Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-06; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 333; Extension Request Carlsbad Village Resort HotelIll . . % Ej % 5 Y is 0 . HOUSI 9B# 3 3 3 MTG. 3 -&7-O / DEPT. H/RED IG AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION- A TITLE- -’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT RP 98-08 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 98-48 - CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL ;ENDA BILL DEPT. HD. @j@ CITY ATTY. CITY MGR.$& RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. J.k!L APPROVING a request for an 18 month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit RP 98-08 AND Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-48 including a variance for a front setback which exceeds the maximum standard range for construction of a 141 room hotel on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen Way and Beech Street in Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. ITEM EXPLANATION On June 8, 1999, the City Council, acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, unanimously approved the 141-room Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel. The project is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen Way and Beech Avenue in Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. The project is proposed to be 3 stories and 90,000 square feet with surface and underground parking. As a condition of approval, the applicant was required to obtain building permits for the subject project within 18 months of the project’s approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. If the building permits were not obtained by December 6, 2000, the redevelopment permit was to become null and void. Prior to the permit expiration date, the applicant filed a request for an extension of the permit for an additional eighteen (18) months, The Housing and Redevelopment Commission is required to take action on the request to extend the redevelopment permit. When the project was before the Design Review Board (Board) in December of 1998, the project was also approved unanimously. However, there were a few minor concerns expressed by the Board. The Board’s first concern was that the colors (off-white, taupe) selected for the building were too neutral. To address this issue, the Board required a condition that the Housing and Redevelopment Director be authorized to approve the final color and materials board to be submitted by the applicant. Second, there was concern that hotel guests might hang their wet beach towels or articles of clothing over the balcony railings to dry. Thus, a condition was included that requires the hotel operator to take action to prevent the display of beach towels or articles of clothing on the hotel railings. The final concern was related to impacts to nearby residents from the noise that will be generated from trash collection. A condition was included that requires the applicant to work with the trash collector and make a good faith effort to have the trash collected after IO:00 a.m. In approving the project, findings were made to approve a variance required for the project as well. The variance is required to allow greater setbacks in the front of the building for the drop-off area and enhanced pedestrian amenities. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approve the request by the applicant to extend the redevelopment permit as approved by the Housing and Redevelopment AB# 333 Page 2 Commission on June 8, 1999 for an additional 18 months to allow for the application and issuance of the required building permits. If the Commission approves the request for extension, the applicant will have until June 8, 2002 to obtain building permits for the subject project. Environmental Review The Planning Department has determined that the proposed project is in prior compliance with the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on October 22, 1998 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on June 8, 1999. No comments were received from the public regarding the subject determination. FISCAL IMPACT If the project is constructed, the Redevelopment Agency can expect a positive financial impact in terms of increased property tax, transient occupancy tax, and additional employment opportunities. The applicant has indicated that approximately 25-30 employment opportunities will be created by the construction of the new hotel. The hotel will generate approximately $370,000 annually in transient occupancy tax. The current assessed value of the project site is $1,470,000. With the new construction, it is estimated that the assessed value will increase to approximately $13 million. The increase in value would result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $115,000 per year. EXHIBITS 1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. slrl, approving RP 98-08 and CDP 98-48. 2. Request for Extension and Project Description with Disclosure Statement. 3. Location Map. 4. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 308 providing the original approvals of the Negative Declaration, findings and conditions for the project. 5. Design Review Board Staff Report with related Minutes dated November 23, 1998 and December 14, 1998. 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 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 341 A RESOLUTION OF TILE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN 18 MONTH EXTENSION OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT RP 98-08 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 98-48 INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 141 ROOM HOTEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTEL, G.P CASE NO: RP 98-OS/CDP 98-48 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel General Partnership “Developer” has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel General Partnership “Owner”, described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-173-12,203-173-21 and 203-173-23 (“the property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for an extension of a Major Redevelopment Permit RP98-08 and Coastal Development Permit CDP98-48 for the Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel originally approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on June 8, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said permit extension request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the extension of Major Redevelopment Permit RP98-08 and Coastal Development Permit CDP98-48. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct, B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES an eighteen (18) month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit RP 98-08 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-48, including approval of a variance to allow for an increased front yard set-back, for the Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24c 25 26 27 28 HRC Resolution No. 341 Page 2 GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the subject project is in prior compliance with Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director for the project on October 22, 1998 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on June 8, 1999. 2. The Project remains consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth within the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the findings set forth in Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 264, 265, and 266 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on June 8, 1999. I/ CONDITIONS 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission does hereby APPROVE an eighteen (18) month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit RP98-08 and Coastal Development Permit CDP98-48 for the Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel to allow the applicant additional time to apply for and receive approval of the appropriate building permits for the subject project, subject to the conditions set forth in Design Review Board Resolutions No. 264, 265 and 266 dated December 18, 1998 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on June 8, 1999. The permit shall be extended eighteen months from the date of the expiration of the original permit, which was December 8, 2000. The new expiration date for the permit shall be June 8,2002. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the u day of mr&a . 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Board Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, ard and Hall. NOES: None - ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. (SEAL) HRC RESO NO. 341 PAGE 2 0 l Exhibit 2 : \ Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel General Partnership C/O: Diversified Consulting Concepts, Inc. The Chamber Building 110 West “C” Street, Suite 1901 San Diego, CA. 92101 (619) 233-3255 Tel. (619) 233-3254 Fax October 24,200O City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008-23 89 Attn: Mr. Craig D. Ruiz Management Analyst Re: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel Time Extension RP 98-08 and CDP 98-48 Dear Mr. Ruiz: On behalf of Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel General Partnership, I am hereby requesting that the permits be extended for an additional 18 months. JLN/kl Enclosures I 5 DISCLOSL'RE STATEMENT A?FLICZNT’S STAXME.&T OF SlSCLGSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP IME.9ESTS ON ALI. APPLICATIONS ‘&J!~ICH WILL FE’OIJIFE X.CRE;iONAffY ACTICN CN ThE PAX OF THE C;Ty COlJNC!L. OR ANY APPOINTED SOAAO. COh++ilSSlON OR CC&{MmEE. [Please Prinf) The following information must be disclosed: 1. Apdicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Carl sbad Boulevard Hotel 110 West C St., Suite 1901 General Partnershlp (CBD) San Diego, CA 92101 2. Owner list the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Carl sbad Boulevard Hotel llcl West C St., Suite 1901 General Partnershlp (CBD) San Dlego, CA 92101 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses Of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. See attached Exhibit “B” t 4. If any person idenMled pursuant fo (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, iist the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. w / A FRM00013 8/90 2075 Las Palmas Drive l Cartsbad. California 92009-4859 l (619) 438-1161 Disclosufe Statement (Over) Page 2 5. Have you had more than S250 worth of business. transacted with any member of City staff. eca;cj Commissio;; Committees and Council within the pasttwelve months? Yes - - II yes, please indicate person(s) Person IS dofined a~: ‘Any individual. firm. copannrrship. joint venture. association. social club. fraternal orgrnization. corDocloon. estate. :rus~. I ~acewor. syndicatr. thir and any other county. cry and counfy. c~ly munlopAlity. OirtncI or olhor polilical rubdivlatOn. or any other group or combmaIlon acting ad a untt’ I I (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) SgS” i*tz-v Page Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant 7 EXHIBIT A OWNER’S AND APPLICANT’S NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTEL GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP MAILING ADDRESS: 110 WEST C STREET., SUITE 1901 SAN DIEGO, CA 92 10 1 TELEPHONE NUMBER: J619) 233-3255 EXEXIBITB TO DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 2. Diversified Consulting c/o Lee T. Nordan, M.D. c/o Josh L. Nordan Total Eye Care Center Suite 209 9834 Genesee Avenue La Jolla, CA 92037 Richard S. McCune McCune Chrysler Plymouth 2340 National City Boulevard National City, CA 91950 John D. Ball Ball Automotive Group 193 5 National City Boulevard National City, CA 91950 Ted Tollner 3772-4 Riviera Drive San Diego, CA 92 109 OWNER: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTEL GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY: rdan, Vice President APPLICANT: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTEL GENERAL PAR Exhibit 3 [ Location Map STATE ST STATE ST -l-w-:::::: :CH::::::::::+ I . . . . . fr, ,; f WASHINGTON 1 8 3 s c” a .I 3 ‘C c . . lid $ a u c a L (3 --L-l I IJ “W ‘. CARLSBAD BL UI II f - z--.E 5 5 2 isi i2 \ a z d W GARFIELD ST \ u ’ \ A / 5 0 ,8, J L / i I/ OCEAN ST OCEAN ST -- f I I, I, I I I I I I I I c’ Exhibit 4 (72 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION- AGENDA BILL ,A@- AB# 308 I TITLE. -* 1 DEPT. HD. (j%$’ MTG. 6/8/99 CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL CITY All-Y. F CL DEPT. HIRED RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 CITY MGR. w RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3Oa , APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 98-08) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-48), with a variance for a front yard setback which exceeds the maximum standard range, for construction of a 141 room hotel on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen Way and Beech Avenue in Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area, as recommended by the Design Review Board. On December ‘14, 1998, the Design Review Board conducted a public hearing to consider a major redevelopment permit and coastal development permit for a new development project known as the Carlsbad Resort Hotel. This project is proposed as a 3-story, 90,000 square foot hotel which will provide 141 rooms on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Beech Avenue and Christiansen Way. The Design Review Board recommended approval of the required Major Redevelopment Permit and a Coastal Development Permit. At the public hearing, the Design Review Board members all indicated their support for the proposed hotel project. However, a few minor concerns were raised as related to 1) the choice of colors for the project, 2) the display of beach towels at the hotel; and 3) schedule for trash collection. These concerns and the proposed conditions to address them are explained below. The Board’s first concern was that the colors (off-white, taupe) selected for the building were too neutral. The Board requested that the applicant add more accent color to the building. According to the applicant, the proposed landscaping will provide the colorful visual accents desired by the Board. To ensure that the applicant either revises the color scheme of the building or prepares a final landscape plan which adequately provides for the desired color accents, the Board recommended that the requested permits be approved with a condition which requires the developer to add brighter colors to the project. The Board recommended that the Housing and Redevelopment Director be authorized to approve the final color and materials board to be submitted by the applicant. The second concern was that hotel guests might hang their wet beach towels or articles of clothing. over the balcony railings to dry. To address this concern, the Board recommended a condition which requires the hotel operator to take action to prevent the display of beach towels or articles of clothing on the hotel railings. The third, and final, concern was related to the schedule for trash collection. Because the trash dumpster will be stored on the north side of the hotel, within the underground parking area, the Board was concerned that nearby residents might be negatively impacted by the noise of the trash collection trucks. Therefore, they recommended a condition be placed on the project which requires the applicant to work with the trash collector and make a good faith effort to have the trash collected after 10:OOam. 12 Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 30s The Design Review Board recommended approval of the project with a 5-O vote. The additional conditions requested by the Board have been incorporated into DRB Resolution No.265 which has been attached for review by the Commission. The Board included recommended findings to approve the only variance required for the project as well. The variance is required to allow greater setbacks in the front of the building for the drop-off area and enhanced pedestrian amenities. The Design Review Board Staff Report as well as the minutes of the December 14, 1998 meeting have been attached to this agenda bill for Commission review. It is important to note that the conditions of approval include a requirement for the applicant to obtain a ten foot (10’) street vacation on Christiansen Way from the City Council. The City Council will take action on the street vacation under a separate agenda bill. If the street vacation is not approved, the proposed project cannot be completed, since the Housing and Redevelopment Commission approval is conditioned upon the approval of a street vacation, and it is essential to the project. The project will need to be redesigned if the street vacation is not approved. Environmental Review The Planning Department conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on October 22, 1998 and made available for public review. No comments were received on the environmental document. Design Review Board Resolution No. 264 recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project by the Commission. Adoption of the attached Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have a positive financial impact in terms of increased property tax, transient occupancy tax, and additional employment opportunities. The applicant has indicated that approximately 25-30 employment opportunities will be created by the construction of the new hotel. The hotel will generate approximately $370,000 annually in transient occupancy tax. The current assessed value of the project site is $1,470,000. With the new construction, it is estimated that the assessed value will increase to approximately $13 million. The increase in value would result in additional tax increment revenue for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency of approximately $115,000 per year. EXHIBITS 1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 3@ , approving RP 98-08 and CDP 98-48. 2. Design Review Board Resolutions Nos. 264,265 and 266, dated December 14,1998 3. Design Review Board Minutes, dated December 14, 1998 4. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated 1998 November, 23 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 308 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 98-08) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP 98-48) INCLUDING SIGNAGE AND A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 141 ROOM HOTEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. APPLICANT: HERITAGE WEST CASE NO: RP 98-08/ CDP 98-48 WHEREAS, on December 14,1998, the Car&bad Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 98-08) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP98-48), including signage, for a change in land use and construction of a new hotel project to be located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Christiansen Way and Beech Avenue, and adopted Design Review Board Resolutions No. 264, 265 and 266 recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 98-08) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-48) be approved; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Cornmission of the City of Carlsbad, on the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 98-08) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-48); and WHEREAS, the recommended approval from the Design Review Board includes findings to grant a variance for the front setback which exceeds the standard range; and WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project conducted pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on October 19,1998, and recommended for approval along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by Design Review Board Resolution No. 264 on December 14,1998. 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 the Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 98-08) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-48), including the setback variance, are APPROVED and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board contained in Resolutions No. 265 and 266, on file in the City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. 3. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad. has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 98- 08), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 98-08) reflects the independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 4. Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from the date of project approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service feesin connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY HRC RESO NO. PACE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 5. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission . The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: II “NOTICE TO APPLICANT: “The time’within which judicial review of this decision must be, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.” PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the of ,1999, by the following vote, to wit: day AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Chairman ATTEST: II RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, Secretary II (SEAL) II HRC RESONO. PAGE3 Exhibit 5 City of Carlabad Housing and Redevelopment Department A-PORTTOW DESX-N REwxIEpyELod oolication Comolete Date: September 25,1998 Staff: Craig Ruiz Don Neu Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration: DATE: NOVEMBER 23,1998 SUBJECT: RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL: Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, with a variance, and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a 3-story,‘89,943 square foot, 141 room hotel on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Christiansen Way and Beech Street in Village Land Use District 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 264, recommending APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declarbtion and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 265, recommending APPROVAL of RP 98-08 and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 266, recommending APPROVAL of CDP 98-48, to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant, Heritage West, has requested a major redevelopment permit to allow the construction of a 141 room hotel on a vacant lot located on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Christiansen Way and Beech Street. The proposed project consists of construction’of a three story building totaling 89,943 square feet with surface and underground parking. A similar hotel project was approved for this site in 1985. However, the project was never constructed and the approval expired. 111. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY The Village Master Plan and Design Manual allows for hotels on a provisional basis within Land Use District 1. This means that the project must be given much more consideration in terms of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Also, the site is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, consistency with the Village Local Coastal Program is applicable to this project. I7 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23.1998 PAGE2 IV. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The proposed project will be able to address a variety of objectives as outlined within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as follows: Goal 1: Establish Cadsbad Viiiacre as a Qualitv ShODDinCl. Workinq and Living Environment. The proposed project will result in development of a new facility which will have a positive visual impact on the area. The positive visual appeal assists in the effort to create a quality shopping, working and living environment. In addition, the project will bring additional visitors and employees to the area which will improve the shopping and working environment. Goal 2: lmorove the Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation in the Vi//acre Area. The project has been designed to minimize the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along major pedestrian walkways (Carlsbad Boulevard). The project will provide for parking underground and at the rear of the site with access off side streets (Christiansen Way and Beech Street). Goal 3: Stimulate Prooertv Imorovements and New Develooment in the Villaae. The Master Plan and Design Manual was developed in an effort to stimulate new development and/or improvements to existing buildings in the Village. The intent is that new development or rehabilitation of existing facilities will then stimulate other property improvements and additional new development. The proposed project will assist in the continued effort to improve the Village Redevelopment Area;specifically the area along Carlsbad Boulevard. Goal 4: lmlorove the Phvsical ADDearance bf the Villaae Area. The applicant has made a very good effort to design a project which will convert a vacant, blighted site into a physically attractive project. The proposed project promotes the objective of creating a sense of design unity and character while also encouraging design diversity. V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE LAND USE PLAN ihe site of the proposed project is located within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. Hotels are a provisional use within this district. The goal of Land Use District 1 is to provide a strong retailing and financial services core serving city residents as well as tourists and regional visitors. The intent of the land use standards for this district is to reinforce the pedestrian shopping environment, encourage mutually supportive uses and provide major activity focus for Carlsbad Village and the City as a whole. The provision of facilities and services for travelers in the coastal zone are emphasized. Staff believes that the hotel facility provides for a very important use which supports and is compatible with the surrounding commercial, retail and residential character of the area. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 3 VI. CONSISTENCY WITH PROVISIONAL USE STANDARDS Provisional uses within the area, as identified within the Village Land Use Plan, may be \ determined to be compatible with, existing uses. While hotels are generally acceptable in most land use districts within the village, the issues of scale and potential conflicts must be addressed in each individual circumstance. As such, specific findings for the provisional use must be made to grant the use. The findings are as follows: 1. The scale and character of the hotel is appropriate to its location and the desired village character. The hotel has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The size and scale of the building is compatible with existing commercial structures to the south and west. The project is adjacent to single family and multi-family residences to the north and to the east. The single family homes to the north pose the most significant compatibility issue. The project has been designed to include a 6 foot masonry wall adjacent to the existing residences to the north. While there is no minimum setback requirement along the northern portion of the project, the developer has provided a 10 foot setback from the property line adjacent to the residences. Also, the landscape plan calls for tall growing trees that will add in screening the hotel. Finally, it should be noted that the existing single family land uses are legal non-conforming uses. This means the homes will be allowed to remain as long as so desired by the property owners. However, their can be no expansion of the uses. Over the long term, it is anticipated that these uses will ultimately be replaced with commercial/retail land uses consistent with the goals and objectives of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual. 2. Street frontage uses are appropriate to the site location and adjacent uses. This , finding is intended primarily for areas that are predominately retail. The proposed frontage is consistent with the surrounding commercial and non-commercial uses. 3. Loading facilities and access to parking will not adversely affect pedestrian movement and safety. The project has been designed so that there will be a minimum impact to surrounding land uses from parking and loading. Parking will be located at the rear of the property and below ground. The entrances to the parking areas have been designed to provided landscaping and to include screen walls incorporated to lessen the impact from parking. Also, the project has been conditioned to prohibit any deliveries in the areas adjacent to the existing residences. Failure to comply with this condition may result in the revocation of the Developer’s Redevelopment and Coastal Development Permit. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides for two types of standards that every project must be consistent with. in order to receive approval. The first type is known as “Universal Standards”. Every project within the Village Redevelopment Area must comply with these Universal Standards. The second type is known as “Individual Standards”. These standards are specific to the Land Use District in which the project is located. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 4 “Universal Standards” address 1) the issues of General & Redevelopment Plan Consistency, Residential Density, lnclusionary Housing; and 2) special instructions regarding the application of individual standards related to parking, building coverage, building height and setbacks. The following information is provided to indicate how the proposed project meets the “Universal Standards”. General and RedeveloDment Plan: The General Plan includes the following goals for the Village: 1) a City which preserves, enhances and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale; and 2) a City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area. The General Plan objective is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for tourist serving uses in an appropriate location within the Village. Also, the project design reinforces the pedestrian-orientation desired for the downtown area and assists with the effort to create a distinct identity for the Village as an area which provides a wide variety of activities for residents and visitors. In summary, the proposed project supports the Village’character for the area. The project is located within easy walking distance of retail and commercial uses, the beach, and mass transit. The project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and has also been determined to be consistent with the General Plan, as related to the Village Redevelopment Area. Residential Densitv and lnclusionarv Housina Reauirements: There is no residential proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing requirements are not applicable to this project. Parkinq: The parking requirement for a hotel is 1.2 spaces for every hotel room. The requirement for a 141 room hotel is 169.2 spaces. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.44.010 states that fractional requirements must be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the requirement for this project is 170 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 169 spaces, which one space less than the minimum requirement for the project. To meet the minimum parking requirement, the project has been condition such that the applicant must revise the site plan to provide one additional space, subject to the review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, or reduce the number of hotel rooms to 140. Based upon staffs review, it appears that there is adequate room to provide the additional parking space. Parking will be both surface level and in a sub-surface parking garage. Parking will be accessed from either of the sides streets (Christiansen or Beech), and will be screened from view along Carlsbad Boulevard. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 5 Buildina Coveraae, Heiaht and Setbacks: These standards are established individually according to the applicable land use district within the Village Redevelopment Area. The Universal Standards section of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides information on variances and criteria to be used in setting the standards for individual projects when a range is set forth for the subject standard. The details of the subject standards are described below. “Individual” Develooment Standards set forth specifically for new development within Land Use District 1 are as follows: Buildina Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front, rear and side yard setbacks. In Land Use District 1, there is no minimum or maximum setback for side and rear yards. The project has been designed with side yard setbacks ranging from 0 to 36 feet while the rear yard ranges from 5 feet to 75 feet. The Master Plan sets the front setback standard as a range from 0 to 10 feet. The project as proposed has been designed with a front setback which ranges from 0 to 25 feet. The increased setback allows for increased landscaping and pedestrian amenities along Carlsbad Boulevard. Further, the increased setback is consistent with other commercial buildings in the area. However, while the increased front setback is desirable in this case, the Village Master Plan and Design Manual does require that a variance be granted for any setback which is above the maximum or below the minimum. The findings required to grant a variance for the front setback which exceed the standard (range) are as follows: 1. The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are set back further than the permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the.structure back to the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. 2. The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential development and where increased setbacks would soften the visual transition between commercial and residential development or would protect the liveability of the residential development. (This finding is not applicable to the subject project.) 3. Restaurant uses where a larger front setback will be utilized for outdoor. dining space subject to approval by the Design Review Board and/or. Housing and Redevelopment Commission, whichever is the appropriate approving body. (This finding is not applicable to the subject project.) The first finding noted above for allowing the front setback which exceeds the maximum standard (range) is justified as follows: 1) the subject project is in a location which has varying setbacks. To the south, the adjacent property is setback in the front by approximately 15 feet. Across Carlsbad Boulevard, buildings such as the newly constructed Lutheran Retirement Home and Saint Michael’s Church have setbacks in excess of 20 feet. Therefore, staff believes CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 6 that the increased setbacks are consistent with the area. These larger setbacks allow for greater landscaping, and for a building design which is more visually interesting and appealing. The greater setback also allows for enhanced pedestrian-oriented features which are highly desirable within the Village. In addition to making findings for the project to exceed the maximum setback, findings must also be made to reduce the setback to the minimum of the range for that portion of the building that has a zero setback. The findings required to reduce the setback ‘to the minimum of the range are as follows: 1. The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2. The reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the objectives for the land use district in which the project is located. 3. The reduced standard will assist in creating a project design which is interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village Character of the area. The first finding noted above for allowing a reduction of the front setback to the minimum of the range is justified as follows: 1) the subject project is in a location which has varying setbacks and will, therefore, not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 2) the increased setback allows for greater pedestrian amenities and landscaping. This results in project which is more pedestrian-orientated, which is a primary objective of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual. 3) the larger setbacks allow for greater landscaping, and for a building design which is more visually interesting and appealing. ODen Space: A minimum of 20% of the property must be maintained as open space. The open space must be devoted to landscaped pedestrian amenities in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Manual. Open space may be dedicated to landscaped planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens, balconies, patios and/or outdoor eating areas. No parking spaces or aisles’are permitted in the open space. The project, as proposed, provides for a total of 24,249 square feet of open space/landscape area, which represents 31% of the site (77,100 square feet); this exceeds the 20% requirement. Buildina Coveraae: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects in Land Use District 1 is 80% to 100%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 64.7%. The bottom of the range. is considered the desired standard. However unlike the setback requirements above, a decrease in the standard to below the minimum does not require a variance. Therefore, the building coverage is determined to be consistent with the desired standard. Buildincl Heiaht: The height limit for Land Use District 1 is 45 feet with a 5:12 roof pitch, where the commercial project is located over a parking structure. The project proposes a roof height that is 45 feet. The roof design includes dormers of varying sizes and tower elements. The tower elements do exceed 45 feet in height. At the highest peak of the tower elements, the CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 7 height is 51 feet. Through Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.46.02, the Master Plan allows architectural features to exceed the maximum height so long as the increased height does not result in increased floor area. Therefore, the building height is determined to be consistent with the desired standard. Parkinu: As stated above, the parking requirement for hotels is 1.2 spaces per room. At 141 rooms, the parking requirement is 170 spaces. The applicant has been conditioned to either provide 170 spaces or reduce the total number of hotel rooms to 140. VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design a project which is consistent with a village scale and character. The Design Review Board and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the applicant has made an honest effort to conform to ten (10) basic design principles. These design principles are: 1. Development shall have an overall informal character. 2. Architectural design shall emphasize variety and diversity. 3. Development shall be small in scale. 4. Intensity of development shall be encouraged. 5. All development shall have a strong relationship to the street. 6. A strong emphasis shall be placed on the design of the ground floor facades. 7. Buildings shall be enriched with architectural features and details. 8. Landscaping shall be an important component of the architectural design. 9. Parking shall be visibly subordinated. 10. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character. The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project has provided for an overall informal character in design. The architectural design provides for variety and diversity through varying roof features, window treatments, building articulation on all elevations, patio/balcony areas and varied building setbacks. There is also landscaped areas which add to the variety and diversity of the design. The building has a very strong relationship to the street in that it is physically located in close proximity to the public sidewalk area and encourages pedestrian access. The building provides for a variety of architectural features and details as previously described. The parking is visually subordinate in that is located at the rear of the property and underground, and is not visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report (Exhibit 6). IX. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS The property is allowed a maximum of 485 square feet of signage for the subject building. AS indicated on the building elevations, the applicant is proposing two wall signs locations located along the north and south elevations. Both signs will be 8 feet by 4 feet for a total of 64 square feet. The applicant has indicated, and the project conditioned, that the signs will be internally CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 8 illuminated channel letters. At this time, the verbiage for the signs has not been indicated. Should the applicant wish to provide additional signs at a later date, approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director would be required. X. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new construction of a building which will have a building permit valuation which is greater than $150,000. The project must have a recommendation from the Design Review Board and final approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The Design Review Board is asked to hold a public hearing on the permit requested, consider the public testimony and staffs recommendation on the project, discuss the project and then take action to recommend approval or denial of the project with the requested variance for the front yard setback which exceeds the range. The proposed project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development Permit is required for the subject project. XI. OTHER APPROVALS While the Design Review Board is taking action on the Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit, there are three other related approvals that are necessary for the project. First, the project is proposing a 10 foot street vacation along Christiansen Way. The street vacation will allow for additional landscaping along the street. The City’s engineering staff has analyzed the applicant’s request and has determined that the additional right-of-way is not necessary to handle future traffic volumes. Thus, staff supports the applicant’s request. The project has been conditioned to require that the applicant receive approval of the street vacation by the City Council prior to the approval of these permits. Second, the project has been conditioned to require that the overhead electrical utilities be located underground. To accomplish this, the developer will be required to vacate and rededicate San Diego Gas and Electric easements on the property. From an aesthetic standpoint, the undergrounding of the utilities will greatly improve the appearance of the site. From a functional standpoint, there will not be any disruption in service. While the vacation and rededication will not require City action, the applicant will need to provide proof of said approval prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project. This is a typical requirement of any large development and staff foresees no difficulties in acquiring the approval of SDG&E. Third, the project site currently consists of the three individual parcels. The City’s subdivision Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20, does not allow buildings to be constructed over property lines. Therefore, the project has been required to receive approval of a parcel merger to merge the three parcels into one contiguous parcel. The applicant must receive the approval from the City Engineer prior to the issuance of either a building permit or a grading permit, whichever occurs first. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 9 XII. TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION. SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS Traffic. The total projected average daily traffic for the project is 1,410 ADTs, based on the most recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations. Circulation. Circulation for the project is designed with parking access of Christiansen Way and Beech Street. Guests of the hotel may be dropped of at the front of the building located off of Carlsbad Boulevard, at the rear of the property, and from the underground parking . Sewer service to the project will be provided by two sewer lines available to the project Sewer. site. There is an 8 inch line along Carlsbad Boulevard and an 8 inch main line along Beech Street. Water. Water service will be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The site will be served by an 8 inch main line located on the eastern side of Carlsbad Boulevard, a 6 inch line along Beech Street and a IO inch line along Christiansen Way. Reclaimed Water. The use of reclaimed water will be incorporated where feasible as determined appropriate by the Water District Engineer. Grading: Grading for this project will not be extensive. The project will call for the export of 10,000 cubic yards of export from the project site. Drainacre and Erosion Control: The project has been adequately conditioned to ensure that the property will provide for adequate drainage into the City’s storm drain system Improvements. Sidewalks will be installed on the perimeter of the property. The applicant will need to obtain right-of-way permits to remove and install driveway aprons in the public right of way. Xill: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. Earlier analysis of this proposed hotel project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (SS92-01). With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s MEIR found the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are significant and adverse due to the regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional environmental documentation is required. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - RP 98-08/CDP 98-48 NOVEMBER 23,1998 PAGE 10 Based upon staffs analysis of the project, mitigation measures have been developed for the potential additional significant impacts due to this development related to noise and lighting. The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the compliance with all identified mitigation measures. In addition, all feasible mitigation measures identified in MElR 93-01 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (SS92-01) which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into this project. As a result of staffs review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Director on October 22, 1998 and made available for public review. No comments were received on the environmental document. Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No. 264 will recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. XIV. ECONOMIC IMPACT The proposed project is anticipated to have significant positive financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the development of vacant properties will result in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax, will result in increased tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the property will generate significant transient occupancy taxes which will benefit the City as a whole. Third, it is hoped that the project will serve as a catalyst for other improvements in the area, either new development or rehabilitation of existing buildings. Finally, the project will result in the construction of a new development and the elimination of a blighting influence within the area, as a result of the development on a vacant site. xv. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending approval of the project, with findings to grant the variance for the front setback which exceeds the maximum of the range. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the redevelopment area and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual. EXHIBITS: 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 264, recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 265, recommending approval of RP 98-08 3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 266, recommending approval of CDP 98-48 4. Location Map 5. Project Description with Disclosure Statement 6. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines 7. Exhibits “A” - “K”, dated November 23, 1998, including reduced exhibits. 27 ‘I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2i 23 24 25 26 27 28 . EXHIBIT .2 I DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 263 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP98-08 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP98-48 TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 141 ROOM HOTEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGES RESORT HOTEL APN: 203-172-12, 21, 23 CASE NO: RP 98-08. CDP98-48 WHEREAS, Heritage West Development Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel Partnership, Reva C. Hooper, and Stella M. Stamp, “Owners”, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-172-12, 203-172-21, 203-172-23 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the property); and WHEREAS, the regularly scheduled meeting ‘of the Design Review Board of November 23, 1998, was canceled and was continued to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on December 14, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 14” day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed special public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said special public hearing on the 14” day of December and upon considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 1 : 2 4 5 e 7 8 9 \ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated October 22, 1998, “PII” dated October 22, 1998 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto and made part hereof, based on the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. 2. 3. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 98-08), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Design Review Board finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 98-08, CDP98-48) reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the initial study; EIA Part II, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which may be found at the City of Carlsbad Community Development Buildin,, u 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, in the custody of the City Clerk, Director of Planning. PASSJ?D, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14* day of December, 1998 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson Bill Compas, Board Members: Marquez, Savary, Marois & Forsyth, Jr. None. None. BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPI&SON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 264 PAGE 2 1 : E 4 c c E 7 E s 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . ,_- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 265 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP98-08, INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR FRONT YARD SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE, FOR THE 141 ROOM CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH STREET, IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL APN: 203-172-12,21,23 CASE NO: RP 98-09, WHEREAS, Heritage West Development Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified’ application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel Partnership, Reva C. Hooper, and Stella M. Stamp, “Owners”, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-172-12, 203-172-21, 203-172-23 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the property); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit and a variance for the front yard setback which exceeds the maximum of the standard range, as shown on Exhibits A-K, dated November 23, 1998, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board of November - 23, 1998, was canceled and was continued to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on December 14, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 14” day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed special public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; WHEREAS, at said special public hearing on the 14* day of December, 1998, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to Major Redevelopment Permit 98-08. 7 h 3u , c - , 1 ! l( 11 12 19 14 15 1E 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of a Major Redevelopment Permit for the Carlsbad Boulevard Resort Hotel Project, RP 98-08, including a variance for the front yard setback which exceeds the maximum range, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. The Design Review Board has recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for the subject project and has determined that the project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of the ’ *Carlsbad Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of a building or addition to an existing building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds ~150,000. 3. The Project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development Permit is required. 4. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a variance for a front setback that exceeds the standard range: a) The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan. The Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual encourages uses, such as hotels, that promote goals and objectives of the Master Plan. The project has been designed with an increased front yard set back in several locations which improve both the function and physical appearance of the structure. The increased set back allows for increased landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard, and for a drop-off point for hotel guests. The implementation of the standard would result in an inferior design and decreased functionality. b) There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls. The project site is constrained due to the sloping topography of the land. Due to this constraint, the applicant has designed a project which provides increased landscaping, a high quality building design, increased building functionality, and DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 2 3 is consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. The applicant has made a good faith effort to design the remainder of the building with appropriate building setbacks. The proposed hotel provides setbacks which are similar to buildings along Carlsbad Boulevard. c) The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The setbacks above the maximum will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties because other properties along Carlsbad Boulevard have setbacks which exceed 10 feet. The applicant has designed the entire project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting. Therefore, the increased setback in the front actually assists in the effort to create a more visually appealing building within the front elevation d) The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in varying degrees. The portions of the project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation which contradicts the intent of the standards established in the subject document. The project is well-designed and will meet the needs of the hotel guests community which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further than the permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. The subject property is in a location which has varying setbacks. To the south, the residential property is setback in the front by approximately 15 feet. To the west, buildings such as St. Michael’s Church and the newly constructed Lutheran Retirement Home have setbacks in excess of 25 feet. It is expected that these buildings will remain for many more years. In addition, these larger setbacks allow for a design of the building which allows for more articulation in the building, which ultimately results in a building which is more visually interesting and appealing. 5. The Project has. been determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a provisional land use: a) The hotel has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The size and scale of the building is compatible with existing commercial structures to the south and west. The project is adjacent to single family and multi-family residences to the north and to the east. The single family homes to the north pose the most significant compatibility issue. The project has been designed to include a 6 foot masonry wall adjacent to the existing residences to the north. While there is no minimum or maximum DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 3 II setback requirement along the northern portion of the project, the developer has provided a 10 foot setback from the property line adjacent to the residences. Also, the landscape plan calls for tall growing trees that will aid in screening the hotel. Finally, the existing single family land uses are legal non-conforming uses. Thus, the homes will be allowed to remain as long as so desired by the property owners. However, their can be no ‘expansion of the uses. Over the long term, it is anticipated that these uses will ultimately be replaced with commercial/retail land uses consistent with the goals and objectives of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual. 6 b) The proposed frontage is consistent with the surrounding commercial and non- commercial uses. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C) The project has been designed so that there will be a minimum impact to surrounding land uses from parking and loading. Parking will be located at the rear of the property and below ground. The entrances to the parking areas have been designed to provided landscaping and screen walls incorporated to lessen the impact from parking. Also, the project has been conditioned to prohibit any deliveries in the areas adjacent to the existing residences. 6) The granting of the ten foot street vacation will have no adverse impact on vehicular circulation within the area and the surplus right-of-way is not required for future public street purposes. The project is approved with the understanding that the required street vacation will be approved by the Carlsbad City Council prior to approval of the redevelopment permit for the subject project. GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS: 1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following: a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the area. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective as of January 12, 1996, because it will provide for a commercial use (hotel) which supports the existing commercial uses within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopmeni-Area. b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. DRB RESO NO. 263 PAGE 4 33 1 : I L E E 7 E S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a) The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot which has appropriate zoning for a hotel facility. The project is also consistent With the Open Space requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area. b) The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards. 2. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable local facilities management p!an, and all City public facility policies and ordinances. since: a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval. 3. The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by the Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which are applicable to the project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities, 4. This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. 5. The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384. - 6. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS: 1. The Design Review Board does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of a Major Redevelopment Permit, for the Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel , as provided for in RP 98-08 subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make, DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 5 . 1 4 I 4 c * E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) or require Developer to make, all necessary corrections and modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit exhibits and/or other documents to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Developer shall develop the property substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits for the project. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar copy -of the Site Plan for the project as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the Agency. The plan copy shall be submitted to the Planning Director and approved prior to building or grading permit approval, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24” X 36” blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from-time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.9@of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the developer’s/subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated May 8, 1998, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. DRBRESON0.265 PAGE 6 35 \ 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 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad’s Redevelopment Agency has issued a Redevelopment Permit by Resolution No. 265 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the developer or successor in interest. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director. -An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or p.roperty. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the approval of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install al1 landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving conditions, free from weeds, trash and debris. The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the project’s building, improvement and grading plans. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings SO as to be plainly visible from the street; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color. If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur; or, if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further DRJ3 RESO NO. 265 PAGE 7 I < 1C 11 li 13 1L lC c 1E 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16) 17) 18) 1% 20) 21) 22) 23) condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a success& in interest by the Agency’s approval of this Resolution. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The Developer shall construct a six foot (6’) masonry block wall on the eastern and northeastern property lines. The design of the wall shall be compatible with the proposed project’s architecture to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. All deliveries to the hotel shall be made either in the front’ driveway or from the rear parking lot. At no time shall deliveries be permitted in the parking area off Beech Street. The deck area located along the north side of the building shall be set back from the property line by five (5) feet, or the maximum amount permitted by the Chief Building Inspector to allow for adequate exiting of the building. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the parking area located on the north side of the project, located off Beech Street shall be posted with signage that clearly states that deliveries to the hotel are prohibited at all times. Signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Landscaping materials identified on the preliminary Landscape Plan for the planter areas adjacent to the eastern and northeastern property lines shall consist of trees that are a minimum 36 inch box size and shrubs which are a minimum of 5 gallon size. The Developer shall construct a minimum five-foot high noise barrier as required by the mitigated negative declaration. The noise barrier may be constructed as a wall, berm, or combination of both. The materials used to construct the noise barrier are required to have a minimum surface density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Such materials may ‘consist of masonry, S/8-inch Plexiglas, 3!8-inch tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The required noise barrier shall be shown on the project’s building plans and be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide an acoustical analysis will be required for the .project to insure that interior noise levels will not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB within the hotel rooms. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the required interior acoustical analysis documenting what construction materials or measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the Project architect’s registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifying that the recommendations of the interior acoustical analysis have been incorporated into the building plans. DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 8 37 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 . . 24) The Developer shall revise the site plan for the project to provide one additional parking space. Should the Developer not be able to provide the additional space, the Developer shall reduce the number of hotel rooms by one room. The provision of the additional space or the reduction in total rooms shall be reviewed and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading permit, which ever occurs first. 25) The Developer shall provide signage consistent with the approved building elevations. All wall signs shall be individual illuminated channel letters. Should the developer wish to receive provide additional signage which is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual, the additional signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director shall be required. 26) 27) 28. 29. 30. 31. Approval of RP98-08 is granted subject to the approval of CDP98-48. The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have t0 pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null and void. The redevelopment permit shall be subject to review by the Housing and Redeveiopment Director on a yearly basis to determine all conditions of this permit have been met. After providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, this permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the conditions imposed herein have not been met. __ The developer shall work with the hotel operator to discourage guests of the hotel from displaying towels or articles of clothing on balcony railings. The developer shall work with the trash service provider to arrange for trash to be picked-up after 10:00 a:m. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer shall submit a final color and materials board for review and approval by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. DREI RESO NO. 265 PAGE 9 I ! 1l 1’ 1; 1: 1L lC c IE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. Prior Co hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is foimally established by the City. Prior to issuance OF building permit, the developer shall file and receive approval of a boundary adjustment application with the City to merge the three existing lots so that the project site is situated on one lot. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall obtain a City right-of-way permit to install driveway aprons in the public right-of-way on Carlsbad Boulevard, Christiansen Way, and Beech Street, Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the project boundary. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. -- B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. 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. 11. 12. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements: 0 Proposed street widening of Christiansen Way 0 Proposed street widening of Beech Avenue The developer shall install street lights along all public and private street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. The developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the project in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards prior to occupancy of any buildings. Prior to occupancy Of any buildings, the developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street corners abutting the project site in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City as part of the building site plan review. Special Conditions: 14. The developer shall install and maintain sight distance corridors at all driveway intersections with the public streets in accordance with Engineering Standards. 15. The driveway approach to the ramp located on Beech Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum 30 foot width 16. Prior to the approval of this permit, the developer shall receive City Council approval and record a street vacation of a portion of Christiansen Way. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer must show pidof of recordation of the quitclaim of the existing SDG&E easements. WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS 1. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met. 2. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits, and charges which will be collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter installations.. 3. The Developer shall provide all-weather emergency ingress and egress along the north side of the building in a manner acceptable to the Fire Marshall. DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 11 4 I z 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. The Developer. shall upgrade the proposed gravel exit path serving the North end of the building to landscape, and extend the path along the perimeter of the property to Beech Street. 5. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following: a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate parties. b) Meet with the District’s Project Engineer to discuss preliminary layouts for public water line improvements (looped pipeline system). c) Meet with the District’s Project Engineer to discuss potable water meter, reclaimed water meter and sewer lateral locations. d) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e., GPM - EDU). 6. This project is approved under the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the project plans. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the stand and local Fire Codes. The plans must include a site plan which depicts the following: a) Location of existing public water mains and fire hydrants. b) Location of off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project. c) Depiction of emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire Department approval. STANDARD CODE REMINDERS: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following code requirements. 1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 2. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 18 months from the date of final project approval. 3. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as Otherwise SpeCifiCally provided herein. DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 12 1 t < 1C 11 Ii 1 c 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors Of Planning and Building. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Director. The project shall comply with recycling collection area requirements pursuant to Section 21.105.060. The recycling area shall be noted on the final plans submitted for applicable building permit.s for the project. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent off-site siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. NOTICE .- Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from November 23, 1998 to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given. . . . . . . .., . . . DRl3 RESO NO. 265 PAGE 13 ’ i 2' 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14” day of December, 1998 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: Ta DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 265 PAGE 14 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review Board Chairperson Compas, Board Members: Marquez, Savary, Marois & Forsyth, Jr. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 266 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP98-48 TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 141 ROOM THREE STORY HOTEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN CHRISTIANSEN WAY AND BEECH STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD VILLAGES RESORT HOTEL APN: 203-172-12, 21, 23 CASE NO:. CDP 98-48 WHEREAS, Heritage West Development Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel Partnership, Reva C, Hooper, and Stella M. Stamp, “Owners”, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 203-172-12, 203-172-21, 203-172-23 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the property); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibits A through K dated November 23, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, (Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel) (RP98-08/CDP98-48) as provided by the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual Chapter; and WHEREAS, the regularly scheduled meetm, * 0 of the Design Review Board of November 23, 1998, was canceled and was continued to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on - December 14, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 14” day of December, 1998, hold a duly noticed special public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said special public hearing on the 14” day of December and upon . u the information considering all testimony and arguments, examining the’ initial study, analyzm, submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors relating to the Coastal Development Permit. 1 ! l( 1' 1; 1: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as follows: FINDINGS: 1. 2. 3. 4. I A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Coastal Development Permit (Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel) (CDP98-48), based on the following findings and conditions: That the proposed development is in conformance with the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual and Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, which serves as the Certified Local Coastal program for the City of Carlsbad Village Segment of the California ‘Coastal Zone and all applicable policies in that the development is redevelopment of a previously unimproved lot, the development does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone and no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability exist on the site. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion, so steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the improvements will not alter physical or visual access to the shore. The granting of the ten foot street vacation will have no adverse impact on vehicular circulation within the area and the surplus right-of-way is not required for future public street purposes. The project is approved with the understanding that the required street vacation will be approved by the Carlsbad City Council prior to approval of the redevelopment permit for the subject project. - GENER4L AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS: 1. The Design Review Board has recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for the subject project and has determined that the project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit under Chapter 21.35 of the C&bad Municipal Code because the project involves new construction of a building, or addition to an existing building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds $150,000. DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 2 4 . 2 : L c . E 7 E 6 ia 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The Project is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, a Coastal Development Permit is required. 4. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a variance for a front setback that exceed the standard range: a) The application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Wage Redevelopment Plan. The Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual encourages uses, such as hotels, that promote goals and objectives of the Master Plan. The project has been designed with an increased front yard set back in several locations which improve both the function and physical appearance of the structure. The increased set back allows for increased landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard, and for a drop-off point for hotel guests. The implementation of the standard would result in an inferior design and decreased functionality. b) There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed developments which have the same standard, restrictions, controls. The project site is constrained due to the sloping topography of the land. Due to this constraint, the applicant has designed a project which provides increased landscaping, a high quality building design, increased building functionality, and is consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. The applicant has made a good faith effort to design the remainder of the building with appropriate building setbacks. The proposed hotel provides setbacks which are similar to buildings along Carlsbad Boulevard. c) The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. The setbacks above the maximum will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties because other properties along Carlsbad Boulevard have setbacks which exceed 10 feet. The applicant has designed the entire project in a manner which is visually appealing and architecturally interesting. TherefoG, the increased setback in the front actually assists in the effort to create a more visually appealing building within the front elevation d) The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The proposed project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in varying degrees. The portions of the project which exceed the standard range, do not create a situation which contradicts the intent of the standards established in the subject document. The project is well-designed and will meet the needs of the hotel guests Community which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE3 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback further than the permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are likely to remain, and setting the structure back to the desired standard will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. The subject property is in a location which has varying setbacks. To the south, the residential property is setback in the front by approximately 15 feet. To the west, buildings such as St. Michael’s Church and the newly constructed Lutheran Retirement Home have setbacks in excess of 25 feet. It is expected that these buildings will remain for many more years. In addition, these larger setbacks allow for a design of the building which allows for more articulation in the building, which ultimately results in a building which is more visually interesting and appealing. 5. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan, development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the following required findings to allow for a provisional land use: b) The hotel has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The size and scale of the building is compatible with existing commercial structures to the south and west. The project is adjacent to single family and multi-family residences to the north and to the east. The single family homes to the north pose the most significant compatibility issue. The project has been designed to include a 6 foot masonry wall adjacent to the existing residences to the north. While there is no minimum or maximum setback requirement along the northern portion of the project, the developer has provided a 10 foot setback from the property line adjacent to the residences. Also, the landscape plan calls for tall growing trees that will aid in screening the hotel. Finally, the existing single family land uses are legal non-conforming uses. Thus, the homes will be allowed to remain as long as so desired by the property owners. However, their can be no expansion of the uses. Over the long term, it is anticipated that these uses will ultimately be replaced with commercial/retail land uses consistent with the goals and objectives of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan & Design Manual. The proposed frontage is consistent with the surrounding commercial aXd non- commercial~uses. C) The project has been designed so that there will be a minimum impact to surrounding land uses from parking and loading. Parking will be located at the rear of the property and below ground. The entrances to the parking areas have been designed to provided landscaping and screen walls incorporated to lessen the impact from parking. ALSO, the project has been conditioned to prohibit any deliveries in the areas adjacent to the existing residences. 26 II GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FIhVINGS: 27 28 1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned he.rein is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following: 11 DRB RESO NO. 266 . II 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 a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use plan for the area. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective as of January 12, 1996, because it will provide for a commercial use (hotel) which supports the existing commercial uses within Land Use District 1 of the Village Redevelopment Area. b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping, and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. c) The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on a vacant lot which has appropriate zoning for a hotel facility. The project is also consistent with the Open Space requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area. cl) The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate fire protection and other safety standards. 2. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and ordinances since: a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be - - I issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewerservice remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval. 3. The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by the Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carkbad Municipal Code, which are applicable to the project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities. DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 5 : : 1 1 . t ; I E 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. 5. The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384. 6. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby 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. CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Design Review Board does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the applicant’s request CDP98-48, for the project entitled “Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel” (Exhibits A-K), incorporated herein by reference, date November 23, 1998), subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all necessary corrections and modifications to the major Coastal Development Permit exhibits and/or other documents’to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Developer shall develop the property substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits for the project. . Approval of CDP 98-48 is subject to approval of RP 98-08. CDP 98-48 is subject to all conditions contained in Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 265 dated, November 23, 1998, for RP 98-08, for construction of a 141 room hotel. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of bullding permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions. ” DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 6 7 2 2 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 You have 90 days from November 23, 1998 to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, YOU ITlUSt follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14* day of December, 1998, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Board Members: Marquez, Savary, Marois & a. Forsyth, Jr. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DRB RESO NO. 266 PAGE 7 Exhibit A PARCEL A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 203-172-21 and 203-172-23 /...+ . . . ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY oF CARLSBAD, COUNTY o? SAN DIEGO. STATE oF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15. 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK '5; THENCE NORTH ~5~23~25~ EAST. 20.00 FEET ALONG BEACH AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O23'25" EAST, 95.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST, 200.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5S026'5S" EAST, 100 FEET MORE OR . LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PORTION OF SAID BLOCK 5 CONVEYED BY C.B. BRANNERMAN TO HELEN R. KNOWLES BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1899 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 276, PAGE 200 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE oF.SAID LAND CONVEYED TO KNOWLES FOR A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 11s FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT 0.: THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5 WHICH IS 100 FEET NORTHWESTERLY'FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 20 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 2 OF CITY OF CARLSBAD LQT SPLIT MAP NUMBER 71; THENCE NORTH 34'=33'03" WEST, 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF CHRISTIANSEN WAY FORMERLY KNOWN AS CEDAR STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT 5 ON THE SOUTHEAST AS VACATED AND ABANDONED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WdIcH RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 1986 AS FILE NO. 86-438978 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH 55O24'44" EAST, 115.43 FEET ALONG THE SOUTEEAS TERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 5, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O24'44" EAST 99.60 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY 'BOUNDARY TO A POINT WHICH IS 225.75 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTH 34“35'38" EAST, 10 .OO FEET; THENCE SOUTH SSO24'44" WEST 99.60 FEET; TKENCE NORTH 34O37'20" WEST, 10.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 77.5, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER oF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH 55O23'25" EAST 115.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O23'25" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 120.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55O23'2S" EAST 135.00'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 80.26; . - ..‘.Z .,.,‘.. .‘. *l’-.crrc~~a. ..a .-.C- .- - THENCE SC 5~5~26'58" WEST 150.00 FEET; - :NCE NORTH 340 FEET TO 1. - TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: 33'25" WEST 200.1~ m EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO. OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERLY 5 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 5, OF CARLSBAD IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894, DISTANT THEREON 140 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 60 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CHARLES R. EYMANN, ET Ux. RECORDED AUGUST 13, 1963 AS FILE NO. 142211 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY .PROLONGATION THEREOF PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 65 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EYMANN'S LAND; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY-LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 5 FEET OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT ONLY TO THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED J-UN-E 12, 1980 AS FILE NO. so-187294 AND APRIL 21, 1989 As FILE NO. 89-210431, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. . . . -- I !+-- , . I L&AL DESCRIPTION APN# 203-172-12 :' '>":. ,,.. c . p . . . . *: . ,‘. THE SOUTHWESTERLY 65.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 225.00 FEET OF THE SOUTWEASTERLY 200.00 FEET OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894. *. . . . . . . . . ..c. -., y:.,: '. . : - <. :.-<.; .+..-* . ..“".. a-... -. .' .::. > _...: . . . ..-. :',":,..<4:. . . . . . n,: .< ,; ?. . . . . :. : . ,. . 1 - . I ,. i ..: ..:j+. . i ,! .: - .,...,.d ..: . . . , . "' ..' 'I *: .:;.iy3p 3 5. Exhibit-A &. _ PARCEL A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 203-172-21 and 203-l ,.w&':';-z 1, 72-23 ALL THAT PORTION OF BMCK 5 OF CARLSB~, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY 0E SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING ~0 AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15. 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER 0F SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH SS”23’25” EAST, 20.00 FEET ALONG BEACH AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH SS“23'25" EAST, 95.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33’25” EAST. 200.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55O26'58" EAST, 100 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE WRTION OF SAID BLOCK 5 CONVEYED BY C.B. BRANNERMAN TO HELEN R. KNOWLES BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1899 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 276, PAGE 200 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO KNOWLES FOR A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE loo FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE loo FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 115 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT 0,; THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5 WHICH IS 100 FEET NORTHWESTERLY'FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 20 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 2 OF.CITY OF CARLSBAD LOT SPLIT MAP NuMBER 71; THENCE NORTH 34°33'03" WEST, 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF CHRISTIANSEN WAY FORMERLY KNOWN As CEDAR STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT 5 ON THE SOUTHEAST As VACATED AND ABANDONED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 1986 AS FILE NO. 86-438978 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH 55"24'44" EAST, 115.43 FEET ALONG THE SO UTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 5, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55"24'44" EAST 99.60 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY 'BOUNDRRY TO A POINT WHICH IS 225.75 FEET SOuTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTH 34“35'3a" EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH SSO24'44" WEST 99.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34O37'20" WEST, 10.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15. 1894, DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER 0F SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH 55O23'25" EAST 115.00 FEET TO THE TRUE poIm OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 5SO23'25" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34033'25" EAST 120.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55O23'25" EAST 135,OO'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 80.26; 4 .-..- ._.. . . . -. .‘. -~- .ec+wd +I -. .-- .- - I THENCE SC' 'p 55"26'58" WEST 150.~~ FEET; ' 'NCE NORTH 34O33'25" WEST 200.1~ FEET TO 1. -' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: m EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO, OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERLY S FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 5. OF CARLSBAD IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894, DISTANT THEREON 140 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 60 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CHARLES R. EYMANN, ET UK, RECORDED AUGUST 13, 1963 AS FILE NO. 142211 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN' S LAND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 65 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EYMANN'S LAND; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHERSTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 5 FEET OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID EASEMENT IS APPURTENANT ONLY TO THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED JUNE 12, 1980 AS FILE NO. 80-187294 AND APRIL 21, 1989 As FILE NO. 89-210431, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. . ..’ -- I !- L&AL DESCRIPTION APN# 203-i 72-q 2 :* .;'c. ,+.I . . :' :.. 2 . ; ! . . ,i :. . ,‘. THE SOUTHWESTERLY 65.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 225.00 FEET OF THE SOU'IWXMTERLY 200.00 FEET OF BLOCK S OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894. . . City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: East side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue and Christiansen Way excluding two parcels containing a total of 10,000 square feet located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Project Description: A- 141 room three story hotel with ,underground parking and related amenities on a 1.77 acre site. The project grading design requires 12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of fill, and the export of 10,000 cubic yard. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As-a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Pah-nas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning Department at (760) 438- 116 1, extension 4446. DATED: October 22, 1998 CASE NO: RF’ 98-08KDP 98-48 CASE NAME: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel . PUBLISH DATE: October 22, 1998 \K MICHAEL J. H@ZMI&ER Planning Director 5-7 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-1167 - FAX (760) 438-0894 ENWRO~NTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PAM’ II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: RP 98-08KDP 98-48 DATE: October 2, 1998 BACKGROUND 1: CASE NAME: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel 2. APPLICANT: Heritage West Develooment Companv 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 655, San Diego. CA 92122 (619) 458-I 141 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 8.1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Develooment Permit for a 141 room hotel containine 3 stories over underground oarking located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue and Christiansen Wav excluding two oarcels containinp a total of 10,000 sauare feet located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Wav. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact, ” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. q Land Use and Planning 0 Population and Housing [XI Transportation/Circulation 0 Biological Resources 0 Public Services 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Water 0 Energy & Mineral Resources @ Aesthetics Cl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources q Air Quality 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 .DETERMMATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 0 0 !xl cl Planner Signature /O-/3-98 Date ’ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93:Ol), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. . JO-/3- 48/ Planning Direct#s Sig/nature Date 2 Rev: 03/28/96 57 , .ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on projectispecific factors as well as general standards. l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. l Based on an “EIA-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). l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03128196 l 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 (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (# 1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18; #2) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2) d) Affect agricultural resourcesor operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (# 1 :Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6- 18;#2) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6;#2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l :Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6;#2) cj Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (# 1 :Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6;#2) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or a) W , cl d) e) f) I%) h) 0 expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15;#2;#3) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1- 15;#2;#3) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1.15;#2;#3) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (# 1 :Pgs 5. l-l - 5.1-15;#2;#3) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15;#2;#3) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;#2;#3) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;#2;#3) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15;#2;#3) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5. l-l - 5.1-15;#2;#3) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 1 1;#2) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-1 1;#2) 5 Potenlially Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl 0 cl cl cl 0 cl cl 0 cl cl cl cl q Cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Cl cl lx cl cl cl 0 cl cl cl cl cl 0 0 cl cl a cl cl Less Than Significant Impact Cl Cl cl cl 17 cl q Cl cl 0 cl q cl cl cl Cl cl 0 0 No Impact (x1 El 0. El El lxl Ix1 (x1 l-8 El lxl El El El Ix] lz w El El Rev. 03/28/96 ld ,Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) g) h) iI Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-1;#2) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.2- 1 - 5..2-11;#2) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2> Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 1 1;#2) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater I otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11;#2) 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;#2) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12;#2) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12;#2) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12;#2) VI. TR4NSPORTATIONKIRCULATION. Would the a) b) c> 4 e> fl g> proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Xl:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5:7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l :Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22;#2;#5) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0. 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ix) ix) IXI El (x1 (XI lz 0 lx Ix) Ix1 0 El IXI E3l El lxl 6 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). W 4 dj 4 VIII. a) b> cl Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I :Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;#2) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 5.13-9;#2) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 - 5.13-9;#2) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l - 5.13-9;#2) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) cl 4 e> 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-I - 5.10.1- 5;#2) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5;#2) The creation of any health hazard’or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5;#2) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5;#2) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I 15.10.1-5;#2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9- 15;#2;#4) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9- 15;#2;#4) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-I - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 q 0 cl cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl El 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 cl lgl 0 cl q 0 Cl 0 No’ ‘- Impact Ixi IXI IXJ Ix] lxl El [XI El q 7 Rev. 03l28196 L73 r ‘Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c> d) e) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7) Other gOVemmenta1 services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the a) b) Cl d) e> cl id XIII. a> b) c> XIV. a> b) 4 4 4 proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-I - 5.13-9) Communications syste&s?.(#l; pgs 5.12. I-J - 5.12.8-7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ficilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-I - 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? (Xl:Pgs 5.11-J - 5.11-5;#2) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5;#2) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 I-5;#2) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10;#2) Disturb archaeological resources? (# 1’:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10;#2) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#I:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10;#2) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#I :Pgs 5.12.8-l - 5:12.8-7;#2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7;#2) Potentially Significant Impact q 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 q 0 ‘I 0 0 0 0 0 0’ 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q lxl 0 q 0 0 0 0. 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 q 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .O 0 0 0 No Impact !xl Ix1 El El IXI IXI I& Ix1 Ix1 Ix) Ix1 ix) 0 Ix) El w XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 8 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) b) cl 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? 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? 9 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Ix) Ea 0 0 0 0 lxl 0 0 Rev. 03l28196 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis of this proposed hotel project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01). The MEIR is cited’ as source number 1 in the preceding checklist and the Mitgated Negative Declaration for the Village Design Manual is cited as source number 2. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and the Village Design Manual and within the scope of the projects anticipated by both the General Plan and the Village Design Manual. Mitigation measures are proposed for the potential additional significant impacts due to this development. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01) which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into this project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel project is a proposal to construct a 141 room three story hotel with underground pgrking and related amenities on a 1.77 acre site located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Street and Christiansen Way in the Village Redevelopment Area. The project grading design requires 12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of fill, and the export of 10,000 cubic yards. The site is currently vacant and contains no structures. The amount of export proposed is a result of the underground parking garage. Adjacent land uses to the project site include both residential and nonresidential development as well as public streets which front the project in three areas. The site is designated as Village (V) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is’ zoned Village Redevelopment (V-R). The property is located within Land Use District Number 1 - Carlsbad Village Center. Hotels are identified as a provisional use in Land Use District Number 1. 11 Rev. 03128196 b7 -11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion I. c) Land Use Planning Residential uses are located adjacent to the eastern and northeastern areas of the project site. The proposed project must provide an adequate buffer along these areas of the site perimeter to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential land uses. To accomplish this a decorative 6 foot high block wall shall be constructed along the eastern and northeastern property lines. The design of the wall shall be compatible with the proposed project’s architecture to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. In addition, landscaping materials identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the planter areas adjacent to the eastern and northeastern property lines shall consist of trees that are a minumum of 36 inch box size and shrubs which are a minimum of 5 gallon size. V. a) Air Quality The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan bu.ildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects within the scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 VI, a) Transportation/Circulation The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. X. b) Noise The exterior noise assessment prepared for the project by Dudek & Associates contains the following summary, “the primary noise source at the site is traffic noise from Carlsbad Boulevard. The future exterior noise level at the hotel’s proposed recreation area and patio area at the northwestern portion of the site facing Carlsbad Boulevard would exceed the City’s exterior noise criteria. TO mitigate the noise impact will require the construction of a minimum five-foot high noise barrier along the western portion of the site. In addition, an interior noise study will be required for the hotel prior to issuance of building permits. The interior noise study will determine the interior noise level and type of sound insulation required to mitigate the noise impact. To meet the City’s noise requirement, it is anticipated that air-conditioning and/or mechancial ventilation will be required, as well as sound-rated windows in certain rooms.” The required noise mitigation measures are as follows: 1. Mitigation of the noise impacts at the outdoor recreation and patio areas requires the construction of a minimum five-foot high noise barrier along the western portion of the site. The location of the required five-foot high noise barrier is shown in the attached Figure 3. The noise barrier may be constructed as a wall, berm, or combination of both. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 The materials used to construct the noise barrier are required to have a minimum surface density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Such materials may consist of masonry, 5/8-inch Plexiglass, 3/8-inch tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The barrier must be designed and constructed so that there are no openings or cracks. The required noise barrier shall be shown on the project’s building plans and be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupany permit. 2. To comply with the City’s interior noise standard, an interior noise analysis is required for the project. The interior accoustical analysis will be required for the hotel prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB within the hotel rooms. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the hotel rooms require air-conditioning and/or mechancial ventilation, and could require sound-rated windows in certain rooms. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a copy of the required interior acoustical analysis documenting what construction materials or measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect’s registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifiying that the recommendations of the interior acoustical analysis have been incorporated into the building plans. XIII. c). Aesthetics. Light & Glare The project has the potential to have light and glare impacts on adjacent residential property. To avoid this potential impact the applicant will be required to comply with the following mitigation measure: An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 70 14 Rev. 03/28/96 III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Cai-lsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-l 161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01), dated February 6, 1995, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 3. Summary of Field Investigation and Exnloratorv Drilling for the Carl&ad Hotel Site, Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street (Project No. 06043-42-01) , dated April 2, 1998, GEOCON Incorporated. 4. Carlsbad Village Resort Exterior Noise Assessment (Project No. 1645-l 1), dated May 11, 1998, Dudek & Associates. 5. Traffic Analvsis for the Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel (Project No. 003897), dated April 27, 1998, Urban Systems Associates, Incorporated. 15 Rev. 03/B/96 7’ LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. A decorative 6 foot high block wall shall be constructed along the eastern and northeastern property lines. The design of the wall shall be compatible with the proposed project’s architecture to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. 2. Landscaping materials identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the planter areas adjacent to the eastern and northeastern property lines shall consist of trees that are a minimum of 36 inch box size and shrubs which are a minimum of 5 gallon size. 3. Mitigation of the noise impacts at the outdoor recreation and patio areas requires the construction of a minimum five-foot high noise barrier along the western portion of the site. The location of the required five-foot high noise barrier is shown in the attached Figure 3. The noise barrier may be constructed as a wall, berm, or combination of both. The materials used to construct the noise barrier are required to have a minimum surface density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Such materials may consist of masonry, 5/8-inch Plexiglas, 318inch tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The barrier must be designed and constructed so that there are no openings or cracks. The required noise barrier shall be shown on the project’s building plans and be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 4. To comply with the City’s interior noise standard, an interior noise analysis is required for the project. The interior acoustical analysis will be required for the hotel prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB within the hotel rooms, To mitigate the interior noise impact, the hotel rooms require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation, and could require sound-rated windows in certain rooms. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a copy of the required interior acoustical analysis documenting what construction materials or measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed by the acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect’s registration stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifying that the recommendations of the interior acoustical analysis have been incorporated into the building plans. 5. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 16 ‘32 Rev. 03/28/96 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 17 Rev. 03/28/96 73 I .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. w-q-w Date 18 Rev. 03128196 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of I , B a= B u- 2 $ 5 8 E - 2 g e 7 .- 5 E 2 s ‘Z 3 m c 0) g P 3 E 1 .- F E .8 c,PE ‘3 m um mu 0 .’ : . . . . ~ 1~ II . ...: : . - . . -_. -..UH :1’ : .” :. i ,. ; i .,.. ; j : ..a ‘. . ; ; -z : I . .: , ‘L i ..,.’ : : - :.?-lk .: >.. I3 : : : ; : : f ; ,.’ I ; 4 : :’ : ; j j ; : : f b.: %.:.. 1 ] II II m :;; : : . . 111 ;;:j: j’ _. _ _. ..’ f-II f : $J-y=-pF>g,.; “:;: : ,: ., : i : “:;j.. ‘, ..=JAV’-..H333Q . ..-_ ‘--.-ye b . . . . ‘. ‘. :. . . ‘.. .-- . - .-_,_, L ,,,._._._. *...-. ;;--‘- ‘. . . ” . . - .._ . i._ ., - . . . -_ - . -. . . _ --..- __., ..- . -T,.;L:..-- : :I*. . . . . ..-... ;T:s-...:...~ ..-- ..-.- . . ,.. .:. -.-: -,__ ..’ ._.._: >,.;.,.. . . . . . . . . . ..-...--._...__ . . . -.+,,’ . ..I.. .-.’ . . .._...._. .L ;., ._. ,. . :- . . . . . . . . .._.._._..._._................. :..--se-.. . ..I--.--..-.- -_ - Exhibit A : - PARCEL x: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 203-172-2'7 and 203-172-23 - ~*&'.;--- . . ALL THAT PORTION oF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY of SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CA.LIFoWfA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15. 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH 55~23'2s" EAST, 20.00 FEET ALONG BEACH AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 55O23'2S" EAST, 95.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'2S" EAST, 200.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH SS"26'58" EAST, 100 FEET MORE oR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE'PORTION OF SAID BLOCK S CONVEYED By C.B. BRANNERMAN TO HELEN R. KNOWLES BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1999 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 276, PAGE 200 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO KNOWLES FOR A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 115 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT 01; THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5 WHICH IS 100 FEET NORTHWESTERLY'FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 20 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 2 OF CITY OF CARLSBAD LOT SPLIT MAP NUMBER 71; THENCE NORTH 34“33'03" WEST, 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF CHRISTIANSEN WAY FORMERLY KNOWN'AS CEDAR STREET ADJOINING SAID LOT 5 ON THE SOUTHEAST As VACATED AND ABANDONED TO PUBLIC USE BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 1986 AS FILE NO.. 86-438978 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; 8 COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH 55'-'24'44" EAST, 115.43 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 5, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE CONTINUING NORTH SSO24'44" EAST 99.60 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY TO A POINT WHICH IS 225.75 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTH 34O35'38" EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH SSO24'44" WEST 99.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34"37'20" WEST, 10.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. pmCEL 8: ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 1s. 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER oF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTH SSO23'25" EAST 115.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH SS"23'2S" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34"33'25" EAST 120.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55'23'25" EAST 135.00'FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34O33'25" EAST 80.26; _ -.., ‘,. ,. .l,raT.3**m . . . . ..--- - THENCE SC" 'K 55O26'58" WEST 150.00 FEET; ' 'NCE NORTH 34O33'25" WEST 200.1 FEET TO 'i. a' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING- PARCEL C: AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO, OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERLY 5 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE[ LAND: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 5, OF CARLSBAD IN THE CITY OF CJUtLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO AMENDED MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. FEBRUARY 15, 1894, DISTANT THEREON 140 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 60 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF.LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO CHARLES R. EYMANN, ET UK, RECORDED AUGUST 13, 1963 AS FILE NO. 142211 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMAHN'S LAND PRRALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID EYMANN'S LAND AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 65 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EYMANN'S LAND; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5, A DISTANCE OF 120 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 5 FEET OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID EASEMENT IS' APPURTENANT ONLY TO THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED JWNE 12, 1980 AS FILE NO. 80-187294 AND APRIL 21, 1989 As FILE NO. 09-210431, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. . . . L&AL DESCRIPTIOIi APN# 203-172-12 :. $'!,. __%.- . . .,', ,' : ;I THE SOUTHWESTERLY 65.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 225.00 FEET OF THE - SOUTHEASTERLY 200.00 FEET OF BLOCK 5 OF CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COum?Y OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 775, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1894. . . VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major pedestrian walkways I I ( I I I I 1 [ 1 F 1 ?rovide landscaping within surface parking lots rovrde access to parking areas from alleys wherever -ocate parking at the rear of lots. ivoid parking in front setback areas tain Retail Continuity along Pedestrian-Oriented The proposed project will not conflict with retail provide privacy for the residential units The project has been designed to be pedestrian friendly and encourage pedestrians to walk into ping is provided within the surface parking ocated at the rear of the lot and of parking proposed in front Not applicable to this project. re, location or tenant e building, varying roof forms, and ly for their sites and not ral features which provide for a setbacks along the east, west and south elevations. The building is stepped to 10 feet adjacent to the residents to the north and Maintain a relatively consistent building height along The height of the building is fairly consistent with block faces. other commercial buildings in the area. It, however, is taller than the neighboring buildings to the north, south and east. Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and “look at me” The building has been designed with simple tines design solutions are strongly discouraged. and forms but allows for representation of the Village character desired for the area. The building is not trendy or “look at me” in design. - ‘3s .I , ..;:,;, .;%f’-‘3df.p. ‘< ..,,; ,.,;, , -r,-. i. ..i.r “i+~~;~&g$:$~‘ ; Roof Formsj”~~;~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~, +- i T.:=+,c.+. _ 1 ,. ,,; , .-,: ri*._ <;p* ‘-g’.t..qr- .+ ‘* ;;j _ q qG”i’.& ( qg#?$< :, 2;: a_ .: a+$f~f .*? : ‘.&y.* py.+%s I _ i. I.,. -%f& :.a ‘s& ,y,:; .,-. -:_ , Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12 Gabled-type roofs and roof features with the or greater. desired pitch have been provided within the project. Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. The project makes good use of dormers of various . I 4 I I I F I ! f I f F : C E S S :k esrgn vtsual interest into al trellises and landscaping.. ‘rovide facade projections and recesses. or recesses an projections which will create shadows and contrast. 3ve special attention to upper levels of commercial WJctures. The upper level of this commercial building does provide for balconies and attractive window features which reflects special attention in design. ‘rovide special treatment to entries for upper level uses. The upper levels of this building will be accessed through internal stairways. Therefore, no special treatment of upper level use entries is necessary. Jtilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail ?lements for visual interest and scale. Detail elements have been incorporated into the entire project by design. The window and entrance designs all provide for detail which adds visual interest. The balcony areas and central entry way were also designed to provide for detail in architecture. iespect the materials and character of adjacent levelopment. The materials and colors proposed for the building will not conflict with adjacent developments. Imphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood The walls on the first floor utilize brick veneer. iding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; The upper utilize neutral color stucco.. tucco ,void the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor 1 At’this time, none of the noted materials have Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated metal door and window frames. I The applicant will be using dark anodized aluminum window s and trim. Avoid. metal awnings and canopies. The applicant has proposed no awnings or canopies. Utilize light and neutral base colors. Limit the materials and color palette on any single building (3 or less colors) The project utilizes a neutral color scheme. The project incorporates 3 colors. Provide significant storefront glazing. I Due to the type of commercial facility, this design feature is not aoplicable. Avoid Large Blank Walls. The project has been design not tohave large blank walls. Encourage large window openings for restaurants Not applicable; no restaurant proposed within the project. Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront No fabric awnings to be used; not a retail or windows and entries. storefront operation. Emphasize display windows with special lighting. No display lighting. Not applicable to project. Encourage the use of dutch doors. Utilize small paned windows Dutch doors are not proposed. The applicant is using small divided paned windows. Develop a total design concept. All facade design elements are unified. The applicant was able to develop a total design concept with is also functional and visually interestinn. Provide frequent entries. The project does provides a main entrance along Carlsbad Boulevard and from the parking area. Limit the extent of entry openings. The extent of the entry openings has been limited through the design. Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along street frontages. The project does not include pull down shutters Or sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along the street frontage. Emphasize storefront entries. Not applicable to this proiect. Integrate Fences and walls into the building design. Fences and walls have been incorporated into the building design. are subordinate in rate multi-family developments into smaller DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998 EXHIBIT 3 Page 1 Minutes of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. December 14,1998 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Board Member Marquez. ROLL CALL: Present: Acting Chairperson Compas. Members Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, and Marois Absent: None Staff Present: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Lori Rosenstein’Management Analyst Craig Ruiz, Management Analyst APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ACTION: Motion by Board Member Forsyth, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of September 28, 1998, as presented. VOTE: 5-O AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Forsyth, Marois NOES: None ACTION: Motion by Board Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 1998, as presented. VOTE: 5-O AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Forsyth, Marois NOES: None COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: I. RP 98-081CDP 98-48 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESORT HOTEL - Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, with a variance and a Coastal,Development Permit to allow the construction of a 3-story, 89,943 square foot, 141 room hotel on property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Christiansen Way and Beech Street in Village Land Use District No. 1. Management Analyst, Craig Ruiz presented a brief history of the project and summarized the project as follows: This is a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Boulevard Resort Hotel. The project consists of a 141 room hotel with 169 parking spaces (both surface and underground). It will be a 3-story design of approximately 90,000 square feet. One of the objectives of the Design Review Board is to find that the project is consistent with the Village Master Plan and Land Use Plan. This project is located in Land Use District 1. Hotels in this district , DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14, 1998 Page 2 are allowed, with the approval of a Provisional Use Permit. The Redevelopment Permit will act as the Provisional Use Permit. The goal of Land Use District 1 is to provide a strong retail and financial services to the City residents, as well as tourists and regional visitors. The intent of this goal is to promote the pedestrian shopping environment and other mutually supportive uses. Emphasized are facilities and services, both for residents as well as travelers. This hotel project will meet both the goal and the emphasis of this land use area. Provisional Use Permits are examined in three different ways; 1) location criteria; 2) development criteria; and, 3) findings that must be made. Generally hotels are allowed in any area within Land Use District 1 but the City reserves the right of a Provisional Use Permit because there are some locations that are not as desirable as other for a hotel. The City want to ensure that any impacts from a hotel will be addressed and mitigated so they are not impacting on adjacent uses. In areas where there is a strong existing retail frontage along main streets, the City wants to make sure that a hotel will not impact those retail areas. This project is located on the north end of Carlsbad Boulevard with only one small retail use adjacent to it and is not likely to have a great deal of retail impact. Also, this project has been designed for optimum ingress and egress at the front of the building but will also include other accesses to both ground level and underground parking. The site is irregular in shape and is limited as far as how things can be changed around. There are some existing residences on the north and east sides of the project. There is no intense retail activity existing and therefore no impacts regarding location. The service areas of the hotel will be located away from any of the adjacent residential uses and signs will be posted restricting hotel deliveries, etc., to the areas. The City has also required that the loading dock be reduced to the minimum usable size. This hotel will not have a restaurant so the number of deliveries will be quite limited. Linens will be stored and laundering will be done, on-site, eliminating the need for a linen delivery service. The project is appropriate .for the area and will reach an allowed height of 45 feet. There will be a series of 6 foot walls to provide screening for the adjacent residential ‘uses. There will also be some tall, fast growing landscaping put in along the north and east sides of the site. At this time, the hotel owner feels that it would inappropriate to have any retail use in the hotel and therefore none is planned. The residences are considered to be a legally non-conforming use and are allowed to stay indefinitely. Staff feels that the appropriate findings can be made. This project is requesting one variance. The Master Plan states that this property should have a 10 foot setback along Carlsbad Boulevard. There are certain findings, however, that can reduce that setback to zero. This project has a variance setback of 0.00 with a Porte cochere from the property line back approximately 25 feet. This design is consistent with other project in the area. Staff recommends approval to the City Council recommending approval of the Major Redevelopment Permit No. 98-08, Coastal Development Permit No. 98-48, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Board Member Forsyth asked if there are any provisions for deliveries should the owner decide on putting in a restaurant or other retail space. Mr. Ruiz replied that there are no retail components to this hotel because there isn’t enough space for parking. Therefore, there will be no retail at a later date. Board Member Forsyth asked where the refuse bins will be located. Mr. Ruiz replied that they will be located down the ramp and in the parking garage. The applicant has met with the trash company and showed them the design and the trash company does not have a problem with that location. Board Member Forsyth asked is the 25 foot front variance accommodate the unloading of vehicles at the entrance. Mr. Ruiz replied that it definitely accommodates the drop-off spot, which is an important function of the hotel, and also provides for additional landscaping and pedestrian amenities. Board Member Forsyth asked how many employee parking spaces will be provided and where will they be located. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14, 1998 Mr. Ruiz replied that the Master Plan does not require designated employee parking versus guest parking. It only requires 1.2 spaces per hotel room which allows enough parking for both guests and employees. For clarification, Board Member Forsyth asked if the “hot houses” on the rear of the property on the east side of the site, will be removed. Mr. Ruiz replied that those “hot houses” will be removed. Board Member Savary asked if the swimming pool area will be totally screened from the view of passers-by. Mr. Ruiz stated that the applicant will answer that and other questions during his presentation. Applicant, Howard Gaad, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, stated they have worked long and hard to come up with a design that will produce not only a good looking project but own that will fit in and function well with the rest of the area. He further stated that the 1.2 parking spaces per room ration, more than allows for any employees that may park there. Also, he stated this is a limited service hotel which will serve breakfast to guests but no lunches or dinners will be served and deliveries will be minimal. Mr. Gaad stated that screening and lighting has been addressed and there is no illumination at the rear and sides that will interfere with the neighbors. Board Member Marquez asked what the total cost of this project will be. Mr. Gaad replied that the total cost, including the land, is approximately $13,000,000. Board Member Marquez what the average cost per room will be. Mr. Gaad replied that the cost per room will be $95 per night on average, annualized. Board Member Marois asked what the total number of staff and employees will be. Mr. Gaad replied that total staff will vary, depending on the time of day, but the average will be approximately 10 to 15 people at any given time. Chairperson Compas stated that at one time the applicant was interested in purchasing the property on the southwest corner, adjacent to this site, and asked if they would be proposing a bigger hotel if they had been able to acquire that property. Mr. Gaad replied that he would not have proposed a larger hotel because 141 rooms is about right for that location and to have a larger hotel would not be appropriate. Also, Mr. Gaad stated that he does not intend any future expansion. Board Member Savaj, asked if they anticipate having a gift shop or like facility within the hotel. Mr. Gaad replied that there will be a very small area for sundries staffed, by the person running the front desk, but not a retail shop. Board Member Forsyth asked if there will be guest rooms in the front portion of the hotel that faces Carlsbad Boulevard or will that be reserved for administrative offices. Mr. Gaad replied that there are approximately 4 guest rooms at the front of the building in addition to the administrative offices located nearer the front entrance. Board Member Forsyth then asked if there will be guest rooms to the south of the entrance, nearer the swimming pool area. Lab . . DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14.1998 Page 4 Mr. Gaad replied that there will be no guest rooms to the south of the entrance. The area south of the entrance is designed to be a lounge with a fireplace and which leads to a small dining room and the pool area. Board Member Savary asked if the “electrical” room will create a noise factor for the adjacent guest room. Mr. Gaad replied that there should be no noise emanating from that electrical room. He added that the walls will be well insulated. Understanding that the applicant and the owner of the adjacent property on the southwest corner of the block have had discussions regarding the possible inclusion of that property into this project , Board Member Marquez asked the applicant what the outcome of those discussions is. Mr. Gaad replied that the owner of the property in question decided that they did not want to sell the property. Mr. Gaad added that if they had been able to purchase that property, they would probably have used it for aesthetics rather than retail. He explained that retail has to be in the central core of a hotel to prosper. Chairperson Compas asked if the applicant intends to continue to own and operate this hotel or is there another plan. Mr. Gaad replied that they intend to retain ownership but they will probably hire a management comp,any to operate the hotel. Chairperson Compas asked if they will serve cocktails in the lounge/library area. Mr. Gaad replied that the most management companies serve wine and beer in a happy hour type setting and that in that particular area it would be appropriate to serve those beverages. Chairperson Compas asked if they intend to have any kind of food service to the rooms. Mr. Gaad replied that they will not as their food service is very limited and will be in the dining room only. Bill Kerish, Architect, Solemo Livingston Architects, 363 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, responded to questions regarding the site itself. He explained that the site is very irregular and that because of its irregularity, they were able to turn a disadvantage into an advantage, in that it provided a nearly perfect spot for a swimming pool, in terms of sunlight and views as well as providing views from several of the rooms. Referring to the exhibits, Mr. Kerish spoke of the landscaping and walkways. He stated that they have discussed and are considering piping water in from the Alt Karlsbad facility for the spa. Mr. Kerish stated that the colors and overall architecture meld nicely with the European flavor of the Village and break up straight lines and the .bulkiness of the building. Chairperson Compas stated that the drawing makes the building appear to be very gray and asked if something can be done about that. Mr. Kerish explained that there is a subtle difference in color and that they did not wish to over do the colors. The basic color is the lighter of the two colors portrayed in the drawing. Mr. Kerish pointed out that the screening of the pool will be done with trellis style walls which will allow vines to grow on the wall and they are also entertaining the installation of some glass which will be a noise barrier. Mr. Gaad interjected and stated that they are using quite a bit of glass from the Porte cochere, south, to allow people to look in and see that it is a nice and fun place. In addition, he stated that the reason they primarily use very neutral colors in their building is that colors come in and go out of style with regularity and rather than be stuck with colors that will “date” the structure, they choose the more neutral colors and enhance them with different types of landscaping and potted plants of varying colors. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998 Page 5 Mr. Kerish stated that mechanical units will be on the roof but the design of the roof will create the proper screening for the equipment. Regarding the landscaping, Mr. Kerish stated that there will be many different plants and trees used in this project. Particular attention has be paid to screening from the residential area along the north side of the site as well as the screening of the parking area. Mr. Kerish also stated that they intend to have planter boxes which will be planted with flowers to mirror the flowers in the Carlsbad Flower Fields at various times of the year. Board Member Savary asked how the turning in and out of the entrance will affect traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard, and, will there be a deceleration lane. She voiced her concern for safety regarding the interruption of the normal flow of traffic. Mr. Gaad replied that the entrance will only be for people to check-in to the hotel. He further stated that they have worked with their own traffic engineer as well as the City Engineering Department to work through the traffic issues. The consensus was that there will be no more of a safety risk than when there is a parking lot with one or more driveways on a main street. In addition, the entrance will be on an angle and will make entering and exiting much easier than if it were a normal driveway. .1 Board Member Savary asked staff to comment. Mr. Ruiz stated that it is true that the applicant’s traffic engineer and the City’s Engineering Department have conferred on this issue and it is also true that the angled entrance makes for ease of entrance and exit. Board Member Marois asked how much shrubbery there will be along the front facade and what size plants will be planted. Mr. Kerish replied that, at this point in time, there is no size or species called out for the shrubbery. Mr. Gaad interjected and stated that 70% of the shrub area will be 5 gallon plants and 30% will be 1 gallon plants. He went on to explain that, normally, they put a 5 gallon plant in and surround it with 1 gallon plants. Board Member Marois asked what percentage of the building will not have plantings or shrubbery. Mr. Gaad replied that while they want to enhance the appearance of the building with landscaping, they do not want to plant anything that will grow too high and eventually block the views from the rooms. Mr. Kerish added that the existing palm trees will be saved and are mature enough to be out of the traffic line- of-sight. Board Member Marois asked Mr., Gaad if he has given any thought to what would be compatible uses for the property on the corner to the south. Mr. Gaad declined to comment other than to say that there are uses they would prefer not to have in that location but, it is private property and if there is ever a proposed land use change, he feels assured that the City will make the best determination of use for all concerned. Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Kerish if there is any fill being brought in, and pointed out that the building, as it goes eastward, appears to be raised. Mr. Kerish replied that the grade will not change at all. Board Member Marquez asked if the 6 foot wall will be taken from existing grade. Mr. Kerish replied affirmatively. %JJ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14,1998 . . Page 6 Board Member Marquez asked what type of roofing will be used. Mr. Kerish replied that they are contemplating a high profile asphalt shingle, something that is rustic looking or looks like slate but isn’t as costly as slate. Board Member Marquez stated that she would like them to use the highest profile shingle so as to give the appearance of tiood. Also, she asked how they are going to handle the elevator profile. Mr. Kerish explained that elevator profiles, these days, are relatively low and that they probably can get nearly all of the elevator core inside the building and it will be well below the top of the parapet. He added that the elevator will be set back inside the slope of the roof. Board Member Marquez asked how far behind the property line will the Porte cochere be located. Mr. Kerish replied that it will be approximately 15 feet behind the property line. Board Member Marquez asked Mr. Gaad lf they have made any provision for the scheduling of trash collection. She pointed out that the trash enclosure is very close to the residences on the north side of the site. Mr. Kerish replied that the trash collection point is actually in the underground garage and is nowhere near those residences. He added that he believes that the trash will be collected approximately 3 times per week for a 3 cubic yard bin. He pointed out that a hotel of this type does not generate a huge amount of trash. Board Member Marquez asked if there has been any provision for restricting their guests from hanging towels on the balconies, especially in the front along Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Kerish replied that they have not given that subject any thought but they would certainly be willing to address the issue to find a diplomatic way to get the message to their guests. Assuming that they receive all of the necessary approval and permits, Chairperson Compas asked when construction will begin, how long will it last, and when do they plan on opening the hotel. Mr. Kerish replied that it will take about 6 months to complete the working drawings and get the permits and approximately 12 months of construction. He went on to say that it should be completed by June, 2000, providing everything goes well. Chairperson Compas asked if they have a name for this hotel in mind. Mr. Kerish replied that at the moment, the Carlsbad Resort Hotel is the name they have been using and that will probably remain. Regarding the gray appearance of color, Chairperson Compas asked if they would have a problem if the Design Review Board asked for enhancement of the coloration to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Mr. Kerish replied that he could see no problem with that request. He added that as long as the color enhancement is reasonable, there would not be a problem. Board Member Forsyth asked how many parking spaces will be in the underground parking garage. Mr. Kerish replied that there will be 124 parking spaces in the underground garage. Chairperson Compas opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. .- i DESIGN REvlEw BOARD December 14,1998 Page 7 Ludwig Grigoros, owner of the property on the south side of the side on the comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Christensen Way, stated that he likes and supports the pioject overall but wants to be sure that the project does not inhibit his opportunity to redevelop his property. His plans are to build a large spa on the ground floor and there will be no retail, except for the spa custbmers. The second, third and fourth (if they are allowed a 45 foot height) floors will be a Bed and Breakfast Inn with each room decorated in a different style, similar to the Madonna Inn in San Luis Obispo. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Compas closed Public Testimony. Board Member Marquez suggested that the Design Review Board require the applicant to restrict his guests from hanging towels over their balconies, require trash collection to be scheduled not earlier than 1O:OO a.m., and the finish colors of the roof and the rest of the building be done to the approval of the Director of Housing and Redevelopment. Chairperson Compas stated that the subjects of the towels and the colors have already been discussed. However, since the subject of a trash collection schedule has not been discussed with the applicant, Chairperson Compas re-opened Public Testimony and requested Mr. Gaad comments on the trash schedule. Mr. Gaad stated that he does not have a problem with a trash collection schedule, as long as the trash company can meet an approved schedule without additional significant cost. In addition, he added that to his knowledge he would have no control over when they will pick up the trash. Chairperson Compas asked staff to comment. Mr. Ruiz stated that the trash company gives a window during which they will pick up the trash. Their customers cannot dictate schedules. Customers, however, can request specific times but it is up to the trash company as to whether they will honor the request. Board Member Forsyth commented that the later the hour of pick up, the better. Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain stated that Coast Waste Management will usually work with the applicant to arrive at a reasonable solution but that an individual cannot dictate a time to them. Chairperson Compas asked if Mr. Gaad would accept a condition they he must work out a reasonable trash pick-up schedule with Coast Waste Management. Mr. Gaad replied that he would accept such a condition. Chairperson Compas closed Public Testimony. Board Member Forsyth stated that he has no problem with the added conditions as suggested by Chairperson Compas. ACTION: Motion by Member Marquez, and duly secbnded, to adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 264, recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 265, recommending approval of RP 98-08, and adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 266, recommending approval of COP 98-48, to the Housing and Redevelopment,Commission, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including added conditions requiring that management restrict their guests from hanging towels over the balconies, that the applicant enhance the color of the roof and colors of the building’s exterior to the satisfaction of the Director of Housing and Redevelopment, and directing management to work out a reasonable trash pick-up schedule with Coast Waste Management. 0’ vlt . a-- l DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 14, 1998 Page 8 VOTE: AYES: NOES: 5-O Compas, Savary, Marquez, Forsyth, and Marois None ANNOUNCEMENTS: Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain announced that there will be no meeting on December 28, 1998 and a meeting in January, 1999, is not anticipated. The February meeting will be held on February 22, 1999. CHAIRPERSON REPORT: None ASSISTANT CITY AlTORNEY REPORT: None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of December 14, 1998, was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Director of Housing and Redevelopment PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P,) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana B( and San Diego County; that the notice of w the annexed is a printed copy (set in type smaller than nonpareil), has been publish6 each regular and entire issue of said newsp’ and not in any supplement thereof on following dates, to-wit: FEbruary 20, 2001 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. es333 ..3-6-o 1 This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp -#rI w2 Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing ch - IS UescriMU as: i _, >* AsseSsor P&xl N~~Bers:.BOBil7”L-lr:201-,~;21.203-17$23 -’ Dated at San Marcos 20th --L--~-L---- cIl\#-,, reoruary, Luul n As a result of environmental revie ‘-‘l. =- ‘7. da’ Californki .bvironmetil 5uality ‘;Aci proposd this of NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising -~j-^ j descrlt CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CARLSBAD VILLAGE RESORT HOTEL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing & Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 to consider a request for an eighteen (18) month extension of Major Redevelopment Permit (PR98-08) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP98-48), which will allow the construction of a 89,943 square foot, 3 story, 141 room hotel. The requested permits includes a request for variance to allow for an increased front yard set back of up to 25 feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted setback of 10 feet. The project is proposed for property located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen Way and Beech Street in Village Land Use District 1, more particularly described as: Assessor Parcel Numbers: 203-172-12, 203-172- 21, 203-172-23 Those persons wishing to speak on the proposed project are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after March 2 i 2001. If you have questions or would like a copy of the staff report for the project, please contact Craig Ruiz in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760) 434-2817 or 434-2811. You may also provide your comments in writing to the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA 92008. As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Department has determined that the proposed project is in Prior Compliance with the previously issued Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on October 22, 1998 and approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on June 6, 1999. If you challenge the extension of the Major Redevelopment Permit or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. Case File: RIP 98-08, CDP 98-48 Case Name: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel Publish: February 20, 2001 ROOSEVELT ST STATE ST STATE ST \ J GARFIELD ST E \ q l \ A E u w J m L / L OCXJ$l ST > a CARLSBAD Bt WASHINGTON OCEAN ST Smooth Feed SheetP ” Use template for 5160* ACADEMY & ARMY NAVY PEACOCK NELSON PO BOX 3000 2763 STATE ST 4210 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92018-3000 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1629 CARLSBAD CA 92008-3638 HILL S A EDWARD BALLERINI PO BOX 1935 4430 POINT DEGADA 4161 RHODES WAY CARLSBAD CA 92018-1935 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6907 OCEANSIDE CA 92056-7413 ARTHUR A & ALICE BROWN RICHARD K & VERA MATSUI THOMAS A & KELLY MATYN 5157 SHORE DR 1005 LAGUNA DR 3795 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4347 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1859 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2844 DAVID R LADWIG WAYNE L HOFF VOORDECKERS FAMILY 2642 OCEAN ST 1035 LAGUNA DR 1045 LAGUNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1859 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1859 BETTY H AASE JOHN & MARIA ROSSBACH ALLAN S PHILLIPS 1055 LAGUNA DR 964 HOME AVE 974 HOME AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-1859 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1828 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1828 JOSEPH S MISKOV MAX R & DORIS SCHAEFFER MICHAEL J LOUGH 984 HOME AVE 994 HOME AVE 1010 HOME AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-1828 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1828 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1831 DALE C CALABRESE PATRICK DAILEY RICHARD A LEIVONEN 1012 HOME AVE 1011 HOME AVE 965 HOME AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-1831 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1831 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1829 SANDOR W SHAPERY EDWARD A RICHARDS RODRIQUEZ 423 W B ST 7280 VIA MARIPOSA NORTE 1010 GRAND AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3501 BONSALL CA 92003-5615 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1813 JACK B MILLS MARY AJOHNSON WILLIAM DONOVAN PO BOX 991 988 GRAND AVE PO BOX 877 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0991 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1811 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0877 THOMAS L BEVILACQUA RICHARD DUQUETTE LOIS N BLACKSTONE 2886 HOPE AVE 2860 HOPE AVE 2854 HOPE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832 13 &a AVERY@’ Address Labels laser 5160@ Smooth Feed SheetP .. Use template for 5160@ ROBERT L SHOWALTER USA SANDOR W SHAPERY 5687 YERBA ANITA DR 1728 WALTON ST 423 W B ST SAN DIEGO CA 92115-1027 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-2243 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3501 STEPHANIE BROTZMAN HELEN & HASTINGS MARKS ALEX A BANUELOS 5242 SAPPHIRE ST 41743 ENTERPRISE CIR N 2820 HOPE AVE B ALTA LOMA CA 91701-1348 TEMECULA CA 92590-5625 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1867 DAVID C DAFFERN GILBERT J PRANGE RICHARD ASHTON 2715 JUNIPER ST 2820 HOPE AVE D 2820 HOPE AVE E FOREST GROVE 97116-1545 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1867 CARLSBAD CA 92008-1868 TERRY J MCFATE 620 ROUNSAVILLE RD ROSWELL GA 30076-1023 JONATHAN W CAMPBELL MARCIA A HANKAMMER 327 N VALENCIA ST PO BOX 633090 GLENDORA CA 91741-2416 SAN DIEGO CA 92163-3090 IRA MEIBERGER PATRICK W MCGUIRE BRADLEY H WELLS 2607 OCEAN ST 2609 OCEAN ST 2121 BROADWAY ST 1 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 SAN FRANCISCO 94115-1359 MULLEN SABA TR BURCHFIELD 2617 OCEAN ST 3065 DONA SUSANA DR 4930 NELSON AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 STUDIO CITY C 91604-4358 CLOVIS CA 93611-9445 EDWIN & JOYAN ILLSLEY COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PR PATRICK B BOWNES 2633 OCEAN ST 1 PO BOX 10549 2649 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2239 SCOTTSDALE AZ,8527i-0549 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 JACK D PHILLIPS NANCY F JOHNSON ELIZABETH F BRYANT 2667 OCEAN ST 806 N FOOTHILL RD PO BOX 101 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 BEVERLY HILLS 90210-2904 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0101 FRED Z & BARBARA HAVENS HAWTHORNE HARRIS & WAILES TR 2139 ARCHDALE ST PO BOX 708 2729 OCEAN ST RIVERSIDE CA 92506-1656 SAN DIEGO CA 92112-4125 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2241 DEL S PUESTA KLETT MARITAL T BENEDICT PO BOX 4086 PO BOX 4086 8357 TURTLE CREEK CIR CARLSBAD CA 92018-4086 CARLSBAD CA 92018-4086 LAS VEGAS NV 89113-0133 l!l ,& AVERY@ Address Labels laser 5160@ Smooth Feed SheetP ” Use template for 5160@ WILLIAM c MANN LORI T EMSLIE PATTON M&K 2701 OCEAN ST 2683 OCEAN ST 41 CORPORATE PARK 250 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2241 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 IRVINE CA 92606-5179 KLOSTERMAN JRKUNKEL MARY S MOONEY 1565 HILLCREST AVE PO BOX 26048 PO BOX 1156 GLENDALE CA 91202-1237 OKLAHOMA CITY 73126-0048 CARLSBAD CA 92018-1156 RUSSELL W & MARY GROSSE PHILIP R PALISOUL WILLIAM c MANN 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 4269 COSOY WAY 2701 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-4465 SAN DIEGO CA 92103-1010 CARLSBAD CA 92008 EDE ACADEMY &ARMY NAVY EDWIN & JOYAN ILLSLEY 650 HARRISON AVE PO BOX 3000 2633 OCEAN ST 1 CLAREMONT CA 91711-4595 CARLSBAD CA 92018-3000 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2239 DOROTHY M SCHAKEL LADWIG TR IRMA ALGOVER 1150 BEVERLY WAY 2642 OCEAN ST 2650 OCEAN ST ESCONDIDO CA 92026-3206 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 THAYER B LADUSKA PO BOX 2303 VISTA CA 92085-2303 DONALD P HOEFER IRVING J & DORIS GORDON 2668 OCEAN ST 2678 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 EDWARD W & CHAD BIXBY MARIE SIDUN RALHPS B BERRY 2680 OCEAN ST 621 LAS FLORES DR 2677 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-6221 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 STREET ALONZ0.M TR WILLIAM K FULLMER RICHARD T GRONQUIST 2669 GARFIELD ST 2838 DENTRO DE LOMAS RD 20694 WOODWARD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 VISTA CA 92084-1204 SARATOGA CA 95070-5365 PAULINE MCALPINE JOYCE R,TOY ARMY&NAVY ACADEMY CARLS 839 TERRA LN 2501 E COMMONWEALTH AVE PO BOX 3000 EL CAJON CA 92019-1061 FULLERTON CA 92831-4447 CARLSBAD CA 92018-3000 SCOTT J BARTEL HARRIS & WAILES TR JOHN B MCGRATH 2689 GARFIELD ST 2729 OCEAN ST 2685 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2241 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 a A AVERY@ Address La bets Laser 5160@ Smooth Feed SheetsfM Use template for 5160@ JACK D PHILLIPS EQ SERVICES 5775 PEACHTRE 30342 ACADEMY & ARMY NAVY PO BOX 3000 CARLSBAD CA 92018-3000 PARISH OF ST MICHAELS-B PO BOX 127 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0127 EPISCOPAL ST MICHAELS-B PO BOX 127 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0127 BELL PO BOX 151 ANAHEIM CA 92815-0151 TOBO INVESTMENTS 2785 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-1617 MARY A WELCH 351 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2204 ANTHONY F TOMARO 367 BEECH AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2204 STEVEN G HOARD 1016 S BEDFORD ST LOS ANGELES C 90035-2149 W W & SEVERINE WRIGHT 2510 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2801 ANASTASI DEVELOPMENT CO 1200 AVIATION BLVD REDONDO BEACH 90278-4064 ANASTASI DEVELOPMENT CO 1200 AVIATION BLVD REDONDO BEACH 90278-4064 JACK D PHILLIPS 2667 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 JAN A KALICKI 262 CAMINO CALAFIA 4 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-9738 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTE 110 W C ST 1901 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3909 LWVIK GRIGORAS 2802 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2942 JACK D PHILLIPS 2667 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2238 ROBERT H & JOANN CAAN 8038 VALLE VISTA DR RANCH0 CUCAMO 91730-1843 PETER LONGANBACH 110 W C ST 1901 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3909 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTE 110 W C ST 1901 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3909 LWIK GRIGORAS 2802 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008-2942 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTE 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 85 TORRANCE CA 90503-6541 RALPH F & LANA BURNETTE 390 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2925 RALPH F & LAN BURNETTE 390 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2925 RALPH F BURNETTE 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 85 TORRANCE CA 90503-6541 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD HOTE 2235 FARADAY AVE 0 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7215 GERICOS PTNSHP 850 TAMARACK AVE CARLSBAD CA .92008-4140 WHC-FOUR INVESTORS LP 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 85 TORRANCE CA 90503-6541 MEZRAHI 110 E 9TH ST C871 LOS ANGELES C 90079-5871 RALPH F BURNETTE 390 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-2925 a &a AVERY@ Address La bets Laser 5160@ Smooth Feed SheetP Use template for 5160@ LLC C CATALYST CARLSBAD VILLAGE FAIRE WHC-FOUR INVESTORS LP 3252 HOLIDAY CT 225 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 85 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 85 LA JOLLA CA 92037-1808 TORRANCE CA 90503-6541 TORRANCE CA 90503-6541 INTERNEXT GROUP GARNER OCEAN MANOR GARDEN MOTE 2835 N NAOMI ST 300 25775 TOLUCA DR 2950 OCEAN ST BURBANK CA 91504-2000 SAN BERNARDIN 92404-3068 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2952 BELL PO BOX 151 ANAHEIM CA 92815-0151 INTERNEXT GROUP 777 S FIGUEROA ST LOS ANGELES C 90017-5800 *** 130 Printed *** a A\ AVERY@’ Address Labels laser 51600 (jj)osrs , Jaw THAYER B LADUSKA PO BOX 2303 VISTA CA 92085-2303 EDWARD W & CHAD BIXBY 2680 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 STREET ALONZO M TR 2669 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 SCOTT J BARTEL 2689'GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 JACK D PHILLIPS EQ'SERVICES 5775 PEACHTRE 30342 EPISCOPAL ST MICHAELS-B PO BOX 127 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0127 SATTERLY 1349 MELROSE WAY VISTA CA 92083-6509 *** 19 Printed *** DONALD P HOEFER 2668 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 MARIE SIDUN 621 LAS FLORES DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-6221 WILLIAM K FULLMER 2838 DENTRO DE LOMAS RD VISTA CA 92084-1204 HARRIS & WAILES TR 2729 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2241 ACADEMY & ARMY NAVY PO BOX 3000 CARLSBAD CA 92018-3000 BELL PO BOX 151 ANAHEIM CA 92815-0151 WF-l S=JPPV SA~aAV \T a IRVING J & DORIS GORDON 2678 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2237 RALHPS B BERRY 2677 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 RICHARD T GRONQUIST 20694 WOODWARD CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5365 JOHN B MCGRATH 2685 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-2217 PARISH OF ST MICHAELS-B PO BOX 127 CARLSBAD CA 92018-0127 @ogls JOJ wqdw WI wLswqs pw ~300~ Ai3 333 3-b-o 1 BELL FAMILY PARTNERS MADELYN 3. BELL l KRISTIN C. BELL l FRANKLIN M. BELL III PO Box 151 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 ti+R PH 714 772-3200 l FAX 714 9~~4ie~EM#~ . ..* c: Mayor To: Housing and Redevelopment Dept. 2965 Roosevelt St. - Suite B Carlsbad, Ca 92008 RE: Case # RP 98-08, CDP 98-48 City Council Ci,;] Manager Sity AAtPormy Cily Clerk February 20,200l Dear Sirs, We are writing to you to formally protest the proposed Hotel on Carlsbad Blvd, between Christiansen Way and Beech St We are a family that has lived in Carlsbad for 40 years and are property owners within the area of the proposed hotel. We strongly oppose the project because the density of the project will negatively impact the neighborhood. Though we have seen massive and unbridled growth and change within the city at large, the area north of Grand has remained pretty much a low density, family oriented neighborhood. We believe that the introduction of a hotel of this magnitude will change that aspect of our community forever. The traffic on our streets and beaches would increase astronomically with the influx of the transient population that a 141 room hotel would generate. And the benefits are non- existent. We believe that this area of Carlsbad is about the only coastal area left that contains the charm and beauty that has made Carlsbad a tourist destination. The building of a monolithic hotel at this site would destroy the rights and lifestyle of the residents in the area in favor of transient visitors who don’t even live in our city. Also, please send us a copy of the staff report for the project. Thank you for your time & consideration in this matter. Franklin Bell, General Partner Bell Family Partners 2751 Ocean St Car&bad, Ca 92008 RECEIVED m 22 2uu1 U,II I CII :nt\LJt(fiU HOUSING&REDEVELOPMEN~ DEPARTMENT