HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-12; City Council; 13899; Carlsbad Ranch Hotel & Timeshare Resort- - . .
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGMDA BILL
AB# ‘t$ 89 7 TITLE. -. DEPT. HD. v I .
MTG. 11/12/96 CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT -
SDP 96-OlICT 96-011PUD 96-011CUP 96-11
DEPT. PLN d;L
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No.% -388. , APPROVING SDP 96-01, CT 96-01,
PUD 96-01, and CUP 96-l 1.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On September 18, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
recommended approval (6-1, Monroy) of the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort
Project, which is located on the west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road
within Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan in the Coastal Zone and Local
Facilities Management Zone 13. The Planning Commission had a considerable amount of
discussion regarding the proposed 11 percent reduction in total parking. In approving the
project the commission added a new condition to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3989
as shown below.
6. A parking study is required within one year of the completion of each phase of
the project to determine if there is a shortage of parking spaces onsite to
accommodate the parking demand generated by the project. Building permits
for the subsequent phase or phases of the project will not be issued unless this
requirement is complied with. Should the Planning Director determine at any
time that the parking supply onsite is inadequate he shall have the authority to
require any mitigation measures he deems necessary to eliminate any parking
problems.
The Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort Project includes 161 timeshare units, 90
hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent
reduction in total required parking on a 12.20 acre site. The project may be built in up to a
maximum of 4 phases. The entire 90 unit hotel is conditioned to be built in the first phase of
the project.
The hotel and timeshare portions of the project share a common lobby. Two typical hotel
room floor plans are proposed. One plan totals 435 square feet and the second totals 405
square feet. The hotel building is 40 feet high and contains 3 stories. The timeshare building
contains 3 stories and is 40 feet high with architectural features which measure up to 55 feet
in height. The architectural features do not exceed 3 percent of the roof area from which they
protrude as limited by the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Six timeshare floor plans are
proposed with sizes ranging from 830 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The project design
includes outdoor recreational amenities such as a pool and spa in addition to a grassy play
area. Indoor recreational amenities include a clubhouse/gym, activity centers and a multi-
purpose room.
The 3 restaurants for the project are located in Building E at the southeast corner of the site.
Two of the restaurant spaces total 6,000 square feet each. The third is a 1,568 square foot
hotel food and beverage outlet located adjacent to the hotel building intended to primarily
provide food services to guests of the hotel and timeshare units. Building E is a one and two
story structure. A partial second story of Building E contains hotel public areas which includes
PAGE 2 OF AGEIUUSA BILL NO. /3; 8 ci 9
a meeting room as well as a hotel administration area. Building height ranges from 20 feet to
35 feet with an elevator tower that reaches a height of 40 feet.
The project as designed complies with all applicable plans, ordinances and policies. More
detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed use was analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01)
certified for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and related applications on
January 9, 1996, by the City Council. Mitigation measures required for the grading plan and
final map which permitted grading of the project area has been applied. Applicable mitigation
measures have also been incorporated into this project. The environmental analysis for the
project included an Initial Study (Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II) focusing
on any changes from the approved plans and the project contemplated in the EIR to what is
proposed with this project. No additional significant adverse impacts were identified in the
initial study for this project, therefore, no further environmental review is required. A Notice of
Prior Compliance was prepared for the project and published in the newspaper. A Notice of
Determination will be filed upon the final action being taken on the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All required improvements are to be funded by the developer. The Facility Financing Section
of the Zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan lists the facility financing techniques being
used to guarantee the public facilities needed to serve development within Zone 13.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
1 Facilities Zone I 13 1
1 Local Facilities Manaaement Plan I 13 I
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facility Fees
N/A
N/A
Park Fee 40 cent&q. ft.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
City Council Resolution No. c) 6 - 38 ‘2-
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3986
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3987
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3988
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3989
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 18, 1996
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 18, 1996.
Memorandum, dated November 19, 1996, from Senior Planner, containing
draft condition regarding parking provisions.
d
.
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
.
follows:
-
RESOLUTION NO. 96-387
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 96-01, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. CT 96-01, NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT NO. 96-01 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. CUP 96-l 1 FOR A PROJECT CONTAINING 161
TIMESHARE UNITS, 90 HOTEL UNITS AND 3
RESTAURANTS WITH COMMON PARKING FACILITIES
PROVIDING FOR AN 11 PERCENT REDUCTION IN TOTAL
REQUIRED PARKING ON 12.20 ACRES GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARMADA DRIVE,
NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WITHIN PLANNING
AREA 3 OF THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL &
TIMESHARE RESORT
CASE NO.: SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD 96-Ol/CUP 96-l 1
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, on September 18, 1996 the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map,
Non-residential Planned Unit Development and a Conditional Use Permit for a project
containing 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities
providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking on 12.20 acres of land, and
adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3986, 3987,3988 and 3989 recommending to the
City Council that the Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Planned Unit
Development, and Conditional Use Permit be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on November 1.2 , 1996
held a public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or
opposed to SDP 96-01, CT 96-O 1, PUD 96-01, and CUP 96- 11; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the project and it was determined
that the project was in Prior Compliance with the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR
94-01) certified for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and related applications on
January 9, 1996 by the City Council,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT 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 recommendations of the Planning Commission for the approval
of Site Development Plan 96-01, Tentative Tract Map 96-01, Non-residential Planned Unit
Development 96-01, and Conditional Use Permit 96-l 1 is approved and that the findings and
II
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
3986, 3987, 3988, and 3989 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are
the findings and conditions of the City Council along with the following additional condition:
a. That Condition No. 6 of Planning Commission Resolution No.
3989 is amended to read as follows:
“A parking study is required within one year of the completion of
each phase of the project to determine if there is a shortage of parking spaces onsite to
accommodate the parking demand generated by the project. Should the Planning Director
determine at any time that the parking supply onsite is inadequate he shall bring the project with
a recommendation as to how to address the parking shortage before the City Council who shall
have the authority to require any mitigation measures it deems necessary so that the total number
of parking spaces required for the project by the Zoning Ordinance are available. Building
-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
permits for the subsequent phase or phases of the project will not be issued unless the parking
study is completed and any required mitigation measures are implemented.
One such mitigation measure may include the joint use of parking
facilities as specified in Section 21.44.050(a)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with
valet parking. In order to not preclude this option the project applicant (Grand Pacific Resorts)
and the owner of Lot 15 of CT 94-09 shall enter into an agreement (The First Agreement) which
provides that the owner of Lot 15 agrees to enter into a Joint Use Parking Agreement (The
Second Agreement) if it is determined to be necessary by the City Council to eliminate a parking
shortage on Lot 14 of Map No. 13215. Said agreement (The First Agreement) shall be recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder and a copy of the recorded document submitted to the
Planning Director prior to approval of the Final map, issuance of the grading permit, or issuance
of the building permit whichever occurs first. The agreement (The First Agreement) shall also
contain a provision indicating that it cannot be modified or eliminated without the prior written
consent of the City Council and that it shall survive all ownership transfers of both lots.
Should joint use parking be determined to be necessary it shall be
processed pursuant to Section 21.44.050(a)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance except that the City
Council and not the Planning Commission will have the authority to authorize the joint use of
parking facilities for this project.”
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court
no later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this
decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to
cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time
within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not
latter than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record
is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of
the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California 92008.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 26th day of November 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cler
(SEAL)
-4-
. ‘. EXHIBIT 2
CAWON RD
\
I
.f
/
I
I
\
\
\
\
SITE
1 I
PALOMAR AIRPORT AD
CARLSBAD RANCH
HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT
SDP 960Ol/CT 960OllPUD 96=Ol/CUP 96-11
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3986
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 96-01
FOR 161 TIMESHARE UNITS, 90 HOTEL UNITS AND 3
RESTAURANTS ON 12.20 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARMADA DRIVE NORTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WITHIN PLANNING AREA 3 OF
THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND
TIMESHARE RESORT
CASE NO.: SDP 96-01
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by CARLTAS, “Owner”
described as
Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 13215, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County on June 30,1995
(the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “P”, dated September 18, 1996, on file in
the Planning Department (Carisbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort, SDP 96-Ol), and
as provided by Chapter 2 1.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the Wh day of September
1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to SDP 96-01.
. . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Site Development Plan, SDP 96-01, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan,
will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in
which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site,
surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the project design complies with the
requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan which was found to be
consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. Varying
building setbacks have been incorporated into the project design. Several
pedestrian connections to the promenade walkway which runs along the western
and southern edges of the site have been provided to encourage pedestrian
usage. The proposed uses are permitted by the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
No adverse impacts onsite or on surrounding properties are expected to occur,
based on the project design which contains adequate building and landscape
setbacks to provide a transition to adjacent properties.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use, in that all applicable code requirements have been met, building coverage is
27.3 % while 50% is permitted, 38% of the total site area will be landscaped,
and 11% of the surface parking lot area will be landscaped while the
requirement is for a minimum of 3% landscaping in the parking area.
3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will
be provided and maintained, in that the promenade wall and required building
setbacks will provide a buffer with the adjacent agricultural area. Varying
building setbacks have been provided to reduce the amount of building mass
along the perimeter setback areas. Adequate vehicle circulation has been
provided, in addition to loading spaces, and a shuttle bus parking space. The
project is proposed to be developed in phases and staff has conditioned the
future phase building areas to be landscaped as required by the Landscape
Manual since the site has been identified as being highly visible to the public,
warranting immediate treatment (Landscape Manual Section E.3-1.2-2.1~).
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3986 -2- B
c f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the project will generate 3,600 average
daily trips (ADT) which corresponds to the maximum ADT projected in the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR for this planning area. The
required circulation improvements identified for the Carlsbad Ranch will
therefore still be adequate to accommodate the vehicle trips generated by this
project.
5. The project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of
the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207(A)).
6. A growth management park fee of 40 cents per square foot of non-residential
development will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. This fee
will be used to construct recreational facilities to offset the demand created by
employees within Zone 13.
7. The following findings are made to permit the building height of the project to
exceed a height of 35 feet and 3 levels as provided for in the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan:
b)
C)
4
The buildings do not contain more than three levels as shown on the
project exhibits.
The required setbacks are not required to be increased pursuant to
Section III. D. 1. b. as the setbacks required for Planning Area 3 are far
greater than the requirements of the C-T Zone.
The buildings conform to the requirements of Section 18.04.170 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The allowed height protrusions as described in Section 21.46.020 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code do not exceed 45; with the exception of
architectural features which do not exceed a height of 55 feet and: (1) do
not function to provide usable floor area; (2) do not accommodate and/or
screen building equipment; (3) do not adversely impact adjacent
properties; (4) are necessary to ensure a building’s design excellence; and
(5) are restricted to no more than 3 percent of the total roof surface area of
the structure from which it protrudes as demonstrated on the project
exhibits.
8. The Planning Commission finds that:
there was an EIR certified in connection with the prior Specific Plan
Amendment (SP 207(A)) and related actions;
b) the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR; and
PC RESO NO. 3986 -3- 9
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11.
12.
13.
none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist.
The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the EIR 94-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be
approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve
the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be
placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the project
unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and
building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains
available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b) Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities
in the Carlsbad Unified School District.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
4 The Developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and
payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by
the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of
the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that as conditioned an acoustical
study is required to show how the interior noise level will attenuate to 45 decibels
CNEL and the applicant shall record an avigation easement. The project is
compatible with the projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land
PC RESO NO. 3986 -4- ld
L ,
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
14.
15.
16.
C -
use compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the
airport, in that exterior noise levels on-site are acceptable for the proposed use,
interior noise levels will be attenuated to 45 decibels CNEL, and an avigation
easement will be recorded.
The project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-3 84.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the
impact caused by the project.
The Planning Commission finds pursuant to section 21.42.OlO(lO)(vi) that the
timeshare project is located in reasonable proximity to an existing resort or
public recreational area and, therefore, can financially and geographically
function as a successful timeshare project and that the project will not be
disruptive to existing or future uses in the surrounding neighborhood in that the
project is located within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan adjacent to the future
LEGOLAND Carlsbad Theme Park, the Flower Fields, the project site has
ocean views and is in close proximity to planned future golf courses. The project
design which complies with the development and design standards of the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan will assure that the project will not be disruptive
to existing or future uses in the vicinity.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Site
Development Plan for the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel & Timeshare Resort project
entitled “SDP 96-Ol”, (Exhibit “A “-“P” dated September 18, 1996, on file in the
Planning Department and incorporated by this reference), subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to
make all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as
necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on
the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved
exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall
require an amendment to this approval.
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall
reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to
the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
PC RESO NO. 3986 -5- II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
. . .
. . .
C
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check,
a reduced legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline
drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal
Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July
28, 1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated January 22, 1996, a copy of which is
on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not
paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for
this project will be void.
The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees to mitigate
conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit application. The amount of
these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect at the time of building
permit application.
The project is approved to be constructed in a maximum of four (4) phases.
Phasing plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director, City Engineer, Fire
Marshal, and Principal Building Inspector for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a grading or building permit. The entire 90 unit hotel shall be
included in the first phase of construction. In addition the parking requirement
of 1.2 spaces per room for the hotel and timeshare portions of the project shall
be complied with in all phasing plans. Building permits for the first phase must
be issued within 18 months of the date on which the Site Development Plan
receives final City Council approval or this approval shall expire. Building
permits for any future phase must be issued within 6 years of the date on which
the Site Development Plan receives final City Council approval or the future
phase approval will expire.
The area noted on Exhibit “A” as a possible site for a future pool will not
require an amendment to this Site Development Plan and the related
discretionary approvals. Plans for a future pool, in this location only, may be
submitted through the City’s building plancheck process.
PC RESO NO. 3986 -6-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
C
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including,
but not limited to the following:
A growth management park fee of 40 cents per square foot of non-
residential development will be collected at the time of building permit
issuance. This fee will be used to construct recreational facilities to offset
the demand created by employees within Zone 13.
Approval of SDP 96-01 is granted subject to the approval of CT 96-01, PUD 96-01
and CUP 96-11. SDP 96-01 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 3987,3988 and 3989 for CT 96-01, PUD 96-01 and
CUP 96-11.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City a
Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan, Tentative
Map, Non-residential Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit by
Resolutions No. 3986, 3987, 3988 and 3989 on the real property owned by the
Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of
the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as
any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The
Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the
Developer or successor in interest.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or property.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual.
The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director
prior to the approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever
occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on
PC RESO NO. 3986 -7-’ 13
.
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
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
-
the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition,
free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by
the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The Developer shall provide a bus stop to service this development at the location
indicated on the project plans and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the
North County Transit District and the Planning Director. Said facilities shall include
a bus shelter, a bench free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The
bench and pole shall be designed to enhance or consistent with basic architectural
theme of the project.
The design of the required bus shelter shall be compatible with the project
architecture. Plans for the bus shelter design shall be submitted to the Planning
Director and the North County Transit for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the project. The bus shelter shall be
constructed prior to occupancy of the first phase of the project.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at
all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Prior to approval of the Grading Permit, the Developer shall receive approval of a
Coastal Development Permit that substantially conforms to this approval. A signed
copy of the Coastal Development Permit must be submitted to the Planning Director.
If the approval is substantially different, an amendment to the Site Development
Plan shall be required.
Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this
property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director
and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification sighs in all sales and/or rental
offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs
shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department).
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigation
Easement for the property to the .County of San Diego and file a copy of the recorded
document with the Planning Director.
PC RESO NO. 3986 -8- Pi
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
25. The interior noise level of the proposed hotel and timeshare buildings shall not
exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Concurrent with the submittal of building plans the
applicant shall submit an acoustical study documenting what construction
materials or measures must be utilized to meet the required interior noise levels.
A letter signed by the acoustical engineer and project architect which contains
each professional’s registration stamp and certifies that the recommendations of
the acoustical study have been incorporated into the building plans shall be
submitted prior to building permit issuance.
26. The applicant is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing
impact fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element.
The applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-
residential projects may have to pay a linkage fee in order to be found consistent
with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by
City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a
linkage fee pursuant to said resolution, then the applicant for this project or
his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee
shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects
involving a request for a non-residential planned unit development for an
existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final
map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-
residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this
project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the
General Plan and approval for this project will become null and void.
27. Landscape plans prepared for this project shall show landscaping as required by
Section E.3-1.2-2.1~ of the Landscape Manual for the areas of the project not
constructed as part of the initial phase of construction due to the high visibility
of this area to the public.
28. The Developer shall submit a solid waste management plan for review and
approval by the City of Carlsbad. This plan shall provide the following:
a> The approximate location, type and number of containers to be used to
collect refuse and recyclables.
b) Refuse and recyclable collection methods to be used.
4 A description and site plan for any planned on-site processing facilities or
equipment (balers, compactors).
4 A description of the types of recycling services to be provided and
contractual relationships with vendors to provide these services.
e> The estimated quantity of waste generated and estimated quantities of
recyclable materials.
PC RESO NO. 3986 -9- /5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This plan shall also evaluate the feasibility of the following diversion
programs/measures:
0 Source separated green waste collection.
ii) Cardboard recycling.
iii) Programs which provide for the separation of wet (disposable) and
dry (recoverable) materials.
iv) Where feasible, providing compactors for non-recyclables to
reduce the number of trips to disposal facilities.
V> Glass recycling in restaurants.
29. Pursuant to section 21.42.O10(1O)(iii) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code the
timeshare units in this project shall he converted to a hotel use if they cannot be
successfully marketed as a timeshare project.
30. The management and maintenance plan submitted by the Developer titled
“Management and Maintenance Plan - Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare
Resort” attached to this resolution is approved and made a part of the permit for
the project.
BuildinP Conditions:
31. Building B temporary sales use needs to be processed as a tenant improvement with
initial building permit plan check.
32. Property lines present numerous building code related issues for adjacent walls. The
applicant shall meet with Esgil to review preliminary plans prior to building permit
submittal.
Water Conditions:
33. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
34. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application
for meter installation.
’ PC RESO NO. 3986 -lO-
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
35. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
a> Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from
appropriate parties.
b) Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
4 Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages, i.e.
GPM - EDU.
36. All private irrigation and landscape plans shall be submitted to the City’s Landscape
Architect for processing.
Fire Conditions:
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
. . .
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The
plan shall include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall
be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire
Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other
reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations
cease until the condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall
contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to
installation.
PC RESO NO. 3986 -ll-
.
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
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required
access for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with
the requirements of section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fire
sprinkler systems and other fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to construction.
An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in buildings having an
aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following
requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements
and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict
street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names.
A monument sign shall be installed at the entrance to the driveway or private street
indicating the addresses of the buildings on site.
General:
49. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of
all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest
by the City’s approval of this Site Development Plan.
Standard Code Reminders:
50. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
51. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein
52. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
53. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets,
PC PESO NO. 3986 -12- I$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
54.
55.
56.
in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction
of the Directors of Planning and Building.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly
marked to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance, the Sign Program approved for the
project, and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to
installation of such signs.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September 1996, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
Commissioner Monroy
None
‘: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersok
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HtiZMItiER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3986 -13-’
-
MANAGEMENTAND MAmTENANcEPLAN
CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND TIMESHARE RESORT
‘rho property will be mana@ by a timeshare managaneat company, Grand Pacik Resort
Se&a Company LLC, an afBiate of the developer of &i&ad Ranch, which will be responsible for all auxts ofthe operation hlciudtrg:
l Housekeeping -maids’ s&r&, laundry, &aning supplies, etc.;
l Miiintenanw - cover3 both scheduled mating upkeep and special repairs needed for
building amenities and pun&
a Utilities l water, aem, ddcky~ etc. fix units and common areas;
a Front Desk - sakies tbr tint desk, razption, PBX operators, activities department,
etc.;
0 Insunnco - in&ding fire & casualty, flcocl, eanhquake iand lhibili~,
l Ikema - a maw fbnd is established to provide for the long-turn rqkement of
fbr&hiqs,6@resandbuilding&ab;and
0 Mtnagemti - ‘dudes a management fa based on a me of the optming oxpense8 eKcluding ftsenw,
Management will ha pcdormed under a written management contract tid Pacific Resort
Semicus Company L&C and the timeshare homeownas assockion The Califbrnia Department of
RedEstate roquimthat all timeshare homwwncrs assocMons en&into management contract8 with arecognizcd maMgement company prior to the Department’s issuance of the Public Report. The
tllanagema¶tcQntMcthaJaninitial tcrmofthrccycafq with automatic one-yearrenewal tams. (This
is the same arrangement as at the seven other southun CaMomia timeshare projects managed by Grand Pa& Resort SecvicesCompany LLC or its &ate.)
1 The resort is operated on the same basis aa a hote4, but without the seasonal layo!E often ndcc~s~iy in a hotel due to seasonal occupancy variations. The rcsoti will have a 24-hour 6ont desk Maid sexvice wiU include a major weekly cleaning, a light cleaning mid-we& and daily trash and towel
WNicc.
A maintenance staffof I-2 peopIe wiJJ be employed on-site. Most maintenance knctions will
be performal by the on-site staff. Other fkztioru arc performed by Grand Pa&c Resort Services Company KC staffiom the other resorts it manages, who spa%Iiz in other fkets of the operation
outi as landscaping or to&smiths. Other fkets of the operation such as pool maintenance and pest
control m polformal by outside contractors.
The cost of needed repaira and zdkbishment ie paid through the annual homeowners awxkion assessment on all timtie owners. The bomeownea-s association adopts an annual budget of tha coat of operating the rowr& including all salaries, benefits, supplies, contract costs, utilitie~~ and insurance. The homeowners association levies an assesMlent annually on an timedwe ownq pumant to the project’s recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions, The assessment averages $350 per unit week per year at Grand Pacik Resort Services Company LLC’s other resorts.
In addition, the homanvners fwociation assesses a rcserve for replawment for capital expews such as Gini- roof and appliances. The replacement wewe assessment is applwdmately $50 per unit week per yar(which apates to approtitely $2500 per unit per year). This preserves the
quality of the resort over time and provides for major fiture replacement items without special -.
Homeownm assocdion budgets and resews are closely monitured and audited by the
Department of Real Estate prior to its initial issuance or subsequent renewal of a Public Report.
2
***END***
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
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3987
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. CT 96-01 FOR
AN 8 LOT AND 161 TIMESHARE UNIT NONRESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION ON 12.20 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF ARMADA DRIVE, NORTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WITHIN PLANNING.AREA 3 OF
THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND
TIMESHARE RESORT
CASE NO.: CT 96-01
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by CARLTAS, “Owner”
described as
Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 13215, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County on June 30,1995.
(the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “Q” - “V”, dated September 18, 1996, on file in the Planning
Department, (Carisbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort CT 96-Ol), and as provided by
Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of September 1996,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to CT 96-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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
C
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Map, CT 96-01, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Title 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious health problems, in that the design and
improvements for the map are in compliance with all applicable city policies and
standards, in addition to all requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, and
necessary public facilities and services needed to serve the development are or will
be in place prior to occupancy of any building proposed for the project site.
2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for nonresidential development or open space on
the General Plan, in that the Carlsbad Ranch has been developed to provide
appropriate buffering between land uses through the arrangement of uses and the
inclusion of development standards to ensure land use compatibility.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate nonresidential development at the
intensity proposed, in that all public facility and service requirements have been
planned for the maximum buildout allowed under the Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan, which this project does not exceed, and all applicable code requirements have
been met relative to the site design.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that all existing easements of record within the project are consistent with the
proposal or shall be relocated as necessary concurrent with recordation of the final
map.
5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) as areas adjacent to the project site are
subject to a Land Conservation Contract, however this iot is not under contract.
6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that adequate separations
are provided between buildings and structures are oriented in several different
directions to take advantage of the site’s ridge-top location.
/ PC RESO NO. 3987 -2- 23
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
7. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project site has been previously graded pursuant to prior
environmental review and currently exists as a vacant development pad.
8. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project
includes a drainage system designed to remove pollutants from drainage water
before it leaves the site.
Planninp Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . .
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Tract
Map for the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel & Timeshare Resort project entitled “CT 96-Ol”,
(Exhibit “Q’‘-“V” dated September 18, 1996 on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference,), subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is
authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and
modifications to the Tentative Map documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the final decision making body. The Tentative Map
shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to
the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such
approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note
to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
Approval of CT 96-01 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 96-01, PUD 96-01 and
CUP 96-11. CT 96-01 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3986,3988 and 3989 for the Site Development Plan, Non-residential
Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval.
PC RESO NO. 3987 -3-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. The pedestrian promenade improvements identified in the specific plan and on the
project plans shall be constructed prior to the occupancy of the first phase of the
project.
8. All units in the timeshare portion of the project shall be timeshare units except a
permanent on-site management residence unit may be permitted. The maximum
time increment for recurrent exclusive use of occupancy of a timeshare unit shall be
four months. A note indicating this requirement shall be placed on the final map
for the project.
Enpineerin~ Conditions:
9. There shall be one final subdivision map recorded for this project.
10. This project is approved as 4 (maximum) phases for construction. Prior to issuance
of grading or building permits a Complete Phasing Plan shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Lots 4,5,6 and 7 shall
be merged following construction and prior to Occupancy of the last phase. All
Paving, Drainage, Access and Hardscape surfaces at the entrance shall be
constructed with Phase 1 of this project.
Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following Engineering conditions upon the
approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final map.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The Developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements
within the subdivision and all the private streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain
facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such
maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the
subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&Rs
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
Planning Commission or City Engineer, which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the Developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The Developer shall comply with all conditions
and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation
The Developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in
accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement in the
project CC&Rx
PC RESO NO. 3987 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
-
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign or other object over 30
inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach
within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance
with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The
underlying property owner shall maintain this condition.”
The above statement shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet on the final map.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 91-39.
The Developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
As required by state law, the subdivider shall submit to the City an application for
segregation of assessments along with the appropriate fee. A segregation is not required
if the developer pays off the assessment on the subject property prior to the recordation
of the final map. In the event a segregation of assessments is not recorded and property
is subdivided, the full amount of assessment will appear on the tax bills of each new lot.
The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure, ground water
seepage or land subsidence and any damage that may occur as part of this development.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District
No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
The owner shall grant a covenant of easement for access, parking, sewer, water and
drainage easement as shown on the tentative map. The covenant of easement shall be
shown and recording information called out on the final map.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided
or installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be
required by the City Engineer.
An offer of dedication for an easement for Traffic Signal Equipment and Loop
Detectors at the main access shall be made on the Final map for this project.
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all pubic streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall
be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be granted to the City
PC RESO NO. 3987 -5- 62b
1
2
free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are
already public are not required to be rededicated.
3 25. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Armada Drive except the Main access shown
on the tentative map shall be waived on the final map.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26. The Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City
Engineer. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, notifying prospective owners
and tenants of the following:
27.
a> All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b) Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm
drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides,
fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments
shall meet federal, state, county and city requirements as prescribed in their
respective containers.
c> Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as
provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan and the following
improvements:
1. Modification to the Medians in Armada Drive.
2. NCTD bus turnout on Armada Drive.
3. Signing and striping plan for Armada Drive modifications
4. Sewer, water and storm drain connections or relocations.
5. The design and construction of a fully actuated Traffic Signal at the main
Entrance and Armada Drive.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured
28
II PC RESO NO. 3987 .6- a7
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
- .
improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. The Traffic
Signal shall be installed at a time directed by the City Engineer.
28. Notes to the following effects shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
a) Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall be merged together after construction and prior to
occupancy of the last phase.
b) All onsite improvements are considered private. and are to be privately
maintained.
cl This project is adjacent to an existing Agricultural Land Use. Pesticides,
dust and fertilizers may be used within a relatively close proximity to
proposed Hotel, Timeshare and Restaurant uses. The Developer and its
successors in interest shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from all
actions arising from the adjacent agricultural land use.
Water Conditions:
29. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
water district serving the development determines that adequate water service and
sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service and
sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall
be placed on the final map.
Standard Code Reminders:
30. The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building
permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-time
special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39.”
General:
31. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Tentative Tract Map.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3987 -7- 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September 1996, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersod
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
-- MICHAEL J. HOLZSLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3987 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
EXHIBIT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3988
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF NONRESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PUD 96-01 FOR AN 8 LOT
AND 161 TIMESHARE UNIT PROJECT ON 12.20 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARMADA
DRIVE NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WITHIN
PLANNING AREA 3 OF THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC
PLAN.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND
TIMESHARE RESORT
CASE NO.: PUD 96-01
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by CARLTAS, “Owner”,
described as
Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 13215, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County on June 30,1995.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Nonresidential
Planned Unit Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “V”, dated September l&1996,
on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department (Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort,
CUP 96-11) as provided by Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of September 1996,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to PUD 96-01.
. . .
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Nonresidential Planned Unit Development
Perrnit, PUD 96-01, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the
City code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted plans
of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the project is consistent with the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan which implements the General Plan on this property.
The proposed uses are consistent with the specific plan and the nonresidential
planned development permit provides a means for separate ownership of lots and
timeshare units as well as facilitating financing arrangements for the project.
2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood
and community, in that the proposed land uses on site consisting of a hotel, timeshare,
and restaurants on the same development site are permitted land uses by the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and require the creation of the proposed
nonresidential lots to provide for development of the various uses in one Planning
Area of the Carlsbad Ranch.
3. That such project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity, in that creation of the 8 lots and 161 timeshare units by this
nonresidential planned unit development permit allows for the development of a
project which meets all city standards. The project design and the required
improvements will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
persons in the vicinity of the project or have a negative affect on adjacent property.
4. That the proposed nonresidential planned development meets all of the minimum
development standards of the underlying zone, except for lot area, in that the
nonresidential planned development permit is to allow for the creation of lots that
do not front on a public street, and with a lot depth of less than 90 feet in addition
to the creation of timeshare ownership units. The planned development permit is
consistent with the requirements of the specific plan and the underlying zone.
PC RESO NO. 3988 -2- 3/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Planniw Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Non-residential
Planned Unit Development Permit for the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel & Timeshare
Resort project entitled “PUD 96-Ol”, (Exhibit “A’‘-“V” dated September 18, 1996 on
file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference), subject to the
conditions herein set forth. Staff is author&d and directed to make or require the
Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the Non-residential Planned
Unit Development documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in
conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from
this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Approval of PUD 96-01 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 96-01, CT 96-01 and
~ CUP 96-11. PUD 96-01 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3986,3987 and 3989 for the Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract
Map and Conditional Use Permit.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
I NOES: Commissioner Monroy
~ ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson/ CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3988 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 relating to CUP 96-11.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3989
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE PROVISION OF COMMON PARKING FACILITIES
RESULTING IN AN 11 PERCENT REDUCTION IN TOTAL
REQUIRED PARKING PURSUANT TO SECTION
21.44.050(a)(5) FOR A PROJECT CONTAINING 161
TIMESHARE UNITS, 90 HOTEL UNITS AND 3
RESTAURANTS ON 12.20 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARMADA DRIVE NORTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WITHIN PLANNING AREA 3 OF
THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND
TIMESHARE RESORT
CASE NO.: CUP 96-l 1
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by CARLTAS, “Owner”,
described as
Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 13215, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County on June 30,1995.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A“ through “P”, dated September 18, 1996, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department, (Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort, CUP 96-11) ,
as provided by Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of September 1996,
hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Conditional Use Permit, CUP 96-11, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that the proposed 11 percent parking reduction is less than
the 15 percent maximum reduction permitted pursuant to Section 21.44.050(a)(5) of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. A parking analysis was prepared and approved by
city staff which shows that the proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the
peak parking demand for the proposed uses considering shared parking and the
hours of operation for the proposed uses. Therefore, no negative parking impacts
should spill over onto adjacent properties as a result of the proposed parking
reduction.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the parking reduction responds to the shared parking which will occur based
on the uses proposed for the site and their hours of operation. The parking
necessary to meet the peak hourly demand of the project will be provided on the
project site with all other design features such as parking lot landscaping which is
being provided over the minimum 3 percent required .
3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that all required building and landscape setbacks have
been provided in addition to an onsite circulation design which complies with City
standards. The proposed parking reduction of 11 percent equals 57 parking spaces.
The parking analysis prepared for the project supports a parking reduction of 72
spaces or 14 percent.
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project will generate 3,600 average daily
trips (ADT) which corresponds to the maximum ADT projected in the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR for this planning area. The required circulation
improvements identified for the Carlsbad Ranch will therefore still be adequate to
accommodate the vehicle trips generated by this project.
PC RESO NO. 3989 -2- 34
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
Planninp Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit for the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel & Timeshare Resort project entitled “CUP 96-
11”, (Exhibit “A “-“P” dated September 18,1996 on file in the Planning Department and
incorporated by this reference), subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is
authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and
modifications to the Conditional Use Permit documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Prior to recordation of the Final Map a joint use parking agreement shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director, City Engineer and City
Attorney. The agreement shall provide for the following:
a. The sharing in perpetuity of all parking and access aisle/driveways on site
between all the uses in Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
b. The agreement shall not be modified without the prior written approval of
the Planning Director, City Engineer and City Attorney.
A copy of the joint use parking agreement shall be recorded in the offke of the
County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Director prior to the
issuance of building permits for the project.
3. Approval of CUP 96-11 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 96-01, CT 96-01 and
PUD 96-01. CUP 96-11 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3986,3987 and 3988 for the Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract
Map and Non-residential Planned Unit Development.
4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 10 years. This Conditional Use
Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all
conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial
negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the
Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the
Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the
permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the
substantial negative effects. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public
hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land
uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been
met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 10 years
upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date. The Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds
that there are no substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s
health and welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the
PC RESO NO. 3989 -3- 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with
conditions which will eliminate or substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to
the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant.
5. The Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any
address change from that which is shown on the conditional use permit application.
6. A parking study is required within one year of the completion of each phase of the
project to determine if there is a shortage of parking spaces onsite to accommodate
the parking demand generated by the project. Building permits for the subsequent
phase or phases of the project will not be issued unless this requirement is complied
with. Should the Planning Director determine at any time that the parking supply
onsite is inadequate he shall have the authority to require any mitigation measures
he deems necessary to eliminate any parking problems.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September 1996, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILkkR
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3989 -4-’
+ . - ,
A City of CARLSBAD l%mnhg Departmekb EXHIBIT. 7
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION*’
Item No. 7 0
Application complete date: June 2 1, 1996
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 18, 1996
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD 96-Ol/CUP 96-ll- CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL
& TIMESHARE RESORT - Request for a recommendation of approval of a
Site Development Plan Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Planned Unit
Development and a Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing 16 1 timeshare
units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing
for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking on 12.20 acres located on the
west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area
3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 13.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3986, 3987, 3988
and 3989, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of SDP 96-01, CT 96-01, PUD 96-01 and CUP
96- 11, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
These applications propose developing Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan
which has been pregraded in conformance with the previous Master Tentative Map approved for
CT 92-07 Unit III. The project proposal includes 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3
restaurants. The proposed land uses are included in the list of permitted uses for Planning Area
3. The conditional use permit for the project is being requested pursuant to Section 21.44.050
(a)(5) to allow the provision of common parking facilities resulting in an 11 percent parking
reduction from the sum of the various uses computed separately. This section of the zoning
ordinance contains provisions for a maximum parking reduction of 15%. An analysis of the
hourly parking demand for all the uses proposed for the site has been prepared. Parking in
excess of the peak hour parking demand is being provided onsite. Therefore, staff is supporting
the proposed 11 percent parking reduction. The proposed project is in compliance with all
applicable plans, ordinances, standards and policies. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan requires
that the City Council make the final decision to approve or disapprove the Site Development
Plan.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a site
development plan, tentative tract map, nonresidential planned unit development and a conditional
L-
. * a .
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/‘PUD 70-0~tiUP 96-l 1 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTI~L & I MESHARE RESORT
SEPTEMBER l&l996
use permit for the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort project. The project proposes
161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing
for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking. The project site is located on the west side
of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road within the 12.20 acre Planning Area 3 of the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Planning Area 3 overlooks the Flower Fields.
The hotel and timeshare portions of the project share a common lobby which is located in
Building B at the terminus of the main entrance drive. The proposed 90 unit hotel is in Building
A which is 40 feet high and contains 3 stories. Two typical hotel room floor plans are proposed.
One plan totals 435 square feet and the second totals 405 square feet. The 161 timeshare units
are located in Buildings B, C and D. The timeshare buildings also contain 3 stories and are 40
feet high with architectural features which measure up to 55 feet in height. The architectural
features do not exceed 3 percent of the roof area from which they protrude as limited by the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Six timeshare floor plans are proposed with sizes ranging from
830 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The project design includes outdoor recreational amenities
such as a pool and spa in addition to a grassy play area. An area for a second outdoor pool is
noted on the plans in the triangular area formed by the perimeter of the timeshare buildings.
Indoor recreational amenities include a clubhouse/gym, activity centers and a multi-purpose
room.
The 3 restaurants for the project are located in Building E at the southeast comer of the site. Two
of the restaurant spaces total 6,000 square feet each. The third is a 1,568 square foot hotel food
and beverage outlet located adjacent to the hotel building intended to primarily provide food
services to guests of the hotel and timeshare units. Building E is a one and two story structure.
A partial second story of Building E contains hotel public areas which includes a meeting room
as well as a hotel administration area. Building height ranges from 20 feet to 35 feet with an
elevator tower that reaches a height of 40 feet.
In conformance with the requirements of the specific plan the design of the proposed buildings is
compatible with a Mediterranean architectural character. Building materials include stucco
walls, clay tile roofs, textured split face masonry block, metal railings and trellis, clear window
glass and a translucent roof covering at selected locations. Buildings have been oriented to take
advantage of views overlooking the flower fields and the Pacific Ocean. The primary building
entrance is oriented toward Armada Drive.
The project includes surface and underground parking. Seventy-three percent of the proposed
parking is located in the underground parking structure. The proposed 11 percent parking
reduction equates to a total of 57 parking spaces. A parking analysis was prepared by a Traffic
Engineer to determine if a parking reduction is appropriate. The study analyzes the hourly
parking demand of all the uses proposed on site and concludes that the peak hour parking
demand is lower than the number of parking spaces proposed. The parking analysis prepared by
Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated April 12, 1996, is attached to this report. The proposed
parking reduction will be covered further in the analysis section of this report for the Conditional
Use Permit for common parking facilities.
SDP 96-O l/CT 96-O l/PUD ~0-0 I I &JP 96- 1 1 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & 1 rMESHARE RESORT
SEPTEMBER 18,1996
General Plan, Zoning & Existing Land Use for the Site And Adjacent Property
The following table lists the general plan, zoning and existing land use for the site and adjacent
properties:
Community Commercial) Tourist/General Com-
ualified Dev. Overlay
South OS (Open Space)
East O/PI & T-R
West OS (Open Space)
Zone)
O-S (Open Space)
O-Q/P-M-Q & C-T-Q
O-S (Open Space)
Flower Fields (Ag.)
Vacant development pad &
fb Flower Fields (Ag.)
Site Description
The project site is a vacant pad which was recently graded. The construction of utility and
drainage systems to be located within the Armada Drive right-of-way should begin this summer.
No sensitive native vegetation exists on the property as a result of the previous grading and prior
agricultural use of the site.
Prior Actions
On January 9, 1996, the City Council approved the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
(SP 207(A)) and related applications. The project site is designated as Planning Area 3
(Community Hotel & Retail) in the Specific Plan. The plan allows for the development of
hotels, timeshare units, restaurants, retail, offices and personal service uses. A maximum of 280
rooms are permitted in Planning Area 3.
Applicable Regulations
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed
within the following section of this staff report:
A. Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207(A));
B. Travel Recreation Commercial/Community Commercial General Plan Land Use
Designation (T-R/C);
C. Commercial-Tourist and General Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-
T-Q/C-2-Q);
39
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD >~-OIILXJP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTli & IIMESHARFI RESORT SEPTEMBER 18,1996
PAGE 4
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020 - Site Development Plan
findings required by the Qualified Development Overlay Zone;
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
Non-residential Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code);
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.44, Section 21.44.050(a)@) - Common Parking
Facilities;
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport;
Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Plan; and
Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13).
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will
cover the project’s compliance with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which
they are presented.
A. CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan establishes the permitted uses for the site as well as the
development standards and design guidelines. The project’s plans comply with the requirements
of the specific plan. The proposed uses for the site are in conformance with the list of permitted
uses for Planning Area 3 as described in the section of this report on prior actions.
The development standards of the specific plan have also been complied with as demonstrated in
the following table:
for architectural features surface area with architectural
Building Coverage 50% if less than 75% of
features
27.3%
parking is within a parking
structure
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD YwOL~~UP 96-ll - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & I lMESHARE RESORT
SEPTEMBER 18,1996
PAGE 5
447 spaces at peak hourly 11% parking reduction (57
demand per parking analysis.
See CUP Section for Common
Trash Enclosures 6 ft. high masonry wall with 6 ft. high masonry wall with
ard from Flower
The proposed resolution of approval contains the required findings to allow for building height
over 35 feet.
Design Guidelines
The specific plan also contains design guidelines applicable to the project site. The guidelines
address building orientation, architectural character, building materials, roofs and access. The
project design complies with the design guidelines of the specific plan.
B. & C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the site were adopted concurrently with
the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan to achieve consistency. The Travel-Recreation/Community
Commercial (T-R/C) General Plan Land Use Designation provides for the proposed use. The
specific plan implements the General Plan on the project site and includes required circulation
improvements and provisions for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. Zoning for the site is C-T-Q/C-2-Q. The zoning designation also permits
the uses subject to approval of a site development plan. The specific plan was established with
the requirement that each site require approval of a site development plan and the zoning reflects
this criteria.
. 9 .
SDP 96-O 1 /CT 96-O l/PUD h-0 I 1 dJP 96- II- CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & I LMESHARE RESORT
SEPTEMBER 18,1996
D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE Q-OVERLAY
ZONE
The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q-Overlay) which is part of the zoning designation
for the property requires that a site development plan be approved for the proposed use prior to
the issuance of any building permit. Four findings are required by the Q-Overlay Zone. The
required findings with justification for each are contained in the Planning Commission resolution
for the project. This section summarizes the necessary findings and support for each.
The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings as the
project design complies with the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan as
demonstrated in Section “A” of this report. Varying building setbacks, in addition to required
landscape setbacks, have been incorporated into the project design. Several pedestrian
connections to the promenade walkway which runs along the western and southern edges of the
site have been provided to encourage pedestrian usage. The site is also adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the use as all applicable code requirements have been met, building
coverage is 27.3% while 50% is permitted, 38% of the total site area will be landscaped, and
11% of the surface parking lot area will be landscaped.
All features necessary to adjust the use to existing and permitted future uses will be provided.
The promenade wall and required building setbacks will provide a buffer with the adjacent
agricultural area. Varying building setbacks have been provided to reduce the amount of
building mass along the perimeter setback areas. Adequate vehicle circulation has been
provided, in addition to loading spaces and a shuttle bus parking space. The project is proposed
to be developed in phases and staff has conditioned the future phase building areas to be
landscaped as required by the Landscape Manual since the site has been identified as being
highly visible to the public therefore warranting immediate treatment (Landscape Manual
Section E.3-1.2-2.lc.). The planned street system is adequate to handle all traffic generated by
the use. The project will generate 3,600 average daily trips (ADT) which corresponds to the
maximum ADT projected in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR for this planning
area. The required circulation improvements identified for the Carlsbad Ranch will therefore still
be adequate to accommodate the vehicle trips generated by this project.
E. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a tentative tract map to be filed in accordance with Title
20 for the division of property into five or more lots. The applicant is requesting approval of an
8 lot subdivision on this 12.20 acre site in addition to the creation of 161 timeshare units that
would be contained in buildings on lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The use proposed for each of the 8 lots
is as follows:
Lot 1 Restaurants and Hotel Public Areas including a meeting room and administration
area
Lot 2 Hotel
Lot 3 Hotel/timeshare lobby and timeshare units
Lot 4 Timeshare units
Lot 5 Timeshare units
-
< I ‘
SDP 96-O l/CT 96-Ol/PUD x-0 1, dJP 96- 11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTh & I dIESHARE RESORT
SEPTEMBER 18, 1996
PAGE 7
Lot 6 Timeshare units
Lot 7 Timeshare units
Lot 8 Recreation area
The map will be recorded in one phase, however, construction is planned to occur in up to a
maximum of 4 phases. Lots 3 through 8 will be merged following construction and prior to
occupancy of the last phase. The final result will be three separate lots with one containing the
restaurants, the second the hotel and the third the timeshare portion of the project.
The project as conditioned will provide all necessary improvements and all findings required by
Title 20 can be made and are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for CT 96-O 1.
A non-residential planned unit development permit is proposed concurrently with this tentative
map to create the timeshare units for ownership purposes and the 8 lots several of which do not
have public street frontage. The non-residential planned unit development is discussed in the
following section of this report.
F. NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (CHAPTER
21.47 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The applicant is requesting approval of a non-residential planned development permit to create 8
lots and 161 timeshare units. The Non-residential Planned Development Ordinance requires all
new development to conform to the requirements and development standards of the underlying
zone or applicable specific or master plan except for lot area and the requirements of Title 20
(Subdivision Ordinance). No minimum lot area or width requirements exist therefore the
primary consideration in reviewing the proposed permit is whether the required findings can be
made. By processing a Non-residential Planned Unit Development Permit, the proposed lots
may be created without fronting on a public street and with a lot depth of less than 90 feet. Staff
has reviewed the project and made the applicable findings to grant the Non-residential Planned
Development Permit which are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for PUD 96-
01.
Chapter VI. B. 3. of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan lists the subsequent approvals necessary to
implement the specific plan for Planning Area 3. This section states that approval of a Site
Development Plan is required and that timeshare projects must comply with the requirements of
Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.010(10) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, yet a Conditional Use
Permit is not required to be issued. The requirements of the timeshare section of the code have
been placed in the Planning Commission Resolution for SDP 96-01.
G. COMMON PARKING FACILITIES (CMC SECTION 21.44.050(a)(5))
The project is proposing an 11% (57 space) parking reduction pursuant to the approval of a
conditional use permit as provided in section 21.44.050(a)(5) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
This code section provides that when a common parking facility is to occupy a site of 5,000
square feet or more, then the parking requirements as specified in the code for each of two or
more participating buildings or uses may be reduced not more than 15% upon approval of
43
-
. * I
SDP 96-OVCT 96-OVPUD w-O,,JJP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & IIMESHARE RESORT
SEPTEMBER 18, 1996
development plans in the manner prescribed for a conditional use permit. The proposed common
(shared) parking program allows for the staggered parking needs of the various uses considering
the peak parking demands of the uses to be conducted on the project site.
A parking analysis, dated April 12, 1996, was prepared for the project by Urban Systems
Associates, Inc. The parking analysis is attached to this staff report. The study concludes that
the types of uses planned for the site should not be evaluated as entirely separate uses since
shared parking between facilities is expected to occur and this shared parking should be
accounted for in planning for the project. The two quality restaurant sites planned for Building E
would serve timeshare and hotel guests as well as general customers, thereby reducing the
parking demand. The hotel food and beverage outlet also in Building E would primarily serve
breakfast for hotel/timeshare guests, and would have limited attraction from general customers
because of limited operating hours and visibility. The limited amount of hotel public area would
primarily be used by hotel/timshare guests. Outside use of the hotel public area generally occurs
during early morning and afternoon hours when the restaurant and hotel guest parking demand is
at a minimum.
The parking analysis includes a table which shows parking occupancy for each use by hour
which accounts for both shared parking and hours of operation. The table shows that the peak
parking demand is in the late evening at 9:00 p.m. and is for 447 spaces. The greatest demand
occurs in the late evening when the Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet would be closed, and the
Hotel Public Area activities would be ended. Therefore, the proposed 462 spaces for the project
should be more than adequate to meet the peak parking demand of 447 spaces considering shared
parking and the hours of operation for the proposed uses. The required findings for a
Conditional Use Permit to permit the 11% parking reduction are contained in the Planning
Commission Resolution for CUP 96- 11.
H. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR
AIRPORT
The project is located within the Airport Influence Area for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The
project site is located within the 60 CNEL noise contour for Palomar Airport. The site is
approximately 7,000 feet west of the airport. The airport land use plan identifies the use as being
conditionally compatible. The indoor community noise level must be attenuated to 45 decibels
CNEL and the outdoor noise level is acceptable for associated outdoor activities according to the
airport land use plan. An acoustical study is required to be submitted concurrent with the
building plans for the project to demonstrate how the required interior noise level is achieved. In
addition, an avigation easement for noise is required to be recorded with the County Recorder as
a condition of approval of the project. Both of these requirements are listed in the Airport Land
Use .Plan as well as the Program EIR for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project is
compatible with the Airport Land Use Plan with imposition of these two conditions.
I. MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
As designed, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment
of the Local Coastal Program. The project site has been graded pursuant to previous approvals.
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD w-0 I, JJP 96-ll- CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & I IMESHARE RESORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996
PAGE 9
No steep slopes or native vegetation exist onsite. The project will not have drainage impacts on
coastal resources as the project includes National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
facilities to separate oil and other contaminants from site runoff. The project will require the
approval of a coastal development permit.
J. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (LFMP - ZONE 13’1
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13 in the
northwest quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with
the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACILITY IMPACTS
City Administration 1 N/A
Library
Wastewater Treatment
Capacity
Parks
N/A
N/A
$.4O/sq. ft.
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Canyon de las Encinas
Watershed
3,600 ADT
Station 4
N/A
Payment of non-residential
school fee at bldg. permit
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
issuance
330.81 EDU
330.81 EDU
COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed use was analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01)
certified for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and related applications on January 9,
1996, by the City Council. Mitigation required for the grading plan and final map which
permitted grading of the project area has been applied. Mitigation measures incorporated into
this project include designated car-pool and vanpool parking areas, adequate on-site circulation to
reduce vehicle queuing, bicycle parking facilities, showers for bicycling employees’ use,
pedestrian connections to the site, review of the project plans by the Police Department for
security measures which could be implemented, use of reclaimed water for landscape watering
and the provision of trash enclosures designed with an area to accommodate recyclables. As a
result, the environmental analysis for the project included an Initial Study (Environmental Impact
Assessment Form - Part II) focusing on any changes from approved plans and the project
contemplated in the EIR to what is proposed with this project. No additional significant adverse
impacts were identified in the initial study for this project, therefore, no further environmental
- A_
I ,
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-OUT’UD so-0 I, dJP 96- 1 1 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & I lMESHARE RESORT
SEPTEIVBER 18,1996
PAGE 10
review is required. A Notice of Prior Compliance was prepared for the project and published in
the North County Times newspaper. A Notice of Determination will be filed upon the final
action being taken on the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
DN:bk
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3986
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3987
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3988
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3989
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Form
Prior Environmental Compliance
Environmental .Impact Assessment Form - Part II
Parking Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated April 12, 1996
Exhibits “A” - “V”, dated September 18, 1996.
* * .
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND DATA SHEEC
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD 96-Ol/CUP 96-11
CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT
Grand Pacific Resorts. Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 161 timeshare units. 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with
common narkina facilities nroviding; for an 11 nercent narkinn reduction on 12.20 acres located
on the west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 in the Citv of Carlsbad,
Countv of San Diego, State of California, according to man thereof No. 13215, filed in the Office
of the Countv Recorder of San Diego Countv on June 30.1995.
APN: 2 l l -022- 12 Acres: 12.20 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 8 lots/l 6 1 timeshare ownershiu units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: T-R/C (Travel/Recreation Commercial/Communitv Commercial)
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: C-T-Q/C-2-0 Proposed Zone: C-T-Q/C-2-0
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site C-T-Q/C-2-Q Vacant pad
North O-Q/P-M-Q Vacant pad
south o-s Flower Fields
East O-Q/P-M-Q & C-T-Q Vacant pad & Ag.
West O-S Flower Fields
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 330.81
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: Januarv 22. 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0 Negative Declaration, issued
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
(XI Other, Prior Comnliance with EIR 94-01 certified Januarv 9.1996
I .
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT - SDP 96-
01/CT 96-Ol/PUD 96-Ol/CUP 96-l 1
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 13 GENERAL PLAN: T-R/C
ZONING: C-T-O/C-2-Q
DEVELOPER’S NAME: GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS. INC.
ADDRESS: 5050 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200. Carlsbad, CA 92008
PHONE NO.: 431-8500 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 21 l-022-12
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 12.20 AC., 409,568 sq. ft.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDUs
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
N/A
N/A
N/A
$.4O/sq. ft.
N/A
Canyon de las
Encinas Watershed
3,600
A
N/A
Non-res. School fee
330.81
N/A
72.778.2
L. The project is not proposing any dwelling units thereby not impacting the Growth
Management Dwelling unit allowance.
48
VI k/ansr)aa -+-gJpw -
OISCLOSUAE STATEMENT
Af’Pl~C~S STATEMENT OF DlSCtOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNEFlSHIP INTEXSTS ON AU ~PUCX~ONS
WHICH WILL RECUIRE DISCR37ONARY ACTlON ON THE PART CF THE Cl-R COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED
BOARD. COMMlSSiON OR CobMA~E.
(Please Prmt)
The Mowing information must be disc!osed:
1.
2.
AoDlicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Grana Paclflc Resorts, Inc.
5050 Aver-Ma mcinas, Ste, 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008
owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Qrltas company
5600 Avenida Encinas, Ste, 100
Carlsbaa. CA 92008
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the name: addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannt
interest in the partnership.
Timothy J. Stripe David S. Brown
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 SO50 Avknida Encinas, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit orgmization or a trust, list the name
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or hem
of the trust.
. .
i isdosure statemerrt Page 2
Have you had more than $250 worth Of business transacted with any member Of city. staff, SCE
Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No 2 If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: ‘Any individual. firm, copartnership. joint venture. asswiation, social club. fraerna
otganuation, coqxxation. estate. trus. reo~iw. syndicate. this and any other county. CQ and county, c,q
municipality. district or other political subdivision, or any aMer group or comthation actjng as a unrt:
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.;
Print or type name of owner Print CY~ type nadc of aFpIicanr
: 3lPP1 615431516& rrL.r;4 r.i 2
Jul~.Cl. 15’lo 3
1 . ! . -- - ~9 6 . Cite ofC * l 8
a
A~%ICA~ rA”EWh’: 3 ~SCLCSUR~ cc CERTAIN awh~~shtt INRPE~ ah AU APfk.xwIcm -UWICF qb ~~~~~~~
r’SCRt?CW~I ACXU CN fl*E %Rt- Cf me C;n CCLNCfL OR AhV V-UIXTEO Bc*= CCMUtSSlCk OR :Cu~flff.
'ease Prrnrl
18 lollow~ng inforrtWon mut be discbed:
IAt @w names and addresses al all perrona hsvlng a IW’KW int@rPst in the application.
Grand Pacific Resorts
,-a ~Carlsbad. CA 92008
. US the names and rddrrUo$ of all persons having my menhip intofrsl in rho #fog** Invaded.
-Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008 T.-P- a Pal if-a Limit-e
. CB RanchEnterprises, aCalLfomiaarporation m0 Aver&la Enemas, sste lV6, Car&bad, CA 92008 .
3.
4.
If Ury prrm identified punumt to (1) or (2) abow is I carparrtlorr 01 pWWshlp, Jlst the names af addmsor of all indlvJdu& ctwMg morn than I 0% of the rhurr In W qfp$r+@ or. _owninq qy @a.mersh . interra in VI0 pWtflrnl$p. Cdtas C&ny, aC&i.fornia limitedpartnership 5600 Avmida k&has, $urte 100, Carfsbad, CA 92008
BB , a Quxmia general partnershq
I.--“) II-m -““, -s”--, -- e----
207s Las Palmal Drlw* - CarlrDad. C&ttilorni8 92069-*669 - (819) *3’-’ ’ ”
JUl~.Cl.l95jt; 3: 3lPK tjl5431982W
. ‘. a
closure Statemer;t
I% . is-i F.3 :
,
XhefJ
Page 2
Have ycu had mcrd than 5250 worrh 01 business ~l’~~SaCXed with any nrmbat at CiPj St&f, $ccrz5
C~mmrrs~cns. Cammlctees and Council within rha past t\nelve manttis?
Yes - Na x It yes. please indicatr persan(5)
Peo~n 11 dofind u: ‘Any itldwdud, em. capama&p. jaimvmre. ursclman, sacul ckb. hwmtiarcmuadon. ~rp~runon. .~a).. rmIk r9c1wr. ryn0icrto. mlr ~na ,y em*, caunry, cy ~14 l guncy, crry mcrntc1p4*, *ismn 01 amr W**A tuebrr~n. at my amw gfafda ,,
camPmlran acarg ~a I untt’
(NO-: Attach additional pages a3 rwces~.)
Cadsbad Ranch Carpany L.P., a
Cdlif0Id.a limited partnership w: C=h2s CorrPany, e caufornia Limited partnerskip, Genezal part=
By: Carltas Mamgemmt, a CdAfomia corporation, General PF n77
fate: 40/z/&, _
c
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described
below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental
documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of
determination will be filed.
Project Title: Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort
Project Location: West side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road
Project Description: A Site Development Plan, Tentative Map, Nonresidential Planned Unit
Development, and Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing 161
timeshare units, 90 hotel units, and 3 restaurants with common parking
facilities providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking on
12.20 acres.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30)
days of date of publication.
DATED: JUNE lo,1996
CASE NO: SDP 96-Ol/CT96-OVPUD 96-Ol/CUP 96-l 1
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND TIMESHARE RESORT
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE lo,1996 .
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
9 --3
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
l
(619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 6B
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 96-O l/CT 96-O 1 /PUD 96-O 1 /CUP 96- 11
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort
2. APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100,
Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-8500
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Januarv 22.1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: A Site Develoument Plan . Tentative Mau. Nonresidential Planned
Unit Develoument , and Conditional Use Permit for a oroiect monosine; 161 timeshare units. 90
hotel units. and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities uroviding for an 11 percent
reduction in total reauired uarkinn on 12.20 acres located on the west side of Armada Drive
north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Suecitic Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources H Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
lxl Water IXI Hazards lxl Cultural Resources
B Air Quality lxl Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
I Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
cl
cl
cl
cl
Ix]
n
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact
report (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
&Y&
Planner Signature
Date 6 /tl”ib
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96 5 b
. .
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 57
-
. , I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
4
4
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-l through 5.7-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-l through 5.7-
18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (1; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1; 5.7-l through 5.7-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1; pg. 7-1 through 7-4)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-
9) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1; Appendix A)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1;
Appendix A)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1; Appendix A)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1;
Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7)
g) Subsidence of the land? (1; Appendix A)
h) Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1; Appendix A)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pg. 5.12-1
through 5.12-7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (1; Appendix A)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than Sign&an
t Impact
q
cl
Ll
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
No
Impact
cl lx cl El cl 1x1
cl Ix1 cl lxl cl lxl
cl IXI cl IXI cl El
cl lxl
cl Ia
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
4
e)
f)
Id
h)
0
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1
through 5.12-7)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1;
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
5.12-7)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
5.9- 13 through 5.9-22)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1; pg. 5.2-l
through 5.2-S)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-l)
5.2-4,5.2-6, and 5.2-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1; Appendix A)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1; Appendix A)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
cl
d)
e>
f)
8)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg.
5.5-l through 5.5-29) .
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-l through 5.5-29)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(1; pg. 5.5-l through 5.5-29 and 5.9-l through 5.9-4)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg.
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg.
5.7-16)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7- 1
through 5.7- 18)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
Ix1
cl
q
q
El
q
cl
q
q
cl
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
Cl
q
q
q
q
cl
q
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
[mpact
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
lxl
IXI
IXI
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
lx
q
IXI
Ix1
lxl
q
IXI
El
El
IXI
IXI
lxl
lxl 59 Rev. 03128196 6
-
1 . I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c)
d)
e)
VIII.
4
b>
d
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1; pg. 5.4-l through 5.4-13)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg.
5.4-l through 5.4-13)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-l through 5.4-
13) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(1; pg. 5.4-l through 5.4-13)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-l
through 5.4-l 3)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1;
Appendix A)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( 1; Appendix A)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (1; Appendix A)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (1; pg. 5.6-l through 5.6-7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-l through 5.9-4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-l through 5.6-7)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-l through 5.6-7)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-l through
5.8-7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-l
through 5.8-7)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1; pg. 5.9-l and 5.9-2)
b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4)
c) Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1;
pg. 5.7-2,5.7-3, and 5.7-16)
e) Other governmental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7- 16)
7
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
lxl
cl
cl
Ix]
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
cl IXI
cl El
cl IXI
cl lxl
cl El
cl Ix]
cl El
•J IXJ
cl lxl
cl lxl
0 cl
cl lxl
cl lx
cl cl
cl lx cl 0 cl IXI cl Ix1
cl lx
Rev. 03128196
1 .
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a>
b)
cl
4
e)
f)
g)
XIII.
a>
b)
c)
XIV.
a>
b)
c>
4
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (1; Appendix A)
Communications systems? (1; Appendix A)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-l through 5.12-7)
Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5. lo- 1 through 5.10-5)
Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9- 13 and
5.9-22)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pg.
5.11-l through5.11-7)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg.
5.1 l-l through 5.11-7)
Create light or glare? (1; Appendix A)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3- 1
through 5.3-8)
Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-l through
5.3-8)
Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-l through 5.3-8)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3-
1 through 5.3-8)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-l through 5.3-8)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
8
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 cl cl
Cl cl Cl 0
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
0 Cl
cl
0
El
cl
0 cl cl
0 cl El [XI
cl
0
0
lx
lxl
Cl Cl
Cl
0
cl
El
Cl lxl Cl lz Cl El
0 Ix1 Cl IXI cl 0 Cl 0
0 Ix1
Cl El
Cl [x1
Cl Cl
Cl Cl
cl lx Cl lx
Cl lzl
0 lxl
cl IXI
Cl Cl
Rev. 03128196
-
. * I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c>
XVII.
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
lxl cl
cl Ix]
cl 0
Cl Cl
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
W Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
-
r . ,
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort is proposed for a 12.20 acre site located on the
west side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 3 of the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project includes 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and three
restaurants. Planning Area 3 is located in the southern portion of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan overlooking the flower fields. The project includes surface and underground parking. The
project proposes an 11 percent reduction in parking based on the provision of common parking
facilities. This equates to a total of 57 parking spaces. A parking analysis was prepared by a
Traffic Engineer to justify the requested parking reduction. The study analyzes the hourly
parking demand of all the uses proposed on site and concludes that the peak hour parking
demand is lower than the number of parking spaces proposed. Two 6,000 square foot restaurant
spaces are proposed with the third restaurant space being a 1,568 square foot hotel food and
beverage outlet. In conformance with the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, the
design of the proposed building will be compatible with a Mediterranean architectural character.
The majority of the proposed structures contain three stories and are oriented to take advantage
of views over the flower fields and out to the Pacific Ocean.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project was evaluated in the “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final
Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-Ol).” EIR 94-01
evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan; improvements to the I-S/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of a 24.2
acre parcel immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the specific plan site. The Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan is a planning document which will guide the development of a 447.40 acre
area through the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation
programs. The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan include office, research and
development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course,
agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND Carlsbad. The 24.2 acre parcel
adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation of the Specific Plan golf course.
EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air
Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources,
Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Waste/Pesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public
Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual Aesthetics/Grading, and Water Quality. The Initial
Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 and
analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental
impact. EIR 94-01 was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time
Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and
Monitoring Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to the Carlsbad Ranch
Hotel and Timeshare Resort project proposed for Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch have
been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the
project.
10 Rev. 03128196
References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this
environmental impact assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section
for each item checked as having a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated’:
V. AIR QUALITY
4 Air Quality
No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation
of the air quality mitigation measures will lessen long-term operation air quality impacts
to a level less than significant. It was concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the
development anticipated under the proposed specific plan amendment together with the
development of other related projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact on the region’s air quality. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted
for this cumulative impact.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Increased Vehicle Trips
A series of circulation system improvements are required as part of the development of
the Carlsbad Ranch property. With the implementation of the improvements identified in
EIR 94-01 all of the analyzed intersections and street segments are projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service. It was determined that the Carlsbad Ranch project in
conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result in a significant cumulative
impact to the I-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding consideration was
adopted for this cumulative impact.
IX. HAZARDS
4 Exposure to existing sources of potential health hazards
Evidence of surface staining and possible pesticide contamination was observed at
several locations on the project site. Although no significant levels of soil contamination
from pesticides or herbicides were detected during soil testing in 1989 and 1995, the
potential for undetected contamination does exist due to the fact that the project site has
been historically used for agricultural production. Exposure of persons to unremediated
soils is a potential impact. Implementation of mitigation measures listed in EIR 94-01
will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. The mitigation measures
require soil monitoring and remediation of any affected soils during site development.
These mitigation measures will be implemented during the mass grading for Tentative
Map 94-09.
11 Rev. 03128196
- . ,
x. NOISE
-
W Exposure of people severe noise levels
The project site is located within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour for McClellan-Palomar
Airport. The Airport Land Use Plan’s Noise/Land Use Compatibility Implementation
Directives require that all transient lodging buildings, within the CNEL 60-70 contours be
subjected to an acoustical study to determine that interior levels do not exceed CNEL 45.
This requirement is also a mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which is a
condition of approval of the project in addition to the granting of an avigation easement
for noise.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
W Police protection
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area
which will attract visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention
services. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact.
This demand for police protection will be reduced through implementation of a
mitigation measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into the proposed
developments. been submitted to the Carlsbad Police Department for review and
approval.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
f) Solid waste disposal
The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The
mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which has been applied to the project will
reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure requires the
submittal of a solid waste management plan to address the project’s needs for recycling
facilities and diversion programs/measures which can be implemented.
g) Local or regional water supplies
The project will require the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts of buildout of
the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant. Implementation
of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 will reduce impacts to a level of less
than significant. The mitigation includes utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping on the
project site.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Paleontological resources
Areas of the Carlsbad Ranch contain geologic formations with a high potential for
yielding significant paleontological resources. Mitigation measures requiring a
12 Rev. 03128196
4
. x #
paleontological monitor are required for the project and will be implemented during the
mass grading for Tentative Map 94-09 and 92-07.
b) Archaeological resources
Surface collection and data recovery programs for archaeological sites in the vicinity of
the project have been completed. An archaeologist will monitor all mass grading for
Tentative Map 94-09 and 92-07 which creates this development area.
13 Rev. 03128196
. I *
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Rev. 03/28/96 u
- . ,
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (6 19) 43 8- 1161)
1. “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of
Carlsbad, November 1995 .”
15 Rev. 03128196
April 12, 1996
Mr. Don Neu, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Community Planning
2075 Los Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 920094659
phone: 438-1161
Fax: 438-0894
Dear Don:
As requested by Tim Stripe of Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc., Urban Systems Associates, Inc., is
providing for your approval our recommendations of the parking requirements for the HoteVTime-
Share/Restaurant development on Lot 20 in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan 207 (A) area.
The types of uses planned should not be evaluated as entirely separate uses since shared parking
between facilities is expected to occur, and this shared parking should be accounted for in planning
for a successful project.
Two quality restaurants are planned for Building E, noted on the site plan as Restaurants 1 and 2,
and would serve time share and hotel guests as well as general customers, thereby reducing the
parking demand.
The Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet also in Building E would primarily seNe breakfast for hotel
guests, and would have limited attraction from general customers because of limited operating hours
and it’s low visibility. Parking for this type of restricted restaurant should not need to be calculated
as a typical restaurant since time share/hotel guests and nearby business park pedestrians would
be the primary customers, also limiting the parking demand.
The limited amount of Hotel Public Area in Building E would also be used primarily by time
share/hotel guests. Outside activities are generally considered to occur during early morning and
afternoon hours when the restaurant and hotel guest parking demand is at a minimum, with activities
ending at approximately 5:00 P.M.
Provided below is a tabulation of parking for these uses taking into account only a minimal shared
parking effect between uses:
664666F 1
~~~OKEARNY Vu ROAD, SUITE 106 l SAN DIEGO, C4 92123-1573 l (619) 560-4911 l FAX (619) 560-9734
-
. I 1
Mr. Don Neu Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
April 12, 7996
USE
Restaurant 1
Restaurant 2
Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet
Hotel Public Areas
Hotel
Time Share Resort
NOTES:
AMOUNT
First 4,000 SF.
Remainder 2,000 S.F.
First 4,000 S.F.
Remainder 2,000 S.F.
1,568 SF.
4,000 SF.
90 rooms
161 units
PARKING
RATE
1:lOO S.F.
150 S.F.
1:lOO S.F.
150 S.F.
1:200 SF. ’
1:200 SF. ’
1.2 per room
1.2 per unit
PARKING
SPACES
40
40
40
40
8
20
108
194
TOTAL 490 SPACES
1 One haff of parking rate for restaurants is used since customers are primarily
from time share/hotel guests and walk-ins from nearby business park.
2 One-half of parking rate for meeting rooms is used since primary users would
be hotel guests. Outside groups would meet during mid-morning and
afternoon times when hotel parking demand is at a minimum.
A maximum total of 490 parking spaces are tabulated with the assumption that all operations would
be continuous throughout the day and evening hours, without considering actual hours of operation
of the different types of uses.
However, accounting for both shared parking m hours of operation, the attached table shows
parking occupancy for each use by hour. This tabulation assumes full parking rates as required by
City Ordinance for the Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet and the Hotel Public Areas. The occupancy
percentages of the Food and Beverage Outlet and the Hotel Public Area have been estimated to
account for the probable hours of operation.
As shown in this table, the peak parking demand is in the late evening at 9:00 p.m. and is only 447
spaces. The greatest demand occurs in the late evening when the Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet
would be closed, and the Hotel Public Area activities would be ended.
004686F 2
‘10 5FMiwl8E
- - . #
Mr. Don Neu
April 12, 1996
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
Therefore, the parking to be provided, 462 spaces should be more than adequate to meet the peak
demand of only 447 spaces, when both shared parking and the hours of operation of the uses are
considered.
Please give me a call if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Gfl f?? \-L&r
Sam P. Kab, II Senior Traffic Engineer
cc: Tim Stripe, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. John Mattox, JPM Design Management
004686F ‘f I 5FMzlYlSE
ATTACHMENT ’
1 PARKING 0CCUPAN;CY BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR
HOUR
6:00 am
7:oo 8m
8:OO am
9:00 8m
10:00 am
11:00 am
Noon
1:00 pm
2:00 pm
3:00 pm
4:00 pm
SO0 pm
600 pm
7:00 pm
8:OO pm r~~:~;~;~~:~~: $q@$&$p&~: :,,:..:..t ..>.,,. < ,. ,..a: 10:00 pm
11:00 pm
Midnight
16OSpra 302sppea
Quality Restaurant* Time Share/Hotel* % I # - I 2 3
5 8
10 16
20 32
30 48
50 80
70 112
60 96
60 96
50 80
70 112
90 144
100 160
100 160 g@&$.@L;. ..<. :<c; _ :x!&?,>, ,: . . . . * A? .,,;,.. , 3. :y.q#~pz$yg.., :$.!!$$p$qyg g& .'f ..: y. .A.. .x.:.?q.>: ,.,,_,,, (, ,<.*+ .:'s=
90 144
70 112
50 80
% I #
100 302
85 257
65 196
55 166
45 136
35 106
30 91
30 91
35 106
35 106
45 136
60 181
70 211
75 227
“Xg.~~gqp?X~.,.<.~< w,+#..,: : ;‘:‘T ‘i :” .FL.~* -5% .*.,,r . . . . rg .A. .& :::.:V<<.:$, !.‘h!.:m, . . . . . . .,. q&g3 $gq?g#g~ .A&~:< I :w&z ..,...... ..&&
100 302
100 302
100 302
17sprecs
Food &
Beverage Outlet” *
% I w
10 2
50 9
75 13
100 17
75 13
50 * 9
60 10
40 7
30 5
20 3
10 2
10 2
10 2
10 2
IO 2 @~y~@$$g@g ~~~~~.~~,~~ ~;~~;~~~:~~~;~~.~,,~~, <s.../>,$pti<.y .:., z,.": ;;,z*.&*&.:r;@$*~ . . . . y.$>.?.:.:~...+ . . . . . .
- I -
-
- -
40 spaced Total
Public Area”” 519
K(I) -
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
-
*.,i.~.~.~.:.:.:~~~ ~:~~~:~~~~:~~.:.:.~~.~~.:.
.:.:::.,:pj:~y$:~: i::.::<<&.:.:.:.: . . . . ‘,..> . . . . I,: -
-
-
-
20
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
-
-
- 5 ., .:~~?;~:~:~.~,~~.~~~~~:~~ f .>:.:.:.$..: .A,. < .,.,.,.,.,.,.,., ,.... .I. 7n,.>.q*t.:.:.$. ):(, .. .:x+X",. . . . . . . :<,,: ., . . . .,....,..,.. -
-
-
Total
304
289
257
239
221
203
221
250
247
245
258
335
357
389
434 g '~~~~
446
414
382 e
NOTE:
l =uLI
“I = Estimates
(Hacrs ofoperationprovkiedbyGrandPacificResorts,lnc.)
, I
_- EXHIBIT 8
7. SDP 964WCT 96611PUD 96-OlKUP 96-11 - CARLSBAO RANCH HOTEL 8 TIMESHARE
RESORT - Request for a recommendation of approval of a Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract
Map, Non-residential Planned Unit Development and a Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing
161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an
11 percent reduction in total required parking on 12.20 acres located on the west side of Armada
Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan in
the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 13.
Chairman Compas announced to the applicant, Commissioners and the public that this item, if approved, will
be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Project Planner Don Neu briefly presented aerial photo slides so as to visually indicate the exact location of
the development site on the west side of Armada Dr., (currently being constructed) and immediately north of
Palomar Airport Road. The project will be built in four (4) phases and the adjacent areas are the flower fields
to the west and south, the Research & Development Office to the north and Legoland to the east. Mr. Neu
outlined the recreational amenities, underground parking facilities, timeshare units, 90 hotel units, 3
restaurants, a meeting room and a hotel administration area. He addressed the subject of design and
reported that the architectural character and building materials for the project are in conformance with the
Specific Plan requirements. Mr. Neu advised that all development standards of the Specific Plan have been
complied with except for required parking, for which a parking reduction is proposed. Mr. Neu assured the
Commission that the project site has adequate vehicle circulation in addition to loading spaces and a shuttle
bus parking space and the planned street system is adequate to handle all traffic generated by the use, which
required circulation system improvements identified in the Carlsbad Ranch EIR. He further noted that the City
Zoning Ordinance does contain provisions allowing the granting of up to a 15% parking reduction.
Additionally, the proposed uses are conditionally compatible with the site noise levels as specified by the land
use plan. Mr. Neu also pointed out that the development of the site will not have any adverse impacts on
coastal resources. ._
Mr. Neu asked to make one correction to the proposed documents, specifically, Condition 8 of Planning
Commission Resolution 3986. In the last sentence, he proposed to change the reference from five (5) years
to six (6) years and advised that a memo to that effect has been distributed to the Commission members.
Commissioner Monroy asked how the ratio of surface to sub-surface parking is determined.
Mr. Neu responded by saying that the city does not have a ratio specifically for parking but the Specific Plan
did have a provision regarding underground parking and increased building coverage beyond the 50%. In this
case, 73% of the parking will be accommodated within the parking structure.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired as to whether staff reviewed the recommendation for the 1 l%, based on the
study the applicant has provided. He was answered in the affirmative.
MINUTES
13
- . * ,
PLANNING COMMISSION September 18, 1990 Page 8
Commissioner Noble asked what percentage of the parking spaces are for compact vehicles.
Mr. Neu stated that 25% (the maximum allowed under the parking section of the zoning ordinance) has been
designated for compact vehicles.
Commissioner Monroy asked for further clarification on the calculations used to arrive at the 11% parking
figure.
Chairman Compas asked if this project, originally, had been meant to be totally a hotel and no timeshares and
when the economics for this project were they calculated, they were on the basis of a hotel or on the basis of
timeshares.
Mr. Neu responded that the calculations were made on the basis of a hotel.
Chairman Compas further asked what will happen to the economics, now that it is partly timeshare.
Mr. Neu stated that the economics have definitely changed and the applicant has prepared some materials
and has reviewed it with the City’s Financial Management Director who prepared the fiscal analysis on the
Ranch, as a whole. It is his understanding that it comes out only slightly less than the 100% hotel project.
Commissioner Welshons inquired as to whether there was discussion on this project, regarding hotel versus
timeshares, when it went before the City Council. She also wanted to know if there was a cap on the
percentage of the project that could be timeshare.
Mr. Neu affirmed that there had been quite a bit of discussion and the Council amended the Specific Plan to
require any project on this particular site to have a hotel component or element, but there was no minimum
number or ratio between timeshare and hotel identified. .
Commissioner Welshons also asked if there is anything to prevent the hotel units from being converted to
timeshares.
Mr. Neu responded that the final map for the project would only create the 161 timeshare units, which is the
maximum allowable and if the applicant did want to convert those units, he would have to come back to the
Commission with the request. . .
Chairman Compas then asked if Mr. Neu was actually saying that the 90 hotel units could never be converted
to timeshare but the timeshare units could be converted back to hotel units to which Mr. Neu replied that the
owner could not sell over 161 timeshare units without first coming back and asking for approval. Since the
Plan does require the hotel element and as long as that element is present, the applicant could (at some time
in the future) asked to have the 90 hotel units reduced and the timeshare units increased.
Chairman Compas then requested that Mr. Neu explain a little bit about the phasing
Mr. Neu began by saying that there will be four (4) phases. The hotel will be in phase one, in addition to some
number of timeshare units. ,The restaurant would be in another phase and the remaining two (2) phases
would be different increments of timeshare units, based on the ability to sell those units.
Chairman Compas asked about the possibility that the restaurants might be in the last phase, with Mr. Neu
agreeing that it was entirely possible.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how large the meeting area will be and was told it would be about 4,000
square feet.
MINUTES
74
. ,
PLANNING COMMISSIOI.
-
September 18,199b Page 9
Chairman Compas asked if there were any further questions of staff and seeing none, asked the applicant to
come forward.
Bill Hofman, of Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, CA, representing
Pacific Resorts stated that, overall, they are very happy with the staff report and the Conditions of Approval,
with the exception of one Condition. He asked to go on record as opposing Condition No. 26 of Planning
Commission Resolution 3986, the Site Development Plan Resolution, specifically dealing with the requirement
of payment of an affordable housing impact fee of an unknown amount if, in fact, a fee is ever adopted. He
and his client feel that the Condition is unfair, because of its open ended nature and because it doesn’t seem
to be applicable to a timeshare/hotel/restaurant type project. He also said that they realize that this is an issue
that the City Council will have to address and they are not expecting this Commission to remove it and only
wanted to go on record in opposition of that above described Condition.
Mr. Hofman went on to discuss, at length, the shared parking issue. One of his points was that this truly a
good example of shared parking use. He detailed the ways in which the shared parking plan would work,
citing the hours of peak use attributed to each component, and was emphatic about there being more than
adequate parking at any given hour of the day or night. He then referred to their Exhibit 9, two line charts
showing the peak demand parking for the restaurant/lounge and Exhibit 14 which compares that with the hotel
parking. Mr. Hofman admitted that comparisons have been made between this project and the Claim Jumper
Center and that it is an unfair comparison. He quickly pointed out that the Claim Jumper Center (with its five
(5) restaurants having the same peak hours of parking use) is not a mixed use project while the Pacific
Resorts project is. Additionally, this project will not have the “drive by” traffic, that higher visibility restaurants
and hotels have, the result of which is a lesser number of vehicles requiring parking spaces. Mr. Hofman
concluded his presentation by offering to provide valet parking if, after all discussions, it is considered to be
absolutely necessary.
Commissioner Heineman voiced his curiosity regarding how Management intended to--keep the flower field
visitors out of their parking facilities.
Tim Stripe, 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200, Carlsbad, CA, assured the Commission that they have
solutions, in place, to deal with parking when parking is at a premium, including security type services, but
they don’t anticipate any real problems.
Commissioner Noble respecffully disagreed with Mr. Hofman that there is no correlation between the Claim
Jumper and this project and remains concerned with the 11% parking reduction. He also pointed out that he
couldn’t see the difference in the two (2) line charts and that they looked the same to him. Mr. Noble did,
however express his liking for the idea of valet parking.
Commissioner Monroy addressed the issue of the affordable housing fee by citing that the Regional
Government says how many units of affordable housing we are going to have to provide, based on the
number of jobs we create and special attention is paid to people’s salaries. He pointed out that many of the
jobs created by this project are probably relatively low paying jobs to the point where workers will have to be
subsidized.
Mr. Hofman again voiced their concern about the open ended nature of the affordable housing fee
requirement. He pointed out that requirement of that nature scare off lenders.
Mr. Hofman was asked to repeat the types of restaurants that are planned for the project and the room rates
for the hotel.
In his answer, Mr. Hofman used “Houston’s” as an example, in his description of an up-scale restaurant and a
“diner” type restaurant which would be non-competitive to the up-scale restaurant. It is estimated that the
MINUTES
7x
PLANNING COMMISSIC.. September 18, 19%~ Page 10
room rates will range between 90$ and $105 on average (daily rate) which would put the hotel in the three (3)
to four (4) star rating category.
Chairman Compas then asked Mr. Hofman if a valet parking requirement would be acceptable if the
Commission were to impose one and Mr. Hofman’s answer was “yes, but only if it was really needed”.
Chairman Compas also asked Mr. Hofman what kind of flexibility he sees, in terms of converting hotel units to
timeshares or timeshares to hotel units.
Mr. Hofman stated that there is not a lot of flexibility and after a detailed analysis of timeshare/hotel
combinations versus all hotel, we found very little difference between the total revenues generated by either.
A more detailed explanation of the phasing was requested and Mr. Stripe stepped to the model to indicate
each building and its respective phase during his explanation.
Mr. Stripe was subsequently asked about how the unfinished areas would look as the work on the project
progressed from one phase to another and noted that the city requirements would put them in the position of
hydro-seeding the balance so that it would be very aesthetically appealing.
Commissioner Nielsen asked how many employees would be working in the restaurants, etc., and where they
would be parking during their working hours.
Mr. Hofman replied that there are no designated employee parking spaces but their belief is that employee
parking is taken into consideration in the City guidelines for determining the numbers of spaces, overall. Mr.
Hofman replied that at this particular time, they would anticipate most of the surface parking would be better
suited for the restaurants and the underground parking better suited for the hotels guests and timeshare
guests. Overflow restaurant parking could also be accommodated in the parking structure,
Commissioner Welshons asked if there are plans for booking the 4,000 sq. ft. meeting space to outside
entities.
Mr. Stripe explained that their marketing strategy is to rent that space, primarily, to groups who will also be
hotel guests. However, if the space is available, they will certainly rent it to outside groups.
Commissioner Heineman directed a question to either Mr. Stripe or to Mr. Hofman, asking what they are going
to do when the hydro-seeding begins to look as “grungy” as it always does.
Mr. Stripe agreed that if it did begin to look bad they would obviously have to redo it or plant some bushes
and trees and would agree to doing that, if asked.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Hofman if there was a site constraint and what was the basis for the request
for reduced parking. Mr. Hofman stated that the basis was that it was of a mixed use nature as well as having
site constraints.
Commissioner Noble asked to have the gentleman who did the traffic study come forward.
Andy Slafley, Vice President of Urban Systems Associates, 4540 Kearny Villa Road, San Diego.
MINUTES
“lb
1 * .
PLANNING COMMISSIOI
h
September 18, 199~ Page 11
Commissioner Noble asked Mr. Slafley to try to convince him that this is good enough to meet the standards
and give him assurances that there will not be a problem later on.
Mr. Slafley explained how they determined the shared parking requirements by looking at each individual use
and then combining the results for the final number of spaces required.
Commissioner Noble questioned the validity of the studies, stated that he is still not convinced that there will
be adequate parking and asked the applicant what they will do if, at some time in the future, they are required
to add more parking.
Mr. Slafley defended his position as a consultant and declared his belief that the studies conducted by his firm
are accurate and their recommendations will work.
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Slafley how often he would estimate that this project would reach its maximum
capacity, assuming that the project was complete.
Mr. Slafley replied that it would most likely be during the summer peak vacation period, mainly because of the
proximity and adjacent uses like Legoland and things of that nature.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Stripe and Mr. Hofman how they would feel if the Commission conditioned
their consideration of this project by asking that the parking studies be planned and executed, on site, as the
various phases are’completed, with the idea that corrective measures would be taken if the studies showed
that they were needed.
Mr. Hofman assured Commissioner Heineman that they are very confident and there would be no problem
accepting such a condition.
Chairman Compas m-opened the public testimony.
Chris Calkins, voiced his support of the project and strongly urged the Commission to support the project as
well.
Commissioner Noble asked who the actual owners of this project are and found that Carlsbad Ranch
Company is a Limited Partnership with Carltas as the dominant partner.
Commissioner Savary asked if the applicant would be willing to cooperate with the valet parking concept when
it is needed, after Mr. Heineman’s suggested study and attest to the fact that you will cooperate in giving the
space for the valet parking on other Carltas property adjacent or near this project.
Mr. Calkins agreed to enter into an agreement for valet parking.
Commissioner Welshons introduced the subject of the swimming pool and suggested that it be made a few
feet wider to accommodate one more lane complete with lane lines.
Chairman Compas re-closed public testimony and opened Commission discussion.
Commissioner Heineman expressed his feeling that if the Commission conditions this project in such a way as
to assure that there are two outlets, one being valet parking and the other being studies as the phases are
completed, the Commission can then be assured that the parking problem can be solved and he would be in
favor of the project.
MINUTES
17
PLANNING COMMlSSlOh _ September 18, i99b Page 12
Chairman Compas asked Commissioner Heineman if he would be agreeable to having the Planning Director
determine if and when valet parking becomes necessary to which Commissioner Heineman answered that
having the Planning Director make that determination is exactly how he envisioned the resolution being
amended.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that since both Mr. Calkins and Mr. Stripe have expressed their
willingness to cooperate with the Commission if there is an inadequacy in parking spaces, and since this is
being built in phases, perhaps there could be a “site specific” parking survey done with each phase. Then, if
parking is determined to be insufficient at any time, alternative measures could be taken by direction of the
Planning Director.
Commissioner Heineman pointed out that the phases could be as much as one (1) to three (3) years apart and
during the time between phases there could be enormous insufficient parking and for that reason, the valet
parking as requested by the Planning Commission would cover those “between phases” periods.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that a parking analysis could be done annually, or every six (6) months,
and if the parking is found to be insufficient, the Planning Director would either bring it back to the Commission
with a staff recommendation for either valet parking or additional permanent new parking spaces with the next
phase.
Commissioner Heineman repeated his proposed amendment, recommending that the approval be conditioned
upon a parking survey being conducted at the end of each phase, to determine if parking is sufficient. In
addition, if in between the completion of those phases, the Planning Director should find that there is a
problem, he can request that valet parking be instituted immediately.
Commissioner Noble announced his 100% agreement with Commissioner Heineman.
Commissioner Welshons, asked if Commissioner Heineman would be willing to amend his proposed condition
to read, “mitigating measures may include additional underground parking”.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, pointed out that the CUP, itself, is good for ten (10) years and requires the
Director to annually monitor the operation of the CUP. If, at any time, the Director determines that there is a
problem, he will be back before this Commission, asking for a modification of this CUP to reduce the 11%
parking reduction to 3%, eliminate the 11% entirely, or do something else to solve the problem. Mr. Rudolf
suggested that, perhaps, the Commission need not be quite so concerned about the details of the parking
issue and valet parking, since their concerns are addressed and covered in the CUP.
Commissioner Nielsen offered that, in his opinion, the consensus of the Commission is the parking situation
centering around the 11% reduction. It was also his opinion that if the 11% was not there and the parking was
“per code”, the Commission would not be uncomfortable with it.
Chairman Compas disagreed about the discomfort with the 11% reduction and, in his opinion, the shared
concept is viable and a good one. He also made it clear that he still wants an “out” E it becomes necessary to
have one.
Commissioner Welshons accepted Assistant City Attorney Rudolf s suggestion that the “out” we are looking for
is already spelled out in Condition No. 4, in Resolution No. 3989, with the annual review by the Planning
Director. In a question to Mr. Wayne, she recalled a former project (the five (5) restaurants on Avenida
Encinas), where, when the parking issue was discussed, the Commission “put the ball back in the applicants
court” saying that if there is a problem, they will have to bring a plan on how to mitigate the problem, and
asked him to distinguish the current situation.
MINUTES 7%
rC
I 1 .
PLANNING COMMISSIL. September 18,199o Page 13
Chairman Compas stated that the Planning Director will determine if there is a problem and then it will be up to
the applicant to fix it.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. Wayne would respond to her question.
Mr. Wayne recalled that, in the project described by Commissioner Welshons, the City was faced with the
problem of having to require more parking than is required by Code, and the only way it could be corrected
was to place the onus on the property owners and have them solve the problem through private agreements
with each other.
In this case, there is a CUP agreeing to allow the applicant an 11% parking reduction. If in wsubsequent
year, it is determined there is a problem and it comes back for revocation or reconditioning, the Commission
can revoke that 11% and require the applicant to provide parking “per Code”. The primary reason for
addressing the parking issue in a CUP was to give us the power to bring it back, should it become necessary.
Commissioner Noble asked Mr. Wayne what the City did when it received numerous complaints about parking
around the Claim Jumper, when Sammy’s Wood Fired Pizza was going in?
Mr. Wayne replied that the City had not been able to do anything.
Commissioner Noble, citing Mr. Wayne’s answer, said that that is the reason the Commission is being so
careful now. He was also critical of the power of the CUP and made it quite clear that he will not support the
project unless there are safeguards (as in Commissioner Heineman’s proposed amendment) built in.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Rudolf what would actually happen if it is determined that more parking is
found to be necessary?
Mr. Rudolf repeated the CUP condition requiring Director annual review and returned to the Planning
Commission, for a potential modification reducing or eliminating the 11% reduction allowed.
Commissioner Heineman also asked Mr. Rudolf if he feels that Condition No. 4, of the Conditional Use Permit,
is strong enough to accomplish the necessary results.
Mr. Rudolf said yes, but pointed out that if the project is so successful that it becomes necessary to take back
the 11% parking reduction, and still more parking is required, the City CANNOT “build in” more requirements
than what is required by Code.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3986, 3987, 3988, and 3989 recommending
approval of SDP 96-OlICT 96-011 PUD 96-Ol/ AND CUP 96-l 1, based on
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the
errata sheet (dated September 18, 1996) regarding Condition No. 8 of
Resolution No. 3986.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt an
amendment recommending that the Planning Director be empowered to
require any mitigating measures, as necessary, to solve any parking
problems and that a parking study be conducted as each phase is completed.
Chairman Compas asked Mr. Rudolf if Commissioner Heineman’s proposed amendment is reasonable.
MINUTES ‘19
9 I
PLANNING COMMISSIOI. September 18, 19% Page 14
Mr. Rudolf replied his task was to determine if the proposal is legal. At this time Mr. Rudolf reported that there
has been a new Condition added that neither the public nor the applicant has had an opportunity to address
and requested that Chairman Compas ask the applicant how they feel about it, and consider re-opening publrc
testimony to address the suggested Condition.
Chairman Compas requested that Mr. Hofman respond to Commissioner Heineman’s amendment.
Mr. Hofman’s response was positive, in that the applicant is prepared to “go along” with the Assistant City
Attorney’s recommendation of accepting the language of the CUP, but are also willing to accept Commrssioner
Heineman’s amendment. He did specify, however, that he wanted to be sure that these Minutes reflect (for
reference in years to come) that their first preference, above all others, is for Valet Parking.
Chairman Compas re-opened public testimony and asked anyone who wished to speak, to step to the podium.
Dean-Ross Schessler, residing at 7525 Gibraltar St. in La Costa, offered his opinion that if a restaurant such
as Houston’s did go into this project, the parking problem will be enormous and contingency plans must be
made! In addition, he made it abundantly clear that he is anti-timeshare and this project should be devoted
entirely to a full service hotel which will draw visitors, from all over the world, to a Three Star (or possibly Four
Star) Hotel and not the mixed use that comes with having it being a timeshare facility. Mr. Schessler
concluded his testimony by stressing the fact that he is absolutely adamant against the whole concept of
timeshare which in his considered opinion is that when Cartsbad puts itself on the world map (with Legoland),
that to have a timeshare in its (Legoland) proximity, is going to be a very real, long term negative! With regard
to the parking issue, Mr. Schessler warned that to allow anything less than the required number of parking
spaces (quite possibly not enough even in the short run), is to be extremely short sighted!
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Schessler if he was aware that the nearest hotel will be the Pointe Resort
Hotel, right next to Legoland.
Mr. Schessler responded that he is convinced that the Pointe Resort Hotel will fill up very quickly and the,
overflow will quickly fill the hotel in this project.
Chris Calkins offered his support of the change.
Chairman Compas reclosed public testimony and asked Commissioner Heineman to restate his motion. . .
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to amend the
approval in such a way that it will provide for parking surveys at the end of
each phase, with the Planning Director being empowered to take whatever
action is necessary to make sure there is increased parking, based on those
surveys. Also, in the interim between those surveys, that the Planning
Director be empowered to require additional parking mitigation measures.
VOTE: 6-l
AYES: Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons’
NOES: Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Monroy voiced his concern regarding the fiscal impact to the City, from timeshares as opposed
to a full service hotel. Because he is worried about the financial aspect, he stated that he cannot support the
entire project.
MINUTES 80
- . . .
PLANNING COMMISSL .
-
September 18, 1 &O
Chairman Compas called for a vote overall.
VOTE: 6-l
AYES: Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Noble, Savaty and Welshons
NOES: Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
Chairmen Compas closed the public hearing and thanked all who had participated.
Page 15
-
November 19,1996
TO: CITY MANAGER
FOA THE INFORMATION OF ’
THE CITY CCUNCIL
FROM: Senior Planner
CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT- SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD 96-
01/CUP 96-ll- DRAFT CONDITION FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The City Council considered the above referenced project at the November 12, 1996 meeting.
The project was continued to the meeting of November 26, 1996 so that staff could prepare a
condition for City Council consideration. The condition is to address the provision of additional
parking spaces in the event that there is a parking shortage on the project site.
Staff is recommending that the City Council revise condition number 6 of Planning Commission
Resolution Number 3989. The condition would read as follows with the new provisions
indicated in bold type:
A parking study is required within one year of the completion of each phase of the
project to determine if there is a shortage of parking spaces onsite to
accommodate the parking demand generated by the project. Should the Planning
Director determine at any time that the parking supply onsite is inadequate he
shall bring the project with a recommendation as to how to address the
parking shortage before the City Council who shall have the authority to
require any mitigation measures it deems necessary so that the total number of
parking spaces required for the project by the Zoning Ordinance are
available. Building permits for the subsequent phase or phases of the project will
not be issued unless the parking study is completed and any required mitigation
measures are implemented.
One such mitigation measure may include the joint use of parking facilities
as specified in Section 21.44.050 (a)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance in
conjunction with valet parking. In order to not preclude this option the
project applicant (Grand Pacific Resorts) and the owner of Lot 15 of CT 94-
09 shall enter into an agreement (The First Agreement) which provides that
the owner of Lot 15 agrees to enter into a Joint Use Parking Agreement (The
Second Agreement) if it is determined to be necessary by the City Council to
eliminate a parking shortage on Lot 14 of Map No. 13215. Said agreement
(The First Agreement) shall be recorded in the Office of the County
Recorder and a copy of the recorded document submitted to the Planning
Director prior to approval of the Final Map, issuance of the grading permit,
or issuance of the building permit whichever occurs first. The agreement
(The First Agreement) shall also contain a provision indicating that it cannot
be modified or eliminated without the prior written consent of the City
Council and that it shall survive all ownership transfers of both lots.
CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE
November 19,1996
Should joint use parking be determined to be necessary it shall be processed
pursuant to Section 21.44.050 (a)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance except that the
City Council and not the Planning Commission will have the authority to
authorize the joint use of parking facilities for this project.
The condition has been reviewed by the applicant and his representatives as well as
representatives of the Carlsbad Ranch Company (Carltas) the owners of the lot which could be
used for offsite parking in conjunction with valet parking. All of the involved parties are willing
to accept the condition.
Should you have any questions please contact me at extension 4446.
DON NEU
DN:kr
c: Planning Director
83
I
5 . /4
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planr:ng prs,ez- ,‘i’,ci‘CQDm~e- -U’ F~SCC! AnOlvsis
November 12, 1996
TO: City Council
Bill Hofinan
-zfD--
SUBJECT: SDP 96-01 - Proposed Revision to Condition No. 26 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3986.
Condition No. 26 of P.C. Resolution 3986 requires that the applicant pay a non-residential
affordable housing mitigation fee prior to the issuance of any building permit if such a fee is ever
established. This condition places an unknown financial obligation on the applicant for the
amount of time it takes the applicant to obtain all of his building permits for this project. He has
indicated that his project will be phased and it could be a total of six years before the complete
build out of the site. In effect, the applicant will have agreed to write a blank check to the city
which can be cashed at any time over the next six years.
We believe this condition creates an unnecessary and undo financial hardship on the applicant.
Fist, a lender will be very hesitant to finance a project which has a potentially large impact fee
requirement that is not known at this time. This concern is compounded by the fact that the
project is phased and a series of loans will have to be obtained. Each loan will be faced with this
financial-unknown. We believe this issue alone creates a financial hardship on the applicant that is
not shared by the majority of developers in Carlsbad.
Second, city staffhas indicated that a non-residential affordable housing fee is not being pursued
at this time. Staff has indicated that they are not sure when a fee would be pursued or if one will
be pursued at all. The reason this condition is being placed on this project and other similar
projects is that the city would like to have the ability to retroactively collect a fee if such a fee is
ever adopted. There is no specific timeline for the adoption of any such fee.
Because of the financial hardship an unknown fee requirement places on this project and the t&t
that no specific date has been given for establishing such a fee, we would respectfolly request that
this condition be deleted from PC. Resolution 3986.
We realize that this condition has been placed on other projects and a precedent has been
established for dealing with impacts to affordable housing by non-residential developments. If the
City Council believes that such a condition is necessary, we would recommend a modification to
22 86 =craucv “,:e-de l Suits y 2: . Zarisbcd 0 CL z-~c~ . “-: -y-:-=5 . ‘1, -‘-. _ - 1 c-I-“c
Hofman Planning
Associates
November 12,1996
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Hofman
SUBJECT: CUP 96-11 - Proposed Condition of Approval Relating to Parking.
We would suggest that the following condition be added to CUP 96-l 1 to alleviate any concerns
relating to parking for the project:
“Prior to the issuance of the first building permit on Lot 14 or the recordation of the final
map for CT 96-O 1, the owners of Lot 14 and Lot 15 shall enter into an agreement for the
future recordation of a Reciprocal Parking Agreement on Lot 15 for the purpose of
providing sufficient parking during nighttime peak restaurant hours to comply with the
requirements of Chapter 21.44 (Parking) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and shall record
a notice of such agreement encubering Lot 14 and 15. The decision to record a
Reciprocal Access Agreement shall be made by the City Council if it finds that a
Reciprocal Parking Agreement is necessary based on a detailed parking study. The
parking study shall be conducted within two months of the final occupancy of the second
restaurant on Lot 14 and shall be commissioned by the owner of Lot 14 and subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer. ”
. .
Mayor Lewis 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Mario R. Monroy 3612 Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I would like to comment on why I voted “no” on the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort at the Planning Commission meeting Of September 18, 1996.
l Regarding common parking facilities, the 11% reduction in the total required parking is calculated based on the total number of slots. However if the calculation
is done on a square foot of required parking basis, the reduction is more like 18% versus the maximum permitted of 15%.(Most of the fees in this city are collected on a square foot basis.)
l All of the commissioners had problems with the parking on this project.
l Based on the Specific Plan and the Environmental Report, this project should
have been a hotel.(See Figure 33, pg. 118 of the specific plan which specifies 280 hotel rooms and 20, Ooo sq. ft. of retail)
l Based on the number of time share units, this is actually a a% timeshare project. However if you make the calculation on a square foot basis, it is about 81% timeshares.
l The justification for the above changes is that the Specific Plan said timeshares would be allowed .
l If the city allows Specific Plans to be interpreted so loosely, I believe Carlsbad will lose control of the total number of time shares that can be built.
l I believe that allowing Specific Plans to be changed this much without an amendment defeats the purpose of having them.
l It may not be in the best interests of the city in the long run to allow developers to change from a hotel project to a timeshare project because of effects on the
general fund. Hotel rooms generate TOT taxes, which the city has complete control over. On the other hand, timeshares generate real estate taxes , the distribution of which is controlled by the state.
Please call me at 729-7242 if you have any questions.
s . -cF
PROOF OF PUbL 3ATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
November 2, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this -day
1
++
I ------ -------------- ------ Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This spa& IS for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of public Hearing --------------------------
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tc you because your interest may be afk&d. that the c Cai~oftheCityofCutrbsdwRIhddapublkhearingattheCityCo~lCbamben, la C&Wed Wage Drive Cadabad, Caliiia. at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, Nbvember 12,1% to adder an apptikation for a site Development Plan, TentetIve Tract Map. NO ROSidMbl Planned Unit Development, and a Conditional Use Permit for a pro@ proming 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units, and 3 restaurants, with common pati fadlitba pmv+ding for an 11 percent reduction in total required perking, on 12.20 acres ~,genergl)y~~onthewestsideofArmedaDrivbinorthofPdwnarAirpc f$?d. @hitI f%tthgha 3 d hIsbad Ranch Specific Plan, iri’tha Coastal Zone, in Lot Faulitiee Mament Zone 13, and more particularly deskbed w
Lot14ofcsrlsbadTradN4.e2-7.~RBIIch,~to~p~~. X+215. fkd In the Of6ce qf the San O&go County fWx%r on June 30.W6.
ffywhavsMy’gueglianr~thipm~,~ecdlD8n~,inmePlsnrdr cMp&mm, atC19) 4qllBl. 4xt. 4446. i
JfyoucMk4lgethesteDaveJ~
~~~~~~
thOPUiMin&t,plRIC t&nIMloral&gonlylfb3ed nludbyyouasomepneetaea @blich4ari~drdcribedinttrb~m orinWi&n~ct+detiv to lhe Cl of cadsbed ctty Cl cwioa*orpriorto.thepublichea The time within which you judicially challenge this tent; 8ubdMsion map, if approved eaWher4 by state lew and/or a&wrcs,andbverythort.
AW’LICANT: ’ Gmlld Pacillc Rssortr, inc.
cARtBAD CITY COUNCIL
laosl467gONovembar2.1996
c
kmal
tica rered erkk bring.
I, is
P -- -b I
noTE:%B&of?T @
LOP 46OlIcr a&ol/P”Dss~ork”i i6.dll ’
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SDP 960l/CT 96-l/PUD 960l/CUP 96-11
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, November 12, 1996, to consider an application for a Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, and a Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units, and 3 restaurants, with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking, on 12.20 acres of property, generally located on the west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road, within Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, in the Coastal Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 13, and more particularly described as:
Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7, Carlsbad Ranch, according to Map thereof No. 13215, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder on June 30, 1995.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Don Neu, in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4446.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, and/or Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. The time within which YOU may judicially challenge this tentative subdivision map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short.
APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. PUBLISH: November 2, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
-
\ CANNO
\ PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD RANCH
HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD 96-OIEUP 96-11
, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 18, 1996, to consider a request for a recommendation of
approval of a Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Planned
Unit Development and a Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing 161 timeshare
units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11
percent reduction in total required parking on 12.20 acres generally located on the west
side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 3 of the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management
Zone 13, and more particularly described as:
Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
13215, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County on June 30,1995.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 12,
1996. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning Department at
(619) 438-l 161, extension 4446.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Site Development Plan, Planned
Unit Development, Tentative Tract Map and/or Conditional Use Permit, if approved, is
established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the
Site Development Plan, Planned Unit Development, Tentative Tract Map and/or
Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: SDP 96-Ol/PUD 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/CUP 96-l 1 ---I---” -..__.. ._ -, *
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND RESORT
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 4,1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576’0 (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 @
(Form A)
TO; CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: DON NEU
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached arc the materials necessary for you to notide
SDP 96-Ol/CT 96-Ol/PUD 96-Ol/CUP 96-11 - Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort
for a public hearing before the City Council. \
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man--
lo-44c9
Oate
NW-01-96 FRI 15:lO CITY OF CARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO. g80894
DONIGAN, JOE
7712 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOUGLAS, LARRY
7505 BRAVA 8T
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KRASNER, PAUL
16439 HARLOWEi f..N
HUNTINGTCIN BCH CA 92649
KRISTAL, HAROLD 3602 KINGSTON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-218 1
LANDA, STEVEN
7004 VIA PADILLA
CAR1 SEAD CA 92009
LAWLER, STCVEN
3515 VALLEY ST
CARLS8AV GA ~m&2638
KLAT C;HKO & KLATCHKO
177 S CIVIC DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
KLOSS, CARL
APT 2
2535 JEFFERSON
CARLSSAO CA 92008
P. 01
. . - . .
.
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 SO RANCH0 SANTA FE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
SUITE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPT
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SD COUNTY PLANNING
SUITE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COMMUNITY SERVICES
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
SANDAG
SUITE 800
400 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
DON NEU
Planning Department
. -
L L
- LEG0 MAILING LABLES
INTERESTED PARTIES LIST (2/96)
H:\ADMIN\LABELS\LEGO MAILING
LABELS 2
MAPADLER, ALICE
6905 PEAR TREE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3939
ALEXANDER, GERRI
PO BOX 1396
BORREGO SPRINGS CA 92008
ALTMAN, JANE
2387 TERFtAZA GUITARA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AMERICAN OCCUPATIONAL MED
SUITE A
5810 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92069
ANDRE, JEANETTE
7303 LINDEN TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ARMSTRONG, RUSSELL
4006 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AHLES, STEVE
PO BOX 682
CARDIFF CA 92007
ALFREDOS DOS
6030 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALVAREZ, JESS
1220 STRATFORD LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANDERSON, JULIE
6913 BLUE ORCHID LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANSPACH, KAREN
2343 TERRAZA GUITARA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6624
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REGULATORY BRANCH
10845 RANCH0 BERNARD0 RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92127
BAJADA, LARRY
4461 GLADSTONE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIST
ANDREW HAMILTON
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
ALLEN, JANE
5525 VICTORIA AVE
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
AMEIGEIRAS, PAIGE
4320 STANFORD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANDERSON, ANGELICA
3075 BLENKARNE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AOM
ROBERT CLIFFORD
5810A EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVE RESIDENCE
868 MARIGOLD CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3822
BAKER, LARRY
614 NAVIGATOR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AYCOCK RESIDENCE BARNES, TOM
1721 BONITA LN 7304 AZALEA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 147 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BASMADJIAN, EDWARD
6559 CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARNES, BARBARA BEHRHORST, JACQUELINE BELKO, WILLIAM
7128 LANTANA TERRACE 2696 WATERBURY WAY 2005 PINTORESCO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARSLBAD CA 92009
BEAVER, JANE
6677A PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BELL FAMILY PARTNERS
PO BOX 151
ANAHEIM CA 92815
BELLINGTON, JIM
7447 BATIQUITOS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
. - . ,
\
BELL, STEPHEN
PO BOX 2125
BEAUMONT CA 92223
BENTLEY, DAVID
SUITE 221
3573 EAST SUNRISE DR
TUCSON AZ 85718
BERGMAN, CARL
2677 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BILLADO, MARIJON
4021 ARCADIA WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
BORNEMANN RESIDENCE
1620 BITTERN CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOWEN, J.T.
4060 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRETZLAFF, R.L.
7787 PALENQUE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BROWNING, MONICA
6855 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BURNS, ELLEN
6837 WATERCOURSE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD VILLAGE AUTO BODY
& PAINT
3191 TYLER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EASLAND, RL
BENTSON, KRISTINA
SUITE 530
4275 EXECUTIVE SQUARE
LA JOLLA CA 92037
BEYER RESIDENCE
1854 TULE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5138
BLEHA, PAT
3209 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOSCO, JOSEPH
2128 SUBIDA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOYLAN, KAREN
3213 VIA PESCADO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRODSKY, EDWARD
PO BOX 768
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
BRUCKNER, LESLIE
SUITE 307
1325 VALLEY VIEW RD
GLENDALE CA 91202-I 737
CALABRESE, DALE
1012 HOME AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSON, SHIRLEY
2842 HILLSBORO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERG, BOB
PO BOX 4024
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
BIDDLE, VONNA
1442 SWEETBRIAR CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOHLIM, JUDY
5140 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOVAY, JULIE
2577 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRAVENDER, JOANNA
3952 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BROWN, ALICE
5157 SHORE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRUSSEAU, SCOTT
SUITE 350
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALSBEEK, JERRY
4647 E WASHINGTON BLVD
COMMERCE CA 90040
CARLSBAD ARTS OFFICE
CARLSON, BEATRICE
3390 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
. ,
. CARLSBAD CITY LIBRARY
REFERENCE DEPARTMENT
1250 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLTAS
SUITE 100
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHANG, JAMES
MIEKO, BANDAI
4520 SALISBURY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHUNN, SUSAN
6835 CARNATION DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CLARK, VIOLET
4740 BIRCHWOOD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COOMBS RESIDENCE
1010 DAISY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CPS PRINTING
CHRIS SOMMER
2304 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAME RESIDENCE
7726 PALACIO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEFREITAS, GENE
3425 COVALLIS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 1604
CARLSBAD CA 92018-l 605
CHRISTENSEN, CHRIS & KAY
4026 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
300 N COAST HIGHWAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CLARKE, SHERI
811 WINDWARD LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CORTE, NORA
2507 LA GOLONDRINA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4319
DACOSTA, DAVID
2922 VIA IPANEMA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DE JONG, ERIC
1308 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEWHURST, DON
3425 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOYLE, MARK
4525 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DUNBAR, R
5257 SHORE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHAN, CLAUDE
1726 BLACKBIRD CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPH, C
1852 LOTUS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CLARK, BOB
PO BOX 230566
ENCINITAS CA 92023
CONROY RESIDENCE
3334 SEACREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COURTNEY, MIKE
5217 LOS ROBLES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAINTY, JOAN
SUITE 100
7030 AVE ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEBAUN, LESTER
3450 CORVALLIS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOMINGUEZ, BILL
4378 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-42()3
DRESSELHAUS, PATRICIA
2359 PI0 PICO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DUVICK, RICHARD
APT C
7335 ALICANTE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
.
. I)
DUHAME,L, LOUISE
7772 PENDON CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DYCHE, JAMES
2566 S CENTRAL AVE
FLAGLER BEACH FL 32136
EDGEMON, CRIAG
1212 HYMETTUS AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
ELECTRA-MEDIA
PO BOX 3023
MANHATTAN BCH CA 90266
ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT
101 S RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
ENRIGHT, MICHAEL
72 FREMONT PL
LOSANGELES CA 90005
FEARY, MAUREEN
2150 SUNSET BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
JOE SIMMONS
2365 MARRON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FORD, SANYA
3322 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7841
EARNEST, ROBERT
7016 SNAPDRAGON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EDWARDS, BRUCE
3445 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2031
ELMENDORF, FRED
7121 MANZANITA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENG RESIDENCE
6809 BRIARWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EPSTEIN, JACKIE
3965 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FELTON, RP
4803 NEBLINA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FOLAND, JUDY
7555 ROMERIA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FORMA
SUITE 250
8910 UNIVERSITY CTR LN
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
FOX, AW
2454 UNICORN10 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EATON, N
SUITE 108A - 347
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EIDELSON, LAURA
13144 JANElTA PL
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
ENCINA WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY
6200 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENGELHARD, WILLARD
3484 DON LORENZO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ESCOBEDO, OFELIA
3292 ROOSEVELT ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FIKES, JC
2371 BUENA VISTA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 604
FORBES& DONNA
7086 PRIMENTEL LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FOUR SEASONS RESORT
SUITE 109
2796 LOKER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FRENCH, GORDON
2913 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6568
FOUR-SHER DEVELOPMENT FULLER, MARGARET GAFFNEY, JEFFREY
SUITE 202 4550 LA PORTALADA DR 7038 VIA CABANA
990 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
a4
, I
FRIENDS OF CARRILLO RANCH GALLUP, TOM
2622 EL AGUILA LN 2725 LYONS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2 127
GARDNER RESIDENCE
3450 WOODLAND WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GALLUP, DOLORES GATT1 RESIDENCE GAUKELS RESIDENCE
2725 LYONS CT 1407 SANTIAGO DR 6964 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GASCOGNE, MELANIE
2620 MALLORCA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GERHARD, ANDREW GILLASPIE, ROBIN
7008 ESTRELLA DE MAR 813 CAMINITO DEL SOL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEE RESIDENCE
2727 SPOKANE WY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GIROUX, JOHN GI-ITELSON RESIDENCE
SUITE A68-320 6563 VIA BARONA
800 GRAND AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GILMORE, RUBY GOULD, MACK GREENWALD, MARILYN
2617 FIRE MTN DR 3320 CADENCIA ST 2000 TUSTIN AVE
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6164 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7808 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
GORDON, JOHN
7110 AZALEA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRINGLE, PAUL
2705 VIA JUANITA WY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-8351
GROSSE, MARY
5850 SUNNY CREEK RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRIMM, MAXINE GRUBBS RESIDENCE HALLORAN, JOSEPH
2535 CORTE CASITAS 3257 GARFIELD ST 2805 FOREST VIEW WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5816 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRUBB & ELLIS CO. HANSEN, DARIAN HARLOW RESIDENCE
SUITE 100 3296 AVENIDA ANACAPA SUITE D
1921 PALOMAR OAKS WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 7523 JEREZ CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAMLIN, ROBERT
4543 CHANCERY COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HARTMAN RESIDENCE
6744 CAMINO DEL PRADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3311
HARVEY, DIANA
SUITE 108A252
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2999
HART PROPERTIES
SUITE 201
4760 MURPHY CYN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
HAWTHORNE RENT IT SERVICE
PAUL HAWTHORNE
530 ANDREASEN DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
HAWTHORNE, J.T.
PO BOX 708
SAN DIEGO CA 92112-4125
h.
. .
HAVENS RESIDENCE
2139 ARCHDALE ST
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
HEINZE, KIMBERLY
APT C
7349 ALICANTE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HERTEL, JOSEPH
SUITE 307
5030 CAMINO DE LA SIESTA
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
HILL RESIDENCE
3221 CALLE VALLARTA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HIRSCHORN, GERALD
7320 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOPKINS, ANNA
3020 BLENKARNE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOUSER RESIDENCE
6703 ANTILOPE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUGHES, N
4815 VIGILANT WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HENDERSON, JACK
7408 LANTANA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HIGGINS, MICHAEL
87 NORTH RAYMOND
PASADENA CA 91103
HILL, BERNICE
2984 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOENIGMAN RESIDENCE
2207 RECODO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HORTON RESIDENCE
SUITE 104-255
7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUBER, GENE
6407 EL PAT0 CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUMPHREY, J
2824 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HYNAN, LYNDA
26432 BODEGA LN
MISSION VIEJO CA 92691
HENRISH CARMEN, SUSAN
2739 BANNER
DEARBORN Ml 48124
HILL, JACK
4264 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HILLMAN PROPERTIES
SUITE 206
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOODY, REGINA
9454 JONES ST
OMAHA NE 68114
HOSSEINZADEH, DAN
3 HUGHES
IRVINE CA 92718
HUEBNER, PETER
3461 CORVALLIS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HUMPHREYS, MARY
2604 VIA BOCAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 381
HYNES, TIM
4613 BUCKINGHAM LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS IREMONGER, VERA ISLAND GIRL
33012 CALLE AVIADOR SUITE 206 2603B EL CAMINO REAL
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 4572 VIA MARINA CARLSBAD CA 92008
92675 MARINA DEL REY CA 90292
INDRIERI, DOROTHY JACOBS, RICHARD JOHNSON, STANWOOD
4992 VIA MARTA 2726 CHESTNUT AVE 7209 LINDEN TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2125 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ITS ABOUT TIME
72840 HWY 111
PALM DESERT CA 92260
JOHNSON RESIDENCE
5031 TIERRA DEL OR0
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHNSON, CONNIE
1749 FOREST AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JONES, GWEN
3515 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2527
KEARNS, MARY
809 WINDCREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KELM RESIDENCE
7319 E ALICANTE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KIESNER RESIDENCE
7925 AVENIDA DIESTRO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KINKO’S COPY CENTER
JENNIFER ROBERTSON
1921 W SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
KNEPPER, DONALD
7247 ESFERA STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7818
KOLDEN, JOHN R.
10 BLUE JAY
ALISO VIEJO CA 92656
JOHNSON, EDMOND
3211 IBSEN ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92106-1434
JONES RESIDENCE
6721 RUSSELIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAPIN, HERB & DOROTHY
6729 OLEANDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KELLEY, KENNETH
6538 CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2465
KENDALL, BARBARA
7103 LANTANA TERR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KIM RESIDENCE
7633 RUSTIC0 DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7919
KITZMILLER, JR
JOHNSON RESIDENCE
3344 CAMINO CORONADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JONES, RICCI
3620 AZURE CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KATICK, SALLY
4179 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KELLY RESIDENCE
6728 LUCIERNAGA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENT, ALAN
6438 LA GARZA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4318
KIMBLER, JUDY
2345B ALTISMA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KhKO & KLATCHKO
1488 WINDY MTN RD
WESTLAKE VILLAGE CA 91362
KNOX, PAT KOHNS, ROBERT
2002 PINTORESCO CT 7959 CALLE POSADA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
92649
LAMSON, SUSAN
174 BEECHTREE DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
KUBOTA, JACK
PO BOX 1095
CARLSBAD CA 92018
. .
‘LAATSCH RESIDENCE
3219 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LECAKES, DOREEN
3531 LANDSFORD WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEFTON, DAVID
6019 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LINEHAN, DONNA
4325 SEA BRIGHT DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3627
LOCKETT, RANDY
391 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4064
LOO, DAVID
7267 SPOONBILL LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEE, MIMI
5924 BALFOUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LERNER, MIRIAM
3355 CONCORD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 361
LINNERTZ, TERRY & KAREN
3383 GARIBALDI PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LOHMAN, GREG
1725 CATALPA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOPEZ, ROBERT
7912 TERRAZA DISOMA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOW, RICHARD
3255 MCKINLEY STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 923
LOVULLO RESIDENCE MACLACHLAN, D.D.
16825 BAJIO RD 7035 SNAPDRAGON DR
ENCINO CA 91436 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MACKEY, DORIS MARIOS, H
4721 AMBERWOOD CT 7752 MADRILENA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARCUS, MARY MARTICH, MARGE
6741 RUSSELIA CT 2657 VANCOUVER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3339 CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARSH, OGDEN MCDANIEL, BEVERLY
4306 HORIZON DR 1023 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3652 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEE RESIDENCE
7232 DURANGO CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEVY, MARILYN
7632 REPOSADO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LIVINGSTONE, RITA
3028 HEMLOCK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LONG RESIDENCE
3270 CAMINO CORONADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LORENTSEN, FRED
4866 PARK DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3811
LUTZ, ANNA
4629 BUCKINGHAM LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MALDONADO, DAVE
6816 ZINNIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARKETING STRATEGIES
SUITE 2D
7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARTYNS, LEONARD
635 E LEADORA AVE
GLENDORA CA 91741
MCDONOUGH RESIDENCE
6831 MAPLE LEAF DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
- * . i
MASTNY, MARCELA
1714 CATALPA RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCKAY, GINGER
908 POPPY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCKINNON, RL
7591 DEHESA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7704
MEC ANALYTICAL FYSTEMS
2433 IMPALA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCNULTY RESIDENCE
5156 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCGEE RESIDENCE
905 POPPY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MELLANO, MIKE
PO BOX 100
SAN LUIS REY CA 92068
MCNALLY, JOHN
4755 BRYCE CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MELILLO, NICK
3746 LONGVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MEC ANALYTICAL SYSTEMS
ANNIE COPPOCK
2433 IMPALA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MENEI RESIDENCE
734 ROGUE ISLE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MERGOITH, MARY
SUITE U177
315 FIRST ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MESSINA, RALPH
4620 LAPORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHAELSON, LEWIS
13850 DAVENPORT AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92129
MENARD, RAYMOND III
4303 SIERRA MORENA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MESKIN, HARVE
2733 LEVANTE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MILES, CD
7016 LANTANA TERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MILLER, LINDA
4007 ISLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICKLEY RESIDENCE
4835 ARGOSY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILLER, LEON
3750 NAUTICAL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILLIKEN, FLORENCE
4062-A GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MITCHELL RESIDENCE
6912 THRUSH PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIZE, HAROLD
7125 SANTA BARBARA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4630
MILLER, JIM
3107 LEVANTE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIRELL, CONSTANCE
1713 CAMINO DE LA COSTA
REDONDO BCH CA 90277
MOFFAT FOR CITY COUNCIL
SUITE 9
2645 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MORGAN, JAYNA
SUITE 450
1920 MAIN ST
IRVINE CA 92714
MIZUNO, NATSUKO
6873 CARNATION DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MORONG, T.M.
6747 NEPEZA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MORROW DEVELOPMENT INC
PO BOX 9000-685
CARLSBAD CA 92018-9000
-
, F
MORIN, ELIZABETH
4805 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3734
NAKAMURA, JAMES
2235 JANIS WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NASH, CLAUDE
2957 GREENWICH ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MULLEN RESIDENCE
2617 OCEAN ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NAUGLER RESIDENCE
4010 SUNNYHILLDR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NEBLETT, WILL
856 BLUEBELL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NASH, SPENCER
PO BOX 2173
LEUCADIA CA 92024
NEGLIA, BART
1060 WIEGAND ST
OLIVENHAIN CA 92024
NEU, JOHN
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
NEEDHAM RESIDENCE
7922 CALLE SAN FELIPE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NQRTH COUNTY TIMES
COLIN HALEY
1722 SOUTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT
DISTRICT
311 S TREMONT
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
NORRIS, KATHLEEN
23274 CARINGA WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6344
NSDC ASSOC OF REALTORS
754 SECOND ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024
O’BRIEN RESIDENCE
4774 GATESHEAD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NOTRICA, SOLOMON
926 ALYSSUM RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OERUM, JOHN
2618 LA GOLONDRINA ST
CARLSBAD CA 920094322
OGASAWARA, KOICHI
7509 GARDEN GROVE AVE
RESEDA CA 91335
O’HARA, JAMES
6545 VIA BARONA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ORTIZ, PEARL
7361 LINDSEY AVE
PICO RIVERA CA 90660
OVEBECK, TINA
7030 EL FUERTE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OGDEN, JEAN
2634 LEVANTE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAKULA RESIDENCE
1804 COlTONWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-5140
PALMER, WILLIAM
6642 TOWHEE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OWPNICK, SUSAN
TAYLOR, DEE & JOHN
241 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PARKER RESIDENCE
2620 ACUNA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PARKER, ALAN DALE
3111 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PALOMAR TEXACO
MARK CONGER
665 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PASHLEY, BE-I-I-Y
2203 CAMEO RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PAVIA, PAT
3352 STILLWATER CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PASCOE, STEPHEN
6888 SHEARWATERS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3703
PAWLOWICZ RESIDENCE
4625 BUCKINGHAM LN
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6402
PERKINS, KENNETH
6406 CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETERS, DEBBIE
911 ORCHID WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PINES, DARRELL
2011 LEE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PLAZA CAMINO REAL
SUITE 100
2525 EL CAMINO REAL
’ CARLSBAD CA 92008
PORTER, BARBARA
4605 DRIFTWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3717
PAYNE, ROBERT
PO BOX 3073
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PERLMAN, MARC
SUITE 100
10179 HUENNEKENS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
PETTINE, ROSE
4405 TRIESTE DR.
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PLANNING SYSTEMS
SUITE 100
2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
POLLAK, RICHARD
7520A JEREZ CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7440
POWERS, ELLEN
7063 ROCKROSE TERR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PURDY, BILL
3402 SANTA CLARA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PERAINO, TONY
2105 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PESCHKE, BERNARD
812 CAMINITO DEL MAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PHILLIPS, C.N.
2997 VIA DE PAZ
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PlAlT, JOSEPH
452WllTHST
CLAREMONT CA 91711
PONSEGGI, BERNARD
6947 WHITECAP DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3747
PRITTEN, JOANNE
330 CHINQUAPIN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PYNES, SUSAN
2746 INVERNESS DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PROKOP, jOHN
6422 CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2463
RCD OF GREATER SAN DIEGO
PATTY MCDUFFEE
332 S JUNIPER ST
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
REAGLE, HAROLD
6731 RUSSELIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3338
RAICEVIC RESIDENCE REED, JOE REICH, MARY
2932 AVENIDA VALERA 7024 ROCKROSE TERRACE 7610 PRIMAVERA WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
REDDING RESIDENCE REISER, CHRIS
2246 JANIS WAY 2634 HALF DOME PL
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
RHODES, FRED
7738 LUCIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
r” - . .
REIFF, OLIVIA
2211 CALLE CIDRA
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673
RICKS, VIRGINIA
919 MARGUERITE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RIJ RESIDENCE
811 CAMINITO VERDE
CARSLBAD CA 92009
RHODES RESIDENCE
SUITE IH
2517 NAVARRA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROAMR, MICHAEL
73 SOUTH PEAK DR
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
ROBERTS, BARBARA
6936 DUSTY ROSE PL
CARLSAD CA 92009
RJM DESIGN GROUP
SUITE 250
27285 IAS RAMBLAS
MISSION VIEJO CA 92691
ROBINSON, ESTHER
4178 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RODGERS, GEORGE
6749 RUSSELIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBINSON, R.R.
2531 STATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROSE RESIDENCE
1060 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROSE, D./K. LITTLE/J. LARKIN
P.O. BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112-4150
ROGERS, CHUCK
1892 AVOCADO RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
ROYCE, ROBERT
PO BOX 6720
KETCHUM ID 83340
RUSSEL W GROSSE DEV
SUITE A
5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROSENBAUM, WAYNE
3212 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
AGNES ROLElTl
3156 VISTA WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
SCALICE, ELIZABETH
5540 EL ARBOL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SALTZMAN, MARCIA
299 VIA SARASAN
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SCHARER, RANDEE
5914 SO LE DOUX RD
LOS ANGELES CA 90056
SCHESSLER, DEAN-ROSS
7525 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7460
SCHAD, HERBERT.
338A HACKENSACK ST
WOODRIDGE NJ 07075
SCHLONSKY, K.J.
PO BOX 2725
CARLSBAD CA 92018
SCHREIBER, DALE
7290 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHILLING, WILLIAM
PO BOX 417
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHWEITZER, VANCE
4650 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SDGE
SUITE 142B
5865 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4467
SCHULZ, K.R.
2648 MARMOL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHAH, KEN
_ CARLSBAD LODGE
3570 PI0 PICO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHANER, M
7204 LINDEN TERR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4719
. -
. * I
STEVENS, EVERE-I-I- SUCHOR, KATHLEEN SUGG, WILLIAM
3619 HAVERHILL ST 4507 ST GEORGE CT 2010 PINRORESCO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2175 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2880 CARLSBAD CA 92009
STUART RESIDENCE
3512 CELINDA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SUNDERLAND, SHIRLEY
6919 SANDCASTLE DR
CARSLBAD CA 92009-3733
SUNSET SENIOR APTS
PO BOX 5498
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92674
SULLIVAN, THOMAS TANICO, SHEILA TATE, NORMA
803 WIINDCREST DR 2412-A ALTISMA WAY 16455 SOUTH 15TH STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PHOENIX AZ 85048
SWANK, GERALD
1413 SWEETBRIAR CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAYLOR, LESTER
755 ALMA DR
PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272
TECHBILT CONST CORP
TED TCHANG
PO BOX 80036
SAN DIEGO CA 92138
TAYLOR, CATHERINE
2564 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE BLACKMORE CO
RONALD CLYDE
12626 HIGH BLUFF DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
THOMAS, DAVID
7318 BLACK SWAN PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TELL, DARRYL & KATHY TOSTO RESIDENCE TROlT, KENNETH
2611 HIGHLAND DR 4904 VIA AREQUIPA DEPT. OF CONSERVATION
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 MS 13-71
801 K STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
THOMPSON, WILLIAM TURNER, DAVID TUTTERROW, ELAINE
PO BOX 1601 1024 HYME-ITUS AVE 4625 TRIESTE DR
OXNARD CA 93032 LEUCADIA CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92008
TULLOCH, BRIAN
7314 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALENTI, JOE
3491 LAWRENCE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VAN EGMOND, P.J.
6833 PEAR TREE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3937
UNION PACIFIC VILLAGE FAIRE VINZANT, MARIAN
SUITE 211 SUITE 108A331 5234 CARLSBAD BLVD
2945 HARDING ST 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
VASQUEZ, ERNIE
SUITE B
2444 SACADA CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WADDS, ANDREA
2804 VIA MAGIA
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 345
WARD, DALE
2209 PLAZA DE LAS FLORES
CARLSBAD CA 92009
I
VOLL, CLYDE
2938 AVENIDA THERESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WARRICK, WILLIAM
7521 NAVIGATOR CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WATT HOMES
SUITE 200
27720 JEFFERSON AVE
TEMECULA CA 92590
WHIPPLE RESIDENCE
4858 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAMS, RICHARD
2702 JACARANDA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ZIEGLER, RAYMOND
3110 VIA SOMBRA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WASSEM, RAND
SUITE EB5C
101 ASH ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
WEATHERS, STEVE
SUITE 1850
701 BST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
WILLIAMS, GARY
943 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILSON, DONALD
3110 LEVANTE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ZIGRANG, DAVID
7031 COLUBINE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAN POWELL
208 SOUTH RIOS AVE
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
WATKINS, DON
3778 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WESTFIELD CORP INC
SUITE 1200
11601 WILSHIRE BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90025
WILLIAMS, DON
3162 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
YOUNG, JIM
3951 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE BEVERIDGE FAMILY
1642 MARBELLOC DRIVE
VISTA CA 92083
r
, I -
’ CB RANCH ENTERPRISE
SUITE 100
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD ESTATE HOLDING
SUITE 100
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN MATTOX
JPM DESIGN MANAGEMENT
SUITE C
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD RANCH CO
SUITE 100
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THE PRICE CO
PO BOX 97077
KIRKLAND WA 98083
MIKE HOWES
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC
SUITE 120
2386 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NAMM
5140 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TIM STRIPE
GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS
SUITE 200
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GEORGE O’DAY
O’DAY CONSULTANTS
SUITE 204
7220 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
December 5, 1996
Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc.
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of November 26, 1996, adopted
Resolution No. 96-382, approving SDP 96-1, CT 96-1, PUD 96-1, and CUP 96-11.
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-382 for your files.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, CMC ’
City Clerk
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 a3