portion of the
property fronting Laguna Drive and Grand Avenue and the required improvements
HRC RESO NO. 331
PAGE 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2;
27
28
will not be incompatible with the neighborhood; and
c. The applicant agrees to construct the subject improvements.
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:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought, or other exactions
hereafter collectively referred to, is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by 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/her attorney of
record, if he/she 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 Car&bad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the J$ day of August ,
2000 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin.
NOES: Commissioner Lewis.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
HRC RESO NO. 331
PAGF 3
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 275
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 99-l 1 FOR A 106-ROOM
“EXTENDED STAY” HOTEL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IMMEDIATELY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 BETWEEN THE TERMINUS
OF GRAND AVENUE AND THE TERMINUS OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 3 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: STAYBRIDGE SUITES
APN: 203-130-15, 1820, AND 34
CASE NO: RP 99-11
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approved Ordinance No. 9313 (SP No.
30) on the 20” day of June, 1972 establishing a Specific Plan for freeway-oriented commercial
11 facilities, including a 106-room motel, on property located on the northwest quadrant of Interstate 5
12 and Carlsbad Village Drive; and
13 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9313 (SP No. 30) remains effective and establishes the permitted
14 land use for the properties within the Specific Plan boundaries; and
15 WHEREAS, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 203-l 30-15, 18, 20, and 34, more thoroughly
16 described in Attachment A (“the property”), was identified in Ordinance No. 9313 (SP No. 30) as
17 approved for a 106-room motel site; and
18 WHEREAS, a Major Redevelopment Permit is required for the property to insure the
19 proposed project is in compliance with existing development standards and design guidelines
20 established for the area; and
21 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Village Suites, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
22 “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad
23 regarding the property owned by Sandor W. Shaper-y, “Owner”; and
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit,
including a variance request for front, rear and side yard setbacks to exceed the maximum range and a
variance request to exceed the height limit as shown on Exhibits A-J, dated June 26, 2000, on file in
the Housing and Redevelopment Department, “Staybridge Suites RP 99-l l”, as provided by Chapter
2 1.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
DRB RESO MO. 275 rb*Pr*
.
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
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26* day of June, 2000, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 26” day of June, 2000, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors
relating to “Staybridge Suites RP 99-l 1”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows:
A.
B.
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Staybridge Suites RP 99-l 1, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the findings
contained herein for setback and height variances, is in conformance with the City’s
General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, Ordinance No. 93 13 (SP No. 30), and all pertinent provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated June 26, 2000 including,
but not limited to the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that it provides for a
touristitraveler serving use normally associated with urban freeway interchanges
in an appropriate location within the Village. The use in turn provides an
additional customer base for local restaurants, specialty shops, and nearby
convenience services.
The project is consistent with the land use standards set forth in the Village
Master Plan in that it will provide a provisional use (hotel) in an appropriate
location within Land Use District 3 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The proposed use was approved in Ordinance No. 9313 (SP No. 30) authorizing
freeway-oriented commercial facilities and the proposed 106-room hotel is
consistent with the Specific Plan as approved in that it provides for the same
number of rooms as set forth in SP No. 30 and under the Village Redevelopment
Master Plan and Design Manual hotels and motels are subject to identical design
criteria and development standards.
The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 3, design guidelines, and other applicable regulations set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the requested
variances.
DRB RJXSO NO. 275 i-1 n1nmrl
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
2.
e. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. 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.
f. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area.
g. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building
and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate
fire protection and other safety standards.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front, side, and rear
yard setbacks that exceed the standard range:
a. That 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, in that strict adherence
to the setback standards would impede vehicular access of emergency vehicles and
prevent the Fire Department from adequately servicing the site in the event of an
emergency. The increased setbacks allow emergency vehicles to enter the site from
either Grand Avenue or Laguna Drive and obtain access to the proposed structure at
all points along the perimeter of the building. This is consistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan which is to establish
the Village as safe place to work, live and visit.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the irregular shape of
the subject property coupled with it’s location adjacent to Interstate 5 and frontage
along the terminus of two public streets makes it difficult to adhere to the established
setback standards and provide proper on-site circulation, emergency access, and
required parking to service the use.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the increased
setbacks above the maximum range will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties, because the additional setback allows greater separation
between the proposed hotel use and neighboring residential uses, thus increasing the
livability of the area and reducing impacts to surrounding properties.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to encourage
diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique lot
configurations found within the Village Redevelopment Area.
311
DRB RESO NO. 275 (yj
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
e. The project is in a location that transitions to residential uses and the increased
setbacks protect the livability of the residential development in the area. In addition,
since the subject property is bordered by the terminus of two streets and a freeway,
consistency with the front yard setbacks of adjacent properties is not a critical design
issue for the area.
The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for an increase in maximum height
from 35’-0” to 40’~5”:
a. That 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, in that development of
the site as a 106-room hotel is governed by Ordinance No. 9313 (Specific Plan No.
30). Development of the approved use and associated parking on the subject
property requires the construction of a three-story structure. Additionally, the
Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines require a minimum 5:12 roof pitch.
Construction of a three-story structure within the 35-foot height limit precludes the
inclusion of the required roof pitch. The steeper roof pitch is a dominant and
consistent architectural feature within the Village. Strict adherence to the 35-foot
height limit would therefore make the development inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area.
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that use of the property is
governed by the adoption of Ordinance No. 9313. Adoption of said Ordinance
occurred prior to the formation of the Village Redevelopment Area and prior to the
adoption of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Guidelines. A
variance is warranted in order for the approved use to be developed in a manner
consistent with the existing design guidelines for the area.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the proposed
project will serve as a buffer between Interstate 5 and the residential uses to the west.
Therefore, the additional building height will contribute towards reducing existing
noise levels from the adjacent freeway and will not have a detrimental impact on
neighboring properties.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to encourage
diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
development constraints found within the Village Redevelopment Area. At 40’-5”,
the height of the proposed project is below the maximum height of 45 feet allowed in
Land Use 3 if a project is built over a parking structure. Granting the height
variance in conjunction with the inclusion of surface parking results in a lower overall project height and better site design which are consistent with the standards
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
e. The increased height is visually compatible with the Las Villas de Carlsbad
Retirement Center located immediately north of the subject property. The
retirement facility is three-stories, 40 feet high and encompasses three acres. The
proposed project would result in visual continuity along the west side of Interstate 5.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 4
?! ,j 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
f. The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses because the
proposed project provides a buffer between Interstate 5 and the residential uses
located west of the subject property.
g. The taller project will not adversely impact views in the area because the project
would serve as a visual buffer between Interstate 5 and the properties to the west.
h. The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village design
guidelines, because the project is lower than the 45 foot maximum height allowed if
the structure were built over a parking structure.
i. The project provides for exceptional design quality through the use of various building materials (i.e. stone, wood, lap siding, and stucco), varying roof heights, and
the use of architectural treatments such as dormers, a columned entry feature and
divided-pane windows.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances.
The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to
ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water;
drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer 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.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed 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 CONDITIONS:
Note: Unless other-wise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 5
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City/Agency shall have the right to revoke or
modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building
permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of 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 City’s/Agency’s approval of this Major
Redevelopment Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall
occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of
any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020.
If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project without the condition
complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Staybridge Suites
Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members,
officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities,
losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred
by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s approval and issuance of this
Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or 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 submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a reproducible
24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the conditions
approved by the final decision making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director
from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities.
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. 275 3 “;j
PAGE 6 .j
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
Landscape Conditions:
10. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the
City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown
on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition,
free from weeds, trash, and debris.
11. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape
plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s
building, improvement, and grading plans.
Noticing Conditions:
12. Prior to the issuance of the building 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 has issued a Major Redevelopment Permit by Resolution(s)
No. 274 and 275 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 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.
On-site Conditions:
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site plan
(Exhibit “B”) enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City
Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said
receptacles shall be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall
be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housing and
Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to
the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 127 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibits “B”.
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
Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19. Developer shall install a wrought iron fence up to 6 feet in height along the northerly
property line which shall include a 16 foot wide gate with Knox Box for emergency access
only to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall and Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
20. Additional landscaping shall be installed on the west side of the property to screen the
subject project from the residential uses along the western boundary to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Planning Director, and Public Works
Director.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, upon the approval of this proposed Major
Redevelopment Permit, all of the following engineering conditions must be met prior to the issuance
of building or grading permits whichever occurs first.
General:
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from the City Engineer for the
proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, 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.
Fees/Agreements:
3. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
4. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage
across the adjacent property.
5. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause
Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer for the annexation of the area shown
within the boundaries of the project into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and
Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Gradins
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer
shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
7. Developer shall provide a soils report for the project site to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The soils report recommendations shall be reflected in the final design of the
site.
8. Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an “as-graded” geologic plan as
determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as
exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually
DRB RE!30 NO. 275
PAGE 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
constructed and must be based on a contour map that represents both the pre and
post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the
engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24” x 36” mylar or similar drafting
film format suitable for a permanent record.
This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside
the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to
the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected
properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no
grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an
amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project
and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance fi-om both the City Engineer and Planning Director.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
Dedications/Imurovements:
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit.
Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. A secondary drainage system shall be designed to provide
for the surface drainage from the site to the streets, precluding the possibility of flooding
the building should the underground drainage system fail. The structural section of all
private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private
streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard
improvement plan check and inspection fees.
Developer shall execute a City standard Development Improvement Agreement to install and
secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the site
plan and the following improvements including, but not limited to paving, base, sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities,
sewer, water, storm drain system, fire hydrants, street lights, and retaining walls, to City
Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in the following areas:
A. Grand Avenue along project frontage.
B. Laguna Drive along project frontage.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage
based on a centerline to right-of-way width of sixty feet and a standard cul-de-sac bulb in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City, and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, to design and install a traffk signal and advance warning
system at Grand Avenue and Harding Street. This agreement shall terminate five years
from the date the hotel is opened for business.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 9
‘.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16.
17.
18.
19.
Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to 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 submitted to and subject to
the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying
prospective owners and tenants of the following:
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.
Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall have design, apply for and obtain approval
of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles
with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be
submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City
Engineer as part of the building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
The final site plan shall identify the location of any future Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication QOD) between the Owner and Caltrans and all public improvements within
that IOD shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The developer shall process a lot line adjustment consolidating the existing three parcels
into one parcel prior to building permit issuance.
WATER AND SEWER CONDITIONS:
1. 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 any meter
installation.
2. The developer shall provide potable, recycled and fire flow water demands in gallons per minute and estimated sewer flow in million gallons per day to the Deputy City Engineer -
Utilities.All public potable and recycled water pipelines, fire hydrants and sewer pipelines
shall be within public right-of-way or within easements granted to the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District (CMWD) or the City of Carlsbad.
3. The developer shall design all landscaping to be irrigated with recycled water per CMWD
standards and City ordinances.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 10
7-J ‘.* ,: :
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
4. The developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the
Planning Department for processing and approval by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
5. The following note shall be placed on the final site plan:
“This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued
for development of the subject property unless CMWD has adequate water and sewer capacity
available at the time development is to occur, and that such water and sewer capacity will
continue to be available until time of occupancy.”
6.
7.
All potable and recycled water meters shall be placed within public right-of-way.
No dead-end fire hydrant runs longer than 150 feet will be allowed, a looped water system will
be required and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer.
8. The developer shall be aware of existing water facilities within the project boundaries. The
developer shall be responsible for coordinating any impacts to these facilities with the Deputy
City Engineer - Utilities prior to beginning any work.
9.
10.
A public fire flow system shall be required for this commercial development, and it shall be
constructed as a looped pipeline system.
Water, sewer and irrigation laterals shall be located in accordance with City and District
Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
FIRE CONDITIONS:
1. All interior driveways must accommodate the following turning radii: Outside: 42 feet,
Inside: 20 feet.
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following code requirements.
Fees:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17,
the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030,
and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities
Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid
at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this approval will not be
consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3. 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.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 11
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
4. 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.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant
to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
6. Addresses, approved by the Building Official, shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification
and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color, as required by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
7. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with
the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and shall require
review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation of
such signs.
Engineering:
8.
Fire:
9.
10.
11.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent
offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
All buildings must be protected by automatic tire sprinkler systems.
A 2-X inch gated interior standpipe outlet (fire hose connections) shall be provided at each
stair landing on the second and third floors.
All fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to
installation.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/I NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT 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 regular meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26* day of June, 2000 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Vice-Chairperson Marquez, Board Members:
Lawson, Marois and Heineman.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
BILL COMPAS, CH&RI@RSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
II
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 13
,
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 274
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
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 RI’ 99-11 TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 106-ROOM EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF
INTERSTATE 5 BETWEEN THE TERMINUS OF GRAND AVENUE
AND THE TERMINUS OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT
3 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: STAYBRIDGE SUITES
APN: 203-130-15, 18,20 AND 34
CASE NO: RP 99-11
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Village Suites, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad
regarding property owned by Sandor W. Shapery, “Owner”, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers
203-l 30-15, 18,20, and 34 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the property”); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26th day of June, 2000, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 26th day of June, 2000 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.
follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
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 Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated April 24, 2000, “PII” dated
April 13, 2000 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached
hereto and made part hereof, based on the following findings:
DRB RaESO NO. 274
PAGE 1
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
FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration (RI’ 99-11)
the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments
thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the
project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad; and
C. they reflect the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds that
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26* day of June, 2000 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Vice-Chairperson Marquez, Board Members:
Lawson, Marois and Heineman.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
DESIGN REVIEW B&RD
ATTEST:
> DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RESO NO. 274
PAGE 2
ATTACHMENT “A” . .
Parcel 1:
The-East 143..05 feet of that portion of Tract 117 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of -
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 1, 1915
bounded by a line described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of said Tract 117 and distant thereon South
89” 57’ 00” East, 658.95 feet from’ the most Noelwesterly corner of said Tract;
thence continuing along said North line South 89” 57’ 00” East, &stance of 671,05
feet to a point; thence South 00” 03’ 00” West, a distance of 330.00 feet to point;
thence North 89” 57’ 00” West, a distance of 671.43 feet to a point; thence North
00” 05’ 00” East, a distance of 330.00 .feet to the point of beginning.
The Westerly line of said East 143.05 feet being parallel with the East line of the
above described tract,
Parcel 2:
That portion of Tract 117 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1, 1915, described as follows:
Commencing at the most Northeasterly comer of said Tract 117; thence North 89”
57’ West along the Northerly line of said Tract, 1211.82 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence South 0” 03’ West 330.00 feet; thence South 34” 33’ East 105.80
.feet; thence North 55” 27’ East to a point in the he Northeasterly line of the land
described in deed to Donald A. McLean, recorded July 19, 1952 in Book 4500,
Page 83, of Official Records being a point in the Southwesterly line of the
California State Highway Xl-SD-2-B; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly
line of said McLean Land to said Northerly line of Tract 117; thence Westerly along
said Northerly line to the True Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTlNG that portion lying Easterly of the following described line:
Commencing for reference at a point OII the center line of Elm Avenue distant along
said center line North 55” 58’ 03” East 617.13 feet from the intersection of said
center line with the center line Harding Street - formerly Fifth Street; thence North
34” 01’ 57” West 40.00 feet; thence North 10” 10’ 18” West 3.72 feet to the True
Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 10” 10’ 18” West 315.51 feet; thence
North 16” 37’ 24” West 175.70 feet; thence North 17” 51’ 38” West 566.95 feet; thence North 22” 33’ 07” West 490.19 feet to a point on the centerline of Knowles
Avenue, distant along said center line South 89” 06’ 33” East 202.07 feet from the
intersection of last said center line with the Basterly line of Block 13 Sunny Slope
Tract of Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 995, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Dicgo County, June 6, 1906.
The bearing and distances used in the above exception are on the California
Coordinate System Zone 6, multiply all distances used in the above description by
1.0000472 to obtain ground level distances.
.
Parcel 3:
That portion of Lot 31 in ScheLl and Sites Addition to Carlsbad, the City of
Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to-Map thercof ’
No. 2145, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diegd County,
February 20, 1929, lying Northeasterly of the location and prolongation of a line
which is parallel with and 50 feet Northeasterly, measured along the Southeasterly
lot Iine, from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 31.
APN: 203-130-15, 203-130-15, 203-130-20 and 203-130-34
-- . ..__ . . -
EXHIBIT 6
Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Addendum
EXHIBIT “ND’:
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: The project site is located adjacent and west of Interstate 5, north of
Grand Avenue and south of Laguna Drive. Assessors parcel numbers
203-130-15, 18,20 and 34.
Project Description: A 106 suite hotel including 53 studio units, 35 one-bedroom units, and
18 two-bedroom units within a three story structure on a 2.41 acre site
located adjacent and west of Interstate 5, north of Grand Avenue and
south of Laguna Drive. Project includes the frontage improvements to
Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive and the demolition of four existing
single-family residences.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration 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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4613.
DATED: APRIL 24,200O
CASE NO: Rl’ 99-1 I
CASE NAME: STAYBRIDGE SUITES
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 24,200O
MICHAEL J. H&f&MIMER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8569
. . EXHIBIT “PII”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: RP 99-11
DATE: Auril 13.2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: S tavbridpe Suites
2. APPLICANT: Shanerv Enterprises
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 423 West B Street. San Diego. CA
92101 - (619) 239-4700
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 16.1999
5. PROJECT DESCR.IPTION: A 106 suite hotel including 53 studio units. 35 one-bedroom units,
and 18 two-bedroom units within a three storv structure and associated narkina area on a 2.41
acre site located adiacent and west of Interstate 5. north of Grand Avenue and south of Lacuna
Drive. Proiect includes the frontage imurovements to Grand Avenue and Lacuna Drive and the
demolition of four existing single-familv residences.
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 (XI Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality El Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 ‘4 1 k
” DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
q
q
El
q
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 au 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 Mitigated
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 93-01)
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planngh Signature
L/-Ig -00
Date
Planning Directox S&k&-e Date
Rev. 03128196
” ENVIRONMENTAL WI’ACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I 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).
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.
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
0 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.
l 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (andSupporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
cl
4
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
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)
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)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
c>
4
e>
f)
s>
h>
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-I - 5.1-15, # 2)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15, # 2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, # 2)
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-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
c) 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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q cl q
q
q q
El q cl
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
cl q
q q q
0
cl
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
w
No
Impact
lxl
lxl
txl
lzl
Ix1
lxl
El
q
q Ix1 q (XI q lxl
q Ix]
0 IXI q Ix1
q El q ixl q El
q ixl
q El
I.3 IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
8)
h)
9
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
m
VI. TR4NSPORTATION/CITION. Would the
4
b)
d
d)
d
f)
g>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
q
Ix1
q
q
cl
q
cl
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
No Impact
Ix1
lxl
lxl
IXI
[XI
(XI
q El
q lxl
q lxl
q lxl
q cl
q lzl
q lxl
q IXI
q lxl
q lxl
q lxl
q El
q IXI
q Ix1
6 Rev. 03/28/96 52
‘.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
d
VIII.
4
b)
c>
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripariau and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?.
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 5.13-9)
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)
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-l - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15, # 3)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -
5.12.8-7)
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
0
El q q q
q
q
LessThan No
Significant Impact
Impact
q Ix]
q Ix1
q (x1
q 151
q [XI
q lxl
q lxl
q lxl
q Ix1
q lzl
q Is1
lxl 0
q lzl q IXI q El q lxl
q lxl
q El
5 2, Rev. 03128196 k.j 7
. *.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
4
4
0
g)
XIII.
a>
b)
4
XIV.
4
b)
cl
d>
d
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.1 l-1 - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULmL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would, affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI.
a>
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
lzl
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
lxl
El
Ix1
El
lxl
El
lxl
ixl
0
lxl
IXI
El
lxl
El
lxl
Ix]
Ix1
Rev. 03128196
. . Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c>
Does the project ,have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant
Impact
cl
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
17
LessThan No Significant Impact
Impact
cl IXI
q El
Rev. 03t28f96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier ElR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Cl Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were. incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128196
r*l 6-x ,q
\-I -
‘.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of a 106 suite extended stay hotel. The project includes 53 studio
units, 35 one-bedroom units, and 18 two-bedroom units with a total floor area of 72,435 square
feet. The hotel is to be one building which forms a U-shape and will be three levels with an
overall roof height of 44 feet, one inch. A variance request to exceed the building height is
required. On-site improvements include a swimming pool, circulation drive isle, 127 parking
spaces, trash enclosure, exterior lights, six foot tall masonry perimeter wall, and street
improvements in the form of curb, sidewalk and gutter to Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive.
Grading for the project is 11,600 cubic yards of material and is balanced grading.
The site is currently occupied by four single-family residences, one outbuilding, and ornamental
landscaping. The remainder of the property is vacant and is under cultivation with tomato crops.
The site is relatively flat with a eight foot elevation change descending to the west. The property
to the east is Interstate 5 freeway, to the south is a restaurant and hotel, four single-family
residential units border the site to the west, and a senior care facility (Villas De Carlsbad) is to
the north.
The project site does not contain any significant natural, cultural, or biological resources. The
existing streets, with the mitigation measure, are adequate to handle the traffic generated by the
project and the existing inf?astructure is in place to provide services to the project.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
‘.
II. ENVIRONMEhTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides 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-rejated emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin,” therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact.” This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality’ impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that. are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1)
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
12 Rev. 03128196
‘.
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact.” This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
Noise
The structure will attenuate noise from the freeway for the residential units adjacent. The project
will be subject to noise from the I-5 freeway and is conditioned to prepare a detailed acoustical
analysis prior to the issuance of a building permit. Noise attenuation measures may include
closed windows, central air conditioning, and double glazed windows.
Aesthetics - Light and glare
Parking lot lighting has the potential to impact the adjacent residential area. The project will be
conditioned to install lights which are shielded to prevent the spill-over of light onto the adjacent
residential propertyto mitigate any potential impact.
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008, (760)
602-4605.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Reoort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Report of Preliminary/Feasibility Investigation Proposed 106 room Hotel, Owen Geotech,
dated September 27, 1999
3. Preliminary Noise Report, Staybridge Suites Hotel, Shapery Enterprises, dated September 28,
1999.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
*.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
2. To mitigate potential noise impacts, a detailed indoor noise analysis is required to determine
the building upgrades for the hotel units adjacent to Interstate 5 prior to building permit
issuance.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See attached
14 Rev. 03128196
‘.
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.
- - 7 3,QQU
Date Signature
15 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
-
. .
5
g
‘Z 0 3 -
ii or $j
c@Z s.-laJg
m on Q PI, IO ; j g s
I
EE
E
5
c$$g O’F’.S Ens E = II b 2 0) n=
Lwr”
5 x= E :Z Ed gg
3: II 5 2D 3 s 0. .g c .- 0 .E
‘,
ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RP 99-11A -
EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
The project has been revised with a new site plan and building elevations. that were
developed by Extended Stay America with an effort to stay as close to the approved
project as possible while incorporating the room layout design of the Extended Stay
America product. The number of rooms (106) and overall building height (40’-5”)
remains the same as the approved project. However, the redesigned project resulted in
an overall reduced building mass, because Extended Stay America utilizes a studio
room design as opposed to the multi-room suite originally proposed by Staybridge
Suites. The result was the overall building square footage was reduced from 72,435
square feet to 47,367 square feet and building coverage was reduced from 24,145
square feet to 15,275 square feet. The reduced building mass allows for greater
building setbacks on all sides and two-way on-site circulation as opposed to the one-
way circulation pattern approved as part of the Staybridge Suites project.
These changes to the project are determined to be within the scope of the previously
approved project and do not change the environmental impacts, mitigation measure of
the original project, or necessitate any revisions to the findings of the project mitigated
negative declaration.
#
‘.
l City of Carlsbad
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PERSON PLACING AD:
NOVEMBER 29,200O
SUZANNE RYAN, LEGAL ADVERTISING
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
PHONE NO. (760) 7614400 - EXT. 109
FAX NO. (760) 761-0906
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst
Phone: (760) 434-2813
Fax: (760) 720-2037
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 9941)
CASE NAME: EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
CASE NO: RP 99-11 (A)
PLEASE PUBLISH THE FOLLOWING:
LEGAL AD: z ACCOUNT NO: L-440
PUBLISH (1) TIME (SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2,200O)
SIZE OF AD AND/OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Please include the attached map with the legal advertising.
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B l Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 l (760) 434-2810/2811 l FAX (760) 720-2037 a9
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and 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 PM on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, to
consider approval of an amendment to Major Redevelopment Permit No. RP99-11 to
allow for a redesign of a 106-suite “extended stay” hotel (formerly known as Staybridge
Suites). The proposed project includes the same number of rooms (106) and building
height (40 feet 5 inches) as was approved under the original project. However, the
redesigned building has a much smaller building mass than the original project and differs
from the original project in the following ways: 1) the western-most wing of the original
project has been removed; 2) the building setbacks from all property lines have been
increased; and 3) the new design allows for two-way on-site circulation where the original
project provided a one-way circulation pattern. The new project design incorporates many
of the architectural features approved as part of the original project design. Staff is
proposing that all original project conditions be applied to the revised project.
The proposed project is located immediately west of Interstate 5 between the terminus of
Grand Avenue and the terminus of Laguna Drive in Land Use District No. 3 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 203-l 30-l 5, 203-l 30-
18, 203-l 30-20, and 203-l 30-34.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report, please contact
Lori Rosenstein in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2813. 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 the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning
Department has issued an addendum to the previously approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the subject project. A copy of the addendum and the original Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available in
the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad,
CA 92008. Comments from the public are invited. The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission will be considering approval of the environmental documentation during the
public hearing.
If you challenge the Amended Major Redevelopment 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 NO.: RP 99-11A
CASE NAME: EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SITE
EXTENDED STAY AMERICA
RP 9941A