HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-26; Design Review Board; MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 1
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
6:OO P.M.
June 26,2000 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Compas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:OOpm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Board Member Lawson led the Pledge of Allegiance
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Com pas, Board Members Heineman, Marois, Lawson
Absent: Board Member Marquez
Staff Present: Deborah K. Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst
Van Lynch, Associate Planner
Frank Jimeno, Associate Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
January 24,2000
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Marois, and duly seconded, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of January 24, 2000 as presented.
VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Compas, Heineman, Marois, Lawson
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Compas reviewed the procedures that would be followed for this public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
Board Member Marquez arrived at 6:04 p.m. and taking her place on the dais.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1 st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
Total
June 26,2000
STUDIO 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMS TOTAL
15 10 4 29
19 13 6 38
20 13 6 39
54 36 16 106
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. RP 99-11 - “STAYBRIDGE SUITES” - Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit, including variances to exceed the maximum building height and exceed
the maximum building setbacks, to allow the construction of a 3-story, 106-room
hotel on property located immediately west of Interstate 5 between the terminus
of Grand Avenue and the terminus of Laguna Drive in Land Use District 3 of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
Management Analyst, Lori Rosenstein made the following presentation: The applicant, Shapery
Enterprises, has requested a major redevelopment permit to allow the construction of a 106-suite
“extended stay” hotel on property located immediately west of Interstate 5 between the terminus
of Grand Avenue and the terminus of Laguna Drive. Referring to an overhead slide, Ms.
Rosenstein stated that, the subject property is bordered by Interstate 5 freeway to the east; a
Chevron gas station, Denny’s Restaurant, and Motel 6 to the south; single family residential units
to the west; and Las Villas de Carlsbad Retirement Community to the north. The subject property
consists of four separate parcels all currently owned by the applicant. The total lot area is 2.41
acres of which, 1.1 1 acres are located within the Village Redevelopment Area with the remaining
1.3 acres located outside the redevelopment area boundaries. Four single-family residences and
two accessory structures currently occupy the site. The remainder of the property is being used
to cultivate tomatoes.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 72,435 square foot, three-story hotel with
on-site amenities that include a swimming pool, buffet area, conference rooms, a business
center, library, and guest laundry. Other on-site improvements include 127 parking spaces,
circulation drive isle, trash enclosure, exterior lights, six-foot tall masonry perimeter wall along the
west property line, six-foot tall wrought iron fence with emergency access only gate along Laguna
Drive and street improvements in the form of curb, gutter and sidewalk along Grand Avenue and
Laguna Drive. The various guest suites include a 380 square foot studio, 518 square foot one-
bedroom suite, and an 828 square foot two-bedroom suite.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the
Village, as outlined within the General Plan, because it provides for a touristltraveler serving use
normally associated with urban freeway interchanges and it is located within an appropriate
location within the Village. The use in turn provides an additional customer base for local
restaurants, specialty shops, and nearby convenience services. Additionally, the project provides
new economic development by replacing the existing underutilized uses on the subject property
with the use originally intended for the site and approval in 1972. The General Plan objective is
to implement the Redevelopment Plan through the comprehensive Village Master Plan and
Design Manual.
A Specific Plan Ordinance No 9313 was approved on June 20, 1972 for the subject property.
The Specific Plan allows for the construction of a 106-room motel and was originally tied to the
freeway-oriented development of the nearby restaurant (currently Denny’s) and the gas station
(currently Chevron). The discretionary review process typically involves a determination by the
Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the proposed land use
and project design are consistent with the land use standards, development standards and
design guidelines set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As set for in the
Master Plan both hotel and motels are subject to the same design criteria and development
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 3
standards. In addition, as set forth in the Village Master Plan, both motels and hotels are allowed as provisional uses within Land use District 3. However, for the subject project, the existing
Specific Plan for the site (Ordinance No. 9313) already established the approved land use. Namely, the site is already approved for a 106-rOOm motel. Additionally, under the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual hotels and motels are subject to the
same design criteria and development standards within the Redevelopment Area. Therefore, it is
not necessary for the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to
make any provisional findings to permit a hotel in this location.
The existing Specific Plan that was approved in 1972 does not include approval of the project
design, therefore, it is necessary for the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment
Commission to find that the project is consistent with the development standards and design
guidelines set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
Continuing Ms. Rosenstein stated that the staff report provides greater detail showing the
project’s consistency with the development standards set forth in the Village Master Plan for Land
Use District 3. The project is consistent will all development standards with variance findings to
grant the following:
A variance to permit front, rear, and side yard setbacks that exceed the
maximum standard and
A variance to exceed the established building height. .
In Land Use District 3, the front setback is 5-20 feet, the side setback is 5 feet, and the rear
setback is 5-10 feet. The project has been designed with the front setback off Grand Avenue and
the rear yard setback off Laguna Drive. Grand Avenue provides vehicular ingress and egress to
and from the project. An “emergency access only” driveway is also provided off Laguna Drive. A
5-foot wide landscape strip is located along the southern property line adjacent to the Denny’s
Restaurant parking lot and along the eastern property line adjacent to the freeway right-of-way.
These landscape areas are consistent with the 5-fOOt side yard setback required for the district.
A 10-foot wide landscape strip has been provided along the western property line creating an
additional landscape buffer between the project and the single family residential uses on the west
side of the subject property. The west side of the subject property is located outside the
redevelopment area boundaries and the 10-foot wide landscape strip along this side of the
property is consistent with the 1 O-foot side yard setback established for the area.
The proposed building is located in the center of the subject property with parking around the
perimeter with a one-way drive aisle. This project design provides significant setbacks from all
property lines. More specifically, the building is setback 63-feet - 5-inches from Grand Avenue,
31-feet from Laguna Drive, 43-feet - 11 inches from the freeway right-of-way, and 35-feet from the
western property line.
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range is
considered to be the desired setback standard. For approval of a setback standard that is above
the maximum a variance must be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Staff supports the granting of the variance because the project is in a location that transitions to
residential uses and the increased setbacks protect the livability of the existing residential
development in the area. In addition, since the terminus of two streets and a freeway borders the
subject property, consistency with the front yard setbacks of adjacent properties is not a critical
design issue for the area. Based on the variance findings contained within DRB Resolution No.
275, it is staff‘s position that the proposed project warrants the granting of a variance to allow
building setbacks that exceed the established range on the front, rear, and sides of the property.
Ms. Rosenstein informed the Board Members that the height limit for Land Use District 3 is 35
feet with a minimum 512 roof pitch. The proposed project has a maximum roof height of 40-feet
5-inches with pitched roof features (512) at the front, rear, and sides of the building. According
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 4
to the applicant, a variance to grant the additional building height is necessary to accommodate
the 106-rooms approved for the site and the minimum 512 roof pitch now required by the Village
Redevelopment and Master Plan Design Guidelines. Staff supports the granting of the height
variance for the following reasons:
1. The increased height is visually compatible with the Las Villas de Carlsbad
Retirement Community located immediately north of the subject. The retirement
facility is three-stories, 40-feet high and encompasses three acres. The proposed project would result in visual continuity along the west side of Interstate 5.
2. The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses because the
proposed project provides a buffer between Interstate 5 and the residential uses
located west of the subject property.
3. The taller project will not adversely impact views in the area because the project
would serve as a visual buffer between Interstate 5 and the properties to the west.
4. The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village design
guidelines and
5. The project provides for exceptional design quality through the use of various
building materials (i.e. stone, wood, and stucco), varying roof heights, and the use
of architectural treatments such as gable roofs, a columned entry feature and
divided-pane windows.
Based on these reasons, it is staff's position that the proposed project warrants the granting of a
variance to allow an increase in building height from 35 feet to 40-feet - 5 inches.
It is staff's position, that the proposed project is consistent with the design principles contained in
the Village Redevelopment Master and Design Manual. The project design provides for an
overall informal character while expressing the unique nature of the use and site location. The
architectural design provides for variety and diversity through the incorporation of the following
elements: varying gable roof heights; a variety of roof pitches that range from a minimum of 512
to a maximum of 12:12; building articulation on all elevations; and varied building setbacks on all
sides. The project incorporates an abundance of informal landscaping along the perimeter of the
property, throughout the parking lot to breakup surface parking, and within the recreational area
located in the center of the project. The building provides for a variety of architectural features
and details, which in addition to those previously described include divided-pane windows, a
columned entry feature, applied surface ornamentation, and decorative treatment above ground
floor windows. Referring to the elevation renderings and materials board on display, Ms.
Rosenstein advised the Board Members, of the proposed color scheme for the project. Finally,
as conditioned, project signage will be designed in conformance with the sign guidelines set forth
for the Village. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as an exhibit to this report.
Regarding the environmental review, Ms. Rosenstein reported that 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. Mitigation measures were prepared with regard to noise and
aesthetics (light and glare) and agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative
declaration and initial study were released for public review. The mitigation measures are as
follows:
1. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior
lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 5
2. To mitigate potential noise impacts, a detailed indoor noise analysis is required to
determine the building upgrades for the hotel units adjacent to Interstate 5 prior to
building permit issuance.
The mitigation measures will mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on
the environment will occur. Additionally, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the City that the project, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures, will have
significant effect on the environment. Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No 274 will
recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
The proposed project is anticipated to have a significant positive financial impact on the City and
the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of under-utilized properties will result in
increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will result in increased tax increment to
the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project 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 elimination
of a blighting influence within the area.
Staff has received several inquires on this project. In response to the inquires or letters several
copies of the staff report have been sent out to concerned residents; staff has spoken to
numerous near by residents, representatives from Las Villas de Carlsbad Retirement Community
and home owner associations, answering their questions relating to the proposed projects. Many
of the concerns expressed have been regarding access to the property from Laguna Drive.
There is a condition in the Design Board Resolution No. 275, which requires the construction of a
six-foot high wrought iron fence with an emergency access only gate that will open only through
the use of a knox-box by the Fire Department in the evident of an emergency.
Ms. Rosenstein read into the record several the letters, which were received after the preparation
of the staff report, from concerned citizens. Noting that the location of the trash bins were of
concern to the existing residents, she indicted that the trash bins would be located in the
northeast corner of the property.
In conclusion, Ms. Rosenstein declared that staff recommends that the Design Review Board
adopt Design Review Board Resolutions No. 274 and 275 recommending approval of RP 99-1 1
to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
Chairperson Compas asked if there were questions of staff.
Board Member Marquez asked for clarification regarding the calculation of the setbacks for the
variances.
Ms. Rosenstein replied that the variance requirement is for the building; the measurement is from
property line to face of building.
Board Member Lawson referring to the previously approved Specific Plan asked if the proposed
project was consistent with the intention of the original Specific Plan.
Originally all three properties had one owner replied Ms. Rosenstein. She explained that the
intent was to provide a common driveway off of Elm, which is now Carlsbad Village Drive, where
access to the property would come via a common driveway, pass the gas station, pass Denny’s
and onto subject property. Over time the property changed hands, the current property owner
has no control over his adjacent neighbor granting him access to his property across the
adjoining properties. Even though it is consistent with the Specific Plan, it is a private property
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 6
right issue. In 1998, when staff was approached regarding the feasibility of having a hotel on this
site, there was extensive research conducted by the Planning Department, Engineering
Department, and City Attorney’s Office to determine how to go forward with something that was
approved in 1972. As a result of this research the determination was made on a level of
consistency that Grand Avenue would provide access to the property, the applicant would be
required to install public improvements on both street frontages adjacent to the property and therefore satisfy the condition that is contained in the Specific Plan. The only difference in this
plan is, there is no common driveway across the adjacent properties. The 106-motel was not
designed in 1972. There was no redevelopment area or master plan for the redevelopment area
or design guidelines in 1972. Under the current Master Plan there is not difference in terms of
design criteria and development standards of a hotel versus a motel. With the conditions
imposed on this project, it will also satisfy the conditions of the Specific Plan, with the only
differences being this is a hotel versus a motel and there is no common driveway.
Board Member Lawson asked due to the fact that there will be no access from Carlsbad Village
Drive, will directional signage be installed.
Ms. Rosenstein responded that staff did not take directional signage into consideration. Any off
site signage is prohibited in the Redevelopment Area as well as throughout the City of Carlsbad.
Directional signage that is not on the subject property is illegal. To create directional signage
within the current sign ordinance is nearly impossible to do. The applicant did not voice a
concern regarding directional signage. The site is highly visible from the freeway.
Board Member Lawson asked the applicant to make sure that within their literature, directions
including access information be clearly stated.
Referring to the intersection at Grand and Harding Board Member Lawson asked if a traffic signal
would be installed.
Ms. Rosenstein responded not at the present time. Although there is a condition in Design
Review Resolution No. 275 (#15), that states, “Developer shall enter in into an agreement with
the City, and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, to design and install a traffic
signal and advance warning system at Grand Avenue and Harding. This agreement shall
terminate five years from the date the hotel is opened for business.”
Board Member Lawson declared that the fencing and screening of the project along the western
property line did not appear to be adequate.
Ms. Rosenstein advised the Board that the developer has proposed extensive screening, working in conjunction with staff’s concerns, but there is a waterline easement that runs along the property
line. Engineers from the water district have requested that all trees be removed from the area
because of the existing waterline easement. To prevent a waterline break only trees without
deep roots can be planted in this area.
Board Member Lawson requested that if the project proceeds to the construction document
phase, further investigation be conducted in order to ascertain what type of vegetation can be
installed in this area that would not damage the waterline easement, but would provide adequate
screening.
Ms. Rosentein replied that staff would work with the water district on this issue.
Chairperson Compas asked if the applicant had reviewed the Errata Sheet adding Condition No.
19 and if the applicant agreed with it.
Reading the Errata sheet into the record, Ms. Rosentein stated that the applicant did have a copy
of the Errata sheet and could better address the chairperson’s question.
I
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 7
Chairperson Compas asked if the Specific Plan that was approved in 1972 had an infinite time
limit attached to it.
Ms. Rosenstein replied yes.
Chairperson Corn pas requested clarification regarding the responsibilities of the various City
Department’s as they relate to this project.
Ms. Rosenstein advised the Board that half of the project that is located on the west half of the
subject property is located outside of the redevelopment area. Under the Specific Plan, which
was adopted before the redevelopment area and the Master Plan existed, it states that the design
of the 106-room motel would be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. In 1998 it was
determined that the project would require a major redevelopment permit for that portion within the
redevelopment area; the Redevelopment agency would take the lead on the project and the
underline zoning that is in place for the portions of the project that are outside of the
redevelopment area.
Chairperson Compas asked who would approve the landscaping on the proposed project.
Ms. Rosenstein responded that it would be a joint effort of the Housing and Redevelopment
Department and Planning Department.
Chairperson Compas asked if Interstate 5 was a view corridor.
Ms. Rosenstein replied no.
Chairperson Corn pas asked which entity would be approving the lighting for the proposed project.
Ms. Rosenstein replied the Planning Department.
Chairperson Compas wanted assurance that the lighting would be diverted away from the
existing residences.
Ms. Rosenstein advised the Board that all lighting approved for the project would be directed
downward and shielded from adjacent residential uses.
Chairperson Compas asked if the sidewalks on the Grand Avenue cul-de-sac would be replaced.
Ms. Rosenstein replied that curbs, gutters and sidewalks would be installed on both frontages.
Chairperson Compas asked who would monitor the screening of the mechanical equipment.
Ms. Rosenstein replied she would.
Chairperson Compas requested clarification regarding the location of the signage facing the highway.
Explaining the positioning of the signage, Ms. Rosenstein reported that it would be located on the
east facing elevation, directly under the roof eaves of the structure.
Chairperson Cornpas asked if the proposed project would have balconies.
Ms. Rosenstein replied no.
Chairperson Compas asked if noise from the pool area was a concern.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 8
Ms. Rosenstein stated noise from the pool area was not addressed in the environmental review.
She indicated that noise from the pool area should not be a problem because the pool is located
a great distance from the western property line, and a portion of the structure will create a barrier.
Chairperson Compas asked if restrictions needed to be placed on deliveries and trash pickup.
Noting that trash pickup would be consistent with the normal trash pickup times and days in the
area, Ms. Rosenstein indicated that restrictions of that nature are difficult to condition and
enforce.
Board Member Marois, noting that things have changed since 1972, requested an amended
report that would address items as they pertain to the situation now.
Ms. Rosenstein replied if the board so directed an amended report would be developed, and
noted that the conditions for the proposed project took the original conditions from the Specific
Plan and incorporated the conditions into today's standards referencing the original conditions.
She clarified several issues to Board Member Marios satisfaction.
Board Member Marois voiced concern because the original project and ordinance was approved
for a 106-room motel. Because this project has more than 106-habitual rooms with bathrooms
and a conference room, she expressed concerned regarding the adequacy of the parking.
Addressing the parking issues, Ms. Rosenstein stated that there exist a citywide standard for
hotel and motel parking, e.g. 1.2 parking spaces per unit. Other similar type of business
extended stay facilities with suite designs have been approved based on the parking
requirements and no parking problems have been witnessed, e.g. Marriott Courtyard, Marriott
Residence Inn and Inns of America.
Board Member Lawson asked if an extended stay hotel/motel experienced less traffic.
Ms. Rosenstein replied that a hotel/motel generates more traffic than an extended stay facility.
Board Member Marois interjected that her concern was with the parking spaces not the ADT's.
Ms Rosenstein stated that studies have shown that 50% of the parking spaces in an extended
stay facility remain vacant at any given time.
Referring to the column on the west-side entryway, directly adjacent to the handicap parking
space, Board Member Marquez stated that the ramping for the handicap parking space appeared
to be too close to the column.
Stating that ADA requirements would be complied with, Ms. Rosenstein responded that the
applicant could best address this issue.
Board Member Marquez asked if the sidewalk terminated at the Grand Avenue Building.
Ms. Rosenstein replied yes.
Board Member Marquez asked if there was a plan to extend the sidewalks back to the proposed facility.
Noting that this stretch of sidewalk is not currently on the public improvement priority list, Ms.
Rosenstein responded no.
Board Member Marquez asked if the developer could be conditioned to provide the public
improvements, e.g. curbs, gutters, sidewalks.
4 c
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 9
Ms. Rosenstein stated that in terms of standard requirements, improvements are only required
along property frontage.
Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer, stated that the only requirement of the project is to improve the
frontage of the property. The normal process of development stipulates that when a frontage
property owner applies for a permit that meets the municipal code requirement, improvements will
have to be built.
Board Member Marquez asked if the homes in the area were considered non-conforming uses.
Ms. Rosenstein replied yes.
Chairperson Compas asked if a traffic signal would be needed at Grand and Harding within 5
years.
Mr. Jimeno divulged that the applicant submitted a traffic study, which showed that even with
ultimate build out of the city it is not foreseen that a traffic signal would be warranted at Grand
and Harding.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to make a statement.
Sandor Shapery, 423 West B Street, San Diego, CA, has been working on this project for 2 1/2
years. Addressing the parking requirements, he stated that the 1.2 parking spaces to 1 unit ratio
is in excess of many surrounding communities. Studies have revealed that typical hotels
generate .5 to .7 trips per day per hotel room, while the extended stay facilities generate .3 to .4
trips per day. With the extended stay facility the use of the parking spaces are greatly reduced.
Mr. Shapely summarized that the proposed project would have 40 to 50 parking spaces available
at any given time.
Stating that it appeared that the occupants of the hotel would be business travelers, Board
Member Marois asked how many people would typically occupy the 2-bedroom suites and if the
applicant marketed to the vacation travelers.
Addressing the issue of the normal extended stay business traveler, Mr. Shapery informed the
Board that the two-bedroom suite would be generally rented by multiple people working for the
same firm on the same project, who would be picked up and brought back at the same time. The
number of parking spaces required is substantially lower for an extended stay hotel product by
virtue of the fact that the occupants are on a business assignment and the company provides taxi
service. Although, the two-bedroom suite might appeal to the family enjoying leisure travel, this
scenario would use one parking space.
Board Member Marois asked the average length of stay in an extended stay facility and the price
range of the rooms.
Mr. Shapery replied that the average length of stay nationwide at an extended stay business
facility is from 10 to 14 days and the pricing is designed to attract the extended stay traveler, i.e.
$79 nightly or $350 for a month. Due to higher operation costs, the extended stay hotel
operator’s steer away from the individual traveler staying one or two nights.
Board Member Heineman wanted clarification on the amenities in the rooms and the room rates.
Mr. Shapery informed the Board that each room had a full kitchen with stove, a dishwasher and refrigerator with an icemaker, with an average daily rate of $70, e.g. $60 for the studio, $80 for
the one bedroom, $loo+ for the two bedroom. He anticipates that the rates will be 10 to 12
percent below the market rate that Residence Inn charges. An additional amenity offered to each
h
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 10
hotel guest is the acquiring of groceries via a grocery list and placement of said groceries in the
hotel room.
Board Member Marquez asked if shuttle buses or large tour buses would be accessing the
property.
Mr. Shapery replied no, the facility is designed for the extended stay business traveler, not the
leisure traveler.
Referring to the tax increments that will be generated, Board Member Marquez asked the total
cost of the proposed project.
Mr. Shapery stated that the construction cost is approximately $7Million, which includes the
furniture and fixtures, but does not include the cost of the land.
Board Member Heineman wanted clarification regarding directing hotel guest to the proper
ingress and egress.
Mr. Shapery responded that by virtue of the building being three-stories it is prominent. In
addition, the majority of the patrons will have booked ahead of time, and therefore will have
received literature with complete directions.
Referring to the trash area and the gated area on Laguna, Board Member Lawson asked if
alternative-paving material, that would satisfy the code requirements but offer a non-driveway
look, could be installed.
Mr. Shapery indicated that he would be willing to look at alternatives, but cautioned the Board that
it would have to meet Fire Department requirements.
Board Member Lawson, referring to photographs of a hotel property, asked if the proposed
property would look the same.
Mr. Shapery responded yes, except for the height of the roof. The height of the roof on the
proposed property will be lower.
Noting that the photographs of the hotel property showed a very impressive building, Board
Member Lawson wanted assurances that the proposed property would look the same as the
photographs.
Mr. Shapery indicated that Staybridge had a very strict policy and assured the board the property
would be built as presented.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant if he agreed with the Errata Sheet dated June 26,2000.
Mr. Shapery replied yes.
Chairperson Compas asked if Holiday Inn would operate the facility.
Mr. Shapery replied Holiday Inn would be the management company and he would own the
facility.
Chairperson Corn pas asked, if the project were approved, when would construction begin and
what is the anticipated date of opening.
-
DESIGN REVEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 11
Mr. Shapery responded that the anticipated construction schedule is 9 to 10 months, but if the
project is approved it must then go before the City Council before submitting to the Building
Department and he therefore could not give an exact date of opening.
Board Member Heineman asked what food service would be available for residents.
Although a free continental breakfast is provided, Mr. Shapery explained that the extended stay
facility concept is designed to eliminate food and beverage operations within the facility. There
will be a cocktail reception in the afternoon available to the hotel guests.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Yvonne Beeson, 101 8 Knowels Ave, Carlsbad, CA, stated that her in-laws live on Davis Street.
Ms. Beeson indicated that neither she nor her in-laws were properly noticed about the proposed
project. Due to the numerous high-density apartments that use on-street parking, the availability
of parking on Laguana Drive and Davis Street as well as traffic congestion; construction traffic,
e.g. where will it be entering and exiting the property, are of paramount concern. Ms Beeson
wanted the Commission not to forget that an extended stay facility is caters to the business
traveler and Carlsbad is a vacation community.
Dale Calabrese, 1012 Home Ave, Carlsbad, CA, said that although most of his concerns have
already been addressed, he believed the proposed screening for the west side of the property
line did not appear to be adequate. He suggested that if planting additional trees was not a viable
option, then making the wall taller might help to abate the noise.
Micke Lough, 1010 Home Ave, Carlsbad, CA, expressed concern about the existing raised grade
of the property and wanted assurance that the lighting for the hotel facility would be directed away
from the residential area. In addition he asked the time frame for the building of the six-foot
barrier wall and hoped that it would be built before construction began and that it would be
aesthetically pleasing. The parking spaces of the facility will be extremely close to the property
line of the existing residents, he is concerned about the noise from the parking area. In
conclusion, Mr. Lough stated that Hope Street and Grand Avenue is a somewhat seedy area and
hoped this project will assist in improving the area.
Tanya Phillips, 974 Home Ave, Carlsbad, CA, expressed concern regarding the proposed hotel
and what such a large building will do to the quaintness of the area. Wants to see more trees
used for screening of the proposed project; suggested that waterlines be relocated and fast
growing trees planted. Very concerned about misdirected traffic trying to locate hotel entrance.
She did not feel that the building would be a sound barrier, but that it would serve as an echo
chamber for the pool.
Rudy Sanchez, 3482 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA, concerned that the height and size of the
proposed hotel will diminish the village atmosphere, e.g. facility will be highly visible from Home
Ave. Suggested that a sign be installed on Home Ave indicating “No Through Traffic”. Preferred
that waterline be moved to allow for the planting of trees. In addition believed that the sound
would bounce from the hotel to the surrounding homes. Commenting that a two-story structure
would be better for the area, Mr. Sanchez stated that the project should go back to the drawing
board.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony and asked the applicant to respond to the concerns
of the public speakers.
Mr. Shapery stated that there would be no vehicular access on Laguna Drive. Specifying that the
construction traffic would only be a temporary inconvenience, he stated that he would
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 12
communicate to the contractor that the area is highly residential and to be sensitive of that fact
and use Grand Avenue whenever possible.
Regarding the west boundary line, he stated an eight-foot wall would be installed five or six feet
on top of an embankment, which will act as a visual bearer.
Noting that the waterline was recently installed by the City to service the entire area in an
emergency, he did not believe anything could be done about relocating the waterline easement,
but offered to purchase trees, for the property owners whose property abuts his site, which they
could plant on their property.
Addressing the lighting issues, he stated that the lights would be shielded and therefore not
visible from other nearby properties. He was not opposed to building the barrier wall first and
would communicate this to the contractor.
In reference to the noise in the parking area, he stated that it is anticipated the parking spaces on
the far west boundary line would be used less frequently, (e.g. referring to site plan drawing he
indicated the location of the anticipated empty 40 to 50 parking spaces were on the western
boundary), due to the extreme distance from the hotel. In addition, the traffic circulation is one-
way. Mr. Shapery stated the barrier wall would be q concrete block split face, which is an
upgraded wall.
He stated that he is working with the City of Carlsbad to address the seedy looking sidewalk area
on Grand Ave to place the street on the priority list for improvements or create an improvement
district.
Regarding the access to the hotel, Mr. Shapery stated that there would not be an entrance or exit
on Laguna, and he would like to see a sign installed that indicated ‘No Outlet”.
Board Member Lawson asked if the hotel literature would provide clear directions to the property.
Mr. Shapery responded absolutely yes.
Reiterating that the proposed property would be a business hotel, he stated the research data
indicated that there would be substantially less pool use, as compared to a vacation facility, and
therefore much less noise.
Addressing the 40-foot height of the hotel, Mr. Shapery reported that the plan for the
redevelopment area in the City of Carlsbad allowed for a building 45-feet in height with parking on
the first level.
In conclusion, Mr. Shapery cited that the property was zoned for hotel use and reiterated that an
extended stay business hotel would generate far less traffic than a regular type hotel.
Board Member Marquez requested that signage be installed, along the western wall adjacent to
the parking spaces, asking people to keep the noise levels down.
Mr. Shapery stated that he would not be opposed to installing the signs in that area of the
property.
Board Member Lawson, referring to the parking area on the east side of the property and the
breaks in the runs for trees, asked if the runs could be broken up on the west side with planting
islands that would diminish the conflict with the underground waterline.
Mr. Shapery stated that although that was an excellent suggestion, due to the City’s parking
space requirement of 1.2 spaces per unit it might not be possible. He did however, indicate that
I
DESIGN REVIEW BOARIj June 26,2000
_-
Page 13
the trees on the east side could be moved to the west side of the property and the required
parking spaces could then be placed on the eastside of the property.
Board Member Lawson suggested that the one excess parking space be eliminated and
landscaping installed. He expressed concern about the amount of the setback on the western
corner of the property; e.g. corner of building has little or no setback from the driveway.
Detailing the various redesigns of the project to accommodate California regulations, Ms.
Shapery, stated that this issue has been addressed.
In order to address the concerns regarding the height of the building, Board Member Lawson
asked if a visual simulation of the site from Home Ave could be rendered via computer.
Mr. Shapery stated that a rendering of this type would cost approximately $20,000, and
suggested that visiting the site and conducting a line of sight for the property would be a more
viable option.
Board Member Lawson suggested that a line of sight, cross section would be appropriate to
address the issues of concern voiced by the adjacent existing homeowners regarding the
extreme building height.
Mr. Shapery stated that the suggested redesign of the parking lot with the installation of trees,
would negate the impact of the height of the building to the surrounding area.
Board Member Lawson asked if visual analysis was conducted from Home Avenue and/or offsite
to ascertain impacts associated with this project.
Ms. Rosenstein replied that a line of site analysis was not done.
Mr. Shapery interjected that from a line of site the floor plan indicated that the only part of the
project that would have a visual impact would be the western wing of the property, and
acknowledged that the trees could be positioned in a fashion to create density in the area.
Commissioner Marquez wanted to know if the residences along Home Avenue were residential
units or non-conforming residential units.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the property on Home Avenue is outside of the redevelopment area, it
is an R-3 zone; therefore single-family residences are conforming uses.
Chairperson Compas directed staff to install “No Outlet” signage on Home Avenue.
Mr. Jimeno stated the he would forward the request to the Traffic Engineering Department.
Chairperson Compas asked staff if the placing of signage on the property requested patrons to
keep the noise level down was permitted.
Ms. Rosenstein indicated that it would be permitted.
Chairperson Compas asked if tall shrubs could be installed on the west wall.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that if this was added as a condition, the Board should set parameters and
she would forward the data to the landscape plan consultant for further review.
Chairperson Compas asked Ms. Rosenstein to draft a condition regarding the aforementioned.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 14
City Attorney, Jane Molbaldi stated the landscape design could be conditioned to be subject to
the approval of the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer.
Ms. Rosenstein stated that the public notification requirement for a major redevelopment permit,
specifics notification of all property owners within 600-feet of the subject property.
DISCUSSION:
Board Member Lawson stated that he does support the project, but noted that the visual
implications associated with the project are difficult to understand as it relates to the surrounding
neighborhood, because there are no exhibits that tie the two together. When this goes forward to
the Housing Commission it should be accompanied with exhibits of the project area as well as the
surrounding residential area.
AMENDMENT
ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded, additional
landscaping shall be installed on the west side of the property to screen
the residential area from the subject project to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director, Housing and Redevelopment Director and
Planning Director.
VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Compas, Lawson, Heineman, Marois
NOES: Marquez
AB ST AI N : None
DISCUSSION:
Board Member Lawson stated that he is comfortable with the building height of the project, but
voiced concern about the access to the property and reiterated that he supports the project. He
would like to see the improvements for Grand Avenue expedited, thereby being placed on the
priority list.
Board Member Marios expressed support of the project.
Board Member Marquez stated that the amendment condition regarding the screening was
inadequate and suggested that the adjacent property owner’s talk with the Redevelopment
Director regarding the installation of trees. However, she did express support for the project,
stating that it would be a beautiful amenity to the City and a catalyst to the needed improvements
on Grand Avenue.
Board Member Heineman concurred and expressed support for the project.
Chairperson Compas declared his support for the project and called for a vote on the main
motion.
MAIN MOTION:
ACT1 ON : Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Design
Review adopt Design Review Board Resolutions No. 274 and 275
recommending approval of RP 99-1 1 to the Housing and Redevelopment
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 26,2000 Page 15
Commission based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein including the Errata sheet dated June 26, 2000.
VOTE: 5-0-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Compas, Marquez, Marois, Lawson, Heineman
Chairperson Compas closed the public hearing.
Chairperson Compas opened discussion regarding the Laguna Apartment project that was
approved by the Design Review Board but denied approval by the City Council.
Ms. Rosenstein informed the Board that the project was denied approval by the City Council without prejudice.
This matter was discussed in detail.
CHAIRPERSON REPORT:
None
DIRECTOR REPORT:
Ms. Fountain stated that there would not be a meeting of the Design Review Board in July.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of June 26,2000 was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, n
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Director of Housing and Redevelopment
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE
APPROVED.
r’. ,
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Apd iCATiON COMPhE 0 ATF: STAff: LORI ROSWTE~N
ENVIRONMENTAL Rwiw. FRANk h@iO
MARCk 22,2000 VAN LyNck
MiTlqATEd NEqATIVE DECkRATioN
APRIL 24, 2000
ITEM NO. 1
DATE: June 26,2000
SUBJECT: RP 99-1 1 - “STAYBRIDGE SUITES”: Request for a Major Redevelopment
Permit, including variances to exceed the maximum building height and exceed
the maximum building setbacks, to allow the construction of a 3-story, 106-room
hotel on property located immediately west of Interstate 5 between the terminus
of Grand Avenue and the terminus of Laguna Drive in Land Use District 3 of the
. Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 274 and 275
recommending APPROVAL of RP 99-1 1 to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
1
The applicant, Shapery Enterprises, has requested a major redevelopment permit to allow the
construction of a 106-suite “extended stay” hotel on property located immediately west of
Interstate 5 between the terminus of Grand Avenue and the terminus of Laguna Drive. The
subject property is bordered by Interstate 5 freeway to the east; a Chevron gas station, Denny’s
Restaurant, and Motel 6 to the south; single family residential units to the west; and Las Villas
de Carlsbad Retirement Community to the north. The subject property consists of four
separate parcels all currently owned by the applicant. The total lot area is 2.41 acres of which,
1.11 acres are located within the Village Redevelopment Area with the remaining 1.3 acres
located outside the redevelopment area boundaries. Four single-family residences and two
accessory structures currently occupy the site. The remainder of the property is being used to
cultivate tomatoes.
A Specific Plan (Ordinance No. 9313, SP No. 30) was approved on June 20, 1972 for the
subject property (Exhibit 3). The Specific Plan allows for the construction of a 106-room motel.
Under the subsequently adopted Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual
hotels and motels are subject to identical design criteria and development standards. The
Specific Plan was originally tied to the freeway-oriented development of the nearby restaurant
(currently Denny’s) and the gas station (currently Chevron). In September of 1998, staff was
asked to evaluate the entitlements of the Specific Plan. After extensive review of all applicable
documents, it was the consensus of the City Attorney’s Office, Community Development
Department and Public Works Department that since Ordinance No. 9313 did not include an
P
Studios One-Bedroom
First Floor 15 10
Second Floor 19 13
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 2
Two-Bedroom Total
4 29
6 38
expiration date the Specific Plan approving a 106-room motel on the subject property was still
valid and would extend to a hotel since the design standards are the same. More specifically,
the Specific Plan would supercede the underlying zoning, thus approving the use of the
property as a 106-room motel site. While the Specific Plan granted approval of a specific use it
did not grant approval for the project design. Therefore, since a portion of the project is located
within the Village Redevelopment Area, a Major Redevelopment Permit is required to insure the
project is in compliance with existing development standards and design guidelines as
conditioned in the approved Specific Plan. For that portion of the project that is outside the
Redevelopment Area Planning Director approval is required. A memorandum of support for the
project from the Planning Director is attached for the Board’s review (Exhibit 4).
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 72,435 square foot, three-story hotel with
on-site amenities including; a swimming pool, buffet area, conference rooms, a business center,
library, and guest laundry. Other on-site improvements include; 127 parking spaces, circulation
drive isle, trash enclosure, exterior lights, six-foot tall masonry perimeter wall, and street
improvements in the form of curb, gutter and sidewalk along Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive.
The various guest suites include a 380 square foot studio, 518 square foot one-bedroom suite,
and an 828 square foot two-bedroom suite. The following chart shows the breakdown of suites
per floor:
I I ~~ ~ Total 54 ~ 36 16 1 106 I I ~ ~
111. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
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; 2) a City
which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate
in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty shops; 3)
a City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation
corridors to retain and increase resident-serving uses; and 4) a City that encourages a variety
of complementary uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social
environment and a profitable business setting.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Village, as outlined
within the General Plan, because it provides for a touriWtraveler serving use normally
associated with urban freeway interchanges in an appropriate location within the Village. The
use in turn provides an additional customer base for local restaurants, specialty shops, and
nearby convenience services. Additionally, the project provides new economic development by
replacing the existing underutilized uses on the subject property with the use originally intended
for the site and approved in 1972. The General Plan objective is to implement the
RedeveloPment Plan throuah the comorehensive Vtllaae Master Plan and Desian Manual.
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-1 1
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 3
IV. VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
CONSISTENCY
The discretionary review process typically involves a determination by the Design Review Board
and Housing and Redevelopment Commission that the proposed land use and project design
are consistent with the land use standards, development standards and design guidelines set
forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. As set forth in the Village Master Plan,
both motels and hotels are allowed as provisional uses within Land Use District 3. However,
for the subject project, the existing Specific Plan for the site (Ordinance No. 9313) already
established the approved land use. Namely, the site is already approved for a 106-room motel.
Additionally, as stated previously, under the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design
Manual hotels and motels are subject to the same design criteria and development standards
within the Redevelopment Area. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Design Review Board
and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to make any provisional findings to permit a
hotel in this location.
The existing Specific Plan does not include approval of the project design, therefore, it is
necessary for the Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to find
that the project is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The development standards set forth specifically for new development projects within Land Use
District 3 are as follows:
‘Building Setbacks: The Village Master Plan and Design Manual establishes the front,
rear and side yard setbacks for the property. In Land Use District 3, the front setback is 5-20
feet, the side setback is 5 feet, and the rear setback is 5-10 feet. The project has been
designed with the front yard setback off Grand Avenue and the rear yard setback off Laguna
Drive. Grand Avenue provides vehicular ingress and egress to and from the project. An
“emergency access only” driveway is also provided off Laguna Drive and has been designed to
the satisfaction of the Carlsbad Fire Department. A S-fOOt wide landscape strip is located along
the southern property line adjacent to the Denny’s Restaurant parking lot and along the eastern
property line adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. These landscape areas are consistent with
the 5-foot side yard setback required for the district. A IO-foot wide landscape strip has been
provided along the western property line creating an additional landscape buffer between the
project and the single family residential uses on the west side of the subject property. The west
side of the subject property is located outside the redevelopment area boundaries and the 10-
foot wide landscape strip along this side of the property is consistent with the IO-foot side yard
setback established for the area.
The proposed building is located in the center of the subject property with parking around the
perimeter. This project design provides significant setbacks from all property lines. More
. specifically, the building is setback 63’4” from Grand Avenue, 31’-0” from Laguna Drive, 43’-1 1”
from the Freeway right-of-way, and 35’-0” from the western property line.
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-1 1
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 4
As set forth in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, the top of the range
is considered to be the desired setback standard. For approval of a setback standard that is
above the maximum or below the minimum for the subject land use district, a variance must be
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. Variances may only be granted if
the findings set forth in Section 21.35.1 30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are met. In addition,
a variance for a setback standard which exceeds the top of the range, or the individual standard
set forth, may only be granted if the project meets one ormore of the following criteria:
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 that 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 livability of the residential development.
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 second-criteria noted above applies to the subject project. Increased setbacks on all sides
of the property which exceed the maximum standard are justified because the project is in a
location that transitions to residential uses and the increased setbacks protect the livability of
the existing residential development in the area. In addition, since the subject property is
bordered by the terminus of two streets and a freeway, consistency with the front yard setbacks
of adjacent properties is not a critical design issue for the area.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance for setback standards that
exceed the top of the range, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 sets forth the required
findings necessary to grant the requested variances. In order to approve the requested
variances to exceed the maximum setbacks on the front, sides and rear of the property, the
Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Commission must be able to make the
all four findings contained within Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35. Staff offers the
following justification for granting the requested variances to exceed the setback standards:
Variance Finding #I: The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code
Chapter 21.351 will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan. Justification: Strict adherence to the setback standards would impede
vehicular access of emergency vehicles and prevent the Fire Department from adequately
serving the site in the event of an emergency. The increased setbacks allow emergency
vehicles to enter the site from either Grand Avenue or Laguna Drive and obtain access to the
proposed structure at all points along the perimeter of the building. This is consistent with the
general purpose and intent of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan which is to establish the
Village as a safe place to work, live and visit.
STAYBRIDCE SUITES - Rp 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 5
Variance Finding #2: There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. Justification: The irregular shape of
the subject property coupled with its location adjacent to Interstate 5 and frontage along the
terminus of two public streets makes it difficult to adhere to the established setback standards
and provide proper on-site circulation, emergency access, and required parking to serve the
use.
Variance Finding #3: The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
increased setbacks above the maximum range will not have a detrimental impact on
neighboring properties, because the additional setback allows greater separation between the
proposed hotel use and neighboring residential uses, thus increasing the livability of the area
and reducing impacts to surrounding properties.
Variance Finding #4: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique lot
configurations found within the Village Redevelopment Area.
Based on these variance findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow building setbacks that exceed the established range on the front,
rear, and sides of the property.
Building Height: The height limit for Land Use District 3 is 35 feet with a minimum 512
roof pitch. The proposed project has a maximum roof height of 40’-5” with pitched roof features
(5:12) at the front, rear, and sides of the building. According to the applicant, the additional
building height is necessary to accommodate the 106-rooms approved for the site and the
minimum 512 roof pitch required by the Village Design Guidelines. In order to exceed the
maximum height standard a variance must be granted by the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission and the project must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The increased height will be visually compatible with surrounding buildings.
The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses.
The taller project will not adversely impact views.
The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village and the
guidelines contained within the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The project must provide for exceptional design quality and be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Village Redevelopment Area.
Justification for meeting the above noted criteria is as follows: 1) The increased height is
visually compatible with the Las Villas de Carlsbad Retirement Community located immediately
north of the subject property. The retirement facility is three-stories, 40 feet high and
encompasses three acres. The proposed project would result in visual continuity along the
west side of Interstate 5. 2) The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses
because the proposed project provides a buffer between Interstate 5 and the residential uses
STAYBRIDCE SUITES - RP 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 6
located west of the subject property. 3) The taller project will not adversely impact views in the
area because the project would serve as a visual buffer between Interstate 5 and the properties
to the west. 4) The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village
design guidelines, because the project is lower than the 45 foot maximum height allowed in
Land Use District 3 for commercial or residential uses built over parking structures. 5) The
project provides for exceptional design quality through the use of various building materials (i.e.
stone, wood, and stucco), varying roof heights, and the use of architectural treatments such as
gable roofs, a columned entry feature and divided-pane windows.
In addition to the criteria noted above for considering a variance to exceed the established
height limit, the variance findings outlined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.35 must also
be met in order to grant the requested height variance. (These are the same findings required
to allow the increased building setbacks discussed previously in this report.) Staff offers the
following support for granting the height variance:
Variance Finding #7: The application of certain provisions of this chapter [Municipal Code
Chapter 21.351 will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan. Justification: Adoption of Ordinance No. 931 3 established a specific plan
and intended use for the subject property permitting the development of a 106-room hotel. In
order to accommodate the use and associated parking on the subject property a three-story
structure is-needed. In addition, the Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines require a
minimum 512 roof pitch. The construction of a 106-room hotel within the 35-foot height limit
would preclude the addition of the required roof pitch. The steeper roof pitch is a dominant
architectural feature in the Village and a requirement of all new development. Strict adherence
to the 35-foot height limit would therefore make the development inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area.
Variance Finding #2: There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property
or the proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls. Justification: The exceptional
condition unique to the subject property is the establishment of Ordinance No. 9313 approving
a specific use (106 room motel) for the property. Adoption of the Ordinance occurred in 1972
prior to the formation of the Village Redevelopment Area and prior to the adoption of the Village
Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Guidelines. Therefore, a variance is warranted in
order for the approved use to be developed in a manner consistent with the existing design
guidelines for the area.
Variance Finding #3: The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to
the public welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area. Justification: The
proposed project will serve as a buffer between Interstate 5 and the residential uses to the
west. Therefore, the additional building height will contribute towards reducing existing noise
levels from the adjacent freeway and will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring
properties.
*-
I .
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 7
Variance Findina #4: The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in
the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Justification: The standards established in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
development constraints found within the Village Redevelopment Area. Therefore, an increase
in height will not conflict with the standards for the area because it is necessary to provide for
the required roof pitch and to improve the overall design of the building.
Based on these variance findings, it is staffs position that the proposed project warrants the
granting of a variance to allow an increase in building height from 35 feet to 40'-5".
Open 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 21,383 square feet of landscape area and 6,109 square feet of sidewalks,
which represents 26% of the total site area and exceeds the 20% requirement.
Building Coverage: The range of building footprint coverage permitted for all projects in
Land Use District 3 is 60% to 80%. For the proposed project, the building coverage is 23%. 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 .
'Parking: The parking requirement for a hotel is 1.2 parking spaces per room. The
requirement for a 106-room hotel is 128 spaces. The proposed project includes 129 parking
spaces, 5 of which are designated as handicapped accessible. Of the 129 parking spaces 77
are standard size (8.5' x 20') and 51 are compact size (8 x 15'). The Village Master Plan
permits up to 40% of the required parking to be compact. The proposed project is consistent
with the parking standards set forth in the Village Master Plan.
Residential Density and lnclusionaw Housing Requirements: There is no residential
component proposed within this project. Therefore, residential density and inclusionary housing
requirements are not applicable to this project.
VI. CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES
All new projects within the Village Redevelopment Area must make a good faith effort to design
a project that 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:
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 8
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.
IO. Signage shall be appropriate to a village character.
The proposed project is consistent with the design principles outlined above. The project design
provides for an overall informal character while expressing the unique nature of the use and site
location. The architectural design provides for variety and diversity through the incorporation of
the following elements: varying gable roof heights; a variety of roof pitches that range from a
minimum of 312 to a maximum of 12:12; building articulation on all elevations; and varied
building setbacks. The project incorporates an abundance of informal landscaping along the
perimeter of the property, throughout the parking lot to breakup surface parking, and within the
recreational area. The building provides for a variety of architectural features and details, which
in addition to those previously described include divided-pane windows, a columned entry
feature, applied surface ornamentation, and decorative treatment above ground floor windows.
Finally, as conditioned, project signage will be designed in conformance with the sign guidelines
set forth for the Village. A summary of the design features related to the project is provided as
an exhibit to this report (Exhibit 7).
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH SIGN STANDARDS
As indicated on the sign plan, the applicant is proposing one wall sign on the east elevation of
the building facing Interstate 5 and one monument sign at the project entrance on Grand
Avenue identifying the name of the project. The area of the wall sign measures 12’-0” wide x 4’-
10” high for a total of 58 square feet. The monument sign measures 7’-0” wide x 3’-5” high for a
total of 24 square feet and will be externally illuminated. Both signs are consistent with the sign
regulations set forth for the Village Redevelopment Area in terms of size and type of sign.
VIII. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
The proposed project requires a major redevelopment permit because it involves new
construction of a building that has 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 variances to
exceed the height limit and allow setbacks that exceed the standard range.
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 9
IX. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND OTHER
SPECIAL CONS1 DERATIONS
The project, as conditioned, shall comply with the City’s requirements for the following:
Traffic: The total projected average daily traffic for the project is 484 ADTs, based on the most
recent SANDAG Trip Generation calculations. A traffic impact analysis was conducted for the
project. Based on the traffic impact analysis, Grand Avenue is adequate to serve the expected
traffic volumes generated by this project. A condition has been included in Design Review
Board Resolution No. 275 requiring the developer to enter into an agreement with the City and
provide the necessary security to design and install a traffic signal at Grand Avenue and
Harding Street if within a five year period a traffic analysis warrants installation of the signal
based upon the traffic generated by the hotel.
Circulation: Vehicular access to the property is from Grand Avenue. Laguna Drive provides
emergency access only. To prevent vehicular access to Laguna Drive a wrought iron fence
shall be installed along the northerly property line adjacent to Laguna Drive. To this effect,
Design Review Board Resolution No. 275 includes the following condition:
“Developer shall install a wrought iron fence up to 6 feet in height along the
northerly property line which shall include a 16 foot wide gate with Knox Box for
emergency access only to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall and Housing
and Redevelopment Director.”
Sewer: Sewer lines to this project will gravity flow to existing 8” sewer main in Laguna Drive.
The total number of sewer Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) required for the project is 106.
Water. ‘The Carlsbad Municipal Water District will provide water service to the site. Existing
mains in Laguna Drive provide water service to the project.
Reclaimed Water: The use of reclaimed water will be incorporated where feasible as
determined appropriate by the Water District Engineer.
Gradinq: Grading for this project will consist primarily of building pad compaction and
establishing the desired drainage pattern for the site. The preliminary geotechnical feasibility
investigation indicates that there are no major grading or soils related issues associated with
the proposed project. A final soils report will be required prior to the approval of a grading or
building permit, which ever occurs first.
Drainage and Erosion Control: Surface runoff from the development will be conveyed by a
secondary drainage system from the site to the street. The system will connect to the existing
storm drain in Laguna Drive.
lrnprovernents: The Developer will provide frontage improvements (paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants) along Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive. Additional
right-of-way dedication is required along the project frontage on Grand Avenue and Laguna
Drive. An improvement plan will be required as part of the formal plan-check process for the
project.
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 10
X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVlEW
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. As a result of said
review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified the following areas of review as having potentially
significant effects on the environment: air quality, transportation/circulation, noise, and
aesthetics (light and glare). With regard to air quality and transportationkirculation impacts, the
City's Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) completed through the General Plan
Update (GPA94-01) 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 the effects on air quality and transportation/circulation, no additional
environmental documentation is required.
Mitigation measures were prepared with regard to noise and aesthetics (light and glare) and
agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study were
released for public review. The mitigation measures are as follows:
1. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
2. To mitigate potential noise impacts, a detailed indoor noise analysis is required to determine
the building upgrades for the hotel units adjacent to Interstate 5 prior to building permit
issuance.
The mitigation measures will mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on
the environment will occur. Additionally, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the City that the project, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures, will
have a significant effect on the environment.
As a result of staffs review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project
by the Planning Director on April 24, 2000 and made available for public review. No comments
were received on the environmental document. Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution
No. 274 will recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
Xi. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed project is anticipated to have a significant positive financial impact on the City
and the Redevelopment Agency. First, the redevelopment of under-utilized properties will result
in increased property taxes. This increase in property tax will result in increased tax increment
to the Redevelopment Agency. Second, the project 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
STAYBRIDGE SUITES - RP 99-11
JUNE 26,2000
PAGE 11
of existing buildings. Finally, the project will result in the construction of a new development
and elimination of a blighting influence within the area.
XII. CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending approval of the project with findings to grant a variance for front, rear,
and side yards setbacks that exceed the maximum standard allowed and findings to grant a
variance to exceed the established building height. Development of the site will complete the
third and last component of Specific Plan No. 30 approving this freeway-oriented development.
The project will have a positive fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency
and will assist in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
EXHIBITS:
1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 274 recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 275 recommending approval of RP 99-1 1.
3. Ordinance No. 9313 (SP 30)
4. Memorandum of Support from Planning Director dated April 24, 2000.
5. Location Map
6. Project Description with Disclosure Statement
7. Staff Analysis of Project Consistency with Village Master Plan Design Guidelines
8. Exhibits "A" - "J", dated June 26, 2000, including reduced exhibits.
1
2
c:
4
C c
E
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 274
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 RP 99-11 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 106-ROOM EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF
INTERSTATE 5 BETWEEN THE TERMINUS OF GRAND AVENUE
AND THE TERMINUS OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN LAND USE DISTRICT
3 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: STAYBRIDGE SUITES
APN: 203-130-15, 18,20 AND 34
CASE NO: RP 99-1 1
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Village Suites, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad
regarding property owned by Sandor W. Shapery, “Owner”, and known as Assessor Parcel Numbers
203-130-15, 18,20, and 34 and more thoroughly described in Attachment A, (“the property”); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26th day of June, 2000, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 26th day of June, 2000 and upon considering all
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board as
follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated April 24, 2000, “PII” dated
April 13, 2000 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached
hereto and made part hereof, based on the following findings:
DRB RES0 NO. 274
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed. analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration (RP 99-1 1)
the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments
thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, on file in the Housing and
Redevelopment Department, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
they reflect the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds that
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
b.
c.
d.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26* day of June, 2000 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 274
PAGE 2
4TLACHMENT "At1 -
Parcel 1:
The-East 143.05 feet. of that portion of Tract I17 of Carkbad Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
1661, filed in the OFfice of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 1, 1915
bounded by a he described as follows:
*
Bcgbrhg at a point on the North line of said Tract 117 and distant thereon South
89" 57' 00" East, 658.95 feet from' the most Northwesterly corner of said Tract;
thence corltinuing along said North line South 89" 57' 00" East, distance of 671,05
fcct to a point; thcnce South 00" 03' 00" West, a distancc of 330.00 feet to point;
thcnce North 89" 57' 00" West, a distancc of 671.43 feet to a point; thence North
00" 05' 00" East, a distance of 330.00,feet to the point of beginning.
The Westerly line of said East 143.05 feet-being parallel with the East line of the
above described tract.
Parcel 2:
That portion of Tract 117 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, fded in the Office
of the'County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1, 1915, described as folIows:
.Commenchg at the most Northeasterly comer of said Tract 117; thence North 89"
57' West dong the Northerly line of said Tract, 1211.82 feet to the True Point of
Bcginning; thence South 0" 03' West 330.00 feet; thence South 34" 33' East 105.80
feet; thence North 55" 27' East to a point in the lie Northeasterly line of the land
described in deed to Donald A. McLean, recorded July 19, 1952 i~i Book 4500,
Page 83, of Official Records being a point in thc Southwesterly line of the
California state IIighway XI-SD-2-B; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly
line of said McLean Land to said Northerly line of Tract 117; thence Westerly along
said Northerly Line to the True Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTING that portion lying EastcrIy of the following described line:
Commencing for reference at a point 011 the center he of Elm Avenue distant along
said center line North 55" 58' 03" East 617.13 feet from the intersection of said
center line with the center Line Harding Street - formerly Fifth Street; thence North
34" 01' 57" West 40.00 feet; thence North 10" 10' 18" West 3.72 feet to the True
Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 10" 10' 18" West 315.51 feet; thence
North 16" 37' 24" West 175.70 feet; thence North 17" 51' 38" West 566.95 feet;
tlience North 22" 33' 07" West 490.19 feet to a point on the centerline of Knowles
Avenue, distant along said center line South 89" 06' 33" East 202.07 feet from tile
intersection of last said center line with the Easterly he of BIock 13 SUMY Slope
Tract of Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 995, filed in the Of'fice of the
County Recorder of San Dicgo County, June 6, 1906.
.-
The bearing and distances used in the abovc exception are on the Callfomia
Coordinate System Zone 6, multiply all distances used in the above description by
1.0000472 to obtain ground level distances.
Parcel 3:
That portim of Lot 31 in Schell and Sites Addition to Carisbad, the City of , Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, Statc of Califomia, according to Map thcrcof
No. 2145, filed in the Officc of the County Rccordcr of San Diego’ County,
Fcbruary 20, 1929, lying Northeasterly of thc location and prolongation of a he
which is paralleI with and 50 feet Northeasterly, rncasurd along the Southeasterly
lot line, from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 31.
hPN: 203-130-15, 203-130-15, 203-130-20 and 203-130-34
I - EXHIBIT "NDil
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: The project site is located adjacent and west of Interstate 5, north of
Grand Avenue and south of Laguna Drive. Assessors parcel numbers
203-130-15, 18,20 and 34.
Project Description: A 106 suite hotel including 53 studio units, 35 one-bedroom units, and
18 hvo-bedroom units within a three story structure on a 2.41 acre site
located adjacent and west of Interstate 5, north of Grand Avenue and
south of Laguna Drive. Project includes the frontage improvements to
Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive and the demolition of four existing
single-family residences.
The City of 'Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the, above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4613.
DATED: APRIL 24,2000
CASE NO: RP 99-11
CASE NAME: STAYBRTDGE SUITES
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 24,2000
\
MICHAEL J. H&MIHER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 * (760) 602-4600 a FAX (760) 602-8559 @
EX H I BIT ” PI I ‘I
ENVTROXMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORiiI - PART XI
CASE NO: RP 99-1 1
DATE: ADri1 13. 2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Stavbridee Suites
2. APPLICANT: ShaDerv Enternrises
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 423 West B Street. San Diego. CA
92 10 1 - (6 19) 2394700
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 16. 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 106 suite hotel including 53 studio units. 35 one-bedroom units,
and 18 two-bedroom units within a three story structure and associated Darkine area on a 2.41
acre site located adiacent and west of Interstate 5, north of Grand Avenue and south of Laguna
Drive. Proiect includes the frontage imurovements to Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive and the
demolition of four existine sinde-family residences.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at le‘ast one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigatcon Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
[7 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water
Air Quality
Hazards
Noise
[7 Cultural Resources
Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 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.
c] 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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
c] I find that althoush 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 VIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
L/-/$ -00 @ Plann Signature Date
Pl&ing Directoa Si&ure Date
2 Rev, 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IhfPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact -4ssessment 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.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “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.
0 “Potentially Si,eficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Si,snificant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is si,gnificant.
-
0
,
0 Based on an “EM-Part 11”, 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).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the si,pificant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Ovemding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a si,pificant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact’’ is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitisated 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 si-pificant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 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 si-hficance.
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
si-snificant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
LesThan No significant Impact
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PI-KXflNG. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-15)
e)
0 om
0 05
0 0
0
0 0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects .in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#1 :PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
0 0
0 0
ON
o wn
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
0 0 0 0
ON om CIIXI
0 0 o 0 0 01x1 OB
cl 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0
0
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
0 01x1
0
0
01x1
OIXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
' Issues (and Supporting Informatio,, Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Less 'Than Significant Impact
so Impact
Incorporated
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (+l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1 :Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
(E3
Ixl
Ix1
0
0
0 0
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-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
IXI
0
m
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#I :Pgs 5.7- 1 - 5.7.22)
on !XI ow
0
0
0
0
0
0
nw
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
a)
(#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
nw
0
0 05
6 Rev. 03/28/96
' Issues (and Supporting Informatiol, dources).
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (8l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
c)
& 5.13-1 -5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
' e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b)
5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15, # 3)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or qltered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
171 171
0
171 0 0 0 0 a
0
0
LessThan XO Significant Impact
Impact
UIXI
UIXI
Rev. 03128196 7
-
* Issues (and Supporting InformatioiA oources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0
Less Than Significant
impact
NO
lrrtpact
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities'? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-5)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies'? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
0 0
0 0 cl 0 0 0 0
0
0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
0 0 1x1
la
0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (3l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would, affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e)
0 0 0 5l
1x1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
XV. REC.REATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0 0 0
0 0 0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California hstory or
prehistory?
0 0 0 Ixl
8 Rev. 03/28/96
' Issues (and Supporting Informatioil ~ources).
Does the project, have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than So Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 om
9 Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were. incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOY/ENVIRONIIIENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of a 106 suite extended stay hotel. The project includes 53 studio
units, 35 one-bedroom units, and IS two-bedroom units with a total floor area of 72,435 square
feet. The hotel is to be one building which forms a U-shape and will be three levels with an
overall roof height of 44 feet, one inch. A variance request to exceed the building height is
required. On-site improvements include a swimming pool, circulation drive isle, 127 parking
spaces, trash 'enclosure, exterior lights, six foot tall masonry perimeter wall, and meet
improvements in the form of curb, sidewalk and gutter to Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive.
Grading for the project is 11,600 cubic yards of material and is balanced grading.
The site is currently occupied by four single-family residences, one outbuilding, and ornamental
landscaping. The remainder of the property is vacant and is under cultivation with tomato crops.
The site is relatively flat with a eight foot elevation change descending to the west. The property
to the east is Interstate 5 freeway, to the south is a restaurant and hotel, four single-family
residential units border the site to the west, and a senior care facility (Villas De Carlsbad) is to
the north.
The project site does not contain any significant natural, cultural, or biological resources. The
existing streets, with the mitigation measure, are adequate to handle the traffic generated by the
project and the existing infrastructure is in place to provide services to the project.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
11. ENVIRONMEhTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfir, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin,” any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-rejated emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located withm a ccnon-attainment basin,” therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked.
“Potentially Significant Impact.” This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality. impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
12 Rev. 03/28/96
strategies when adopted. TL 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 sisgificant 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 Ovemding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Ovemding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no hrther environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
Noise
The structure will attenuate noise from the freeway for the residential units adjacent. The project
will be subject to noise from the 1-5 fieeway and is conditioned to prepare a detailed acoustical
analysis prior to the issuance of a building permit. Noise attenuation measures may include
closed windows, central air conditioning, and double glazed windows.
Aesthetics - Light and glare
Parking lot lighting has the potential to impact the adjacent residential area. The project will be
conditioned to install lights which are shielded to prevent the spill-over of light onto the adjacent
residential prpperty,to mitigate any potential impact.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008, (760)
602-4605.
1. Final Master Environmental ImPact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Report of Preliminary/Feasibility Investigation Proposed 106 room Hotel, Owen Geotech,
dated September 27, 1999
3. Preliminary Noise Report, Staybridge Suites Hotel, Shapery Enterprises, dated September 28,
1999.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MLASURES
1. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting
plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
2. To mitigate potential noise impacts, a detailed indoor noise analysis is required to determine
the building upgrades for the hotel units adjacent to Interstate 5 prior to building permit
issuance.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOFUNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See attached
14 Rev. 03/28/96
- APPLICANT CONCURRE- JE 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.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
I- o e s
ENVIRONMENTAL MITlc.4TION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page I of 1
u
0) C c C m
.-
E
s c a, Q 0
Q L
0'
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
20
- EXHIBIT 2 -
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 275
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MAJOR
“EXTENDED STAY” HOTEL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IMMEDIATELY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 BETWEEN THE TERMINUS
OF GRAND AVENUE AND THE TERMINUS OF LAGUNA DRIVE IN
LAND USE DISTRICT 3 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: STAYBRIDGE SUITES
APN: 203-130-15, 18,20, AND 34
CASE NO: RP 99-1 1
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER RP 99-1 1 FOR A 106-ROOM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approved Ordinance No. 93 13 (SP No.
30) on the 20th day of June, 1972 establishing a Specific Plan for freeway-oriented commercial
facilities, including a IO6-room motel, on property located on the northwest quadrant of Interstate 5
and Carlsbad Village Drive; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 93 13 (SP No. 30) remains effective and establishes the permitted
land use for the properties within the Specific Plan boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 203-130-15, 18, 20, and 34, more thoroughly
described in Attachment A (“the property”), was identified in Ordinance No. 9313 (SP No. 30) as
approved for a 106-room motel site; and
WHEREAS, a Major Redevelopment Permit is required for the property to insure the
proposed project is in compliance with existing development standards and design guidelines
established for the area; and
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Village Suites, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad
regarding the property owned by Sandor W. Shapery, ccOwner’~; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major Redevelopment Permit,
including a variance request for front, rear and side yard setbacks to exceed the maximum range and a
variance request to exceed the height limit as shown on Exhibits A-J, dated June 26, 2000, on file in
the Housing and Redevelopment Department, “Staybridge Suites RP 99-1 I”, as provided by Chapter
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 1.35.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 26th day of June, 2000, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing on the 26th day of June, 2000, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered
all factors relating to “Staybridge Suites RP 99-1 1”.
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 Staybridge Suites RP 99-11, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board finds that the project, as conditioned herein and with the findings
contained herein for setback and height variances, is in conformance with the City’s - General Plan, the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and
Design Manual, Ordinance No. 93 13 (SP No. 30), and all pertinent provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated June 26,2000 including,
but not limited to the following:
a. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan in that it provides for a
touristkraveler serving use normally associated with urban freeway interchanges
in an appropriate location within the Village. The use in turn provides an
additional customer base for local restaurants, specialty shops, and nearby
convenience services.
b. The project is consistent with the land use standards set forth in the Village
Master Plan in that it will provide a provisional use (hotel) in an appropriate
location within Land Use District 3 of the Village Redevelopment Area.
C. The proposed use was approved in Ordinance No. 9313 (SP No. 30) authorizing
freeway-oriented commercial facilities and the proposed lO6-room hotel is
consistent with the Specific Plan as approved in that it provides for the same
number of rooms as set forth in SP No. 30 and under the Village Redevelopment
Master Plan and Design Manual hotels and motels are subject to identical design
criteria and development standards.
d. The project as designed is consistent with the development standards for Land
Use District 3, design guidelines, and other applicable regulations set forth in the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, with the exception of the requested
variances.
.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. The existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and all required
public right-of-way has been or will be dedicated and has been or will be
improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces and circulation have
been designed in relationship to the land use and available parking. Pedestrian
circulation is provided through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping,
and hardscape. Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the
proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and implement a
program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of
pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage
facilities.
The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open space within
the surrounding area. The project is consistent with the Open Space
requirements for new development within the Village Redevelopment Area.
f.
g. The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building
and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that the project meets appropriate
fire protection and other safety standards.
2. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for variances for front, side, and rear
yard setbacks that exceed the standard range:
a. That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in that strict adherence
to the setback standards would impede vehicular access of emergency vehicles and
prevent the Fire Department from adequately servicing the site in the event of an
emergency. The increased setbacks allow emergency vehicles to enter the site from
either Grand Avenue or Laguna Drive and obtain access to the proposed structure at
all points along the perimeter of the building. This is consistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan which is to establish
the Village as safe place to work, live and visit.
-
b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that the irregular shape of
the subject property coupled with it’s location adjacent to Interstate 5 and frontage
along the terminus of two public streets makes it difficult to adhere to the established
setback standards and provide proper on-site circulation, emergency access, and
required parking to service the use.
c. That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the increased
setbacks above the maximum range will not have a detrimental impact on
neighboring properties, because the additional setback allows greater separation
between the proposed hotel use and neighboring residential uses, thus increasing the
livability of the area and reducing impacts to surrounding properties.
d. That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to encourage
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique lot
configurations found within the Village Redevelopment Area.
e. The project is in a location that transitions to residential uses and the increased
setbacks protect the livability of the residential development in the area. In addition,
since the subject property is bordered by the terminus of two streets and a freeway,
consistency with the front yard setbacks of adjacent properties is not a critical design
issue for the area.
3. The Design Review Board finds as follows to allow for an increase in maximum height
from 35’-0” to 40’-5”:
a.
b.
C.
d.
That the application of certain provisions of this chapter will result in practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan, in that development of
the site as a 106-room hotel is governed by Ordinance No. 9313 (Specific Plan No.
30). Development of the approved use and associated parking on the subject
property requires the construction of a three-story structure. Additionally, the
Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines require a minimum 5:12 roof pitch.
Construction of a three-story structure within the 35-foot height limit precludes the
inclusion of the required roof pitch. The steeper roof pitch is a dominant and
consistent architectural feature within the Village. Strict adherence to the %-foot
height limit would therefore make the development inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area.
That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the
proposed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments
which have the same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that use of the property is
governed by the adoption of Ordinance No. 9313. Adoption of said Ordinance
occurred prior to the formation of the Village Redevelopment Area and prior to the
adoption of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Guidelines. A
variance is warranted in order for the approved use to be developed in a manner
consistent with the existing design guidelines for the area.
That the granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that the proposed
project will serve as a buffer between Interstate 5 and the residential uses to the west.
Therefore, the additional building height will contribute towards reducing existing
noise levels from the adjacent freeway and will not have a detrimental impact on
neighboring properties.
That the granting of a variance will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual, in that the standards established in the Village Master
Plan and Design Manual were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to encourage
diversity and variety of development and to take into consideration the unique
development constraints found within the Village Redevelopment Area. At 40’-5”,
the height of the proposed project is below the maximum height of 45 feet allowed in
Land Use 3 if a project is built over a parking structure. Granting the height
variance in conjunction with the inclusion of surface parking results in a lower
overall project height and better site design which are consistent with the standards
set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 4
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
20
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
The increased height is visually compatible with the Las Villas de Carlsbad
Retirement Center located immediately north of the subject property. The
retirement facility is three-stories, 40 feet high and encompasses three acres. The
proposed project would result in visual continuity along the west side of Interstate 5.
The increased height will not unduly impact nearby residential uses because the
proposed project provides a buffer between Interstate 5 and the residential uses
located west of the subject property.
The taller project will not adversely impact views in the area because the project
would serve as a visual buffer between Interstate 5 and the properties to the west.
The project will maintain a scale and character compatible with the Village design
guidelines, because the project is lower than the 45 foot maximum height allowed if
the structure were built over a parking structure.
The project provides for exceptional design quality through the use of various
building materials (Le. stone, wood, lap siding, and stucco), varying roof heights, and
the use of architectural treatments such as dormers, a columned entry feature and
divided-pane windows.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
4. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1, and all City public facility policies and ordinances.
The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to - ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water;
drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
NOLLAN/DOLAN FINDING:
5. The Design Review Board has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Note:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
building permits.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the CityjAgency shall have the right to revoke or
modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building
permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the
authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are
gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s/Agency’s approval of this Major
Redevelopment Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Major Redevelopment Permit documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall
occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of
any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020.
If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines that the project without the condition
complies with all requirements of law.
The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Staybridge Suites
Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, its governing body members,
officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities,
losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred
by the Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency’s approval and issuance of this
Major Redevelopment Permit, (b) Agency’s approval or issuance of any permit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein,
and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to the Housing and Redevelopment Department a reproducible
24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Major Redevelopment Permit reflecting the conditions
approved by the final decision making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director
from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school
facilities.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 6
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. This project shall compIy 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.
Landscape Conditions:
10. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the
City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown
on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition,
free from weeds, trash, and debris.
11. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape
plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s
building, improvement, and grading plans.
Noticing Conditions:
12. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the
Housing and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Major Redevelopment Permit by Resolution(s)
No. 274 and 275 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction
shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and
all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the
Notice of Restriction. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has the authority to
execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon
a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
On-site Conditions:
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas as shown on the site plan
(Exhibit “B”) enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City
Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said
receptacles shall be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director. Enclosure shall
be of similar colors andor materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and Housing and
Redevelopment Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to
the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 127 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibits “B”.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of
Community Development and Housing and Redevelopment.
19. Developer shall install a wrought iron fence up to 6 feet in height along the northerly
property line which shall include a 16 foot wide gate with Knox Box for emergency access
only to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall and Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, upon the approval of this proposed Major
Redevelopment Permit, all of the following engineering conditions must be met prior to the issuance
of building or grading permits whichever occurs first.
General:
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from the City Engineer for the
proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the
City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
FeedAgreements:
3. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
4. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage
across the adjacent property.
5. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause
Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer for the annexation of the area shown
within the boundaries of the project into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and
Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading:
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer
shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
7. Developer shall provide a soils report for the project site to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The soils report recommendations shall be reflected in the final design of the
site.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8.
9.
10.
Upon completion of grading, Developer shall file an "as-graded" geologic plan as determined
by the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading
operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a
contour map that represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by
both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24" x 36"
mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside
the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to
the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the owners of the affected
properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no
grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an
amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project
and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance from both the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
Dedications/Improvements:
1 1. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. A secondary drainage system shall be designed to provide
for the surface drainage from the site to the streets, precluding the possibility of flooding
the building should the underground drainage system fail. The structural section of all
private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private
streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard
improvement plan check and inspection fees.
12.
13. Developer shall execute a City standard Development Improvement Agreement to install and
secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the site
plan and the following improvements including, but not limited to paving, base, sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities,
sewer, water, storm drain system, fire hydrants, street lights, and retaining walls, to City
Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in the following areas:
A. Grand Avenue along project frontage.
B. Laguna Drive along project frontage.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
14. Grand Avenue and Laguna Drive shall be dedicated by Owner along the project frontage
based on a centerline to right-of-way width of sixty feet and a standard cul-de-sac bulb in
conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 9
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
15.
16.
17.
18.
Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City, and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, to design and install a traffic signal and advance warning
system at Grand Avenue and Harding Street. This agreement shall terminate five years
from the date the hotel is opened for business.
Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("DES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to
the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying
prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established
disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste
products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze,
solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be
discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water
conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State,
County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall have design, apply for and obtain approval
of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0
in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area andor aisles
with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be
submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City
Engineer as part of the building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
The final site plan shall identify the location of any future Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication (IOD) between the Owner and Caltrans and all public improvements within
that IOD shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
WATER AND SEWER CONDITIONS:
1. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected
before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for any meter
installation.
2. The developer shall provide potable, recycled and fire flow water demands in gallons per
minute and estimated sewer flow in million gallons per day to the Deputy City Engineer -
Utilities.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
All public potable and recycled water pipelines, fire hydrants and sewer pipelines shall be
within public right-of-way or within easements granted to the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD) or the City of Carlsbad.
The developer shall design all landscaping to be irrigated with recycled water per CMWD
standards and City ordinances.
The developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the
Planning Department for processing and approval by the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
The following note shall be placed on the final site plan:
"This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued
for development of the subject property unless CMWD has adequate water and sewer capacity
available at the time development is to occur, and that such water and sewer capacity will
continue to be available until time of occupancy."
All potable and recycled water meters shall be placed within public right-of-way.
No dead-end fire hydrant runs longer than 150 feet will be allowed, a looped water system will
be required and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer.
The developer shall be aware of existing water facilities within the project boundaries. The
developer shall be responsible for coordinating any impacts to these facilities with the Deputy
City Engineer - Utilities prior to beginning any work.
- A public fire flow system shall be required for this commercial development, and it shall be
constructed as a looped pipeline system.
Water, sewer and irrigation laterals shall be located in accordance with City and District
Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Engineer - Utilities.
FIRE CONDITIONS:
1. All interior driveways must accommodate the following turning radii:
Inside: 20 feet.
Outside: 42 feet,
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the
following code requirements.
Fees:
1. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17,
the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030,
and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities
Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxedfees shall be paid
at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees and not paid, this approval will not be
consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
DRB RESO NO. 275
PAGE 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
General:
3. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project
within 18 months from the date of final project approval..
4. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
5. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant
to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
6. Addresses, approved by the Building Official, shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification
and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color, as required by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
7. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with
the sign criteria contained in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and shall require
review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation of
such signs.
Engineering:
8.
Fire:
9.
IO.
11.
...
...
...
...
...
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent
offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
All buildings must be protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems.
A 2-% inch gated interior standpipe outlet (fire hose connections) shall be provided at each
stair landing on the second and third floors.
A11 fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to
installation.
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from the date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading
or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT
APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or
as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26th day of June, 2000 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
- ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BILL COMPAS, CHAIRPERSON
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DRB RES0 NO. 275
PAGE 13
4TTACHMENT "A" -
Parcel 1:
The-East 143.05 feet. of that portion of Tract 117 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
1661, fded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 1, 1915
bounded by a line describcd as follows:
.
Beginning at a point on the North line of said Tract 117 and distant thereon South
89" 57' 00" East, 658.95 feet from' the most Northwesterly comer of said Tract;
tlience continuing along said North line South 89" 57' 00" East, distance of 671,05
fcct to a point; tficiicc South COO 03' 00" West, a distancc of 330.00 feet to point;
thcnce North 89" 57' 00" West, a distance of 671.43 feet to a point; thence North
00" 05' 00" East, a distance of 330.00 feet to the point of beginning.
The Westerly Line of said East 143.05 feet being panllel with the East line of the
above described tract.
.
Parcel 2:
That portion of Tract 117 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad, County of Sa
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1661, filed in the Office
of the'County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1, 1915, described as foLlows:
'Commencing at the most Northeasterly comer of said Tract 117; thence North 89"
57' West dong the Northerly line of said Tract, 1211.82 feet to the True Pobt of
Beginning; thence South 0" 03' West 330.00 feet; thence South 34" 33' East 105.80
.feet; thence North 55" 27' East to a point in the he Northeasterly line of the land
described h dced to Donald A. Mch, recorded July 19, 1952 in Book 4500,
Page 83, of Official Records being a point in the Southwesterly line of the
California State Highway XI-SD-2-B; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly
line of said McZRan Land to said Northerly he of Tract 117; thence Westerly dong
said Northerly line to the True Point of Beginning.
, EXCEM'JNG that portion lying Eastcrly of the following described line:
Commencing for reference at a point on the center line of Elm Avenue distant along
said center line North 55" 58' 03" East 617.13 feet from the intersection of said
center line with the center line Harding Street - formerly Fifth Street; thence North
34" 01' 57" West 40.00 feet; thence NortIi IO" 10' 18" West 3.72 feet to the True
Point of Beginning; thence continuing North 10" 10' 18" West 315.51 feet; thence
North 16" 37' 24" West 175.70 feet; thence North 17" 51' 38" West 566.95 feet;
thence North 22" 33' 07" West 490.19 feet to a point on the centerline of Knowles
Avenuc, distant along said center liiie South 89" 06' 33" East 202.07 feet from the
intersection of last said center line with the Easterly line of Block 13 SUMY Slope
Tract of Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 995, fdd in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 6, 1906.
Tire bearing and distances used in the abovc exception are on the CaLifornia
Coordinate System Zone 6, multiply all distances used in the abovc description by
1.0000472 to obtain ground level distances.
Parcel 3:
That portion of Lot 31 in ScheU and Sites Addition to Carlsbad, the City of
Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, Statc of California, according to Map tlicrcof '
No. 2145, fded in the Officc of the County Rccordcr of San Diego' County,
Fcbruary 20, 1929, lying Northeasterly of thc location and prolongation of a Iine
which is parallel with and 50 feet Northcastcrfy, rncasured dong the Southeasterly
lot line, from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 31.
APN: 203-130-15, 203-130-15, 203-130-20 atid 203-130-34
. :: .. ..
-. - -. .. +
.... ..
..
.. ..
...
...
*. :
.'. .... ..
.. :. .... ............ , .: '. * .... .I
" *- .
.. , . .. ..
'.: '..'.
,. ..' ...
..
.....
. .I.
... .. ...... ...
8.
_. ... ., . 'I .. ... . :..
.. ..
, , ' i .. .( i
... ..
.. I
, .. .. ... i j ...... .... ,. ... ;: +. .
I. I
.... .- ., .... ,.
- . .,
I. . '. .
f
2
3
4
B
e
a
'7
9
lo
11
I la
13
14
16
le
. 17
'' ra
19
. 20
' 21
,22
25
I 2-4
. 26
80
' 27
28
29
' 30
s1
52
. .'
......... .. .. .. ' .. ORDINANCE NO. 9373
AN ORDSNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF.TTHE CITY 'OF CARLSBAO, ADOPTING A SPECIFIC PLAN F.OR FREEWAY-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL ' FACILITIES, INCLUDING ONE (.l] MOTEL, ON , PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHHEST QUbD- RANT OF INT&RSTATE-5 AND ELM AVENUE. ..
(W. Joseph Parisi)
The. City Council of the City of Carlsbad,' California DOES
ORDAIN that a Specific Plan for the hereinafter described real
ProP@W be adopted in the following particulars:
SECTION 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. That portion' of. Lot 31 In
Schell and Sftes'hddition to Carlsbad in the, City of Carlsbad, County
of San Olego, State of'californfa, according to Map thereof No. 1661,'
ffled In the Offlce of the County Recorder of San Dikgo'County,
February 20, 1929, more particularly described In applicatlon on file
fn the Clty Planning Office, ... SECTION 2. GEHERAL CONDITIONS. '.;The Specltfc Plan, marked
Exhibit "A", attached hereto, desIghated:.freeway-orlented commerctal'\
facIlit{er, includfng one (1) motel, as prepared by Schoell, Geritz,
Paul and Allard, Inc., Architects, is subject to the following
condf t Ions and re,strict{ ons:
hereof shall' be subject to the restrfctfons and llmir tfons Sat
forth herein whlch are fn addition to all the requirements.
lfmftatlons and restrictlons of all rnunlclpal oidtnances and
State and Federal Statutes now in farcc. or which hereafter may be
In force for the purpose of preserving the residential character-
istlcs of adjacent propertles.
..
A. The .developmen5 of the property descrfbed in Sectlon 1
.
B. All public Improvements shall be lnadc in conformity with
the Subdivlsion Ordinance and 'other City standards to the Sat15f'ac- ,
tlon of the'Clty .Engineer, without cost to the City of Carlsbad
and fre.e of all liens and encumbrances.
..
C. All land and/or easements .required by this ordinance
.. *_. .......... .' , ....
.. , '.I .a.
... ...... .:,:_ .:.. ..... ... . . :.. .. .. .. ......
. .' .... ... .... ... .. .. ...... _._, .. ..
.... ;_. . .. .. .e.' ....
.... .... .. . , _- ._ ." .....
...
.. ..... .-? .
,.1 '. .. ..:,...''
I .- .. ....... .... ....... .. .. ...
' f . .:
.... .. ...... .. . , . : : .. ... .... . ;. . '
.. ..... ..... ... ...... .. ,. .. I
8
.. .. I. .... ........ ....... ...... ,.
I'
.. . .. .. .. ..
. * ., *. .. .. . . .. a.
shall be, granted to the City of Carlsbwd wfthout cost to the City
and free of all llens and encumbrances, ,
condftlons shall apply wlth respect to any development after the
rffectfve date of this ordinance o'f the property described in
iectton 1 hereof:
An, Exhibit "A" shall be adopted as the Speciffc Plan.
leviation shall' be subject to the approval of the Planning Department.
E.. Maximum effort shall be made ,to screen adjacent resldentia
iropertfes along the westerly boundary of the subject development,
'cstcrly -boundary from Grand Avenue to Laguna Drlve.
SECTION 3. .PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS: The fol.lowfng '
Any
C. A 6-foot high decorative block wall shall be placed on the
D. A driveway shall be placed between the n6rtherly "Sandy's"
estaursnt parkfng lot and the adjoining motel parklng lot.
E.. 'A landscape and sprinkler plan shall be submitted to the
arks and Recreation'.Dlrector and shall be subject to his approval
rior to lostallation and prior to the issuance of an occupancy
ermi t.
.. a
F.' A program for malntenence of the landscaplng, and also
esignatlng those indjvfduals responsible for same, shall be sub-
itted with the landscape plan and subject to the approval of the
arks and Recreation Dlrector.
,
6. An, architectural concept, compstlble with the-design of.
andy's Restaurant and the new Standard Station facflity, shall be
dbject to the approval of the Plann.ing Department.
H. Applicant shall fllc a Parcel Map 1n.accordance wfth
ibdjvislon Map Act.
I. Appllcant shall improve Laguna Drive with full Street
..
.. ,'; . . , ..
-. ._I ..
.. , .- .. .. ..
. ... .:. ..
... ..
_, ., .
*. : . . -. .: . . .. . ::.:. .. .. . .. ,. .... . ._.. . .. .. .. ..
., . . . .. *. . .. . ... ,
* ..,,. . ..
. -. .. .. .
nprovements to street centertlhe Including a cul-de-sac and
(tensfon of the existing storm dral'n, adjacent to the property.
xx
,. -2-
. .. . ..
.. .... . . ... . ..
..
. '..... . ..... ..
.. . *
... .. ...
..
.. 1 ..... ' ..d
. .' ...
..
\' .~ . . ._ . , ,:.:.; ' : .., .. .:.. ..... ....
.. .. ..
..~ .. .....
... '.., ..
. :
..
.. .,
.... .:::
. , .'. ....
. ,..' ' .I...:... ..... ! '..... : , ............. .. ', ... I.
-0 ..
1
.1
2:
1,
11
. II
II
1'
11
11
2t
21
2:
2:
e4
2t
... at
21
2.f
25
3c
SI
52
,. . .I . ...... .. a.
I. .. ,.. ,.
3. hppltcant shall Improve a cul-de-sac on Crand Avenue
and enter Into a future Improvement agreement for the replacement of
the existing sewer line in Grand Avenue.
K. All rfght-of-way ,reqylred for street improvements
adjacent to the property shall be dedlcated to the City free o'f all
liens. and encumbrances.
1. A'water lfne, of a slze approved by the.City Engineer
shall be constructed from Grand Avenue to Laguna Drive. FJre
jydrants and fire protectfon appurtenance3 shall be installed IS
requfred by the Fire Department.
M. A gralffng and dralnage plan shall be approved by the . .
:ity Englneer pdor to any grading. Until such tfrne as Grand Avenue
Is improved, draindge for this parcel shsl? be directed to Laguna
)rive or Elm Avenue untess an alternative dralnage plan 1s approved
,y the Cf ty .Engineer. -. . SECTION 4. REQUIRED PUBLIC 1MPR.OYEMENTS BEFORE ISSUANCE
)F BUILDING PERMIT. The followfng shall be granted to the City of
:arlsbad before any building permft wilt be issued for the develop-
rent of the property descrdbed in Section .1 hereof:
A. All street fmprovements including water, sewer, under-
iround poker and telephone, street'trec planting, streat lfght,
'term draln and any other Improvements deemed necessary by the'
:ity Engineer shal? be installed In conformance with City Standards
,nd Indicated on an approved Improvernent'pla'n, or 'bond posted In lieu
f Improvements, prfor to the issuance of a buIldlng permlt.
B. All lands necessary for street widening shall be dedicate
o the Clty of Carlsbad prfor to approval of said Improvement'plnn, .. ..... ....... .............. , .... : C. A grading pl.an shall be submitted prior to the issuance . ...:.'.... ,., , '_ ... .:, ... .:: ,. .. ....
'. , .
..
...
-. . ...
..... ..
..
,.
..
.*
... .. .. ..... .. , ..
. .,I ..
- .. .. .. ._ ., .... -.
.. ._ ..
..
., .....
..
' .: .....
., '
......
f a building permit: :
*xx
xx
xx
- -3-
..... ..... . . , . . , . ... ........ .. ..... ..... ':.. ...... ... ...... .. . .,,
..
... . .:
, ..: . ......
... .. ..
,a. .. ...... . . .I ....
, , -:.: .... .... : ... ..., .. ...... _. .. .. .. '. ,. ... .. .... ... .. ............... ..,; .., . _. .r:.,,:. .;;
I.
** d
1
1
1
1
1'
1
1
1'
11
l.!
2(
2:
E
22
4 24
2c
2€
27
28
' 29
30
S1
sa
...
.. 8 .' ... . .. ,.
SECTION 5. ADMXHISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT_. The Bufldlng
Department shall not approve any buildfng for occupancy untll
the Planning 'Director has certified that all the condltions of
thfr Ordfnance have been satfsffed.
effgctive 30 days after Its adoptfon.
of Catlibad shall, certify to the adoptjon'of this Ordfnance and caus
It to be publfshed once In the Carlsbad Journal wlthln fifteen (15)
days after 'I to adoptjon.
.
' SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordlnance shall be
The CIty Clerk of the Clty
INTRODUCED AH0 FIRST READ at an adjourned regular meeting I
the City Counc1t:'df the Cfty of Carlsbad. California, held on the
7th day of June, 1972, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOP7EDi at a
regular meeting of said Cfty Council on the 20th dayiof June, 19.72, ,
by the followlng' vote, to wit: !
AYES: Cma. Dunne, McComas, Lewls. Chase &nd Frazae. n: '*
NOES : None.
. * ABSENT: None,
ATTEST:
..
I
n.
.. SL
.
,
-. . . .. . ..
.. ..
.. .'
... ..
. ..
. .... .. .
.. . ..
.I ' . .... ..
. ..
.: _I
.. : . .' I..
:... : ;
._..
. .. ,
I.
..
..
. _. ' .I ..
..
..
.,
. .. .,..,'. ..
. I' .. .
, ...
..
..
.. ,' . :.:; .. .: . .. .
* . .. ,'..:.., . :..;... ' ,,. j... . ....., .,.,
EXHIBIT 4
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
TO:
FROM:
RE:
The purp
April 24, 2000
REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
RP 99-1 1 - STAYBRIDGE SUITES
APR 26 2000
GI IY OF OAHLSBAU HOUSING & REOEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
se of this memo is to inform you that the Plannin Director has
reviewed the design of proposed Staybridge hotel project. The project falls
within both the Residential-Professional zone and Land Use District No. 3 of the
Village Redevelopment Master Plan.
The project meets the development standards of the Residential-Professional
zone and is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 30 with the
exception of the proposed building height. The required building height of 35
feet is to be exceeded by 5 feet, 4 inches to a total building height of 40 feet, 4
inches. The Planning Director has no objection to the design of the project or
the requested variance to the height limit. Other buildings in the immediate
vicinity -are built to 40 feet. The proposed roof pitch of 512 is greater than
standard thus increasing the need for the requested building height. The
increased roof pitch also enhances the design of the building and conforms to
the Redevelopment Master Plan minimum roof pitch requirement. The building,
being next to Interstate 5, will act as a buffer to the adjacent residential to the
west.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call.
Michael J.-Holzrhlfler
MJH:VL:cs
c: GaryWayne
Lori Rosenstein
Van Lynch
file
StTE
EXHIBIT 5
STAYBRIDGE SUITES
RP 99-11
... .
*( . I ..
<-
EXHIBIT 6 i- -
P R G, ~CT D ESCR JPT~ON/EXP ~NATIO N
. .-
PROJECT NAME:' Staybridge Suites Hotel - Caflsbad
Please describe fully the proposed project. hclude any details necessary to adequately
explain the scope andlor operation of the proposed project. You may also include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or
appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessarv.
Staybridge Suites is a new extended stay hotel by Holiday Inn. Holiday Inn Hotel Corporation will manage the project once con- struction is completed. The project consists of 106 hotel suites, each containing a full kitchen facility. There will be 53 studio units.and 35 one-bedroom suites and 18 two-bedroom suites. The project will include a swimming pool.
The hotel suites will be contained in one 3-story building with
the required 127 parking spaces including five (5) handicapped parking stalls.
The zoning and particular use for the site was approved by
Carlsbad City Ordinance #'s 9313 and 9314.
*. -. .
DlSCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statemcnt or disclosurc of ccrtain ownership intcrcsts on nll
oppllcnlions which will roquirc discrctionnry nction on thc part of the City
Council or nny oppointcd Doard, Commission or Committea.
The following information must bc disclosed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
APPLICANT
List the names and addrcsscs of all pcrsons having a financial intcrcst in thc
application.
Sandor W. Shapery Cnrlsbad Villaqe Suites, LLC
.423 West "B" Street 123 West "13" Street
San Diecro. CA 92101 San Dieqo, C.3 92101
OWNER
List the namcs and oddrcsscs of all pcrsons having any ownership interest in the
property hvolved.
Sandor W. Shapery
423 West "B" Street
-Sari Diego, CA 92101
11 any person idcntificd pursuant to (11 or (2) above is a corporation or partncrship,
list thc n'ames and addrcsscs of all individuals owning mocc than 10% of thc slims
in the corporation or owning any partncrship intcrcst .in thc partncrship.
Sandor W. Shapcrv.
423 'West "R" Street
San D.i.'eqo, (3 92101
If any pcrson idcntificd pursuant to (1) or (21 abovc is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list thc namcs and addresses of any pcrson scrving'as officcr or dircctor of
the non-profit organization or as trustcc or bcncficiary of the trust.
@ .. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-157G'- (Si 9) 430-7161- FAX (61 9) 130-0094 .. ...
.. ,I * .. .. .. .. _. ...- -..,."-
.- 6-
' 5, yave you had mo',. -+n $250 worth of busincss trans& , iith any member of
City staff, Boards,' Cc,,,missions, Cornmittecs and/or Council within the past twclvc
(12) months? 0 Yes No If ycs, plcasc indicatc pcrson(s1:
'.. .' . . I.
I
Pcrson is dcfincd as -Any individual, ' firm, co-partnorship, joint vcnturc, association, social club, fratcmal organization, corporation, cstatc, trust, roccivcr, syndicntc, this and any othcr county, city
and county, city municipality, district or othcr political subdivision or any othcr group or
combination acting as a unit.'
NOTE: 'Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Sbnaturc of owner/da& ..
July /? , 1999
,' t
.. Sandor N. Shapery
Print or type name of owner
/ 7 Signature of applicant/dare .? /
Sandor W. Shapcry
Print or type name of applicant
Disclosurc Statcmcnt 10196
* ..
EXHIBIT 7
VILLAGE MASTER PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHECKLIST
Provide variety of setbacks along any single commercial
block front.
Provide benches and low walls along public pedestrian
frontages.
Maintain retail continuity along pedestrian-oriented
frontages.
Avoid drive-through service uses.
Minimize privacy loss for adjacent residential uses.
Encourage off-street courtyards accessible from major
pedestrian walkways
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping planted to
create an informal character
Treat structures as individual buildings set within a
landscaped green space, except for buildings fronting on:
Carlsbad Village Drive, State Street, Grand Avenue,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Roosevelt Street
Provide landscaping within surface parking lots It
Provide access to parking areas from alleys wherever
possible.
Locate parking at the rear of lots. /I
Devote all parking lot areas not specifically required for
parking spaces or circulation to landscaping. I
Project: Staybridge Suites
The project fronts on the terminus of both Grand
Avenue and Laguna Drive. The building setbacks
are appropriate for the location.
The project location does not lend itself to high
pedestrian activity, therefore sitting areas are not
incorporated along the project frontage.
The proposed project will not conflict with retail
continuity.
No drive through service use is included in project.
The project has been situated as far east as
possible reducing impacts to adjacent residential
uses to the west. The building setback along the
westerly property line ranges from 35’ to 47’. A
majority of the building is situated along the
eastern property line.
The project location does not lend itself to
courtyards for pedestrian use.
Landscaped areas along all sides of the building,
within the parking lot, and within the recreational
area of the project will provide for an informal
characterketting.
Landscaping will be provided along all sides of the
building.
Landscaping is provided through out the surface
parking lot.
The property is not located adjacent to an alley.
The project location warrants surface parking
surrounding the proposed use to create greater
separation between the proposed use and the
adjacent residential uses to the west.
All areas not required for parking spaces, driveway
aisles, or trash enclosures have been landscaped.
Avoid parking in front setback areas.
Avoid curb cuts along major pedestrian areas.
Avoid parking in block corner locations.
~ ~~
Provide setbacks and landscaping between any parking
lot and adjacent sidewalks, alleys or other paved
pedestrian areas.
Avoid buildings which devote significant portions of their
ground floor space to parking uses.
Place parking for commercial or larger residential
projects below grade wherever feasible.
Enhance parking lot surfaces.
Provide for variety and diversity. Each building should
express its uniqueness of structure, location or tenant
and should be designed especially for their sites and not
mere copies of generic building types.
Step taller buildings back at upper levels.
Break large buildings into smaller units.
Maintain a relatively consistent building height along
block faces.
Utilize simple building forms. Trendy and "look at me"
design solutions are strongly discouraged.
No parking is provided in the front setback area.
There will be one curb cut of minimal width along
Grand Avenue to provide ingress and egress to
the property. Laguna Drive will provide
emergency access only.
The subject property is not located on a corner.
Landscaped setbacks are provided around the
entire perimeter of the property.
The building is situated at ground level.
The project location warrants the use of surface
parking. Below grade parking would only increase
the overall height of the structure and would not be
an optimal use of the property.
The project does not propose the use of enhanced
paving in the parking lot.
The proposed design of the building provides for
articulation in the building, varying roof forms, and
other architectural features which provide for a
unique character.
At its peak, the proposed project is 40'-5" in
height. The project also includes several varying
roof heights and roof pitches that range from 512
to 12:12. These design elements serve to break
up the overall mass of the structure.
The project is designed in an "L" shape which
serves to break up the overall mass of the
structure.
The height of the building is consistent with the
height of Las Villas de Carlsbad Retirement
Facility located immediately north of the subject
property.
The building has been designed with simple lines
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.
2
Emphasize the use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 in 12
or greater.
Encourage the use of dormers in gable roofs. I
Emphasize wood and composition shingle roofs, with the
exception that in the Land Use District 5 clay tile roofs
are acceptable. 1) Avoid Flat Roofs
Screen mechanical equipment from public view.
Avoid mansard roof forms.
Emphasize an informal architectural character. Building
facades should be visually friendly.
Design visual interest into all sides of buildings.
Utilize small individual windows except on commercial
storefronts.
Provide facade projections and recesses.
Give special attention to upper levels of commercial
structures.
Provide special treatment to entries for upper level uses. ll
Gabled-type roofs and roof features with the
desired pitch have been provided within the
project.
Dormers have been incorporated into the project
design.
The project provides an asphalt shingle roof which
is consistent with the architectural design intended
for the project as well as other projects in the area.
The building does not incorporate flat roofs.
This will be a requirement of the project.
A mansard roof is not designed into project.
By providing for attractive facades and
landscaping, the project is very visually appealing.
Visual interest is added to the building through
architectural features.
The design of the building incorporates design
elements into all building facades, thereby creating
visual interest in the building. The project makes
good use of divided-pane windows, a columned
entry feature, applied surface ornamentation,
varying roof peaks, and landscaping.
The proposed project provides for divided paned
windows through out the building to achieve the
Village character.
The building design provides for recesses and
projections which will create shadows and
contrast.
The upper levels of this commercial building
provide for attractive window features, applied
ornamentation, and a different building material
than the lower levels which reflects special
attention in design.
~~ ~~
The upper levels of this building will be accessed
through internal stairways. Therefore, no special
treatment of upper level use entries is necessary.
3
Utilize applied surface ornamentation and other detail
elements for visual interest and scale.
Respect the materials and character of adjacent
development.
Emphasize the use of the following wall materials: wood
siding; wood shingles; wood board and batten siding; and
stucco.
Avoid the use of the simulated materials; indoor/outdoor
carpeting; distressed wood of any type
Avoid tinted or reflective window glass.
Utilize wood, dark anodized aluminum or vinyl coated
metal door and window frames.
Utilize light and neutral base colors.
Limit the materials and color palette on any single
building (3 or less colors)
Provide significant storefront glazing.
Avoid large blank walls.
1 Encourage large window openings for restaurants.
Encourage the use of fabric awnings over storefront
windows and entries. I/ Emphasize display windows with special lighting.
Encourage the use of dutch doors.
Detail elements have been incorporated into the
entire project by design. The windows and
entrance design all provide for detail which adds
visual interest. Applied surface ornamentation and
varying wall materials also enhance the overall
arc hitectu rat detail.
The materials and colors proposed for the building
will not conflict with adjacent developments.
~ ~~
The exterior walls utilize stacked stone detail on
the first and second stories and wood siding on
the third story.
At this time, none of the noted materials have
been indicated for use.
The windows are clear glass.
~ ~~ ~ ~____
The applicant will be using divided-pane anodized
aluminum windows.
The applicant has proposed no awnings or
canopies. Small metal roofs over the ground floor
windows are proposed for additional architectural
detail.
The project utilizes a light and neutral color
scheme.
The project incorporates less than 3 colors.
Due to the type of commercial facility, this design
feature is not applicable.
The project has been design not to have large
blank walls.
Not applicable; no restaurant proposed within the
project.
No fabric awnings to be used; not a retail or
storefront operation.
No display lighting. Not applicable to project.
Dutch doors are not proposed.
4
Utilize small paned windows.
Develop a total design concept.
Provide frequent entries. //
The applicant is using small divided paned
windows throughout.
All facade design elements are unified. The appli-
cant was able to develop a total design concept
with is also functional and visually interesting.
The project does provides a sufficient number of
entrances acceptable for the proposed use.
Limit the extent of entry openings.
Avoid exterior pull down shutters and sliding or fixed
security grilles over windows along street frontages.
The extent of the entry openings has been limited
through the design.
The project does not include pull down shutters,
sliding or fixed security grilles over windows along
the street frontage.
Emphasize storefront entries.
Integrate fences and walls into the building design.
Not applicable to this project.
Fences and walls have been incorporated into the
building design.
11 Provide front entry porches. 1 Not applicable.
Encourage front entry gardens
Locate residential units near front property lines and
orient entries to the street.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Provide windows looking out to the street.
Utilize simple color schemes.
Provide decorative details to enrich facades.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Emphasize an abundance of landscaping.
Limit access drives to garages or surface parking areas.
Encourage detached garages which are subordinate in
visual importance to the house itself.
5
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
~~~~______ ~ ~~ ~~
Provide quality designed fences and walls.
Visually separate multi-family developments into smaller
components.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
r
r
e 9
L I J
, r
L
1
L
I. r \\
r
7' - 0" ------a
EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN 24 Sq. Ft. Fixtures to be designed to compliment
the appearance of the sign
. . .. .. .~ .. . . . - . . . . _.. .. - __. i! , , 2- . . . _A . ... .