HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-10; City Council; 14548; SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SDP 94-04(B)B 9 Ek 2
2 0
0 4
1
z 3 0 0
i=
G
!I3 FlTY OF CARLSBAD - AGENfi BILL 2
AB# )$x# TITLE: DEPT.HD. 4
MTG. s SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT CITY ATTY. <
DEPT. PLN @
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. ff-3a
amendment SDP 94-04(B).
ITEM EXPLANATION:
This project is the expansion of an existing facility, the Seapointe Resort, by an additional 17
The Zoning Ordinance allows buildings within the Commercial Tourist zone to be built to a t
45 feet from existing grade through the approval of a Site Development Plan by the City (
The project is proposed with a building height of 42 feet from existing grade. The expansior
is proposed with the same architecture as the existing facility and the building height i:
continuation of the existing facility.
The findings required for approval of a building higher than 35 feet can be made i
incorporated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4141.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project at their December 3, 1997 meeting and a
the Site Development Plan amendment by a vote of 5-2. Two property owners from the adj;
Costa Downs subdivision were concerned with the building height and the availability of pai
the facility. Excerpts from the Planning Commission minutes are included.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Development of the site is at the expense of the developer. No fiscal impact to the City is e
as a result of this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REV1 EW:
An environmental analysis of the proposed project was conducted and no significant impac
identified. A Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director and approved
Planning Commission on December 3, 1997.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No.
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4141
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 3, 1997
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 3, 1997.
SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
SDP 94-04(8) CITY MGR~
APPROVING Site Developme
yf-3a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 98-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 94-04(8) TO ALLOW
ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 42 FEET
INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 17 UNIT TlMESHARElHOTEL
EXPANSION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ISLAND WAY AND
SURFSIDE LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
CASE NO.: SDP 94-04(B)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby r
as follows:
WHEREAS, on December 3, 1997 the Carlsbad Planning Comrr
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Site Development PI
the Seapointe Expansion, and adopted Resolution No. 4141 recommending to th
Council that the Site Development Plan be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on 10th
of February
heard all persons interested in or opposed to SDP 94-04(6); and
, 1998 held a public hearing to consider the recommendatio
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the project and il
determined that the project would not have a significant adverse effect oi
environment and a Negative Declaration was issued and approved by PIa
Commission Resolution No. 41 36.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the C
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
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
a ‘.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the appi
Site Development Plan 94-04 is approved and that the findin!
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Comr
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
Resolution NO. 4141 an file with the City Clerk and incorporated hc
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is go
by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applic
the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any pet
other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court r
than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision become
however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request
record of proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an i
sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, th
within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not latter tt
thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally de
for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with tt
Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Ca
92008.”
or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written rt
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resoluZion shall be effective upon its adopi
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
City of Carlsbad on the 10th day of / 1998, by the following VI
wit:
February
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, an
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-2-
0 0 El
SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
SDP 94=04(B)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0 EX
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4141
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
UP TO 42 FEET INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL
PROJECTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 17 UNIT
TIMESHAREMOTEL EXPANSION ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
ISLAND WAY AND SUWSIDE LANE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
SDP 94-04(B) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT
CASE NO.: SDP 94-04B)
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Seapointc
11, L. P., “Owner”, described as
That portion of Lot 2, Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to the Official Plat thereof, bounded on the west by the easterly
line of the land described in Deed to the State of California
recorded October 4, 1951, in Book 4253, Page 578 of Official
Records as Document No. 121143, bounded on the east by the
westerly line of that parcel off land conveyed in Deed to
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, recorded
January 29, 1946 as Document No. 9749, in Book 2031, Page
277 of Official Records; bounded on the south by the northerly
line of La Costa Downs, Unit No. 1 according to Map thereof
No. 2013, and bounded on the north by the north line of the
south 60 acres of Lots 1,2 and 3 and the southeast quarter of
the southeast quarter of Section 20 and Lot 4 and the
southwest quarter of southwest quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, excepting from said Lots 1 and 2, and portions
thereof, now or herebefore lying below the mean high tide line
of the Pacific Ocean
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Develc
Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “I” - “K” dated December 3, 1997, on file
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
Planning Department, Seapointe Resort Expansion [Site Development Plan Amendm
94-04(B)] as provided by Chapter 21-06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to be
conjunction with the Seapointe Resort Exhibits “J-T” dated August 17, 1994 on fi
Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of Decembi
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a1
relating to the Site Development Plan Amendment.
WHEREAS, on August 17,1994, the Planning Commission approved t
04, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution N0.3694.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the E
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P1
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Site Developmenl
Amendment, SDP 94-04(B) based on the following findings and subject
following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the building does not contain more than three levels;
2. Setbacks have been provided beyond the minimum at a ratio of one additior
per every additional vertical foot above 35 feet;
The building has been conditioned to conform with the requirements of I!
18.04.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
No part of the building exceeds 45 feet in height, including architectural proje
3.
4.
**’.
PC RES0 NO. 4141 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1:
20
21
22
0 0
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of
Development Plan Amendment for the project entitled Seapointe Resort Ex
through the augmentation of Exhibits “I-K” dated December 3, 1997 to 1
“J99-‘‘T’’ dated August 17,1994 on file in the Planning Department and incorpo
this reference, subject to the conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and
to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to
Development Plan document(s), as necessary, to make them internally consister
conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occw substan
shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially differ
this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
This recommendation for approval is granted subject to the approval of CT !
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the I
2.
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of December 1997
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble and Sa
Chairperson Neilsen and Commissioner Welshons
@ -
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
EXHI (Tbe City of CARLSBAD Planning Departme 81 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
0 Item No.
Application complete date: April 15, 1997
Project Planner: Christer Westman b Project Engineer: Ken Quon
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 3, 1997
SUBJECT: CT 97-06/CP 97-04/CUP 93-04WVCDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B) - SEAPOINT1
RESORT EXPANSION - The addition of 17 timesharelhotel units in two building
Island Way and Surfside Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 22.
to an existing timesharelhotel facility generally located at the northeast corner c
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 41 36 APPROVING
the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4137, 4138, 4139
4140, and 4141 APPROVING Carlsbad Tract CT 97-06, Condominium Permit CP 97-04
Conditional Use Permit CUP 93-04(E), and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-07, anc
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Site Development Plan SDP 94-04(B) based on the finding:
and subject to the conditions found therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This application is a request for approval of the expansion of an existing timeshare facility by 1;
units. The existing Phase I of Seapointe Resort consists of 78 timeshare units in five buildings
underground parking, and recreation facilities. The Phase I1 (expansion) units are proposed to bL
housed in two structures. One of those buildings is the extension of a three story building running
parallel to Surfside Lane and the other is proposed as an entirely new two-story structure which is
placed parallel to Island Way. The building architecture is consistent with the existing facility. The
half acre project site is currently vacant.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The site is located at the northeast corner of Island Way and Surfside Lane. The site is vacant, has
been previously used for agriculture, and is currently used occasionally for parking. The site
immediately to the north is the existing Seapointe facility which is comprised of six buildings which
contain 78 timeshare/hotel units, administrative offices, clubhouse, gym, reception and timeshare
sales areas.
The proposed Phase II expansion totals 19,400 square feet above ground with a total of 17 units.
Nine units are proposed within the extension of the southernmost existing three story building and
the remaining eight are proposed within a new two-story structure. Approximately 14,000 square
feet of underground parking garage is proposed for 29 additional spaces.
The proposed expansion is subject to the following policies and regulations:
(3
CT 97-06/CP 97-04/CUP 9 -04(E)/CDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B) - SE d OINTE RESORT
EXPANSION
December 3,1997
PAGE 2
General Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Local Coastal Program - Mello I1
Growth Management
IV. ANALYSIS
Staffs recommendation for approval was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with th
applicable City regulations and policies. The following analysis section discusses compliance wit
each of the regulations and policies.
GENERAL PLANIZONING
The General Plan designation for this site was recently changed from Office (0) to Trave
RecreatiodCommercial (T-R). The T-R designation anticipates uses which serve the needs o
tourists, residents, as well as employees of business and industrial centers. Often such sites art
located near major transportation corridors or recreational and resort areas such as spas, hotels
beaches or lagoons. Timeshares function very much like a hotel and are therefore considered to be i
consistent use.
The Zoning on the parcel was also recently amended to reflect a Commercial-Tourist (C-T) zoning
The intent of C-T zoning is to provide for the development of commercial businesses neai
transportation centers and recreation areas, or highways and freeways used by inter-regional traffic
Specifically, timeshare hotels are allowed within the zone with a Conditional Use Permit.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The tract map application is for a single lot subdivision for condominium purposes. The application
is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act Section 66426 and Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Subdividing the 17 individual units for separate ownership requires the
application of a Condominium Permit per the City’s Non-Residential Planned Development
Ordinance Chapter 2 1.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The proposed expansion is consistent with the development standards of the C-T zone. The typical
building height limitation for the C-T zone is 35 feet, however, buildings may exceed that limit by
10 feet if approved by a Site Development Plan by the City Council. The project is proposed at 42
feet as measured from the existing grade and is therefore 7 feet above the standard. The additional
seven feet is required to create a space for roof mounted equipment and screening as well as a
continuous roof line from the existing building to the new expansion. A Site Development Plan
Amendment which adds the Phase I1 expansion to the existing Phase I is a part of this submittal
package. The request for the height in Phase I1 is consistent with the existing Phase I height
approved by the City Council. The building does not contain more than three stories; all required
setbacks as a result of the additional 7 feet in height have been provided; the building conforms to
the Building Code; and the additional height does not exceed 45 feet.
1) e CT 97-06/CP 97-04ICUP -04(E)/CDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B) - SEAPOINTE RESORT
EXPANSION
December 3, 1997
PAGE 3
For buildings that are within the height limitations of the zone, there is no front yard, side yard 0
rear yard setback requirement. The building is however 42 feet in height at its highest point whict.
is seven feet above the standard. Therefore, a seven foot building setback is required from front
side and rear yard property lines. The building is setback 14 feet from the front property line and 11
feet. The rear setback is a consistent distance from the rear property line at 10 feet.
feet at its closest point to the side property line with an overall varying setback from 11 feet to 2:
The Phase I1 expansion includes the addition of 29 compact parking stalls. However, because Phase
I1 will not ultimately be a stand alone project, the discussion of parking must be reviewed to
determine how many parking stalls will be available to the entire project. The minimum number of
parking spaces required for the entire project, both Phases I and 11, is 114. A total of 25% of the
required spaces may be compact, therefore, 86 spaces are required to be standard and 28 may be
compact. The applicant has proposed to provide 86 standard spaces, 28 compact spaces and an
additional 12 compact spaces. In addition to the proposed 126 spaces is the potential for an
additional non-required 7 tandem compact spaces. The applicant has indicated that the spaces could
be used for operational needs and could be accessed by Seapointe staff and/or valet parking during
special events. The project meets the minimum requirements for parking (1 14 spaces of which 25%
are compact) and surpasses the minimum with the addition of 12 compact spaces and the potential of
seven additional compact tandem spaces.
Access to the site will be via the signalized intersection at Island Way and Surfside Lane.
Movement of traffic into and out of Phase I1 will be at an existing entry at the northerly terminus of
Surfside Lane in Phase I. Use of the existing entry will successfully segregate traffic between the La
Costa Downs subdivision and the project.
Generally speaking, there are no views which would be significantly impacted by the proposed
expansion. Significant views of the Pacific Ocean are from Carlsbad Boulevard which is west of the
project site and from the northern end of the site itself. The properties immediately to the south,
within La Costa Downs, have very limited views of the ocean and only from key lots within the
subdivision. Some view impairment may be created for certain properties with the Alta Mira and
Harbor Point developments, however, the view blockage will be minimal when considering the full
extent of the views east of the freeway.
CT 97-06/CP 97-O4/CUP 9 -04(E)/CDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B) - SE d PODJTE RESORT
EXPANSION
December 3, 1997
PAGE 4
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
A Coastal Development Permit was issued by the California Coastal Commission for the existin!
Phase I. Because the City now has Coastal Zone jurisdiction and permit authority at this site anc
because Phase I has been completed, effectively closing the Phase I Coastal Permit issued by ih
Coastal Commission, a new and separate Coastal Permit is being reviewed for the Phase I
expansion.
The site is located within the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, A,
shown on the Coastal Development Compliance Table below, the proposed development is ii
compliance with all applicable regulations.
Review of Required Coastal Findings
1. Conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies. The
project is located in the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program Segment. The project proposes
the construction of a timesharehotel expansion project within an area designated for
commercial tourist related development. The LCP Land Use Plan designates the subject
site for C-T (Commercial Tourist).
The site has not been used for agriculture, is not adjacent to the shoreline nor is it
adjacent to coastal bluffs, and is located east of the Carlsbad Boulevard and therefore will
not affect coastal access.
Coastal Overlay Zones. The subject site is not located in a Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone.
2.
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
Impact Fee Yes
17 EDU Yes
3,740 GPD Yes
.qPLIc;wT's STATEMENTOFDISCLOSWRE OR CERTAIN OWNERSHIP IhTERESTS ON ALLXPPL
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY A"X)N ON 'THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIl
MPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR C0MMI"EE
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, coparmenhip, joint venture, association, sociai club, fraternal o
cqoration, estate, trust. receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and counry, nry muniapality, dim
poiitical subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
L
e a
Carlsbad Seapointe Resort I1 Limited Partners
Timothy J. Stripe
Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc.
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
David S. Brown
Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc.
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 20(
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dr. Dale A Rorabaugh
VISMED 920 Country Club Lane
P.O. Box 1864
10373 Roselle Street, Suite 4
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Jerome T. Usalis
Coranado, CA 92 1 18
0 ' BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 97-06/CP 97-04/Cl.JP 93-04(E)/CDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B)
CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
APPLICANT: GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS
REQUEST AND LOCATION: The addition of 17 Timeshare/hotel units with undergroun
parking to an existing facility at Island Way and Surfside Lane.
APN: 2 14-0 1 0-03 Acres: .5 Proposed No. of LotsNnits: one loth7 units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: T-R
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: CT Proposed Zone: N/A
Requirements)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See staff report for information on Carlsbad's Zonin;
Zoning Land Use
Site CT T- Wvacant
North CT T-WSeapointe phase I
South R-1 RM/La Costa Downs
East TC TC/Railroad ROW
West os Beach
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 17
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: November 1. 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
B
Other,
Negative Declaration, issued June 3. 1997
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
7.
0 ’ CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: CT 97-06/CP 97-04/CUP 93-04(lE)/CDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 22 GENERAL PLAN: TC
ZONING: C-T
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Grand Pacific Resorts
ADDRESS: 5050 Avenida Encinas Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA.92008
PHONE NO.: 1760) 431-8500 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 214-010-03
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): SO acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = NfA
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 136
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
H. Openspace: . Acreage Provided = 0.26
I. Schools: Impact Fee
J. Sewer: Demands in EDUs 17
Identify Sub Basin = N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 3,740
0 0 EXt
5. CT 97-06KP 97-O4/CUP 93-02 (EIICDP 97-07lSDP 9464(B) - SEAPOINTE RESORl
EXPANSION - The addition of 17 timesharelhotel units in two buildings to an existins
timeshare/hotel facility generally located at the northeast corner of Island Way and Surfside Lane
in Local Facilities Management Zone 22.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that if the Commission recommends approval of this item, it will be
forwarded to the City Council for it's consideration.
Project Planner, Christer Westman, presented the staff report and described the project as follows: The
Carlsbad State Beach, east of Carlsbad Boulevard. The Planning Commission and the City Counci
reviewed and approved a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for this parcel, in July 1997, witt
the intent that the applicant would come in with a project specific, at a later date. This expansion is for ;
17 unit timeshare/hotel within two buildings. The easterly building is a continuation of the existing facilib
which runs parallel to the railroad tracks and the other is westerly and parallel to Island Way. The desigr
of the structures is the same as the existing facility. The expansion will provide for an additional 25
parking spaces in a underground garage, for a total of 126 parking stalls for the entire project. The
minimum requirement for the entire project is 114 parking stalls. There will be some additional on-site
applicant has requested to expand the existing Seapointe Resort which is located at the north end o
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION e December 3, 1997 0 Page 11
amenities which will include landscaping and a spa. However, there will not be a swimming pool or tenni
courts since this is a relatively small addition and cannot accommodate those two amenities. The projec
is consistent with the development standards of the cornmercialltourist zone. The building setbacks hav been provided ranging from 10 feet to 16 feet. The comrnercialltourist zone typically allows a 35 fot
building height. However, with approval by the City Council and a Site Development Plan within this zonz
the allowable building height is 45 feet. The project is proposed at 42 feet and a Site Development Plan i
associated with this application. Staff has recommended approval of the Site Development Plan for th
additional height, in that the additional height will make the building consistent with the remaining (existins
portion of the building. The height, itself, is measured from the rear of the property where it slopes to th
east. The high point is on the west. Because of that slope, only the rear portion of the building will rise tc
42 feet, not the entire building. The building will consist of three levels and a basement. The applican
has requested the removal of Conditions No. 40 and 41, of Resolution No. 4137, which talks about i
wildlife fuel management plan. Staff concurs, somewhat, with the applicant, in that the vegetation on thc
property is not of a type that would create a wildfire.
Mr. Westman pointed out typographical errors in the Resolution as follows:
Condition No. 33 . - ". . . additional public fire hydrants . . ."
Condition No. 37
Condition No. 47b) -
- ". . . required water mains, fire. . .I'
". . . reclaimed was use area . . ."
Commissioner Welshons asked Assistant City Attorney Rudolf if, when a timeshare is rented as a hotel
TOT taxes are collected and paid.
Mr. Rudolf replied that he was not aware of a standard condition of that nature. However, there is a usui
condition with regard to minimum or maximum occupancy. In addition, TOT is either payable or it is no
and the Commission would have no need to address it.
Commissioner Welshons asked what percent of the building is 42 feet high.
Mr. Westman, making reference to the exhibits, pointed out that there are two features that rise above 3!
feet. One is an architectural screening for roof mounted equipment and the other is only a portion of I
building. That portion is a clear story for a volume ceiling for the upper units of the building. Thc
percentage Commissioner Welshons requested is about 30% at the most.
Commissioner Welshons then asked how the Commission should address what is visible from the easi
specifically the parking garage. She pointed out that from that side, the building appears to be four storie:
tall and asked why it does not exceed the height limitations.
Mr. Westman explained that, by definition of what is a basement and what the Code says about levels
three levels are allowed and a basement is not considered a level. A basement is described as, I'. . . ai
area that is covered 50% or more by the earth." Mr. Westman then pointed out that from the west side
the basement of this structure is completely buried and from the east it is only half visible because of the
topography. It has been determined that more than 50% of that basement will be buried and not visibk
from any direction. Consequently, the building is technically three levels with a basement and the overal
height of the building is measured from the floor of the garage.
Mr. Wayne interjected that measurements are taken from either existing or created grades, whichever i:
most restrictive. In this case, the basement is excluded from that measurement. He also pointed out tha
the Code says that to qualify as a basement, more than 50% of the perimeter measurement must be morc
below existing grade than above. In this case the 50% requirement can be applied and that part of thf
basement below grade is not included in the height measurement.
MINUTES
Page 1 0 December 3,1997 e PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Westman further clarified the measurements by stating that the existing grade (the natural grade) is E
56 feet, the floor of the garage is at 52 feet (consistent throughout the entire building), the extreme top c
the building is at 99 feet, so the distance between the highest point and the garage floor is 45 feet and th
top of the building to the natural grade is 56 feet.
Commissioner Welshons stated that it appears that there is more articulation on the face of the origins
building on the north side than there is on the south side of the new building which faces the residentia
area.
Mr. Westman replied that he believes they are a reflection of each other and are the same.
Commissioner Welshons, referring to Finding No. 5, Resolution No 4139, states, ‘I. . . to a standard hotel
such action is necessary; and . . . ‘I, asked Mr. Rudolf if that is a complete statement.
Mr. Rudolf replied that Finding No. 5 should read as follows: ‘I. . . to convert to a standard hotel if i
cannot be successfully marketed as a time share,”
Mr. Rudolf made additions and corrections to Conditions No. 1, in Resolutions No. 4139 and 4141 a:
follows:
Resolution No. 4139
Line 19/19% - ‘I. . . expansion through the augmentation of exhibits . . .” AND ‘I. . .to exhibit:
“A” through “T” dated . . .”
Line 21 - “resolution No. 4139 shall supplement Planning . . .”
Line 21 % - ‘I. . . Commission Resolution No. 3692, as amended to date.”
Resolution No. 4141
Line 3 - “. . . through the augmentation to form Exhibits “A” through “T” . . .I’
RECESS:
Chairperson Nielsen declared a recess at 7:43 p.m. and the Commission reconvened at 7:59 p.m.. witt
seven Commissioners present.
Chairperson Nielsen invited the applicant to approach the podium.
Bill Hofman, Hofman Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that the timeshares have been
selling very nicely and it is anticipated that there will be no need to invoke Finding No. 5, in Resolution No.
4129. They have sold over 60% in a very short period of time and have no indication that they will be
unable to sell the remaining shares before the end of the time allotted for sales.
Mr. Hofman, with regard to the question of articulation (or lack of) on the south face of the new building,
reinforced Mr. Westman’s belief that both the north and south walls will have the same architectural design
and movement. He further stated that it is their intention to use the same character and symmetry as was
used in the original building. He also noted that the same textures and materials will be used in the new
construction as was the original construction. As for articulation, Mr. Hofman indicated on the exhibits, a
stairway and points where there are surfaces on that south elevation that are articulated so that there is
not a flat surface. There is actually a juxtaposition of different elevations where the texture and materials
change at that location.
MINUTES
Page 12 0 December 3,1997 a PLAN N I NG COMMISSION
Commissioner Welshons asked if the stairway from the road leads up to the ground level pad to the
building.
Architect, John Mattox, JPM Designmanagement, 51 15 Avenida Encinas, Ste C, Carlsbad, repliec
affirmatively.
Commissioner Welshons then referred to a statement by the applicant that Building B has been steppec
given that the street slopes in that area and that presently there is a huge three story building that faces
La Costa Downs.
Mr. Mattox replied that, in his opinion, there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction with a design of thai
nature and the way it would look from the east side. He pointed out that as they take that element and
extend it 60 or 70 feet to the south, to diminish that into a composition that does not remain the same
composition as the remaining portions of the buildings would be a serious mistake. He further pointed oul
that this design has been discussed with staff, including the possibility of stepping down the building in
question, and the consensus of opinion that if they were to reduce the height something would definitely
be missing.
Mr. Hofman, in addressing the question of the TOT, explained that the Resort does pay the TOT taxes or
rooms that are rented out as hotel rooms. Additionally, the project does meet all of the requirements
(including the building heights) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hofman stated his concurrence with the staff
recommendation and urged approval by the Commission.
Commissioner Monroy asked how many parking spaces are required for the resort staff.
down to a fwo story building and asked why they cannot also reduced Building A to a two story building,
Mr. Hofman stated that the demand is for fifteen to twenty spaces at any one time.
Commissioner Monroy suggested that since the new parking spaces are all “compact” they should be
marked for staff parking.
Mr. Hofman agreed with the Commissioner’s suggestion.
Commissioner Heineman stated that there are also tandem parking spaces and if they are going to be
used at all, they should be used by the staff.
Mr. Hofman also agreed with Commissioner Heineman.
Commissioner Welshons asked how many “day use” packages have been sold and how many people use
the facility for “day use”. Also, if the parking standard is based on the 1.2 per unit and there is additional
day use, where are they going to park and is a re-calculation in order.
Tim Stripe, 5050 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, responded by stating that the resort does not sell any “day
use” packages. He explained that the misconception is that there is the sale of what they prefer to call a
“Travel Plan”. He further explained that the travel plan gives a potential buyer a “one time, one use, one
week package”, either at any of the Grand Pacific Resorts facilities or an exchange week with R.C.I.
Along with that comes the ability for day use which is also offered to the other members who buy any
annual or biennial type of use. To further clarify, Mr. Stripe stated that they now have a member base of
3,241 members with 121(5% to 6%) of those members being Carlsbad residents.
Commissioner Welshons asked if those are people that have actually bought time shares or are they ones
that come in, use the facilities, and leave.
MINUTES
Page 1: a December 3, 1997 e PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Stripe replied that individuals must be a time share owner, a member, or own the “travel plan” in orde to use this facility,
Commissioner Welshons then stated that potentially 121 Carlsbad residents, as members or owners, arc
entitled to use the facility at any time.
Mr. Stripe responded affirmatively and added that they require anyone who is using the facility on a “day use” basis, to come in to the desk and register and receive an assigned parking space.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if the Resort provides conference rooms, etc., for outside
organizations for special functions.
Mr. Stripe stated that rooms are not used on a “per fee” basis. Occasionally “not for profit” organization:
are allowed to use the facilities. He further pointed out that they do not rent the facilities out nor do the)
advertise them as being conference facilities.
Commissioner Welshons asked where they locate the over-flow parking.
Mr. Stripe replied that they hope to refine their process so they are not over-run and have to be concerned
Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. Stripe would consider stepping-down the new building.
Mr. Stripe replied that regardless of the economic implications, when they looked at the renderings with
the stepped-down building, it definitely looked out of place, particularly because it didn’t balance on the
other side.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Stripe if they had shown the rendering he spoke of, to the City, and did
they concur that it looked out of place.
Mr. Stripe replied that they had shown the renderings to staff and that staff did concur.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if time share owners from the Carlsbad Inn can use the Seapointe Resort.
Mr. Stripe replied that they cannot.
Chairperson Nielsen then asked, with regard to those who are entitled to some day use, where do they
park?
Mr. Stripe replied that they park underground and if you really look at how the parking is used and by
whom, you will see how great the turnover is. Many of their guests are there for a week at a time and
most often are out of the area at places like Sea World, the Zoo, etc., and don’t return until after dinner in
the evening.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if there is assigned parking in their Underground garage.
Mr. Stripe responded that in some cases parking is assigned but that all of the spaces are numbered.
Also, when the time comes that there are more people using the facility, all parking will be assigned.
Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Tommy White, 6910 Sandcastle Drive, Carlsbad, offered for the record, photographs of the parking areas
around Seapointe Resort, from September 7, 1996 to November 29, 1997. Mr. White also submitted a
letter to the Commission, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Mr. White spoke, at
MINUTES l__
about over-flow parking. Additionally they have a lease, with the city, for the lot across the street.
cx
PLANNING COMMISSION 0 December 3, 1997 a Page I‘
length, regarding what he perceives as a parking problem and is concerned that any overflow parking wil
spill over onto Surfside Lane. Additionally, he suggested that beach users are not the ones parking ir
front of Seapointe, as the resort has stated, but instead they are cars belonging to day users and potentir
buyers of the resort. He stated that there is no good reason for a beach user to park on the street whei
there is a beach parking lot available for them. Mr. White addressed the issue of building heights an(
requested that the building height limit, in the new La Costa Downs development, be raised to 30 feet, tc
bring in more into line with the height of the Seapointe buildings. Mr. White read several statements from
the documents he submitted for the record which concluded his testimony.
Bob Barrellman, 1967 North Coast Highway 101, Encinitas, stated that he too plans to build a house in Lz
Costa Downs, and finds it a little ironic that the La Costa Downs development is being restricted to the
minimum building height of 25 feet while Seapointe Resort is being allowed to build to heights more thar double the height of the homes is La Costa Downs. Mr. Barrellman also voiced concerne regardinc
parking. He suggested that Mr. Stripe did not fully explain the “day use” program, and stated that it is hi:
understanding that they are selling a “day use” packages for $1,000.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Barrellman to explain the height limits that he mentioned.
Mr. Barrellman replied that La Costa Downs is controlled by the Specific Plan for La Costa Downs, tha
was approved specifically for the forty lots that are there, and the height limit is 25 feet.
Commissioner Monroy stated that Mr. Barrellman and the others in the development could appeal thai
height limit and perhaps get it changed to 30 feet.
Mr. Barrellman replied that they had thought about filing an appeal but after talking to staff, they found thai
four or five homeowners were already through the process. After they had a chance to think and talk
about it, they realized that it would not look very good to have those four or five homes at 25 feet and then
have the rest pop up as high as the 30 feet.
Bill Hofrnan, stated that they have always been aware that parking would be an issue when staff directec
them to do a traffic survey. Mr. Hofrnan presented a copy of that completed survey, and a copy of 2
survey that addresses itself to who is parking on the street, to the Commissioners. A copy of each 01
those documents is on file in the Planning Department. Mr. Hofman stated that this survey was taken by
personal interviews and offered a few examples of those interviews. He further stated that the results of
the survey strongly indicate that whether or not the resort was there, beach goers would still park on
Surfside Lane because it is cleaner than the parking lot at the beach. The survey also indicated that the
beach goers also like the idea that in addition to being able to park in a clean area, they have a safe way
to cross Carlsbad Boulevard to the entrance of the campground. The third point that was made is that
they are able to use the showers and restrooms at the campground more conveniently. The fourth point is
that they feel that their cars are much safer parked in front of a more controlled environment and lastly,
even though they are not allowed to do so, they like using the outside showers and jacuzzis at the resort.
Mr. Hofman pointed out that contrary to Mr. White’s beliefs, there is a reason why people park there when
they want to go to the beach. As far as over-flow parking, there is none. There is more than adequate
garage parking and this too can be verified by a recent survey. Incidentally, he said, one of the people
surveyed said, “Why can’t I park here, its a public street. I park on public streets everywhere else, why
not here?” Also, Mr. Hofman stated that he has just been informed that the resort has hired a full-time
attendant who monitors the parking, and the use of the jacumzis and showers, to try and prevent non-
member or non-owners from using the facility.
Commissioner Noble asked if it is reasonable to expect that once all the time shares have been sold, a
large portion of the current traffic will subside.
MINUTES 4
Page I! e PLANNING COMMISSION 0 December 3, 1997
Mr. Hofman replied that it is indeed reasonable to expect that decrease in traffic. In fact, he stated, tht
projected sell-out is at the end of next year.
Commissioner Noble agreed with the fact that Surfside Lane and other streets are public streets and thc
public is allowed to park on them.
Tim Stripe commented, with regard to the timeshare tours, that the resort has valet parking and they usc
either the parking garage or the lot directly across the street.
Commissioner Noble asked if there is sufficient parking, underground, for every room and Mr. Stripc
answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Stripe to speak to the heresay $1,000 membership.
Mr. Stripe again stated that it is a travel plan and is basically given to potential buyers who did not choosc
to get involved with the program for a variety of reasons. The offer given to those people is one week”
accommodation at either one of the Grand Pacific Resort facilities or one of the Resort Condominium
International, to basically try the program out on a one-time basis for seven nights. Where the confusio1
is, he stated, is that those people are also given the ability to use it for day use. He also stated that the
sell 35 or 40 timeshares a week as opposed to 6 or 7 travel packages per week which leaves the trave
plan buyers clearly in the minority.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
Commissioner Savary asked if the City has any plans for alleviating the parking problem at the beach.
Principal Engineer, Bob Wojcik stated that the City is in the preliminary stages of looking at realignin1
Carlsbad Boulevard which will eventually free up land on the west side for things like parking, day USE
etc. There is no schedule for construction for that project, but it could be within the next ten years.
Mr. Westman, in response to the letter given to him regarding the parking study is that staff did direct th
applicant to do a parking count. The study that was returned to Mr. Westman, in his opinion clarified th
picture to his satisfaction and he accepted the report as a valid report. He added that staff
recommendation, in part, was based on that report.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Westman if he agrees with the assumption that the majority of thos
who park on Surfside Lane are beach goers and Mr. Westman replied affirmatively.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Plannin
Commission Resolution No. 41 36, approving the Negative Declaration and ador
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 41 37, 41 38, and 41 39, as amended by th
Assistant City Attorney, and further adopt Resolutions No. 4140, and 4141
approving Carlsbad Tract CT 97-06, Condominium Permit CP 97-04, Condition:
Use Permit CUP 93-04(E), and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-07, all c
which shall include the errata as presented by Mr. Westman, and recommendin
approval of Site Development Plan SDP 94-04(B), based upon the findings an
subject to the conditions contained therein.
After some discussion regarding the designation of the tandem parking stalls for employee use, an
establishing that the remaining number of the spaces in the garage are adequate for guests of the resor
Commissioner Heineman asked the applicant if they would accept a condition that required the otherwis
useless tandem spaces to be marked for employee use only which can be controlled by the organization.
Mr. Stripe stated that they would accept a condition of that nature and would be happy to live by it.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION December 3,1997 0 Page 11
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that a condition like that does not ensure that the employees will us
the designated parking.
Amendment No. 1 :
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, to add a condition to require that the tander
parking spaces in the basement of the new addition be marked and reserved foi
employee use only.
Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, and Compas
VOTE: 5-2
AYES:
NOES: Nielsen and Welshons
ABSTAIN : None
Regarding the applicant request to remove Conditions No. 40 and 41, in Resolution No. 4137, Mr. Rudol
suggested that if the facts are such that the condition is not triggered, how are they going to be slowec
conditions requiring the study do not exist and therefore the study would not be required. Further, it ma!
be a non-issue and would be better to leave it as is. Mr. Rudolf stated that he would advise the Firc
Marshal that he has the discretion to interpret that condition to say substantial compliance with thc
condition is, if there is nothing within 60 feet that would trigger the requirement, it is not necessary to makc
the applicant jump an unnecessary hurdle.
Mr. Hofman suggested that he, the applicant, clarify this issue with the Fire Department, before the!
appear before the City Council.
DISCUSSION ON MAIN MOTION:
Commissioner Welshons stated that she feels that the impact of the height of this project, as it relates tc
the residential neighborhood, and the multi-use of the facility, does not fulfill the intent of Finding No. 8 ir
Resolution No. 4139. Also she stated that, based on the testimony, she still does not feel that there is
ample parking as required by Finding No. 4 in Resolution No. 4137. Because she has trouble accepting
those findings, Commissioner Welshons stated that she cannot support this project.
down and why would they have to do a study. Presumably the Fire Department would agree that thr
Commissioner Noble stated his support for the project as he cannot see any greater an impact on L:
Costa Downs than the impact on the Lanikai Mobilehome Park when the first house was built in La Cosk
Downs. He further stated that he feels there is adequate on-site parking and also reiterated the fact tha
public parking is allowed on public street.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he feels that some of the objections should have been addressec
before the major portion of the project was approved. He further stated that taking one story off the nev
addition isn't going to make any difference and that he certainly favors the project.
Commissioner Compas, stated his dislike for the four story garage, but he tends to agree with the architeci
that cutting the building down to two stories will not look very good. He further stated that he can supporl
the project.
Chairperson Nieisen stated that he cannot support the project because he questions the parkins
ordinance of the Zone Code 21.44.02OA(lO), where it says, ". . minimum 1.2 spaces per unit subject tc
approval. . ." He further stated that due to the marketing and other possible factors, the 1.2 spaces is noi
adequate and that the minimum should not apply to this project.
MINUTES c c
Page 1 0 December 3, 1997 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
MAIN MOTION:
VOTE: 5-2
AYES:
NOES: Nielsen and Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, and Cornpas
c
0
PROOF OF PUBLIC@ON
(2090 & 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 principai 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
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
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
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Jan. 30, 1998
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
30th san Marcos
Dated at California, this day
Jan. 1998 of
& 2 m ______ _______----- -------- P Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space i& the County Clerks Filins
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing .......................
.......................
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SDP 94-04(8\ - SEAPOINTE EXPANSION
NOTiCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ci Council of the City of Carlsbad will ho
600 p.m.. on Tuesday, February IO, 1998, to consider approval of a Site Develol
hmdment forthe addition of 17 timeshares/hotel units in two buildings to an e, timesharehotel facility on property generally located at the northeast comer of IS' and Surfside Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 22, and more particular11
That portion of Lot 2. Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, Sm Bemar
and Meridian, in the Ci of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Calitomia, a the ORicial Plat thereof, bounded on the west by the easterly line of the land des1 Deed to the State of California recorded October 4, 1951. in Book 4253, Page 57 Records as Document No. 121143, bounded on the east by the westerly line of that parcel of land conveyed in Deed to Atchison, Topeka and'Sa
Railway Company, recorded January 29,1946 as Document No. 9749, in Book 2 277 of ORicial Records: bounded on the south by the northerly line of La Costa C,
No. 1 according to Map thereof No. 2013, and bounded on the north by the north
south 60 acres Of Lots 1.2 and 3 and the southeast quarter of the southeast quar Section 20 and Lot 4 and the southwest quarter of southwest qualter of Section 2 12 South. Range 4 West, San Bemardino Base and Meridian, excepting from saic
2. and portions thereof, now or herehefore lying below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean.
if you challenge any questions
regarding this matter, please contact
Christer Westman, in the Planning Department. at (760) 438-1161
extension 4448.1f you challenge the Site Development Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising
hearing at the CiQ COUnCil Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, ct
Only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in Mritten correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPA
I, SDP94-04(8) Legal 51979 January 30,1998 f
(Form A)
e 0
-
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM:
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
SDP 94-04(B) - Seapointe Expansion
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of First Available
a -F<
Thank you.
January 19, 1998 - Assistant City Man-- Date
-
Q .d
0 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SDP 94-0403) - SEAPOINTE EXPANSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 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:OO
p.m., on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, to consider approval of a Site Development Plan
Amendment for the addition of 17 timeshareshotel units in two buildings to an existing
timesharehotel facility on property generally located at the northeast comer of Island Way and
Surfside Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 22, and more particularly described as:
That portion of Lot 2, Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Official
Plat thereof, bounded on the west by the easterly line of the land
described in Deed to the State of California recorded October 4,
1951, in Book 4253, Page 578 of Official Records as Document
No. 121 143, bounded on the east by the westerly line of that parcel
of land conveyed in Deed to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company, recorded January 29, 1946 as Document No.
9749, in Book 203 1, Page 277 of Official Records; bounded on the
south by the northerly line of La Costa Downs, Unit No. 1
according to Map thereof No. 2013, and bounded on the north by
the north line of the south 60 acres of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the
southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 20 and Lot 4
and the southwest quarter of southwest quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, excepting fiom said Lots 1 and 2, and portions thereof,
now or herebefore lying below the mean high tide line of the
Pacific Ocean.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Chnster Westman, in the Planning
Department, at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan Amendment 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.
APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts
PUBLISH: January 30,1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
0 0
SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
SDP 94-04(B)
_-I I. LL LA~U L-LU~I I --- --- /V?V - - -.
- --,e 0
JP*.lV&I 2\,\99% 2 FAY TO'.
C\43 07 &\Sbhh
C\4$ C\epvq OV&
\%QQ C*\kbhh V;\\aje Q~I.UC
C=c\Ebd C*\,F 9~b00 lmtc,, 7) FAX nkr -I\~Q--
Fram'. E& bd, GOC46~ - .I
6913 I\ &cin& Circ\c 0
(k0) bb3- 0LW
Chr\ 3bt.A Ca\ tq, 9x0 0 9 >
kzE'* ?orv\seHL cs-pe&s .
\ 4
%?aSe 4 vv&,ki3 -e La *ha*! of; ""3 .- "'*a tPgenb,9
\ v TO\*s<w 'Properk;<S o ?tcCLk k\%Q 3= regc*ccx'9 - er kiwi
Cb+l-Ct Iv4t b 3 'pL"he +O vtrrSb peceipt OF bh;S FAY, -8
a
Th%K 3au +or goup a-\gChn<e ,', $h:s rrzat(tr.
b, CtnCQrct X MI 9w
4
0
__
0
JAMES W PORTER
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS 20
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KRISTOPHER SCHULTE
2930 AVOCADO PT
DEL MAR CA 92014
JOHN G BACHMAN
1545 WILSHIRE BLVD 700 4964 DAVID WAY
LOS ANGELES CA 90017
RICHARD T DONAHUE
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92404
JEFFREY S MCCABE CAMPBELL THOMAS W
267 LA VETA AVE 2603 WAGON WHEEL RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 OXNARD CA 93030
- -~~ _.
MARJORIE R EDWARDS WILLIAM F h ADORNA TRAX
PO Box 1905 5050 AWNIDA ENCINAS 20
RANCHO SANTA ET3 CA 92067 CARLSElAD CA 92008
1
... - - --. - __
NICHOLAS S AICHELE CHARLES S DICKIE
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS 20 5350 E BROADWAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008 LONG BEACH CA 90803
._ _. - ___ .- __ - -_~ __ - ~
MARIE L STANTON ANNE ALSOP-VERRIPS
1438 PACIFIC ST PO BOX 3472
REDLANDS CA 92373 'FLORENCE OR 97439
__ __ __ - ___ - .-
SALLY S CELORIE LESLIE L DEVLIN
PO BOX 2740 1131 MTHYST AVE
RANCHO SANTE E'E CA 92067 MENTONE CA 92359
-
a 0
PATRICIA M TARTAGLIA 1 ROBERT H BARELMA"
56 MONARCH BAY 1967 N HIGHWAY 101
SOUTH LAGUNA BEACH CA 92677 ENCINITAS CA 92024
- -
CANNON THEODORE T VALLAS
3937 GAFFNEY CT 246 5TH ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92130 ENCINITAS CA 92024
VALLONE 1985 FAMILY TRUST SHORES M B
1024 GRANADA AVENUE CORP PROFIT SHARING TRUST
SAN MARINO CA 91108 PO BOX 234069
ENCINITAS CA 92023
__ -
PATRICIA SANCHEZ MARTELL B MONTGOMERY
1068 NARD0 ROAD 1855 LOTUS CT
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009
- __ - -
P s T ASSCS TOMMY B WHITE
5150 E PACIFIC COAST HW 6910 SANDCASTLE DR
LONG BEACH CA 90804 CARLSBAD CA 92009
- - _-_ - _. .~ __.____ ~ -_ __ - __ ~
KENETH h MELINDA VALLONE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LLC
2813 ATADERO CT 904 W SAN MARCOS BLVD 4
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MPIRCOS 92069
- - - __ - - __ --
1 ROWAN FAMILY TRUST
494 SKYLARK DRIVE 801 PINE AVE
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92405 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
_. __
0 0
VALLECITOS WATER D
CITY OF SAN CALIF DEPT OF FISH 6 GAME
SUITE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC Kwy
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
- --
LEUCADIA CNTY WATE SD COUNTY PLANNING
CARLSBAD '5201 RUFFIN RD
SUITE B
'SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF OCEANSIDE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
OCEANSIDE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SUITE B
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
- __ ._-
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 ENCINI TAS
- . ___ ____ -
0 e
CITY OF VISTA SANDAG
PO BOX 1988 SUITE 800
400 B STREET
SAN DPEGO CA 92101
CA COSTAL COBMtSSfON
SUITE 200
3111 CAMINO BEL RIQ NORTR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
- __
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD - PLANNING DEPT
2730 LOKER AVE WEST PROJECT PLANNER CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHRISTER WESTMAN
--
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT - OAK ENGINEERING DEPT
- -. - __ - - - . . - - __ __-___
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
- - ____ -_ - - __ ___ - __ . - - ____-- . . __ __
GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 200
CARLSBAD CA 92008
..
CARLSBAD SEAPOINTE RESORT 11, L.P.
6400 SURFSIDE LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
--
SI)? TL/.N(h& . &6-*--..
KRISTOPHER SCHULTE WILLIAM F & ADOR3
2930 AVOCADO PT 5050 AVENDA ENCD
DELMARCA 92014 CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES W PORTER
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS 20
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NICHOLAS S AIGHELI
5050 AVENIDA ENCIN
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN G BACHMAN
1545 WILSHIRE BLVD 700
LOS ANGELES CA 90017
CHARLES S DICKlE
5350 E BROADWAY
LONG BEACH CA 908(
RICHARD T DONAHUE
4964 DAW WAY
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92404
MARIE L STANTQN
1438 PACIFIC ST
REDLANDS CA 92373
JEFFREY S MCCABE ANNE ALSOP-VERRIPS
PO BOX 3472
FLORENCE OR 97439
267 LA VETA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CAMPBELL THOMAS W
2603 WAGON WHEEL RD OXNARD CA 93030
SALLY S CELORIE
PO BOX 2748
RANCHO SANTAFE CA
MARJORIE REDWARDS LESLIE L DEVLIN PO BOX 1905
RANCHO SANTAFE CA 92067 1131 AMETHYST AVE
MENTONE CA 92359
0 0
m
PATRICIA M TARTAGLIA
56 MONARCH BAY
SOUTH LAGUNA BEACH CA 92677
MARTELL B MONTGO'
1855 LOTUS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT H BARELMA"
1967 N HIGHWAY 10 1
ENCINITAS CA 92024
P S T ASSCS
5 150 E PACIFIC COAST LONG BEACH CA 9080
CANNON TOMMY B WEUTE 3937 GAFFNEY CT
SANDEGO CA 92130 6910 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THEODORE T VALLAS
246 5TH ST
ENCINITAS CA 92024
KENNETH & MELINDA
28 13 ATADERO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALLONE 1985 FAMILY TRUST CARLSBAD BY THE SEL 1024 GF"ADA AVENUE 904 W SANMARCOS BL
SANMARINOCA 91108 SANMARCOS CA 92065
SHORES M B
COW PROFIT SHARING TRUST
PO BOX 234069 SANBERNARDINO CA ENCINITAS CA 92023
ROWAN FAMILY TRUSl
494 SKYLARK DRIVE
PATRICIA 1068 NARD0 SANCHEZ ROAD x; DEGO ENCINITAS CA 92024
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIS
801 PINEAVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 SO RANCHO SANTL
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
0
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
0
'CAFLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DlST
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST OLIVENHAIN WATER Dl5
VALLECITOS WATER DlST SD COUNTY PLANNING CITY OF ENClNlTAS
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SUITE B 505 S VULCAN AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 5201 RUFFIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
SUITE 50 SUITE B SUITE 800
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONGBEACH CA 90802
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 400 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
91 50 CHESAPEAKE DR
CA COASTAL COMMi55'0N
SUITE 200
3111 cAMINO DEL RIO NoKTH
AN DIEGO CA 92108
A notice kc; been mailed to all prqx*y owners/occupants listed herein.
Date bk, i -
Signature
L'g
,-- 'q' \ 7 ! -A&\ i
l/ +I ci; ;y' y .IF{ ?t~i/. 1. \ . I / .( .I,\ 'J xk 2