HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-05; City Council; 10658; Pacific Rim Country Club & Resortc
n RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. PI-N
OF USES FOR THE HOTEL, SPORTS CENTER, GOLF CLXJBHOU
RESTA- - MP-177(C)/LCPA %31S11P tK2(A)/CUP 90-5 -
Both the Planning Commission and the staff are recommending that the City Council
ADOPT City Council Resolution Nos. @-kg, @‘-/< %-/11 and %-/V, APPROVING
MP-177(C), SDP 86-2(A), LCPA 90-3, CUP 90-5 and INTRODUCE Ordinance No.
/is-//P, amending MP-177.
On December 22, 1987, the City Council approved the Pacific Rim Country Club and
Resort Master Plan, now named Aviara, and associated applications (including Site
Development Plan 86-2 for a 560 suite resort hotel, golf course clubhouse, community
sports center, and restaurants).
Since that time, Four Seasons has been selected as hotel operator to develop the hotel
and resort sites. Upon review of the previously approved plans, Four Seasons concluded
that the design and proportions of various uses were inadequate for the operation of a
luxury destination resort. In accordance with this conclusion, the hotel site plan has been
amended to consolidate previously separated hotel suites and villas, and to enlarge the
primary hotel building in order to accommodate all of the meeting and banquet facilities,
and extensive “back-of-house” facilities required by Four Seasons. The previously
approved four-story main hotel building has been changed to a five-story building without
increasing the overall building height. With this revision, all surface parking has been
eliminated, the underground parking structure was expanded to make up for lost surface
parking, and the entry road to the main hotel was changed to a split level road.
Circulation around the hotel grounds will be controlled through an exclusively valet
parking system and a shuttle service between the hotel buildings, sports center, and golf
course clubhouse. The sports center has been consolidated and slightly enlarged and the
golf course clubhouse has also been redesigned to enclose all the carts and bag storage
below grade.
When evaluating the proposed amendment, staff and the Planning Commission concluded
that:
1. Because all previously approved hotel and associated resort uses are still being
proposed under the same development standards and design guidelines, the
proposal is consistent with the intent, design and development standards of
Master Plan-177.
2. The resort redesign does not create any significant visual impacts because the
resort structures still comply with the criteria for determining visual insignificance
established within the certified EIR for Master Plan-177 (i.e., (1) “the resort
hotel is acknowledged as the visual focal point of the community”, and (2) the
maximum building heights have been maintained at 35 feet).
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ,‘<, @T
A
3. The proposed minor encroachments into existing California Coastal Commission
deed restricted open space areas will be mitigated through the give back of
previously approved developable areas, as deed restricted open space.
4. The shared parking scheme proposed is adequate because: (a) the proposed
hotel design accommodates a parking standard very similar to that of the original
Master Plan - 177; (b) the proposed parking scheme is exclusively valet and has
been conditioned to remain as such; (c) the proposed parking for this mixed
use project is comparable to other mixed use resort projects; and (d) conditions
of approval incorporated within CUP 90-5 mandate that if any changes in the
valet parking system are proposed, or if any negative parking impacts are
identified, specific mitigating actions will be implemented (i.e, hours of operation
of the Sports Center shall be controlled, additional parking shall be provided,
or use of hotel ballrooms will be restricted to existing hotel guests).
On April 4, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended approval of MP 177(C)/SDP
86-2(A) and CUP 90-5 (5-2 McFadden, Erwin). In response to questions from the
Planning Commission, several conditions of approval were added or modified as shown
on Attachment “A”. Because the Master Plan is the implementing ordinance of the Local
Coastal Program, a Local Coastal Program Amendment has been processed with the
above applications.
No other major issues were identified. Please see the attached staff report to the
Planning Commission for specific details regarding the Master Plan Amendment/Site
Development Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit.
ENvIRONMESJTALREVIEiW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) has been certified for this area as part
of the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort’s Master Plan. Since the changes proposed
are still in compliance with the EIR, the Planning Director has determined that this
project will not have a significant effect on the environment and has therefore issued a
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on March 9, 1990.
FISCAL IMPACT
This Master Plan Amendment will result in no fiscal impacts to the City of Carlsbad.
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
City Council Resolution Nos. y’-&d . q-/b4 , 90 -/b& and @-/V
Ordinance No. J-/.-//8 w/attached Exhibit “FFF”, dated April 4, 1990
Location Map
Attachment “A”
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3002, 3001 & 3003
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 4, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 4, 1990
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
90-164 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER PLAN 177(C) TO AMEND EXISTING MASTER PLAN 177 TO REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND USE ALLOCATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10 AND 11 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON BETWEEN 1-5 AND EL CAMINO REAL. MP-177(C) - AVIARA
WHEREAS, on April, 4, 1990 the Carlsbad Planning Commission
ndopted Resolution No. 3002 recommending approval of an amendment
to MP-177; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been issued by
the Planning Director on March 14, 1990, and recommended for
npproval by the Planning Commission on April 4, 1990.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on June
5, 1990 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and
leard all persons interested in or opposed to Master Plan
9mendment MP-177(C); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council
Df the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
L.
2.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3002, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter and that the Notice of Prior Compliance, and the amendment to Master Plan 177 are hereby approved.
1
PASSED,- APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 5th day of June I 2 1990 by the following vote, to wit:
3 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Mamaux and Larson
4
5
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Members Kulchin and Pettine
6
7
8
9 ATTEST:
10
11 fc&.-
12 ALETHA L. RAtiTENKRANZ, City &lerk
13 (SEAL) II 14 (I 15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-165
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10 AND 11 OF PHASE I OF MASTER PLAN 177 TO ALLOW REVISIONS TO AN EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COVERING AN 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE, A 560 SUITE RESORT HOTEL, A COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTER AND TWO RESTAURANTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SHORE OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON BETWEEN INTERSTATE 5 AND EL CAMINO REAL. SDP 86-2(A) - AVIARA
WHEREAS, on April, 4, 1990 the Carlsbad Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 3001 recommending approval of an amendment
to SDP 86-2(A); and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been issued by
the Planning Director on March 14, 1990, and recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission on April 4, 1990.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on June
5, 1990 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and
heard all persons interested in or opposed to Site Development
Plan 86-2(A); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3001, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter except as amended by the addition of the following conditions, and that the Notice of Prior Compliance, and the amendment to Site Development Plan 86-2(A) are hereby approved.
Conditions
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3001, condition no. 33 shall be amended to read: "Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other Zone 1 plants (see Landscape Guidelines Manual), shall be limited
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
to areas of high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall promote water conservation."
2. All landscape plans shall comply with the Landscape Guidelines Manual as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 5th day of June I
1990 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Members Kulchin and Pettine
ATTEST:
lkLLJs?&a- ALETBA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City C&erk
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 90-166
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT (LCPA 90-3) TO AMEND THE EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND USE ALLOCATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10 AND 11 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF BATIQUITOS DRIVE BETWEEN I-5 AND EL CAMINO REAL. LCPA 90-3 - AVIARA
WHEREAS, California State Law requires that the Local
Coastal Program, General Plan, and Zoning for properties in the
Coastal Zone be in conformance: and
WHEREAS, MP-177 constitutes the zoning for the Aviara
Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the
Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (Aviara) Master Plan (MP-
177) Local Coastal Plan has been filed with the Planning
Department; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
for an amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code: and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the Master Plan necessitates an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) to ensure
conformance between the regulatory documents: and
WHEREAS, the City in compliance with State Administrative
regulations opened a six week public review for the proposed LCP
amendment: and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on June
5, 1990 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and
heard all persons interested in or opposed to Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 90-3; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the proposed LCP amendment is consistent with the
proposed Master Plan Amendment No. MP-177(C)
3. That, because the Pacific Rim Country Club & Resort
Master Plan (Aviara) is the implementing ordinance of the Local
Coastal Program, the findings and conditions of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3002, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the
City Council in this matter, and the amendment to the Local
Coastal Program, LCPA 90-3, is hereby approved.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 5th day of June I
1990 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Members Kulc
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clekk
(SEAL)
.
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
90-167 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SHARED PARKING BETWEEN PLANNING AREAS 2 AND 10 OF MASTER PLAN 177 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF BATIQUITOS DRIVE BETWEEN I-5 AND EL CAMINO REAL. CUP 90-5 - AVIARA
WHEREAS, on April, 4, 1990 the Carlsbad Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 3003 recommending approval of Conditional
Use Permit 90-5; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been issued by
the Planning Director on March 14, 1990, and recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission on April 4, 1990.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on June
5, 1990 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and
heard all persons interested in or opposed to Conditional Use
Permit 90-5: and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1.
2.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3003, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter and that the Notice of Prior Compliance, and to Conditional Use Permit 90-5 are hereby approved.
-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 5th day of June I
1990 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Members Kulchin and Pettine
'ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-118
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9839 AND
MASTER PLAN 177 TO ALLOW CHANGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND USE ALLOCATIONS FOR PLANNING AREAS 1,2,
10 and 11. THE NORTH SHORE OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON
BETWEEN I-5 AND EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: AVIARA
CASE NO: MP 177(C)
The City Council of the City of CarIsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Ordinance No. 9839, and Master Plan 177 adopted thereby, is
hereby amended.
SECTION 2: That the findings of the Planning Commission contained in
Resolution No. 2594 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
SECTION 3: That amended Master Plan 177(C) is approved subject to aII
applicable requirements of the CarIsbad Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the conditions
imposed by previous approvals of said plan.
SECTION 4: That Master Plan 177, dated November 4, 1977 as adopted by
Ordinance No. 9839 is hereby amended as shown on the documents marked Exhibit “FFF” to
Ordinance No. wattached hereto and made a part thereof. Except for said amendments, II
Ordinance No. 9839 and the Master PIan (MP 177) and ail the terms and conditions thereof
shall remain in full force and effect.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shalI be effective thirty days after its adoption,
and the City Clerk shaI3 certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published
at least once in the CarIsbad Journal within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the CarIsbad City Council
held on the 5th day of June , 1990, and thereafter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1:
u
1:
1Z
15
2(
21
2:
2:
24
2:
2t
2’i
2E
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on Blday
of June , 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Council Members Kulchin and Pettine
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
ATI’EST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT “FFF”
Arpil 4, 1990
CHAPTER V - PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PLANNING AREA 1 - GOLF COURSE
PAGE 74 PRESENTLY READS AS:
USE ALLOCATION:
lghole golf course
Driving Range
Maximum of 24,000 square feet golf course clubhouse which will include:
Dining Room
Lounge
Grill
Pro Shop
Administration
Locker Rooms
Cart Storage
Lobby, restrooms, kitchens, storage & circulation
5,000 s.f.
1,250 s.f.
700 s.f.
700 s.f.
700 s.f.
7,950 s.f.
3,350 s.f.
4,350 s.f.
AMENDED PAGE 74 SHALL READ AS
USE ALLOCATION:
l&hole golf course
Driving Range
Maximum of 30,000 square feet golf course clubhouse which will include:
Dining Room
Lounge
Grill
R-0 shop
Administmtion
Locker Rooms
Cart and Bag Storage
Other related areas
2,000 s.$
1,300 s.&
700 s.$
1,030 s.J
700 s$
3,000 s.jI
5,500 s$
1~500 s.&
Exhibit “FFF’
April 4, 1990
Pave 2
PAGE 76 PRESENTLY READS As:
PARKING:
Parking shall be provided per Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. A 20%
credit will be allowed for shared parking with the hotel. Up to 25% of the required
parking may be compact spaces with dimensions of 8.5 feet by 15.0 feet. A shuttle service
shall provide transportation between the clubhouse, the Sports Center, restaurants and
hotel.
AMENDED PAGE 76 SHALL READ As:
PARKING:
Parking shall be provided per the Parking Demand Study, Four Seasons Aviara Resort, dated
February 28,199O. Up to 25% of the required parking may be compact spaces with minimum
dimensions of 8.5 feet by 15.0 feet. A shuttle sekce shall provide transportation between the
clubhouse, the Sports Center, restaurants and hotel
PLANNING AREA 2: HOTEL
PAGES 78 THRU 80 PRESENTLY READS As:
DESCRIPTION:
This 27.5 acre planning area includes a destination resort hotel and related accessory uses.
The hotel facilities will include the main hotel structure, conference suites, hillside retreat
units, hotel villas, banquet facilities and a parking structure.
USE ALLOCATION:
Maximum of 254 bedrooms in the main hotel.
Maximum of 144 conference suites with meeting rooms totaling 19,500 square feet in area.
Maximum of 90 hillside hotel retreat suites.
Maximum of 72 hotel villas.
Maximum of 22,500 square feet of banquet facilities and conference rooms in the main
hotel.
A specialty restaurant with a floor area not to exceed 2,000 square feet. This restaurant
shall not include any signage along the exterior of the hotel structure, nor shall it include
a separate access way from the hotel’s exterior. The restaurant shall be oriented to the
interior of the hotel.
Parking structure which includes a minimum of 671 parking spaces.
Exhibit “FFF’
April 4,199O
Pane 3
-
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
HEIGHT:
The maximum height of the main hotel structure shall not exceed 35 feet per the City’s
Ordinance. Any portion of the structure exceeding 35 feet shall be for architectural
features only and shall not increase the useable floor area of the hotel. The character
tower which shall not include useable floor area, shall not exceed 56 feet. The maximum
height of all other structures is 35 feet. Excluding the main hotel structure and the
conference suites, at least 50% of the structures in this Planning Area shall be no more
than two stories in height. Where three story structures are proposed, no more than one-
half of the structure shall be three stories in height. For the conference suites at least
50% of the units shall be no more than two stories in height. These units shall be
dispersed throughout the Planning Area. Heights shall be determined per Section
21.04.065 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PARKING:
The minimum parking requirement for the hotel and suites is 1.2 spaces per bedroom.
The conference suites shall require 1.5 spaces per bedroom. The banquet facilities,
conference rooms and restaurant shall require a minimum of one space per 100 square
feet of gross floor area of the public assembly areas. Up to 25% of the required parking
may be compact spaces with minimum dimensions of 8.5 feet by 15.0 feet. A shuttle
service, provided by the hotel, shall provide transportation between the hotel, sports center,
restaurants and golf course clubhouse at reasonable scheduled intervals as approved by the
Planning Director.
AMENDEDPAGEs78&8OSHALLREADAs:
DESCRI’ON:
This 27.5 acre plaiudng area includes a destination resort hotel and related accessory uses.
The hotel faciIitie-s will include the main hotel structure, garden wing buildings with special
suites and bistro restaurant, villas, banquet and conference facilities and a parking structure
with tennis courr~ above.
Exhiiit “FW
April 4,199O
Pars 4
USE ALLOCATIONI.
Guestrooms:
Main Building
Garden Wing Buildings
lmzs
320 rooms
130 rooms
39 rooms
489 rooms
Banquet/Conference Facilities:
Main Building 34,000 s,f.
Maximum Area Abated 40,000 s.fi
A specialty restaurant with a floor area of not to exceed 5,300 square feet with additional
terrace seating.
A Cafe within the main building of not to exceed 4,500 square feet with additional terrace
seating.
The restaumnt and Cafe shall not include any signage along the exterior of the hotel structure,
nor shall it include a sepamte access way from the hotel’s exterior.
The restaurant and cafe shaU be oriented to the interior of the hotel.
A Bistro restaurant at the garden wing area with not to exceed 3,900 square feet of seating with
additional support areas.
An identity sign only, not to exceed 20 square feet, shall be allowed on the extetior of the
Bistro.
Parking structure.
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
HEZGHT
The maximum height of the main hotel structure shall not exceed 35 feet per the City’s
Ordinance. Any po&on of the structure exceeding 35 feet shall be for architectural features
only and shall not increase the useable ftoor area of the hoteL The maximum height of all
other stmctures is 35 fee& Excluding the main hotel structure at kasr 50% of the stmctures
in this Planning Area shall be no more than two stories in height. Where three story structures
are proposed no more than two-thirds of the structure shaU be three stories in height. Heights
shaU be detetrnined per Section 21.04.065 of the Carkbad Municipal Code.
Exhibit TFF’
April 4,1!BO
Page 5
PARKING:
Parking requirements shall be as defined in the Parking Demand Study. Four Seasons Aviara
Resort, dated February 28, 1990. Up to 25% of the required parking may be compact spaces
with minimum dimensions of 8.5 feet by 15.0 feet. A shuttle service, provided by the hotel,
shaU provide transportah’on between the hotet sports center, restaurants and golf course
clubhouse at reasonab& scheduled intervals as approved by the Planning Director.
PLANNING AREA lo: SPORTS CENTER
PAGE 109 P RESENTLYREADSAS
USE ALLOCATION:
Sports center with a total gross floor area not to exceed 40,508 square feet.
Maximum of 11 regulation tennis courts and one tournament tennis court.
A 50 meter pool and a diving pool.
A sports center cafe which includes a maximum of 5,133 square feet including indoor and
outdoor eating areas.
A 360 space parking structure located below the regulation tennis courts.
Maximum of 30,000 square feet sports center which will include:
Administrative Offices
Pro Shop
Aerobics and Nautilus
Conference Rooms
Day Care
Cardiovascular
Beauty Salon
Racquetball (4 courts)
SETBACKS:
1,152 s.f.
1,017 s.f.
5,204 s.f.
2,520 s.f.
837 s.f*
1,oss s.f.
1,280 s.f.
3,224 s.f.
All structures shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from Pacific Rim Drive. All buildings
shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from the nearest residential structure. A minimum
20-foot building separation shall be maintained.
Exhibit “FFF”
April 4,199O
Pane 6
AMENDEDPAGE109SHALLREADAs:
USE ALLOCATION:
Sports Center shall be a maximum of 47,000 square feet.
I1 regulation tennis coWs and one tournament tennis court.
A 25 meter pool and a recreational pool.
A sports center cafe not to exceed 2,500 square feet with indoor and outdoor eating areas.
A parking garage of approximately 290 spaces with additional surface parking.
Approximate areas shall include:
Administrative 0fJke.s
h Shops
Aerobics and Nautilus
Gymnasium
Day Care
Youth Club
Racquetball and Squash Courts
SporZs Clinic
Cafe
Other related areas
5400 s.J
1,ooo s.f
8Jwo s.J
4,800 s.$
600 s.$
1,175 s.j
3,500 s.J
1,ooo s.f
2,100 s.jI
2@Oo s.$
SETBACKS:
All structures shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from Paci@ Rim Drive. The Sports
Center building shaU be located a minimum of 200 feet firn the nearest reskiential structure.
A minimum 20 foot building separation shall be maintained
PLANNING AREA 11: COMMERCIAL
PAGE 113 P RESENTLYREAIXAS
DFSCRIPTION:
This 2.4 acre planning area includes two restaurants which will provide dining facilities
primarily for guests of the resort, sports complex and residents of the area.
Exhibit “FFF”’
April 4,199O
Page 7
USE ALLOCATION:
Two restaurants with a total gross floor area (including outdoor eating areas) not to exceed
17,380 square feet including indoor and outdoor eating areas and related accessory uses
listed below.
PARKING:
Parking shall conform to the standards of Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The parking structure proposed within Planning Area 10 (Sports Center) shall be required
to be constructed prior to any development within this Planning Area. A 20 percent credit
will be allowed for shared parking with the hotel and sports center subject to the approval
of a conditional use permit. A shuttle service will provide transportation between the
restaurants, sports center, golf course clubhouse and the hotel.
AMENDED PAGE 113 SHALL READ As:
DESCRIPTION:
This 2.4 acre planning area includes one restaurant which will provide dining facilities primarily
for guests of the resort, sports complex and residents of the area.
USE ALLOCATION:
One restaurant with a total gross floor area (including outdoor eating areas) not to exceed
10,000 square feet including indoor and outdoor eating areas and related accessory uses listed
below.
PARKING:
Parking shall be provided per the Parking Demand Study, Four Seasons Aviara Resort, dated
February 28, 1990. The parking structure proposed within Planning Area IO (Sports Center)
shall be required to be constructed prior to any development within this Planning Area. A
conditional use permit shall be required if shared parking between the hotel, sports centec and
restaurant is proposed. A shuttle service will provide transportation between the restaurants,
sports center, golf course clubhouse and the hotel
MG:lh
VICINITY MAP -
AVIARA
hty of tarlsbad
I CUP 90-5
177(C)
SDP 86=2(A)
_ . .-
-
ATIYACHMENT “A”
1.
2.
3.
4.
Condition No. 76.B. of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3001 and
Condition No. 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3002 were amended
to require that Alga Road (from Mimosa Street to El Camino Real) be
improved to, or in excess of major arterial standards (four lanes in width) to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The original condition indicated that
this section of Alga Road may have been improved to less than City arterial
standards, subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Condition No. 1 of Planning Resolution No. 3003 was amended to: (a)
delete mitigation measure 3, which would have restricted the use of all hotel
ballrooms/banquet facilities to guests of the hotel, should parking impacts
occur, and (b) supplement mitigation measure 1 to require that additional
parking in the service area of the hotel shuttle or in Planning Area 11
(restaurant site) parking lot be provided should parking impacts occur. _
A new condition No. 98 was added to Planning Commission Resolution No.
3001, specifying that, “Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the hotel
parking structure, the design for the parking structure shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director. The
proposed design shall not (a) decrease the number of parking spaces (719
spaces) from what was originally proposed and (b) not result in an increase
in the parking structure’s, height above grade.”
The Planning Directors environmental finding for the Environmental Impact
Assessment Form - Part II, Page 9 has been revised to read:
I find that the proposed project is in prior environmental
compliance with the original site development plan which
received a Negative Declaration on October 16, 1987 and is
also in compliance with the final EIR 83-2(A), dated May,
1986, and certified by the City Council in December 1987.
STAFFREPORT
AF’PLrir-, r-ION COMPLETE DATE:
March 15. 1990
0 2
DATE: April 4, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECTZ MP 177KWSDP 86-2.tAYCUP SW5 - AVIARA PLANNIN G AREAS 1.2 10. and
11 - Request for approval of an amendment to Master Plan 177 and Site
Development Plan 86-2 to allow for changes in the design and square footage
allocation of uses for the hotel, sports center, golf course clubhouse and restaurant,
and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for shared parking between the
hotel and sports center.
L RECOMMEWDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3002 recommending
APPROVAL of MP-177(C), ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3001 recommending
APPROVAL of SDP %-2(A), ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3003 recommending
APPROVAL of CUP 90-5 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
IL PROJECI’ DESCRWTI ON AND BACKGROUND
On December 22,1987 the City Council approved the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master
Plan, now named Aviara, and associated applications (including Site Development Plan 86-2 for a
560 suite resort hotel, golf course clubhouse, and community sports center).
Since that time, Four Seasons has been selected as hotel operator to develop the hotel/resort sites.
Upon review of the approved plans, Four Seasons concluded that the design was inadequate for
the operation of a luxury destination resort. The fractured arrangement of conference suites and
hillside retreats did not lend itself to the prompt room service and frequent maid service required
in a top-scale resort setting. Furthermore, the main hotel was inadequate in size and configuration
to accommodate the network of service corridors and expansive rooms, hallways, lobby and
restaurant space required in a typical Four Seasons destination resort. A redesign of the sports
complex and golf clubhouse were also found to be necessary.
MP 177(C)/SDP S6-2(A)/&P 90-S
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1,2,10 & 11
April 4, 1990
Page 2
In accordance with these considerations, Hillman Properties is proposing a Master Plan and Site
Development Plan Amendment to redesign the approved hotel, golf clubhouse, sports center, and
restaurant sites. Hillman Properties is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow shared parking between the hotel and sports center. As shown on Exhibits “A” - “E”, dated
April 4, 1990, the amended hotel site plan consolidates the conference suites and villas into two
garden wing buildings, six villas and a four-key special suite building for distinguished guests. This
eliminates the predominance of surface parking in that area. The hillside retreats were also
combined into a mix of two and three story buildings. The primary hotel building was enlarged to
accommodate all of the meeting and banquet facilities, which were previously dispersed over the
site, and to provide the enormous “back-of-house” facilities required by Four Seasons. The
previously approved four-story main hotel building has been changed to a five story building without
increasing the overall building height. The underground parking structure was expanded to make
up for lost surface parking and the entry road to the main hotel was changed to a split level road
to enhance the aesthetics at the project entryway. Circulation around the hotel grounds will be
controlled through an exclusively valet parking system and a shuttle service between the hotel
buildings, sports center, and golf course clubhouse.
The Sports Complex was redesigned to be entirely under one roof and the square footage of uses
were changed to provide more aerobics, nautilus, and gymnasium areas as shown on
Exhibits “YY” - “DDD”. Since the pool will not be used for Olympic training as originally
envisioned, it has been reduced from 50 meters to 25 meters in size. These changes were also
based upon the Four Seasons’ knowledge of sports center operational requirements. To
accommodate the increase in the aforementioned uses and the corresponding increase in parking
demand, a restaurant was removed from Planning Area 11 leaving one restaurant of approximately
10,ooO square feet. The restaurant design will be addressed when a restaurant operator is
determined. The golf course clubhouse site as shown on Exhibits “NN” - “XX” was changed
primarily to remove the banquet facilities and enclose the golf cart and bag storage below grade.
A lounge and dining room will remain in the building and both will be open to the public.
III.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ANALY!m
Are the proposed changes consistent with the intent of the existing Master Plan?
Is the hotel design consistent with the design requirements and development standards of
the Master Plan?
Are there significant aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed resort redesign?
Does the project redesign require encroachment into any previously deed restricted natural
habitats or open space?
Is the proposed parking adequate for the mixed uses in the four planning areas?
-
MP 177(C)RDP S~-~(A)/LOP 90-5
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1,2,10 & 11
April 4, 1990
Page 3
6. Can the following findings be made for the proposed Conditional Use Permit:
a. Is the shared parking between the hotel and sports center necessary or desirable for
the development of the community, essentially in harmony with the various elements
and objectives of the general plan, not detrimental to existing uses or to uses
specilically permitted in the zone in which the proposed shared parking is to be
located?
b. Is the site adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed shared parking?
C. Can all of the setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested shared parking to existing or permitted future uses in the
neighborhood be provided and maintained?
d. Is the street system serving the proposed shared parking adequate to properly handle
the traffic generated by the proposed use?
DISCUSSION
1. MASTER PLAN CONSISTENCY
One of the primary goals of Master Plan 177 was to provide a “world class destination resort”
which was to be the “focal point of the entire Master Plan Community.” When the site
development plan and master plan were being formal&xl, no hotel operator was involved in the
design of the resort complex The intent of the hotel design was to provide a destination resort
configured to accommodate conventioneers, tourists traveling as small families and large groups, and
local groups using banquet facilities and wishing to take advantage of the lagoon views. To satisfy
this intent, the hotel was designed as follows:
254 guestrooms in the main hotel
144 conference suites with approximately 20,000 square feet of meeting space.
90 hillside retreat suites
72 hotel villas
22,500 square feet of conference rooms, banquet and ballroom facilities in the main hotel.
4,700 square feet of specialty restaurant and cafe in the main hotel.
As discussed previously, the hotel operator, Four Seasons, has created a new design that should
fulfdl their operational needs more efficiently and effectively than possible with the original design,
while still remaining in compliance with the original intent of the Master Plan. The proposed
changes will produce a design as follows:
320 guestrooms in the main hotel
130 guestrooms in the garden wing buildings
39 hotel villas
MP 177(C)/SDP 86-2(A)/CUP 90-S
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10 & 11
April 4,199O
34,000 square feet of conference and banquet facilities in the main hotel.
8,500 square feet of specialty restaurant and cafe in the main hotel.
3,000 square feet of bistro in the garden wing buildings
This plan consolidates all of the conference and banquet facilities into the main hotel, reducing the
amount of traffic between the conference suites and main building thus providing quicker, more
convenient service to the conventioneers. The new plan also creates villas that are more secluded
and functionally independent for the vacationing small families. The bistro was added to the garden
wing buildings to provide both restaurant and room service functions to the guests without relying
completely on the main hotel.
The main hotel, as proposed, will act as the central facility for “back of house” functions such as
laundry, food preparation, and garbage disposal. The associated hotel buildings, sports center, and
golf course clubhouse will be serviced with electric carts that will transport supplies, laundry, and
trash between these locations and the main hotel. Since the proposed parking scheme is exclusively
valet, the electric carts will also serve as shuttles between the hotel buildings, sports center, and
golf course clubhouse for both guests of the hotel and local visitors.
In summary, all of the uses originally approved for the hotel, sports center, and golf course
clubhouse are being provided. The applicant has assured staff that the redesign and reallotment
of use proportions are necessary in order to provide destination resort class service. It is staffs
opinion, therefore, that the intent of the Master Plan is being fulfilled by this amendment.
2. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSISTENCY
When evaluating the proposed project’s consistency with development standards, staff considered
height, construction materials, coverage, setbacks, and extent of grading. The height provisions of
the Master Plan state that no area above 35 feet in height, as defined in Section 21.04.065 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, can be used for liveable area. Any protrusion above this height shall be
for architectural features only. However, a fifth story of habitable space, as proposed, could be
accommodated by a Master Plan Amendment. The proposed design is 35 feet in height as
measured per Section 21.04.065 (i.e. 45 to roof midpoint on the downhill side of the building) and
all fwe stories are below this 35 feet elevation maximum. In addition, the proposed development
does not obstruct any existing views from public or private lands, except those yet to be developed
within Aviara.
The Master Plan also stipulates that, except for the main hotel and conference suites, 50% of the
structures are to be two stories or less and for those structures that are three stories, 50% of the
building must be only two stories in height. With the proposed design, excluding the hotel, 50%
of all structures are two stories or less in height. Since the original three story conference suites
have been eliminated, a lesser proportion of the proposed three story buildings have been required
to have two story elements. (66% versus the previously required 50%). The hotel height from the
entrance to the main hotel has been lowered from four to two stories and all construction materials
have remained the same.
MP 177(C)/SDP S6-2(A),&P 90-5
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1,2,10 & 11
April 4,199O
The lot coverage of buildings is remaining approximately the same, however consolidation of
buildings has provided more expansive landscaped areas. Elimination of virtually all of the surface
parking has also greatly increased landscaped areas. The extent of grading falls within similar geographic limits, and because a previously approved stairway between the main hotel and villas has
been eliminated, the overall grading scheme has been reduced.
Setbacks between the hotel buildings are similar to those originally proposed but because of the
consolidation of buildings, are less of an issue than before. The applicant has proposed, however,
that the minimum distance between the sports center building and neighboring residential structures
(Planning Area 9) be reduced from 200 feet to 175 feet. When comparing the original site plan
with the new proposal, the location of the sports center buildings has not significantly changed.
The proposed change in distancing, therefore, seems to be a prelude to a change in the approved
site plan for Planning Area 9. Staff feels that this issue should be discussed when the development
in Planning Area 9 is considered and therefore does not recommend support of a reduced building
setback from 200 feet to 175 feet.
In summary, despite the changes in design, it is staffs opinion that the new project meets the
development standards and intended design requirements of the Master Plan.
3. RESORT AESTHETICS
The Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort, when addressing
the aesthetics of the resort area, states that although the hotel will be “massive in scale” and
“extremely visible,” it will not create adverse visual impacts. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that the resort is intended to be “the visual focal point of the community,” and that the maximum
building height for the structure shall be maintained at 35 feet. (excluding architectural features).
As proposed, the new hotel design exposes more building mass to the south in that the wall area
on the southern elevations has been increased. The consolidation of the eastern villas into the
garden wing buildings also presents more mass to the lagoon perspectives. According to the
applicant, this redesign was done to maximize the number of guestrooms with a view of the lagoon
and ocean in keeping with the expectations of a luxury destination resort. Staff has worked with
the applicant to soften some of the visual effects of this redesign. Specifically, the five-story
elements of the main hotel and the three-story elements of the garden wing have been redesigned
to include columns between balconies, flower boxes between the 2nd and 3rd stories, and
protrusions where necessary to provide relief to the elevations. The southern villas have been
reduced in height or eliminated to better lit the original design and allow visual greenbelts between
stratified areas of development. A large portion of the third story on both the northern villas and
the garden wing buildings have been “pulled-back” to better follow the slope of the hillside and
conform to the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Overall, staff believes that the proposed resort redesign does not create any significant visual
impacts because the resort structures still comply with the criteria for determining visual
insignificance as established within the certified EIR for Master Plan - 177, (i.e.: (1) the resort
hotel is acknowledged as the visual focal point of the community, and (2) the maximum building
height have been maintained at 35 feet).
MP 177(C)/SDP 86-2(A),&P 90-5
AVIAFLA PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10 & 11
April 4, 1990
Pape 6
4. ENCROACHMENT
The new development plan does encroach into areas originally approved as Open Space by the City
and placed under deed restriction by the California Coastal Commission. The applicant, however,
is proposing to trade areas not previously deed restricted for the proposed encroachments on a one-
for-one basis. These “giveback” areas have not been graded and were certified as viable habitats
by Westec Services on March 13, 1990. Exhibits “D” - “E”, dated April 4, 1990 show the areas of
increased and decreased encroachment. An area not addressed in this trade off exhibit is the
aforementioned stairway and water feature structure that was to connect the main hotel with the
villas on the eastern ridge. This stairway has been eliminated in the proposed amendment
preserving the entire area as natural open space. No encroachments are proposed for the golf
course clubhouse, sports center, or restaurant sites.
Considering the above mentioned stairway and the fact that all trade off areas balance, staff feels
that the proposed encroachments are acceptable. These areas of encroachment and new open
space shali also be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission for approval prior to any grading
operations, and has been so conditioned.
5. PARKING
To assess the adequacy of parking for the resort and related structures, staff compared the
proposed parking scheme with the approved plan, comparable projects, and the parking standards
of another City. The parking requirements for the original hotel design, as stated in the Master
Plan development standards, were as follows:
1.2 spaces per guestroom.
1.5 spaces per conference suite.
1 space per 150 square feet of meeting/banquet facilities.
No parking was required for the restaurant within the hotel since no signage was allowed
on the exterior of the building and, therefore most of the patrons were to be hotel guests.
Both the sports center and golf clubhouse were parked according to Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. It was anticipated that periodic shared parking between the hotel and sports
center would be needed and a provision was placed in the Master Plan to allow this under a
Conditional Use Permit.
In the proposed hotel design the number of guestrooms and square footage of meeting space has
been reduced by 13-15% from the original. The number of parking spaces has also been reduced
by 13%.
The proposed hotel design, therefore, accommodates a parking standard very similar to that of the
original Master Plan, as follows:
1.2 spaces per guestroom.
1 space per 150 square feet of meeting banquet facilities.
No parking for the restaurants (including the hotel restaurant and Garden Wing
Bistro).
MP 177(C)/SDP 86-2(A)/,& 90-5
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10 & 11
April 4,19!90
Although the restaurant square footage has increased, the same provisions for no signage and
orientation towards the interior of the hotel buildings have been required, except for a directional
sign adjacent to the Bistro. This new proposal is also exclusively valet parking and has been
conditioned to remain as such. In conversations with Wimberly, Allison, Tong, and Goo, the
project architects, and Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, the consulting traffic engineers, it was pointed
out that valet parking can increase the effective parking capacity by at least 15%, on (an additional
107 spaces,) through stacking of automobiles in circulation aisles.
The sports center parking, as proposed, comes very close to that required by Carlsbad Municipal
Code (376 spaces required versus 362 spaces provided). The parking supplied has increased
proportionally with the increase in parking intensive uses (e.g. aerobics, and nautilus). The golf
course clubhouse is also parked very close to that required by Code if all of the dining and lounge
facilities are taken into account. 182 spaces required with 178 spaces provided). Both the sports
center and the clubhouse will be used by hotel guests using the shuttle system, however, which will
make up for the overall shortage of 18 parking spaces.
The parking will be monitored on a yearly basis by Condition No. 1 of the Conditional Use Permit.
If any changes to the valet parking system are proposed or if any negative parking impacts are
identified, it has been conditioned that an amendment to the Site Development Plan and the
Conditional Use Permit be processed. Some options for alleviating the parking situation would be
to restrict the sport center hours of operation, locate additional parking in the area and provide
shuttle service, and restrict ballroom use to hotel guests as required. In addition, since this Site
Development Plan Amendment does not address the architecture or development standards of the
proposed restaurant in Planning Area 11, staff has conditioned that a Site Development Plan
Amendment be processed prior to the construction of this restaurant. At that time, it will be
possible to restrict the size of the restaurant relative to the availability of adequate parking.
When comparing this parking proposal with other mixed use projects, the results are quite similar.
According to Linscott, Law and Greenspan, the Hyatt Resort on Hilton Head Island, South
Carolina and Hyatt Scottsdale Resort require a parking of approximately 1.0 spaces per guestroom,
and the Doubletree Inn at Monterey has a parking requirement of 1.3 spaces per guestroom while
the Four Seasons Aviara Resort is parked at 1.6 spaces per guestroom. Staff has also reviewed the
parking standards of the City of Palm Springs, which specifically address mixed use resort parking,
relative to the proposed amendment. The required parking per the standards was 1.3 spaces per
room. Based upon the above findings that the proposed resort parking ratio is comparable to
other existing mixed use destination resorts, the increase in parking spaces (15%) created by the
exclusive valet service, and because of the safeguards included within the conditions of
CUP 90-5, as discussed below, staff supports the parking provided by the proposed site development
plan and master plan amendments.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SHARED PARKING
a. Is the shared parking necessary and not detrimental?
As discussed in Exhibit “EEE”, the “Parking Demand Study”, the shared parking is necessary
when the hotel is at or near full occupancy and non-hotel guests wish to use the hotel’s
MP 177(C)/SDP 86-2(A)/WP 90-5
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1,2,10 & 11
April 4,19!xl
Pape 8
b.
C.
d.
ballrooms and/or banquet facilities. It is anticipated &at this will most likely occur on
weekends. The shared parking is desireable and in harmony with the General Plan because
it provides parking facilities for tourist serving amenities. The proposed use of parking
facilities is not detrimental because as stated in the “Parking Demand Study”, low sports
center occupancy is anticipated at this time, and the hours of operation of sports center will
be controlled through Condition No. 1 of the Conditional Use Permit. The shared parking
is Periodically needed to accommodate all of the proposed uses, therefore it is not
detrimental to these uses or surrounding uses.
Is the site adequate in size and shape ? The shared parking at the sports center will be
confined to the parking structure. This keeps the more accessible surface parking in both
Planning Area 10 and 11 free for those visitors using the sports center and restaurant.
Since the sports center use is expected to be low, at the time that shared parking is needed,
per Exhibit “EEE”, staff feels that the facilities are adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed shared parking.
Call all features necessary be provided?
The parking structure involved in the shared parking conforms to all development standards
of the Master Plan. As such, all setbacks, walls, fences, and landscaping required by the
Master Plan can be provided.
Is the street system adequate?
When a non guest arrives at the hotel for a ballroom function or for Sunday Brunch, they
will enter the Porte Cochere and give their car to the valet. The valet will then drive the
car down the shuttle road, onto Finch Lane, and into the sports center parking structure.
The valets will then be shuttled back up to the main hotel. The ballroom users can
circulate around the entire resort via the shuttle service which will run at sufficiently
frequent intervals as determined by the Planning Director. Both the shuttle road and Finch
Lane are adequate to accommodate this periodic increase in traffic. It should also be noted
that the shared parking request is only needed when the hotel is at full occupancy.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, the resort site has been redesigned to better accommodate the necessary functions
of a luxury destination resort as defined by Four Seasons, the hotel operator. This redesign still
conforms to the intent, design standards, and recommendations of all supporting documents, namely
Master Plan 177, Site Development Plan 86-2, and the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort
Master Plan Environmental Impact Report. Staff therefore recommends approval of the proposed
amendments to Master Plan 177 and Site Development Plan 86-2 and Conditional Use Permit
90-5 with the provision that 200 feet remain as a required setback from the sports center to
residential structures.
-
MP 177(C)/SDP 86-2(A)/iUP 90-5
AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1,2,10 & 11
April 4, 1990
Page 9
Iv. ENwRoNIuENTALREvIEw
The Planning Director has determined that the changes proposed by this project still conform to
the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and
Resort Master Plan and, as such, has deemed it in prior environmental compliance on March 14,
1990.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3002
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3001
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3003
Exhibit “EEE”, dated April 4, 1990
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Notice of Determination
Environmental Impact Assessment, Part II
Local Facilities Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Exhibit “X”, City Council Ordinance No. w/attachment “FFF”
Exhibits “A” - “DDD”, dated April 4, 1990
MG:lh
March 14, 1990
,,AJIBIT 'IEEE" April 4, 1990
LINSCOTT, LAW 81 GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING l TRAFFIC ENGINEERING l PARKING
1580 CORPORATE DRIVE. SUITE 122. COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626 l (7 14) 641-l 587
November 27, 1989
PHILIP M LINSCOlT. P.E.
JACK M GREENSPAN. P.E
WILLIAM A LAW, P.E
PAUL W. WILKINSON. P.E.
LEON 0 WARD, P E.
DONALD W. BARKER. P.E.
Mr. Paul Klukas HILLMAN PROPERTIES WEST 2011 Palomar Airport Road - Suite 206 Carlsbad, California 92009
Subject: PARKING DEMAND STUDY FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Klukas:
Pursuant to your request, we have prepared the following study of the demand for vehicle parking which could be expected to be generated by the planned Four Seasons Aviara Resort (which includes a 450 key resort hotel, a public golf course, sports center and free-standing restaurant uses) at Batiquitos Lagoon, in the City of Carlsbad, California. It is our understanding that the additional 42 hotel villa units will be self contained, with two separate covered parking spaces per unit. As a result, the hotel villa units will not be discussed in this study.
In forecasting parking demand, we have analyzed each functional element of the Aviara Resort Hotel, and the other associated uses, with respect to their most probable usage pattern. This analysis is based on the results of field studies of various resort hotel operations in California, Arizona, and South Carolina, plus knowledge of resort hotel characteristics gained in working with other similar hotel developments.
Because of its location at Batiquitos Lagoon, easy freeway access, and proximity to urban San Diego, the Aviara Resort is expected to appeal to local conferees, business and professional meetings and banquets. This parking demand analysis recognizes this attraction to local residents and considers mixed-use of the conference/meeting/banquet space, and of the other associated uses, by both guests and non- guests. Full guest room occupancy is assumed, along with the most likely use of each functional element.
OTHER OFFICES l PASADENA (213) 681-2629 8 SAN DIEGO (619) 299-3090
AN LGPWB COMPANY
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Two
Briefly, the results of our parking demand forecast for the Four Seasons Aviara Resort Hotel (which includes employee parking) shows a peak need for a total of 920 spaces on a Saturday evening (2.04 spaces per key). This is based on full hotel occupancy, non-guest use of the main ballroom, guest use of the junior ballroom and a mix of guest and non- guest use of the other meeting/banquet space. Peak weekday demand is projected at 712 spaces (1.58 spaces per key).
The golf course (which includes an 18 hole playing course, a driving range, and a clubhouse with dining room, bar and banquet room) is projected to need a total of 167 parking spaces at the mid-day peak. Since the clubhouse is located on Batiquitos Lagoon some distance from the main resort hotel building, golf course parking can be expected to be self contained.
An early evening peak demand for 318 parking spaces is projected for the sports center (269 spaces at mid-day). This forecast does not include the demand for parking that will be generated by the tournament court, which will be treated under Conditional Use Permit procedures as a separate event special analysis. The restaurant uses which overlook the lagoon and are adjacent to the sports center, show a peak demand for 246 parking spaces at mid-day weekday/Sunday, and on Saturday evening, and 185 spaces in the early evening. These planned uses, which will serve both resort hotel guests and local residents, will share parking using the planned sports center parking structure.
On Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings, when the main ballroom is anticipated to be in use and occupied by non- hotel guests, there will be a further opportunity for shared parking in the sports center parking facility. These are times when activity at the sports center is expected to be very low, and the vacant parking spaces can be used by the resort hotel. When the main ballroom is being used by non- guests, a total of 206 hotel related vehicles are expected to be parked in the sports center parking structure (along with 126 vehicles associated with the restaurant use).
A total supply of 1,407 parking spaces will be provided. With the exception of weekend (Saturday) evenings, when the hotel will share parking at the sports center, the parking supply at each location is sufficient to meet projected demand.
- -
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Three
Resort Hotel Develonment Proaram
Table 1, at the rear of this letter report, presents the current development program. A total of 450 keyed guest accommodations are planned. There will be 320 keys in the main building and 130 keys in the garden wing, which will be separate from the main building . Food/beverage service will be provided in three restaurants with a total of 434 seats. Dining will be both indoor and outdoor. Two restaurants and a private dining room with a total of 322 seats will be in the main building. The third restaurant and a private dining room with 112 seats total will be in the garden wing. Beverage service will be provided by a lobby bar (83 seats), a main bar (70 seats), and a pool bar (75 outdoor seats).
Conference/meeting/banquet activity will be accommodated in 31,800 square feet (SF) of space. Two ballrooms which are 12,000 SF and 4,000 SF respectively will be provided. There will also be five large meeting rooms totaling 9,600 SF and six small meeting rooms totaling 3,300 SF. Also planned is a 2,000 SF theater. This facility will be used in conjunction with other conference/meeting space whose parking need is already accounted for.
A sundries and gift shop of 5,700 SF will be provided for the convenience of resort hotel guests. This shop will be located off the lobby with all customer access being internal to the hotel (no customer access from the outside).
Associated Development Prouram
The associated development program is also shown in Table 1. An 18 hole public golf course, which also includes a driving range (22 tees) and a clubhouse (35,197 SF) is planned. The clubhouse will include a dining room and bar (2,547 SF) and a banquet room (2,040 SF).
Also planned is a sports center with 11 tennis courts plus a tournament court, four racquetball courts and a 44,494 SF sports center building (health club). Adjacent to the sports center will be two free-standing restaurants totaling 17,380
SF of building area.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Four
Parkina Demand Forecast
Table 2 presents our forecast of parking demand for the Four Seasons Resort Hotel and associated uses by functional element and key time period. The results of our analysis show that a peak resort hotel parking demand for 920 spaces (including employees) can be expected to be produced in the early evening on a Saturday. This translates to 2.04 spaces per key and is the result of assumed full hotel occupancy, non-guest use of the main ballroom, guest use of the junior ballroom, plus a combination of guest and non-guest use of the other meeting/banquet space. Peak weekday hotel parking demand is projected at 712 spaces (1.58 spaces per key).
The golf course, which is essentially a stand alone use, is projected to need a total of 167 spaces at mid-day, of which 102 spaces are associated with the clubhouse (dining room and bar and banquet luncheon). Similarly, early evening parking demand (weather and light permitting during most of the year) is forecast at 137 spaces.
The sports center is forecast to need 318 spaces in the early evening and 269 spaces at mid-day. The restaurant use which is adjacent to the sports center is projected to need a total of 246 spaces at mid-day and 185 spaces in the early evening. These two uses will share parking using the sports center parking structure.
As shown on the next page, we forecast a total demand for 1,394 spaces. This is based on stand-alone golf course parking and shared parking use between the sports center and the adjacent free-standing restaurant use on weekdays, plus these uses and the resort hotel on weekends (Friday, Saturday, Sunday). It should be noted that the number of parking spaces in the sports center parking facility reflect shared parking use.
The opportunity to meet expected weekend hotel non-guest meeting/banquet parking demand through shared parking at the sports center will be through management of ballroom use at the hotel. By limiting outside use of the main ballroom to Friday, Saturday and Sunday, when use of the health club portion of the sports center is low, the hotel can share parking with the sports center and the adjacent restaurant use.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Five
Parking Demand
Parking Weekday Saturday Use/Location SUPPlY Mid-day Early Eve
Hotel 714 712 920131 Golf Course 178 167 135 Sports Center 395[1] 269 Restaurant 120 246[2]
Total 1,407 1,394 1,364
[l] Shared parking facility [2] 126 shared parking spaces at sports center (246-120=126) [3] 206 shared parking spaces at sports center (920-714=206)
Tables 3 through 11 illustrate our detailed projection of parking demand for each functional program element, to include the assumptions made in each case. Five time periods have been analyzed as shown below. These periods represent those points which experience indicates to be key times of day with respect to parking demand.
Weekday - Mid-day Weekday - Early Evening Weekday - Late Evening Saturday - Early evening Sunday - Mid-day
Hotel Guest Accommodation Demand
Parking demand generated by the Four Seasons Aviara guest accommodations is presented in Table 3. Based on previous surveys of existing resort hotel operations, we have assumed that 60 percent of the guest keys would have an associated vehicle to be provided parking (0.60 spaces per key). We have further assumed full (100 percent) occupancy of all guest accommodations. In recognition of the many attractions nearby in San Diego (and in South Orange County) we have assumed that many guests would be off-site during the day. Mid-day guest parking demand is projected at 135 spaces and overnight demand at 270 parking spaces.
-
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Six
Hotel Food/Beveraae Parkina Demand
Table 4 presents our resort hotel restaurant parking demand forecast, and Table 5 bar-lounge parking demand. Assumed in the restaurant demand projection is outdoor dining, high occupancy rates, and non-guest dining attracted by the menu and surroundings of the Four Seasons tradition. Based on anticipated operation, the main dining room is assumed open only in the evening. Also assumed is a popular Sunday brunch. A demand for 50 spaces at mid-day, 65 spaces in the early eveningi and 76 parking spaces for Sunday brunch is forecast.
Bar-lounge parking demand is projected at 36 spaces in the early evening and 40 spaces during Sunday brunch. During both these periods 100 percent occupancy and non-guest use is assumed. The outdoor pool bar is also assumed to have 100 percent guest use, and is further assumed to be closed in the late evening.
Seating in both the resort hotel restaurants and bar-lounge areas is based on program figures provided by the project architect, WATG (Wimberly Allison Tong C Goo).
It should be noted, that while we have projected times when there will be 100 percent occupancy, in reality this seldom happens. As a practical matter, not every seat is occupied. All tables may be used, but there will be some empty seats; for example, two or three persons at a table for four.
Hotel Conference/Meetina/Banouet Parkina Demand
Parking demand associated with the Four Seasons Resort Hotel conference/meeting/banquet space is shown in Table 6. The room occupancies have been estimated based on 15 SF per person for both the two ballrooms and the five large meeting rooms, and on 30 SF per person for the six small rooms.
In recognition of the expected attraction of community events to the Four Seasons, the main ballroom (capacity of 800 persons) has been assumed to be used by Carlsbad/San Diego Region residents on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings, and used only in conjunction with other space or guest oriented events on weekdays. We have further assumed that the junior ballroom ( with a capacity of 270 persons) would be used by guests whenever the main ballroom is in use
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Seven
by non-guests. When the main ballroom is closed, or in use in conjunction with hotel activities, the junior ballroom has been assumed to be occupied by non-hotel guests.
The five large meeting rooms (640 persons total capacity) and six small meeting rooms (115 persons) have been assumed to be used by resort hotel guests and by local residents. Furthermore, we have assumed that mid-day events would use the junior ballroom, with the main ballroom being reserved for large evening events.
The results of this analysis show a peak early evening demand on a Saturday for a total of 481 spaces; 320 spaces in connection with the main ballroom (with guest use of the junior ballroom), and 161 spaces in connection with the meeting rooms. Mid-day parking demand during the week is projected at 379 spaces (180 junior ballroom and 199 meeting room). On Sunday at mid-day a need for 279 parking spaces is forecast.
It should be noted that the 2,000 SF theater, which is a part of the conference/meeting space has not been included in this parking demand analysis. The theater is provided to be used in conjunction with other space whose occupants have already been included in the parking demand analysis.
Hotel Retail Parkina Demand
Hotel retail parking demand is presented in Table 7. There is no projected customer parking need, since the 5,700 SF sundries and gift shop is intended for the convenience of guests. However, there will be a need for employee parking. The planned retail space is expected to have a total of six employees on duty. Six spaces are projected to be needed at mid-day on a weekday, Saturday and on a Sunday, and three spaces in the early evening on a weekday.
Hotel ERIDlOVee Parking Demand
Table 8 presents our forecast of hotel employee parking demand. Staffing is projected at one person per key, with 5/7th of the staff at work each day. An average vehicle occupancy of 1.5 persons per auto is assumed. This is based on an employee travel survey at the Monterey Doubletree Inn. A mid-day need for 139 employee parking spaces is projected.
- -
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Eight
Early evening employee parking demand is forecast at 102 spaces, and Sunday mid-day (brunch) 118 employee spaces.
Golf Course Parkina Demand
Table 9 presents our analysis of golf course parking demand. Included in the analysis is the projected demand generated by the 18 hole course, the driving range (22 tees) and the clubhouse (which includes a 140 seat dining room-bar, and a 140 person banquet room). The Carlsbad City requirement for 6.0 spaces per hole on the golf course and 1.0 spaces per tee on the driving range have been used to determine base parking demand (before the application of usage and hotel guest factors). Use of the banquet room by non-guests has been assumed. Furthermore, since golf is an integral part of the resort hotel (with starting times booked in advance), 50 percent of the golf course and driving range users have been assumed to be hotel guests.
A mid-day peak total need of 167 spaces is projected (65 on the golf course and driving range and and 102 in support of the clubhouse dining room-bar and banquet room). Early evening demand is projected at 137 spaces, and Sunday mid- day at 156 parking spaces.
Sports Center Parking Demand
The sports center parking demand forecast is presented in Table 10. Base parking demand for the tennis and racquetball courts is projected at 4.0 spaces per court to account for persons playing, waiting to play, and having just finished playing. A 50-50 mix of singles and doubles is assumed. For the sports center building (health club) a base parking demand ratio of 6.7 spaces per 1,000 SF (1.0 spaces per 150 SF) has been used. This demand ratio is based on recent data from parking surveys by Linscott, Law & Greenspan.
On this basis, a peak weekday total in the early evening of 318 spaces is projected. Weekday at mid-day a 269 space need has been projected, and on Sunday at mid-day 112 parking spaces. At this point, it should be noted that on a Friday evening health club usage is low, and Friday evening demand is projected to be the same as Sunday mid-day (67 spaces). This constitutes a shared parking opportunity between the resort hotel and the sports center parking facility.
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Nine
Commercial (Restaurant) Parking Demand
Table 11 presents the parking demand forecast for the non- resort hotel restaurant use adjacent to the sports center. Base parking demand has been determined using the Carlsbad City Code. Twenty percent of the restaurant patrons are assumed to be resort hotel guests and 80 percent non-guests.
A peak mid-day restaurant demand (weekday and Sunday) of 246 parking spaces is projected. Early evening parking demand is forecast at 185 spaces.
Shared Parkins Analvsis
The sports center and restaurant uses, which are adjacent to one another, will share parking in the planned sports center parking structure. A total of 515 spaces will be developed; 395 spaces in structured parking at the sports center, and 120 spaces in surface parking next to the restaurant use.
On Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings, when the hotel main ballroom is anticipated to be in use and occupied by non-guests, there will be further opportunity for shared parking in the sports center parking facility. These are
times when activity at the sports center is expected to be low, and vacant parking spaces can be used by the resort hotel.
Table 12 presents the shared parking analysis for a Saturday in the early evening, the period of anticipated peak demand at the resort hotel. Comparison of planned parking supply (shown in parenthesis under the shared parking column for each use in Table 12) with projected demand (see Table 2) reveals that except for Saturday evening, expected parking demand can be accommodated by the supply of parking located at each use.
On Saturday in the early evening, 206 spaces in the sports center parking facility will be shared with the hotel, and 126 spaces with the restaurant use. It is expected that the hotel related vehicles parked at the sports center will be associated with meeting/banquet activity (employees and late arriving attendees). The meeting/banquet attendee vehicles will be valet parked with drop-off and pick-up at the hotel. Employees will self park and be transported to and from the hotel by shuttle.
-
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
MR. PAUL KLUKAS November 27, 1989 Page Ten
We are pleased to have the opportunity to prepare this parking demand study for the Four Seasons Aviara Resort Hotel. Should there be any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
LINSCOTT, LAW t GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
891306LR. 02/07
Attachments; Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12
Development Program Parking Demand Forecast Guest Parking Demand Restaurant Parking Demand Bar - Lounge Parking Demand Conference/Meeting/Banquet Parking Demand Retail Parking Demand Employee Parking Demand Golf Course Parking Demand Sports Center Parking Demand Commercial (Restaurant) Parking Demand Shared Parking Analysis
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE1
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
Use
HOTEL
DeSCriDtiOn
Guest Accommodation
Main Building Garden Wing 320 Keys 130 Kevs 450 Keys
Food/Beverage
Restaurant Main Dining Room (dinner only) 142 Seats (includes private room - 12 seats) Cafe (140 indoor - 40 outdoor) 180 Seats Garden Wing Specialty Restaurant (70 indoor - 30 outdoor) 112 Seats (private room - 12 seats) 434 Seats
Bar-Lounge Bar (56 seats, 14 stand-up) Lobby Bar Pool Bar (outdoor)
Conference/Meetina/Banauet
Ballroom - Main 12,000 SF Junior 4,000 SF
Meeting Room 2,500 SF 2,300 SF 1,800 SF (2 @ 1500)3,000 SF 800 SF (5 @ 500) 2,500 SF
Board Room (16 seats) 900 SF
Theater
70 Seats 83 Seats 75 Seats 228 Seats
16,000 SF
12,900 SF
900 SF 2,000 SF 31,800 SF
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 1 (Continued)
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
Use Descrintion
Retail
Sundries & Gift Shop 5,700 SF
GOLF COURSE
Golf - Playing Courses Driving Range 18 Holes 22 Tees
Club House Includes Dining-Bar 2,547 SF Banquet Room 2,040 SF Cart Storage 5,960 SF
35,197 SF
SPORTS CENTER
Tennis - Playing Courts - Tournament
Racquetball
Sports Center Building
COMMERCIAL
Restaurant Restaurant 10,000 SF 7,380 SF
11 Courts 1 Court
4 Courts
44,494 SF
17,380 SF
JMG/ck/2-8913lM-111/158
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 2
PARKING DEMAND FORECAST FOUR SEASONS AVIAR?i RESORT Carlsbad, California
Use .
Weekday Sat Sun Mid- Early Late Early Mid- Description Day Eve Eve Eve Day
HOTEL Guest Accommodation 450 Keys Food/Beverage Restaurant 434 Seats Bar-Lounge 228 Seats Conference/Meeting/Banquet Ballroom 16,000 SF Meeting Room/Board Room 13,800 SF Theatre 2,000 SF Retail 5,700 SF Employees 450 pers SUB TOTAL
135 230 270 230 135
50 65 25 65 76
5 36 15 36 40
180 108 27 320 108 197 161 40 161 171 See Note r11 6 6 3 6 6 139 102 73 102 118
712 708 453 920 654 (spaces per keys) (1.58) (1.57) (1.01) (2.04) (1.45)
GOLF COURSE Playing Course 18 Hole 54 36 Closed 27 54 Driving Range 22 Tee 11 7 Closed 6 11 Club House 35,197 SF 102 94 40 102 91 SUB TOTAL 167 137 40 135 156
SPORTS CENTER Tennis Tennis 11 Courts 33 36 Closed 17 33 Tournament 1 Court See Note [2] Racquetball 4 Courts 12 14 8 6 12 Sports Center Building 44,494 SF 224 268f31 45 40 67 SUB TOTAL 269 318 53 63 112
COMMERCIAL Restaurant 17,380 SF 246 185 86 246 246
GRAND TOTAL 1,394 1,348 632 1,364 1,168
[l] Used in conjunction with other conference/meeting space whose occupants are already accounted for in parking analysis. [23 Special analysis based on number of seats at Tournament Court, not a part of this analysis. [33 For Friday evening, Sport Center Building parking demand same on Sunday mid-day (67 spaces).
JHG/ck/Z-8913G6-lT2/158
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 3
GUEST PARKING DEMAND
FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day 135 spaces - Early Evening 230 spaces - Late Evening 270 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 230 spaces Sunday - Mid-day 135 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - 450 keys (guest accommodations) - 0.60 vehicles per key (based on Hyatt Hilton Head Resort Survey; October, 1983) - Non-conference @ 100% occupancy - 50% guests on-site - 50% off-site
450 x 0.60 x 0.50 = 135 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - 85% guests on-site - 15% off-site
450 x 0.60 x 0.85 = 230 spaces
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - 100% guests on-site
450 x 0.60 x 1.0 = 270 spaces
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - 85% guests on-site
450 x 0.60 x 0.85 = 230 spaces
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - 50% guests on-site
450 x 0.60 x 0.50 = 135 spaces
JMG/ck/2-89130&1T3/158
- 15% off-site
- 50% off-site (checked out)
-
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 4
RESTAURhNT PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day 50 spaces Early Evening 65 spaces Late Evening 25 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 65 Spaces Sunday - Mid-day 76 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Specialty Dining (142 seats) - closed - Cafe (180 seats) - open - Garden Wing Bistro (112 seats) - open - Non-conference - 85% average occupancy - 50% guest - 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto
292 x 0.85 x 0.50/2.5 = 50 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - All restaurants open (434 seats) - Warm evening with outdoor seating - 75% average occupancy - 50% guest - 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto
434 x 0.75 x 0.50/2.5 = 65 spaces
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - All restaurants open - Outdoor dining closed (70 seats) - Indoor dining (364 seats) - 35 percent average occupancy - 50% guest - 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto
364 x 0.35 x 0.50/2.5 = 25 spaces
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Same as weekday
434 x 0.75 x 0.50/2.5 = 65 Spaces
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Cafe and Garden Wing Bistro open (292 seats) - Popular Sunday Brunch - 100% Occupancy - 35% guest - 65% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto
292 x 1.0 x 0.65/2.5 = 76 spaces
JHG/ck/t-891306-1741158
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 5
BAR - LOWGE PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day 5 spaces Early Evening 36 spaces Late Evening 15 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 36 Spaces Sunday - Mid-day 40 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Lobby Bar (83 seats) - closed - Bar (70 seats) - open - Pool Bar (75 seats - 100% guest use - 50% Occupancy - 65% guest - 35% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto
70 x 0.50 x 0.35/2.5 = 5 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Lobby Bar (83 seats) - open - Main Bar (70 seats) - open - Pool Bar 100% guest use - 100% occupancy - 65% guest - 35% non-guest @ 1.5 persons per auto
153 x 1.0 x O-35/1.5 = 36 spaces
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - Lobby Bar open 50% occupancy, 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Main Bar open 50% occupancy, 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto Pool Bar - closed
(83 x 0.50 x 0.50/2.5) + (70 x 0.50 x 0.50/2.5) = -I- 8 + 7 = 15 spaces
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Same as weekday
153 x 1.0 x 0.35/1.5 = 36 spaces
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Lobby Bar and Main Bar open (in support of Brunch) 100% occupancy, 65% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Pool Bar 100% guest use
153 x 1.0 x 0.65/2.5 = 40 spaces
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 6
CONFERENCE/MEETING/BANQUET PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day 379 spaces - Early Evening 269 spaces - Late Evening 67 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 481 Spaces Sunday - Mid-day 279 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions
Main Junior Large SlMll Board
Ballroom BalLroom Meeting Room Meeting Roan Room
Size 12,100 SF
naximun Occupancy 800 pers (15 SF/pew)
x occupency Not Used
X Non-guest - -
Vehicle Occupancy - -
4,000 SF 9,600 SF 3,300 SF 900 SF
(5 Rooms) (6 Rooms)
270 pers 640 pers 115 pers 16 pet-s
(15 SF/pers) (15 SF/pers) (30 SF/pers)
100% 65% 50% 100%
100% 65% 50% 0%
1.5 pers/auto 1.5 pm/auto 1.5 pers/auto - -
(270 x 1.0 x 1.0/1.5) + (640 x 0.65 x 0.65/1.5) + (115 x 0.50 x 0.50/1.5) = 180 + 180 + 19 = 379 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Main Ballroom not used - Junior Ballroom open, 270 persons all non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Large Meeting Rooms 430 persons capacity @ 75% average occupancy, 75 percent non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Small Meeting Rooms 310 persons capacity @ 75% average occupancy, 50 percent non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto
(270 x 1.0/2.5) + (640 x 0.75 x 0.75/2.5) + (115 x 0.75 x 0.50/2.5) = 108 + 144 + 17 = 269 spaces
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - 25% of Early Evening
(108 x 0.25) + (144 x 0.25) + (17 x 0.25) = 27 + 36 + 4 = 67 spaces
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 6 (Continued)
CONFERENCE/MEETING/BANQUET PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions
Main Junior Large Small Board
Bal\room Ballroom Meeting Room Meeting Roam RoOIlI
Maximun Occupancy 800 pers 270 pers 640 pers 115 pers 16 pers
(5room) (6rooms)
x occupancy 100% 100% 75% 75% 100%
X Non-guest 100% 0% 75% 50% 0%
Vehicle Occupancy 2.5 pm/auto - - 2.5 pers/auto 2.5 pers auto - -
(800 x 1.0 x 1.0/2.5) + (640 x 0.75 x 0.75/2.5) + (115 x 0.75 x 0.50/2.5) 320 + 144 + 17 = 481
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions
Main
Ballroom
Maximum Occupancy 800 pers
x occupancy Not Used
% Non-guest - -
Vehicle Occqmncy - -
Junior Large sfnall Board
Ballroom Meeting Room Meeting Room Room
270 pers 640 pers 115 pers 16 pers
(5 roam) (6 rooms)
100% 65% 50%
100% 90% 90% 100%
2.5 peWauto 2.5 pm/auto 2.5 pers auto 0%
(270 x 1.0 x 1.0/2.5) + (640 x 0.65 x 0.90/2.5) + (115 x 0.50 x .90/2.5) = 108 + 150 + 21 = 279 spaces
Note: Theater (2,000 SF) used in conjunction with other conference/meeting space use, whose occupants are already accounted for in the parking analysis.
JHG/ck/Z-891306-116/158
-
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 7
RETAIL PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day 6 spaces - Early Evening 6 spaces - Late Evening 3 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 6 spaces Sunday - Mid-day 6 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Sundries & Gift Shop 5,700 SF - 6 employees (@ 1.0 employees per 1000 SF) - All retail open - No customers from outside hotel - Employee parking only @ 1.0 persons per auto
6 x 1.0 = 6 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Same as mid-day
6 x 1.0 = 6 spaces
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - Same as mid-day with 50% of employees
6 x 1.0 x 0.5 = 3 spaces
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Same as weekday
6 x 1.0 = 6 spaces
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Same as weekday
6 x 1.0 = 6 spaces
JMG/ck/Z-8913&S-117/158
-
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
. TABLE 8
EMPLOYEE PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day 139 spaces - Early Evening 102 spaces - Late Evening 73 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 102 spaces Sunday - Mid-day 118 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Staffing @ 1.0 person per guest key - 5/7th of staff at work each day - 65% on duty @ mid-day - Average vehicle occupancy 1.5 persons per auto (Monterey Doubletree Inn Survey, 1982)
450 x 1.0 x 5/7 x 0.65/1.5 = 139 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - 35% of daily staff on duty - Average vehicle occupancy 1.1 persons per auto
450 x 1.0 x 5/7 x 0.35/1.1 = 102 spaces
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - 25% of daily staff on duty - Average vehicle occupancy 1.1 persons per auto
450 x 1.0 x 5/7 x 0.25/1.1 = 73 spaces
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Same as weekday
450 x 1.0 x 5/7 x 0.35/1.1 = 102 spaces
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - 55% of daily staff on duty - Average vehicle occupancy 1.5 persons per auto
450 x 1.0 x 5/7 x 0.55/1.5 = 118 spaces
JHG/ck/Z-8913W118/158
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 9
SUMMARY
GOLF COURSE PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
Weekday - Mid-day 167 spaces - Early Evening 137 spaces - Late Evening 40 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 135 spaces Sunday - Mid-day 156 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Playing course, 18 holes, @ 6.0 spaces per hole (City Code) 1.0 usage factor, 50% hotel guest - 50% non-guest. - Driving range, 22 tees, @ 1.0 spaces per tee (City Code), 1.0 usage factor, 50% hotel guest - 50% non- guest - Dining Room & Bar, 2,547 SF, 140 seats maximum (@ 18 SF per person), 85% occupancy (40% golfer, 60% non-golfer), 50% guest - 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Banquet Room 2,040 SF, 140 persons (@ 15 SF per person) 100% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Employees @ 1.0 persons per 1000 SF (35,197 SF club house) @ 1.1 persons per auto
(18 x 6.0 x 1.0 x 0.50) + (22 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.50) + (140 x 0.8
x 0.60 x 0.50/2.5) + (140 x 1.0/2.5) + (35/1.1) = 54 + 11 + 14 + 56 + 32 = 167 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Summer Evening - Playing course, usage factor 0.67 (2/3 of mid-day) no persons waiting to play, 50% non-guest - Driving range, no lighting, usage factor 0.67, 50% non-guest - Dining Room C Bar 140 seats maximum, 75% occupancy (20% golfer, 80% non-golfer), 50% guest - 50% non- guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Banquet Room 140 persons, 100% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Employees @ 0.67 of mid-day @ 1.1 persons per auto
(18 x 6.0 x 0.67 x 0.50) + (22 x 1.0 x 0.67 x 0.50) + (140 x 0.75 x 0.80 x 0.50/2.5) + (140 x 1.0/2.5) + (35 x 0.67/1.1) = 36 + 7 + 17 + 56 + 21 = 137 spaces
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 9 (Continued)
GOLF COURSE PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESULT Carlsbad, California
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - Playing course closed - Driving range closed - Dining Room 61 Bar, 35% occupancy, 50% guest - 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Banquet Room, 25% occupancy, 100% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Employees @ 50% of mid-day
(140 x 0.35 x 0.50/2.5) + (140 x 0.25/2.5) + (35 x 0.50/1.1) = 10 + 14 + 16 = 40 spaces
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Summer evening - Playing course usage factor 0.50 (l/2 of mid-day) no persons waiting to play, 50% non-guest - Driving range, no lighting, usage factor 0.50, 50% non-guest - Dining Room & Bar 140 seats maximum, 100% occupancy (10% golfer, 90% non-golfer, 50% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Banquet Room 140 persons, 100% non-guest @ 2.5 persons per auto - Employee @ 0.67 of weekday mid-day @ 1.1 persons per auto
(18 x 6.0 x 0.50 x 0.50) + 22 x 1.0 x 0.50 x 0.50) + (140 x 1.0 x 0.90 x 0.50/2.5) (140 x 1.0/2.5) + (35 x 0.67/1.1) = 27 + 6 + 25 + 56 + 21 = 135
SUNDAY MID-DAY
Assumptions - Same as weekday mid-day, except employees at 0.67 of weekday
54 (Playing Course) + 11 (Driving Range) + 70 (Dining Room & Bar, Banquet Room) + 32 x 0.67 = 156 spaces
JMG/ck/Z-891306-lt9/158
-
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 10
SPORTS CENTER PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day 269 spaces - Early Evening 318 spaces - Late Evening 38 spaces Saturday - Early Evening 63 spaces Sunday - Mid-day 112 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Tennis Courts (ll), Racquetball Courts (4), @ 4.0 spaces per court based on 50/50 mix of singles and doubles @ 2.25 persons per auto - Tournament Court (1) not included in this demand forecast. Temporary parking fortournamentprovided based on special analysis of tournament seating - Sports Center Building 44,494 SF @ 6.7 spaces per 1,000 SF (1.0 spaces per 150 SF) based on recent Health Club parking survey by LL&G) - 25% guest - 75% non-guest - Employees included in parking demand rates
(11 x 4.0 x 0.75) + (4 x 4.0 x 0.75) + (44,494 x 6.7/1000 x 0.75) = 33 + 12 + 224 = 269 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Same as mid-day, except 10% guest - 90% non-guest
(11 x 4.0 x 0.90) + (4 x 4.0 x 0.90) + (44,494 x 6.7/1000 x 0.90) = 36 + 14 + 268 = 318
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - Tennis Courts closed - Racquetball Courts @ 50% usage - Sports Center Building @ 15% usage - 100% non-guest
(4 x 4.0 x 0.50 x 1.0) + (44,494 x 6.7/1000 x 0.15 x 1.0) = 8 + 45 = 53
,-
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 10 (Continued)
SPORTS CENTER PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Tennis and Racquetball Courts same as weekday - mid-day with 50% usage factor Sports Center Building @ 15% usage
(11 x 4.0 x 0.50 x 0.75) + (4 x 4.0 x 0.50 x 0.75) + (44,494 x 6.7/1000 x 0.15 x 0.90) = 17 + 6 + 40 = 63
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Tennis and Racquetball Courts same as weekday - mid-day - Sports Center Building @ 25% usage - 10% guest - 90 % non-guest
(11 x 4.0 x 0.75) + (4 x 4.0 x 0.75) + (44,494 x 6.7/1000 x 0.25 x 0.90) = 33 + 12 + 67 = 112 spaces
JMG/ck/Z-891306-lt10/158
Linscott, Law 81 Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 11
COMMERCIAL (RESTAURANT) PARKING DEMAND FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
SUMMARY
Weekday - Mid-day - Early Evening - Late Evening Saturday - Early Evening Sunday - Mid-day
246 spaces 185 spaces 86 spaces 246 spaces 246 spaces
WEEKDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Two restaurants totaling 17,380 SF - 100% occupancy - 20% guest - 80% non-guest - Code parking demand as base @ 1.0 SP/lOO SF for first 4,000 SF; 40 spaces + 1.0 SP/50 SF over 4,000 SF (employees included)
(4,000/100) + (13,380/50) = 40 + 268 = 308 x 1.0 x 0.80 = 246 spaces
WEEKDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - 75% average occupancy - 20% guest - 80% non-guest - Same parking demand base as mid-day
308 x 0.75 x 0.80 = 185 spaces
WEEKDAY - LATE EVENING
Assumptions - 35 percent average occupancy - 20% guest - 80% non-guest - Same parking demand base as mid-day
308 x 0.35 x 0.80 = 86 spaces
SATURDAY - EARLY EVENING
Assumptions - Same as weekday mid-day
308 x 1.0 x 0.80 = 246 spaces
SUNDAY - MID-DAY
Assumptions - Sunday Brunch - Same as weekday mid-day
308 x 1.0 x 0.80 = 246 spaces
JHG/ck/Z-891306-lT11/158
.
_-
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
TABLE 12
SXARXD PARKING ANALYSIS
FOUR SEASONS AVIARA RESORT Carlsbad, California
Use
Hotel [23
Demand Shared Parkinu
Sat Golf Sports [l]
Early Hotel Course Center Restaurant Eve (714 SD) (178 SD) (395 SD) (120 SD)
920 714 206
Golf Course 135 135
Sports Center [3] 63 - 63
Restaurant [3] 246 126 120
TOTAL 1,364[4] 714 135 395 120
[l] Sports Center is primary shared parking facility.
[Z] Hotel shares parking at Sports Center on weekends whenever main ballroom is used by non-guests.
(31 Sports center and restaurant uses share parking on a daily basis.
[4] Note: Total parking supply is 1,407 spaces
JMG/ck/Z-891304-1712/158
.
. BACKGROUND
CASE NO: M - 77 P
APPLICANT: L
REQUEST AND LOCATION: AMENDMENT TO MASTER PLAN AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10, 11; NORTH SHORE OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: JOTS 2. 4. AND 5 OF MAP 12409 AND LOTS 87 AND
88 OF MAP 12410 OF CARTSBAD TRACT 85-35.
APN: 214-170-51; 215-040-02.15, 16: 215-051-10: 215-070-05, 215-
080-02; 216-111-01: 216-150-06.
Acres 209.4 Proposed No. of Lots/Units --
GENERAL PTAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM/RM/OS/RC/N
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone P-C Proposed Zone P-C
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zonina
Site P-C OS/RC/N/RM/RLM
North P-C OS/RC/N/RM/RLM
South P-C OS
East P-C OS/RC/N/RM/m
West P-C OS/RC/N/RM/RL!j
PUBJJC FACILITIES
School District mr) Water -Sewer CARTSBAD
EDU's 761 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date JANUARY 11,
199Q
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other, PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Notice of De Yxmination .
To:
x
Office of Planning and Research F~O= City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palms Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk
County of San Diego
Attn: Mail Drop C-11
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Project No.: MP-177(C)/SDP 862(A)\CUP 90-5
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources
code.
Aviara Plannine Areas 1.2.10. & 11
Project litle
State Clearinghouse Number
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
Lead Agency
Contact Person
Area GxleflelephoneLExtension
North shore of Batiauitos L,apoon between Interstate 5 and El Camino Real. Citv of Carlsbad. County
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: Master Plan and Site Development Plan Amendment to revise hotel, golf
clubhouse, sports center, and restaurant sites, and Conditional Use Permit
to allow shared parking between the hotel and sports center
This is to advise that the City of Carl&ad has approved the above described project on April 4, 1990 the following
determinations regarding the above described project.
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA
3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations anrr not adopted for this project
5. Findings nac made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA
This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLEZR Date PLANNING DIRECTOR TlTLE
Date received for filing at OPR:
MJH:MG:kd
Revised October 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
. CASE NO. MP 177(C)/SDP 86-2(A)/CUP 90-5
DATE: March 9, 1990
1. CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1. 2. 10 and 11
2. APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES, Limited Partnership
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 PAR STE 206
CARLSBAD. CA 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JANUARY 24, 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE USE DESCRIPTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOTMENTS, AND DESIGN FOR THE AVIARA HOTEL, GOLF CLUBHOUSE, SPORTS COMPLEX AND RESTAURANT.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, llNOtl will be checked to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insicnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and @lYES-insigll respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
.
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Result in unstable earth increase the exposure of to geologic hazards?
conditions or people or property
Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object?
YS 7 insig) NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YS . (sid F insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (SW YS CE insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
NO
X
NO
-3-
-
HUMANENVIRONUEMT
'WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
NO
-4-
-
33.
UANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES (sig) YE $ insig) NO
Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
X
X
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (@'Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) X
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
-5-
-
XSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This project is an amendment to the existing Master Plan and Site Development Plan to accommodate changes in the design and square footage allocations of uses for the hotel, sports complex, golf clubhouse and restaurant. The project site is currently a mix of roughly graded areas with some natural vegetation along its border. The existing grading took place based upon the approved site development plan. For the environmental analysis, staff compared the extent of grading, building design, land use, and other potential environment concerns with the original approved plan which received a Negative Declaration on October 16, 1987.
1. EARTH: The project site is currently graded and the revisions to the site development plan do not significantly increase amounts or extent of grading.
2. AIR: The project will produce incremental air impacts but no more than the previously approved project.
3. WATER: The area of impervious surfaces on site is less for this revised project and the proposed drainage facilities will be adequate to accommodate runoff.
4/5. PLANT/ANIMAL LIFE: The proposed project does encroach into additional habitat, however some existing natural areas that were previously approved for grading are being traded on a one-to-one basis. All future deed restricted areas have been certified as viable habitats and are subject to the approval of the California Coastal Commission.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
NOISE: Construction and operation of the project will produce some noise impacts but these impacts will not substantially differ from those of the original project.
LIGHT AND GLARE: The proposed project will not significantly increase the amount of light and glare anticipated with the original project.
LAND USE: All land uses are remaining the same as the original project with some minor changes in proportions.
NATURAL RESOURCES: The proposed project will not significantly increase the amount of depletion of natural resources anticipated with the original project.
RISK OF UPSET: The risk of upset will not rise with the proposed modifications to the original project.
POPULATION: Implementation of this project as with the original project will not effect the overall population, location, distribution or density of the area.
HOUSING: The proposed changes in this project do not impact the housing environment.
-6-
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): .
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
-_
TRANSPORTATION: This project produces similar impacts on traffic flow as the previously approved project. No additional impacts are anticipated.
PUBLIC SERVICES: As with the previously approved project, all public facilities will be provided per the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan.
ENERGY: The increase in energy use for the proposed project does not substantially differ from that of the original project.
UTILITIES: See 14 above.
HUMAN HEALTH: This project will result in no human health hazards or impacts, as was determined for the previously approved project.
AESTHETICS: The Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort, dated May 1986, states that @'the resort hotel and associated development have been designed to be the visual focal point of the community.*1 Later in the same section, the hotel is stated to be l'massive in scale" and *'extremely visible". While the currently proposed hotel structure will produce more wall area on the extreme southern exposures, the height will not change and the construction materials will remain as light-colored stucco walls with red tile roofs. Also the villas below the hotel site have been reduced in height from the previously approved project. It is therefore concluded that the proposed changes are still consistent with the supporting Environmental Impact Report.
RECREATION: As with the originally approved project, the recreational demands created by the project are more than compensated by the increase in recreational facilities.
ARCHEOLOGY: The site is currently disturbed and the proposed project does not encroach into any archaeologically sensitive areas.
-7-
-
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) cl e)
a)
b)
Cl
d)
e)
f)
9)
Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
The project contains many elements that are interconnected in function and interdependent in services. The project could not be phased.
Alternate site designs were considered with the original environmental impact assessment that received a Negative Declaration on October 16, 1987. The current design increases the landscaped area on site and decreases grading areas.
Alternate scales of development were discussed in the Environmental Impact Report and as such are not addressed here.
Alternate uses for the site were addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and are out of the scope of this analysis.
The site is currently graded and development at a future time would leave the prepared site barren.
Alternative sites for the project were considered in the Environmental Impact Report and are not considered here.
The project has already been approved with grading operations currently in progress. The revisions proposed do not substantially alter the project site. The no project alternative would leave a disturbed site barren.
-8-
-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) .
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
P6ku Jy p+ - ‘C~GO. @!!ft I find that the proposed project is in prior environmental comnliance X with the original site development plan which received a Negative Declaration on October 16, 1987 and also in compliance with the final EIR 83=2(A)(dated May 1986) and certified by the City Council on December 1987.
Date
3l14140 date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-9-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
MG:lh
-lO-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGJZMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FA- IMPACIS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
\
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: Aviata MP 17Z(.CJL3nP =-7(A)/Cl JP W-5
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: loNERAL PLAN: RT-
ZONING: PT:
DEVELOPER’S NAMED Pw . .
ADDRESS: 3011 PnlBt Rd , %&3k5, C4shad. . .
PHONE NO.: 931-11w ASSESSOR’S PARCET. NO * e
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU):
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ;
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
6. Library: Demand in Square Footage = NIA
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = B/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 3R4
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - N/A
I. Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 761
Identify Sub Basin -
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD - 167a
L. The project is N/A units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
-
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS:
214-170-51
215-040-02
215-040-15
215-040-16
215-051-10
215-070-05
215-060-02
216-111-01
216-150-06
A
DISCLOSURE FORM
APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsvad, CA 92009
Business Address
' 619/931-1190
Telephone Number
AGENT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnerhip
Name
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad, CA 92009
Business Address
619/931-1190
Telephone Number
MEMBERS:
Name-( individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Name Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
.
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, I/we will apply
for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development.
I /We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be
necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the
subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose.
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure
is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon
as being true and correct until amended.
D.L. Clemens /Vice President
MINUTii
Aoril 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Paze 3 C
2) MP 177(C)/SDP 86-2(A)/CUP 90-5 AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 10. 11 - Request for approval of an amendment to Master Plan 177 and Site Development Plan 86-2 to allow for changes in the design and square
footage allocation of uses for the hotel, sports center, golf course clubhouse and restaurant, and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow for shared parking between the hotel and sports center.
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on December 22, 1987 the City Council approved the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan,
now named Aviara, and associated applications, specifically Site Development Plan 86-2 for resort hotel, golf course club house, and community sports center. Since that time, Four Seasons has been selected as the hotel operator to develop the hotel/resort sites. Upon review of the approved plans,
Four Seasons concluded that the original design was inadequate for the operation of a luxury destination resort.
Specifically, the fractured arrangement of the previous conference suits and hillside retreats did not lend itself to the prompt room service and frequent maid service required in a top-scale resort setting. Furthermore, the main hotel was inadequate in size and configuration to accommodate the
network of service corridors and expansive rooms, hallways, lobby and restaurant space required in a typical Four Seasons destination resort. In addition, a minor redesign of the sports complex and golf clubhouse were also found to be necessary.
In accordance with these findings by Four Seasons, the amended hotel site plan overall consolidates previously
separated hotel suites and villas into two garden wing buildings, six villas, and a four-key special suite building which will be used for distinguished guests. Other hotel
retreat suites were also consolidated into a mix of two and three-story buildings. The primary hotel building was
enlarged to accommodate all of the meeting and banquet facilities which were previously disbursed over the site and
to provide the necessary "back-of-house" facilities required by Four Seasons. The previously approved four-story main
hotel building has been changed to five stories but without increasing the overall building height. With these revisions to the Site Plan, all surface parking for the resort has been eliminated. In accordance, the underground parking structure has been expanded to make up for this lost surface parking and the entry road to the main hotel was changed to a split
level design to enhance the aesthetics at the project entry. Circulation around the hotel grounds will be controlled
through an exclusively valet parking system and a shuttle service between the hotel buildings, sports center, and golf course clubhouse. This sports center is proposed to be consolidated and slightly enlarged and the golf course
clubhouse has been redesigned to enclose all of the golf carts and bag storage below grade.
Michael Grim, Planning Tech, presented the staff analysis of the following:
. Plaster Plan Consistency - All of the uses originally approved for the hotel, sports center, and golf course clubhouse will be provided with redesign and reallotment of use proportions necessary‘to provide destination resort class service.
ISSIONERS
MlNUTtj
April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS ’
Design and Developlent Standards Consistency - Setbacks
between the hotel buildings are similar to those originally proposed but the applicant is proposing the
minimum distance between the sports center building and neighboring residential structures in Planning Area 9
to be reduced from 200 feet to 175 feet. Although staff
does not support the reduced setbacks, they feel that the new project meets the development standards and
intended design requirements of the Master Plan.
Resort Aesthetics - The EIR states that the hotel will
not create adverse visual impacts since the resort is intended to be the visual focal point of the community.
Overall, staff believes that the proposed resort redesign does not create any significant visual impacts because the resort structures still comply with the
criteria for determining visual insignificance as established within the certified EIR for Master Plan 177
and the building heights have been maintained at 35 feet.
lhcroachent- The new plan does encroach into areas originally approved as Open Space, however the applicant
is proposing to trade areas not previously deed restricted for the proposed encroachments on a
one-for-one basis. The "giveback" areas have not been graded and have been certified as viable habitats.
Considering that trade off areas balance, staff can accept the proposed encroachments. A condition has been included requiring California Coastal Commission
approval prior to any grading operations.
Parking - Staff has determined that the proposed resort parking ratio is comparable to other existing mixed use destination resorts. Mr. Grim noted that La Costa
currently provides 1.5 spaces per guestroom and Aviara will provide 1.6 spaces per guestroom which is more than
most other resorts provide. The parking will be
monitored on a yearly basis as required in the CUP. If any changes to the valet parking system are proposed or if any negative parking impacts are identified, the
applicant would be required to provide additional
parking.
Staff recommends approval and feels that the resort site has
been redesigned to better accommodate the necessary functions of a luxury destination resort and the redesign still conforms to the intent, design standards, and recommendations
of all supporting documents in the Master Plan 177, Site Development Plan 86-2, and the EIR.
Chairman Schramm is concerned that if there isn't enough parking, the CUP has been left open-ended and would restrict
all of the activities that are available to the citizens of Carlsbad. She would like the applicant to consider providing some additional parking. Chris DeCerbo replied that the
applicant would address this issue when they make their presentation.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked Michael Grim to repeat the parking ratio at La Costa. He replied that La Costa is currently parked at 1.5 spaces per guest room. In addition,
the square footage of usable space at La Costa, i.e. ballrooms, restaurants, etc., is larger than Aviara will be.
MlNUTtj
Commissioner Erwin expressed his concerns about various issues and staff replied as follows:
The statement that Aviara will be "the focal point of the community" was a finding contained in the
Environmental Impact Report and was probably made because the hotel will occupy the most prominent knoll
on the property.
Resolution No. 3001. page 11, paragraph B, which states
that Alga Road may be built to a four line width and may not be to City standards refers to the fact that Alga
Road is presently designed as a secondary arterial. However, that portion of Alga Road will be wider and also contain a median, making it exceed City standards.
Commissioner Erwin requested that the words "not be to"
be replaced with the word "exceed." Staff can accept the change.
The reduction in parking spaces had a corresponding reduction in hotel rooms.
Employees would self-park in the parking structure in designated areas.
The Fire Marshal can accept parking in the traffic aisles of the parking structure because valet parking
will eliminate pedestrian traffic which is the main concern in the event of a fire.
Additional parking in the event of a tournament would
require a Special Events Permit that would give the Planning Director the authority to shut down the sports center or other activity to acconnnodate the additional
parking.
The 1.6 parking ratio includes the mixed use of restaurants within the hotel confines.
The parking structure has been reduced from five to four stories. There will be three stories below ground and
one story above ground, with a tennis court on top, and will park 718 vehicles. From the hotel entrance the parking structure looks like one story above ground but
from the entry road it looks like two stories above
ground.
There is sufficient room for a narrow sidewalk alongside
the tramway.
April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner McFadden expressed her concerns about various issues and staff replied as follows:
. The shuttle service area may contain additional parking.
. The connecting road to the recreational center and villas will be 24' wide (two 12' lanes) to accommodate
guest vehicles as well as shuttles.
. Blue Heron Drive will contain a sidewalk on one side and a rolled curb on the other; this was not changed from
the original submittal. _
. There is pedestrian access from Alga Road, down the east side of Blue Heron, connecting with Finch Lane, all the
MINUTL;
.
- April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS
way down to the lagoon. This will eliminate pedestrian
traffic across the hotel access road.
. Bicycle traffic will be allowed on Batiquitos Lane which goes alongside the lagoon and winds up on Alga Road,
. None of the traded open space areas have been graded.
Commissioner Holmes has a problem with the rolled curbs on Blue Heron. He believes the rolled curb downgrades the development at the most interesting point, the main entrance.
Chairman Schramm invited the applicant to make his
presentation.
Larry Clemens, Vice President of Hillman Properties, 2001 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and gave an historical overview of the Aviara
project. He stated that representatives from Four Seasons would make a presentation on the hotel. Other technical
experts were also in attendance who would make a technical presentation as well as answer questions.
Charles .I. Ferraro, Vice President of Operations, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, 350 So. Beverly Drive, Suite 200,
Beverly Hills, California, addressed the Commission and stated that the philosophy of Four Seasons is to operate
medium to small luxury hotels dispensing the finest quality and service, living in harmony with the environment and its neighbors. Although Four Seasons is the minor equity
investor at Aviara, they have very strict requirements which begin with design and construction materials. When Four
Seasons builds a hotel, they project a 60 year life. In so doing, they attempt to exceed most city codes for fire,
parking, and design. They have just completed hotels in
Beverly Hills and Waileia, Hawaii, and are in the process of developing a hotel in Chinzanzu, Tokyo, which is located in
the sacred wedding gardens. Wimberly, Allison, Tong, and Goo
have been the architects for Four Seasons for several projects and he feels they are very sensitive to the needs of
the communities. Four Seasons resident managers are required to live in the local communities and be active in civic and
cultural affairs. He is excited about the Aviara project and
feels that Carlsbad will be proud of the finished product.
Commissioner Erwin inquired what relationship exists with Hillman that guarantees Four Seasons will be in Carlsbad for
the next 60 years. Mr. Ferraro replied that Four Seasons has
taken the highest equity stake in Aviara that they have taken in a new project in the last six projects. Four Seasons'
equity position in Aviara can be expanded and TSA Corporation, their partners, are currently with them in six other projects. The legal document is approximately 200
pages thick.
Charles Corwin, Principal, WATG (Wimberly, Allison, Tong &
Goo), 140 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200, Newport Beach, gave a slide presentation of the proposed Four Seasons facility.
Commissioners expressed their concerns about various issues and Mr. Corwin replied as follows:
. The parking structure with the tennis court on top will be seen from La Costa Boulevard and other public
highways.
r
MINUTt<
April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS ’ i
The parking structure will provide 819 parking spaces.
Additional parking, if needed, could probably be
provided in Area 11.
Mr. Clemens can accept a change in the CUP Condition #l
(Resolution No. 3003, page 2) to delete subparagraph 3 and add to subparagraph 2 " . ..hotel shuttle, or Planning
Area 11. if needed."
A module is defined as a cell of rooms. Some guest
rooms are more than one module, i.e. a one bedroom suite is two modules, a two bedroom suite is four modules, and the Presidential suite is six modules. A suite, be it
two, four, or six modules, would constitute one key because it accommodates a single family in very large
quarters. Most hotels have more modules than keys due to suites.
The parking structure was reduced from five to four
stories because it allows for less underground grading. It does not change the above-ground visibility of the
parking structure.
A shuttle is defined as a small, air-conditioned,
gas-powered, multi-passenger bus such as a van. It is not a full bus size nor is it a bunch of cars hooked together.
The hotel was not stepped down the hillside in order to
consolidate as many units as possible into the main building; certain areas of the project lent themselves to a stepped-down effect. The architects were aware of
the Hillside Ordinance.
The public will be permitted to park at the golf clubhouse and the sports center; this has already been
factored in.
Jack H. Greenspan, Principal, Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
Traffic Engineers, 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122, Costa
Mesa, California, addressed the Commission and answered
various concerns of the Commissioners as follows:
The ADT calculation is based on a published document by
the Institute of Traffic Engineers which specifies traffic generation ratios for various uses. Most cities recognize the published ratios. This ratio is then
multiplied by the land use determiner to establish the ADT average which is a scientific guess or best
estimate.
The ADT bottom line is reached by using accepted rates
for the appropriate community. The Institute provides ratios for the average weekday and the typical weekend day.
The parking analysis estimates that 74% of persons using the meeting facilities are assumed to be non-guests and
24% guests.
The original plan was for two restaurants on the lagoon
which has since been reduced to one restaurant, thereby reducing the parking requirements. There is only a juice bar in the sports complex.
C
MINUTh
.
\ & ,
April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS
. The parking study has been updated since the staff report was written and Commissioners may not have the most current analysis.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, requested that the new
parking study be made a part of the record. Mr. Greenspan stated that the Linscott, Law h Greenspan Parking Demand Study dated February 28, 1990 is the most current parking
study and a copy is on file in the Planning office.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 7:58 p.m.
Chairman Schramm opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Inez Yoder, 7738 Madrilena, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she objects to the statement in the EIR which states that the hotel is the focal point of the community. She feels that Batiquitos Lagoon is the focal
point and urged Cowissioners to maintain that perspective when making their decision. She read a letter from the
Shoreline Study Center to the Planning Director dated April 4, 1990. a copy of which is on file in the Planning
office. The Shoreline Study Center has doubt about the potential impacts and contends that additional EIR
evaluations should be performed.
Mary Renaker, 1374 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, addressed the
Commission and stated that she is a property owner in Leucadia and a supporter of Project Future. She read a letter from Project Future's attorney, Roy Gorman of Gorman & Waltner, to the Planning Commission dated April 4, 1990, a copy of which is on file in the Planning office. Project
Future is opposed to the Master Plan amendment until an adequate general plan is adopted and a new EIR is prepared.
Kim Welshons, 2121 Placid0 Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is opposed to reduction in
size of the swimming pool from 50 meters to 25 meters. She contends that a 25 meter pool is inadequate for athletic
training and most tri-athletes must drive from North County to UCSD in order train in a 50 meter pool. She is especially
unhappy since she and 18 other athletes supported the Aviara project because of the 50 meter pool which was promised and feels that she and others are victims of the developer's
deception. She mentioned that when Mr. Clemens was seeking support for the project, he would attend the local homeowner
association meetings but he has not been around lately.
John E. McCoy, 2995 Syme Drive, Carlsbad, representing the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, addressed the Commission and
stated that the Foundation requests additional time to further evaluate the environmental significance of the
proposed changes. He introduced a letter from the Foundation
(undated) which is on file in the Planning office.
Aggie Carter, 3418 Circulo Adorno, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she drives regularly to UCSD in order to train at the 50 meter swimming pool because there is no adequate facility in North County. We are fortunate to
have one of the best swimming coaches in the United States residing in Carlsbad and he and other athletes need a 50 meter pool. A 25 meter pool is totally inadequate.
MINUTtii
April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONERS
Jeff Pease, 7821 Estancia Street, Carlsbad, representing North Coast Aquatics, addressed the Commission and stated
that he has lived and coached in North County for 15 years and has been searching for t. 50 meter pool that the
community deserves. Swimming is the I1 participant sport in the United States. A 50 meter pool was promised on many occasions. Carlsbad has the largest contingent of tri-athletes in Southern California.
Michael Dodson, 6565 Camino de1 Parque, Carlsbad, representing North Coast Swim Masters, addressed the Commission and stated that he has resided in Carlsbad for 15
years. The City Council and Parks & Recreation Commission have often referred to the 50 meter pool which will be built
at the Aviara sports complex. Based on these promises, he has supported other features of the Master Plan. He feels
that a supplemental EIR is needed.
Cindy Ward, 937 Begonia Court, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that she agrees with the comments made by the Batiquitos Foundation. She is not happy that the
hotel is getting larger because of the significant view impact. She would like to know if there is room for buses to
park.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Schramm declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Mr. Clemens was given an opportunity to respond to the public cormnents. He stated that the pool was reduced from 50 meters
to 25 meters primarily because the sports complex will be a membership club (as opposed to municipal) and cost was the major factor. It is not felt that a membership club can
support the costs involved with a 50 meter pool.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired when was the last time the homeowner association had a meeting. Mr. Clemens replied that it was in December 1989 but he was unable to attend.
Commissioner Holmes inquired about the cost difference
between a 25 meter and 50 meter pool. Mr. Clemens did not have the cost figures with him.
Chairman Schraann asked Mr. Corwin if tour buses would be required to park with the service vehicles and shuttle buses.
He replied that there is space in the portico area for tour buses to park.
Commissioners inquired about references made to environment impacts and Mr. Ball and other staff members responded as follows:
. A 30 day comment period was not required for this hearing because the only consideration is whether prior
environmental compliance was received.
. A 21 day public notice is not required on prior compliance issues therefore no notice was placed in the
newspaper.
. The Commission may not consider environmental impacts as they exist today but rather environmental impacts caused by changes to the approved project.
MlNUT7-3
. Project Future's coszuent regarding lack of an adequate
general plan does not apply because a legal general plan is in existence even though it is being updated.
. The CEQA references made by Inez Yoder deal with supplemental EIR's. A supplemental EIR is only required
when there are significant environmental impacts as a result of changes to an approved project, which is not the case tonight.
. The 3-story height limit applies only to residential use; the height ordinance for commercial uses is 35 feet which does not restrict the number of stories.
Anything above 35 feet may not be inhabitable and this project does comply.
. The Hillside Ordinance does not apply to this project because the hotel will be built on a pad on the top of a
knoll which is set back 35-50 feet from the slope.
Cowissioner Schlehuber sees a real problem of imposing a 50
meter pool on a private developer. He thinks that should be a municipal consideration. After hearing how the scaled down
project corresponds to the ftdldd/dtWd original project he can accept the parking. He understands Mr. Ball's
clarification with regard to the environmental impacts and understands that determination must be made only on the changes. He can support the project.
Coxaissioner Marcus agrees with Cozauissioner Schlehuber and
thinks the changes are an improvement over the original Master Plan concept. She thinks the hotel layout is better and has confident in Four Seasons. She likes the project and can support it.
Commissioner Erwin thinks it is an excellent project but has
a problem with the location and the massiveness of the hotel. He does not believe the hotel should be the focal point of
the community because the homeowners in the area feel that the lagoon is the focal point.
Conmissioner McFadden has trouble with the massiveness of the project. She does not believe the hotel in the original plan
seemed as massive as this one. She thinks regular curbs and gutters should be provided on Blue Heron Drive. She agrees
with Commissioner Schlehuber's comments on the EIR and will support it.
Commissioner Holmes has no problem with the size of the hotel because the property is so large. He thinks this plan is far
superior to the original plan because it is more of a resort than a hotel. He thinks there should be standard curbs and sidewalks on Blue Eeron Drive. Be can support it.
Commissioner Hall agrees with most of the comments already voice. He thinks the 50 meter pool should be a consideration when the public park is built.
Chairman Schramm does not see a conflict about the focal point. She would like to see a SO meter pool, perhaps in the park area when it is developed. She can support the project with her proposed change to Condition I1 of Resolution No. 3003.
Gary Wayne stated that staff would like to recommend an additional condition to have the parking structure reviewed
CORRECTED \ I
April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS
MlNUTl-7
-
by the Engineering staff, provided it doesn't increase the above-ground height.
eB~{~~/$&if&6 Camissicmer HcEadden asked Mr. Clemens if
he could accept regular curbs and gutters on Blue Heron Drive. He replied that the intent of the landscape architect was to make Blue Heron Drive look like a drive rather than a
regular street. The rolled curb gives a softer look similar to Ranch0 Santa Fe. Rolled curbs are currently being used in
Newport Beach and Laguna Niguel. He could not accept a change to regular curbs and gutters.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3002 recommending approval
of MP-177(C), adopt Planning Cossnission Resolution No. 3001 recommending approval of SDP 86-2(A), adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3003 recommending approval of
CUP 90-5 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following revisions: (a)
Resolution No. 3001, page 11, paragraph B, line 3, replace the words "not be to" with "exceed"; Resolution No. 3002,
page 2, Condition 114, last line, replace the words "not be to" vith "exceed"; and Resolution No. 3003, page 2, Condition bl, eliminate subparagraph 3 and add the following
words "Planning Area 11" at the end of subparagraph 2.
April 4, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Erwin requested that the record show he could not make Finding W3 of Resolution No. 3002, Finding 64 of Resolution No. 3001, and Finding 111 of Resolution No. 3003.
He also disclosed that he had spoken with Cindy Ward prior to tonight's meeting.
Cormaissioner McFadden requested that the record show she
could not support the project because she does not feel it complies with growth management without regular curbs and gutters on a City street which will accosanodate 10,000
people.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
3) CE 89-35/PUD 89-17 - VISTA SAN MALO - Request for approval of a Carlsbad Tract Map, and Planned Development Permit, to subdivide a 1.21 acre parcel into
4 single-family lots and 1 co-n recreation lot, all located at the southwest comer of Las Plores Drive and Tuttle Street, in the Rl-7500 Zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
Jeff Gibson, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 1.21 acre
parcel into 4 single-family lots and 1 cormaon recreation lot at the southwest comer of Las Floras Drive and Tuttle Street, Rl-7500 Zone, and Local Facilities Management Plan
Zone 1. The proposed site is relatively level and has previously been disturbed by agriculture and residential uses. The surrounding area is developed with one and
two-story houses.
T'he project was developed as a PUD because of the use of a
private street which allows more efficient use of this very irregular shaped parcel. The private street provides for an improved site design while maintaining lots that average
Erwin Hall
Holmes Marcus
McFadden Schlehuber Schrassn
-a ,; /.* Cd d&*/*,2
PROJECT FUTURE P. 0. Box 4650 Carlsbad, CA 92008
June 5, 1990
Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers:
RE: Amendment to Master Plan 177 and SDP 86-2
[MP-177(C), LCPA 90-3, SDP 86-2(A), CUP 90-51
FUTURE is re-submitting our April 4 and April 17, 1990, comments on the above-captioned project. Attached please find April 4, 1990, letter to the Planning Commission from Gorman and Waltner and April 17 letter to the City Council from the undersigned.
It appears that the most significant change between the April 17 Council Agenda Bill, which was withdrawn at the meeting, and the June 5 bill is the addition of a resolution approving a Local Coastal Plan Amendment. Since the proposed LCPA neither changes the project nor addresses our reasons for concern, FUTURE reaffirms the attached state- ments.
Further, we believe the Council's May 22, 1990, direction to staff to proceed with a comprehensive update of the General Plan constitutes an additional reason to postpone action on this project until the conclusion of the update process and the adoption of an updated, legally adequate General Plan.
Of note is the Planning Commission's recommendation that the planned update "defer to the work program for implementing recommendations of Citizens Committee to Study Open Space," since some of those recommendations may be inconsistent with this project.
We ask that our communications on the above-captioned be entered into the administrative record of these proceedings.
Very truly yours,
PROJECT FUTURE
Anne Mauch, Secretary
GORMAN & WALTNER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1736 FRANKLIN STREET. EIGHTH FLOOR
OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 946 12
(415) 465-4494
April 4, 1990
Hand Delivered
Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Dear
Re: Comments on Proposed Amendment to Master Plan 177 and Site Development Plan 86-2 for Aviara Planning Areas 1, 2, 10 and 11
Commissioners:
This firm represents "Project Future", an organization formed for the purpose of protecting the special qualities of Carlsbad which are rapidly disappearing.
The purpose of this letter is to briefly summarize the reasons why we believe the Planning Commission is precluded from approving the above-titled Master Plan amendment, Site Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Aviara Planning areas 1, 2, 10, and 11.
1. The City currently lacks an adequate general plan. Absent a legally adequate general plan, it is not possible to demonstrate project consistency with the plan as required by law. Most specifically, the general plan lacks building intensity limits for the project site. Thus, the proposed project cannot be found in conformance with the general plan.
2. Reliance on the prior environmental compliance document, a negative declaration adopted in 1987, does not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is substantially different than the prior project and is likely to significantly effect the environment in at least the following ways:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system;
Planning Commission April 4, 1990
. Page 2
3.
b. Create a need for affordable housing due to the type and number of employees the proposed project will employ;
C. Induce substantial growth; and
d. Degrade the water quality in the adjacent lagoon.
The environmental assessment improperly compares the proposed project to the prior project in terms of its likely impacts. To the contrary, CEQA requires project impacts to be evaluated in comparison to existing conditions. In addition, insufficient evidence is provided to substantiate the findings contained in the environmental assessment.
The proposed amendment to the Master Plan is substantially different than the previously adopted Master Plan and as such would require a general plan amendment, as well as an amendment of the entire Aviara Master Plan. The variations from approved Master Plan height limits and setbacks are also likely to result in significant environmental impacts in terms of visual quality, contrary to the staff report's unsupported conclusion. Likely visual impacts were not adequately analyzed in the environmental assessment.
4. The proposed project will encroach into areas originally approved as open space by the City and placed into deed restriction by the California Coastal Commission. Nothing in the staff report or the environmental assessment adequately analyses the comparability of the "trade areas" to the deeded open space areas, or analyses the impacts of the proposed open space trade.
5. A considerable number of new development projects have been proposed, considered and approved in Carlsbad and its vicinity since the adoption of the 1987 Negative Declaration. These projects present both new information and a change in circumstances surrounding this project. Given the continued worsening of cumulative effects, such as traffic congestion, air pollution, loss of agricultural lands, and degradation of the natural resources of the City's lagoons, this project warrants preparation of a revised environmental document.
Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 3
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission postpone further consideration of the proposed project until the following actions have been taken:
1. A legally adequate general plan is adopted; and
2. An environmental impact report is prepared for the project.
Very truly yours,
Roy Gorman
cc California Coastal Commission Project Future
.-
.
PROJECT FUTURE P. 0. Box 4650 Carlsbad, CA 92008
April 17, 1990
Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers:
RE: Amendment to Master Plan 177 and SDP 86-2 [MP-177'(C) , SDP 86-.2(A)' and CUP 90-51
On April 4, 1990, FUTURE submitted to the Planning Commission the comments attached hereto from our attorney, Roy Gorman, on the above-captioned proposals,
Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball disagreed with Mr. Gorman, and the Planning Commission approved the proposals with some few changes irrelevant to FUTURE's reasons for requesting postponement.
Notwithstanding Mr. Ball's opinion, FUTURE confidently stands by the position presented in the attached pages and asks the Council to consider carefully Mr. German's comments, which we request be entered into the administrative record,
For the reasons stated therein we urge the Council to postpone further consideration of the proposed project until the following actions have been taken:
1. A legally adequate general plan is adopted; and
2. An environmental impact report is prepared for the project.
Very truly yours,
PROJECT FUTURE
Anne Mauch, Secretary
June 5, 1990 AVIARA
Mayor Claude Lewis
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Aviara - Planning Area 9/Planning Area 10 (Sports Center) - Building
Separation Requirements
Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers:
Your consideration is requested in reducing the Master Plan setback requirement
between the Sports Center structure (PA 10) and the nearest residential structure in
Planning Area 9 (PA 9), from 200 feet to 175 feet.
Background Information
The Master Plan requirement of 200 feet contemplated an approved Sports Center design with numerous windows and outdoor dining on the northerly portion of the sports complex building. The revised design has only masonry walls. No openings to the exterior are designed on the northerly elevation.
Staff did not support the requested reduced set-back at the April 4, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting, and consequently, the Planning Commission acted on the Sports Center design amendment without including a set-back reduction. The Staff did, however, feel that the new project met the development standards and intended
design requirement of the Master Plan.
Requested Amendment
Since the April 4, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting, Staff has had an opportunity
to review and study the revised Sports Center elevations, and I believe can now make the necessary findings that by reducing the set-back to 175 feet between the Sports Center structure and residential structure in PA 9, that the footage reduction is consistent with all aesthetic and environmental requirements of the project.
Without the reduction, we can achieve the 200 foot set-back by shifting the Sports Complex 25 feet southerly. However, this would crown the most intense area of the Sports Complex, the front parking and entry area, and add open space landscaping to a relatively inaccessible and hidden sand volleyball area that already is designed with plenty of room.
As you can see from the enclosed sketch, the 200 foot set-back is achieved in all areas except for two units that are in conflict while measuring from corner to corner.
Councilmember John Mamaux
2011 P..ILOXL\R AIRPORT ROAD SUITE 206 CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92009 (619) 931-1190 FAX:(6191931-7950
h
Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers
June 5, 1990
Page Two
Your approval of our request will greatly enhance the integrity of our Sports Complex without impacting the residential neighborhood or affecting the development standards
or design requirements.
Thank you for your consideration.
D.L. Clemens
Vice President/General Manager
DLC:kaf Enclosure
cc: Ray Patchett Marty Orenyak Michael Holzmiller
City Attorney
City Clerk s
’ I ’ i ?I l-771
.E STOP
,SPOR T S CEN T ER
-PLANNING AREA
..x- WATER FEATURE
.
-3- _- *e,--@=- :’ (.’ --.:--