The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-06-01; City Council; 15239; Four Seasons Timeshares SDP 86-02C8 u !i . . p 2 =I 0 5 8 AB# 14 237 MTG. 6/l/99 DEPT. PLN ti - - CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL I13 3 &(%!jo TITLE- -- DEPT. HD. FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES v SDP 86-02(C) CITY ATTY. GE- CITYMGR + RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9 4- &l Amendment for the Four Seasons Timeshare project. APPROVING the Site Development Plan ITEM EXPLANATION: On April 21, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval with a 5-O vote of a Site Development Plan Amendment for the Four Seasons Resort. The amendment would allow the limited use of lockoff units within the timeshare development, based upon the availability of parking. A lockoff unit is a portion of a master timeshare suite that can be locked off, and then accessed and occupied separately from the main unit. Without proper operational controls, the double use of a suite could potentially increase parking and facilities demand beyond that originally anticipated with the resort. Therefore, this Site Development Plan Amendment would revise the Four Seasons Timeshare’s development permit by adding the necessary operational controls to maintain the original level of parking demand and facility impacts. These operational controls would require that the timeshare operator, Four Seasons Resort Club, monitor the resort’s occupancy at all times. In order to calculate the total occupancy, the resort would sum the number of “occupied keys”. An “occupied key” describes any one of three occupancy conditions: a full villa unit, a stand-alone master suite, or a stand-alone lockoff. The resort would then limit its reservations so that there would always be at least 1.2 parking spaces per occupied key. According to the information provided by Four Seasons, the expected occupancy range of the resort is 80 to 95 percent, with approximately 15 to 35 percent of the lockoff units being occupied separately. This results in a parking supply of 1.39 to 1.90 parking spaces per occupied key, which far exceeds the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan minimum of 1.2 spaces per key. As conditioned, the operating documents and CURS for the resort would be amended to reflect these operational restrictions, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Given these conditions, the parking meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Aviara Master Plan. The proposed Site Development Plan Amendment is consistent with all applicable rules, regulations and policies. Other than the developer’s statement of support for staffs recommendation, there was no public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Four Seasons Timeshare proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The potential impacts of the proposed actions were already evaluated in three previous environmental documents: the Conditional Negative Declaration the Aviara PA 9 Tentative Tract Map, EIR 83-02(A) for the Aviara Master Plan and MEIR 93-01 for the City’s 1994 General Plan Update. The proposal was deemed to be within the scope of the prior ElRs and Negative Declarations and no new environmental documentation nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings were required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous environmental documents Nhich were appropriate to this proposal were incorporated into the project. A Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was issued and duly noticed on March 12, 1999 and no comments were received. I PAGE 2 OFAGEND: BILL NO. I +L@ After circulating the Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, the City received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report, which recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to 915162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a ‘Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes- northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected at time of building permit issuance. As stated above, the use of the lockoff units will not increase facility impacts. All public facilities necessary to serve the development will be in place prior to, or concurrent with, development. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 4q-d01 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4530 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 21, 1999 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 21, 1999. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 99-201 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF AVIARA PARKWAY, EAST AND WEST OF FOUR SEASONS POINT IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT. CASE NAME: FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES CASE NO.: SDP 86-020 follows: The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on April 21, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Site Development Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 1st day of June , 1999, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said matter and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to SDP 86-02(C); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council approves the Planning Commission recommendation on SDP 86-02(C) and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4530, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City. 3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: “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 not later than the nineteenth 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 deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on 3 I 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 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, CA 92008.” PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 1st day of June 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin NOES: None l ABSENT: None. ATTEST: (SEAL) -2- 4 I -. EXHIBIT 2 BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES SDP 86=02(C) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 EXHIBIT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4530 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SDP 86-02(C) TO ADJUST THE OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND ALLOW THE LIMITED USE OF LOCKOFF UNITS BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AVAILABILITY FOR THE FOUR SEASONS RESORT TIMESHARES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE FOUR SEASONS RESORT, SOUTH OF AVIARA PARKWAY AND NORTH OF BATI- QUITOS DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19. CASE NAME: FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES CASE NO.: SDP 86-020 WHEREAS, Aviara FSRC Associates, Ltd. Partnership, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 6 to 9 of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 85-35, Phase I, Unit A, according to Map No. 12406, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 29, 1989; AND Lots 1 and 6 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 1, according to Map No. 13335, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 13,1996; AND Lots 4 to 34 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 2 according to Map No. 13398, ALL in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California 19 II (“the Property”); and I 20 21 22 23 24 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “D” dated April 21,1999 , on file in the Planning Department, FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES - SDP 86-02(C) as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 25 II WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of April, 1999 , hold 26 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 27 28 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 the Site Development Plan Amendment. 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, on October 3,1995, the City Council approved, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 86-02(B), as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3804. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) W That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of FOUR SEASONS TIME- SHARE - SDP 86-02(C) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FindinPs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 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 timeshare uses are consistent with the Travel Recreational land use designation, all necessary facilities will be in place prior to or concurrent with need, and all timeshare parking will be contained within the resort site. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the necessary parking is being provided without need for expansion of the resort site. 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 no alteration to the physical development of the timeshare units, landscaping, and fencing is proposed. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the entire resort project will still generate a total of 4,826 trips which can be accommodated on either Aviara Parkway or Batiquitos Drive. That this project could have a potentially significant negative cumulative traffic impact on the Palomar Airport Road/ El Camino Real intersection. However, this project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the “short-term improvements”, thereby guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure that reduces the potential impact to a level of insignificance. PC RESO NO. 4530 -2- 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 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 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 developer’s/subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated March 25,1998, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. 4. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits,. 5. Prior to the issuance of any additional building permits, 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 Amendment by Resolution No. 4530 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. 6. The Developer and Owner within Aviara Planning Area 2B shall restrict the occupancy of the those timeshare units such that the parking demand shall not exceed the 1.2 parking spaces per unit timeshare parking requirement. If the timeshare operator receives a number of reservations for any given week such that the parking supply of 1.2 spaces per occupied key would be exhausted, then no additional reservations shall be accepted. The governing documents and CC&Its of the timeshare operation shall be amended to clearly state this reservation restriction and to clearly notify all existing and potential timeshare owners of this restriction, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, prior to issuance of any subsequent building permits within Planning Area 2B. An occupied key is defined as any of three possible occupancy conditions: a full villa unit, a stand-alone master suite, or a stand-along lockoff. PC RESO NO. 4530 -3- 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 7. 8. If, at any time, the Planning Director finds that the parking demand exceeds the allotted 1.2 spaces per occupied key, the operator shall be found to be in direct violation of the operational limitations and conditions of this Site Development Plan Amendment. The Site Development Plan shall be recalled to the Planning Commission and City Council and the project shall be reconditioned to either construct additional parking within the resort area or further restrict or preclude the use of lockoff units. The Developer shall pay its fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of any additional building permits. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 19 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. General: 9. 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 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 Amendment. Code Reminders: 10. 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. 11. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. 12. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from final date of approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for PC RESO NO. 4530 -4- 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 processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NGTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Segall and Trigas ABSTAIN: ” COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4530 -5- EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 0 6 Application complete date: September 7, 1998 P.C. AGENDA OF: April 21,1999 Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: Michael Shirey SUBJECT: SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES - Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the operational restrictions and allow the limited use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability for property generally located in the Aviara Planning Area 2B (Four Seasons Resort Timeshares), south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 19. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4530, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Site Development Plan No. SDP 86-02(C), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The proposal involves an adjustment to the operational restrictions for the timeshare portion of the Four Seasons Aviara Resort. The adjustment would allow the limited use of lockoff units, based upon the availability of additional parking. The availability of parking will be based upon the occupancy rates of the timeshare,development and the amount of use of the lockoff units. The expected range of occupancy and lockoff use would result in a parking ratio of 1.90 to 1.39 spaces per unit. Since the parking demand will not exceed the parking supply, staff has no issues with the proposal. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Aviara Four Seasons Resort Club (FSRC) Associates, Limited Partnership, is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the operational restrictions within the existing and future Aviara Four Seasons Resort timeshare development. The amendment would allow the use of lockoff units, based upon the total amount of parking available at any given time. A timeshare lockoff unit is a portion of the master timeshare suite that can be locked off, then accessed and occupied separately from the main unit. While the ownership of the unit would remain with one party, that owner could sublease the lockoff unit to another party. This double use of a suite could increase parking demand, therefore a Site Development Plan Amendment is being processed to memorialize the operational circumstances under which a unit can be locked off and occupied separately. The Four Seasons Resort site is located both east and west of Four Seasons Point, between Aviara Parkway and Batiquitos Drive. To the north, across Aviara Parkway, is the Aldea SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES April 21,1999 multifamily development and to the south, across Batiquitos Drive, is the Aviara Golf Club. To the east and west of the resort are the Aviara Golf Course and native open space areas. The timeshares are divided into three villages: north, east and west. The Four Seasons Hotel and many timeshares in the North Village are completed and occupied. The remainder of the site consists of the developing timeshare buildings and vacant, graded pads for future timeshares and the sports center. The resort site is designated for Travel Recreational (T-R) uses in the City’s General Plan. The site is zoned Planned Community (P-C) and, according to the Aviara Master Plan, is supposed to be developed in accordance with the Commercial-Tourist Zone (C-T), except as modified by the master plan. One such master plan modification is that timeshares are an allowed use in Aviara Planning Area 2B, rather than being a conditional use as is the case throughout the City. The resort hotel and associated uses were an original part of the development for Planning Area 2 of the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan, approved in 1987. The original plan called for a total of 488 hotel rooms, both in the main hotel building and in nearby conference suites, and 72 hotel villa suites. In 1990, Four Seasons was designated as the hotel operator and the development plan was revised to meet their operational needs. This plan entailed a total of 450 hotel rooms, both in the main hotel building and in nearby Garden Wing and villa buildings, and 39 hotel villa suites. In the mid- 1990’s, Four Seasons made the decision to pursue timeshare units within the Aviara resort and, in 1995, the Master Plan was once again amended. This amendment deleted the Garden Wing and villa buildings, provided a total of 330 hotel rooms in the main building, and added 240 timeshare units in three villages around the hotel site (including an expansion into an adjacent, undeveloped multifamily site -Planning Area 9). Parking for the timeshares was provided separately from the rest of the resort, at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit. This Master Plan Amendment also split the resort into two planning areas - Planning Area 2A covers the main hotel and Planning Area 2B covers the three timeshare villages. Shortly after construction of the timeshares began, it came to staffs attention via sales brochures that the lockoff units were being marketed in the Aviara Resort. Staff immediately contacted the developer and expressed its concern regarding the adequacy of parking. After reviewing timeshare occupancy and lockoff use data from other timeshare developments, and reviewing the physical development of the Aviara timeshare development, staff and the developer reached an agreement regarding the use of lockoff units. The agreement involved both physical improve- ments and operational restrictions. With regard to .physical improvements, the developer processed a Substantial Conformance Exhibit that added 40 parking spaces (20 in the North Village and 20 in the East Village). The operational restrictions were tied to statistics from the industry on the average occupancies of timeshare units, including lockoffs. As shown in Attachment 8 - “Four Seasons Resort Club Memorandum”, dated August 4, 1998, the typical maximum occupancy rate for timeshare developments is 80 to 95 percent. According to that same document, the typical lockoff use ratio is 20 to 35 percent. Therefore, by comparing the amount of parking to the level of timeshare and lockoff occupancy, a maximum occupancy limit can be set. This occupancy range is discussed in Section C below and is shown in Attachment 8 - “Four Seasons Resort Club Memorandum”. The resulting parking ratio should lie between 1.90 and 1.39 spaces per unit, well above the City /a - SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES April 21,1999 Pane 3 requirement of 1.2 spaces per unit. To memorialize this restriction, the developer agreed to process this Site Development Plan Amendment. The Four Seasons Timeshare project is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. Local Coastal Program; C. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments); D. P-C - Planned Community Ordinance (Chapter 21.38 of the Zoning Ordinance); E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The Four Seasons Timeshares project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the timeshare lockoff proposal are the Land Use, Circulation, Public Safety and Open Space and Conservation Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Land Use Site is designated for Travel Proposed lockoff units are Recreation uses. a timeshare use, which is a travel recreational use. Yes Circulation Require new development to All street improvements construct all roadways needed to will be completed prior to serve the development prior to needs. development. Yes Public Safety Design all structures in accordance All buildings will meet with the seismic design standards of UBC and State seismic the UBC and State building requirements. Yes requirements. All necessary water mains, Provision of emergency water tire hydrants and systems and all-weather access roads. appurtenances must be installed prior to occupancy Yes and all-weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. - SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES April 21,1999 Page 4 Open Space Minimize environmental impacts to Proposal maintains the and sensitive resources of the City. existing surrounding native Conservation Yes open space. B. Local Coastal Program The Four Seasons Timeshare project site lies within the Mello I segment of the City’s Local Coastal Zone and is subject to the corresponding land use policies and implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances for those portions of the Mello I segment within Aviara are contained in the Aviara Master Plan. This section addresses only conformance with the Land Use Plan since implementing ordinance conformance is addressed in section C below. The policies of the Mello I segment emphasize topics such as preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access and prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The land uses allowed through the LCP segments are the same as those allowed by the Aviara Master Plan. The proposed timeshare lockoff units are consistent with the LCP since the allowed uses for Planning Area 2 include timeshares. No enlargement of the original site plan is proposed with this project, therefore all surrounding and intervening steep slopes with native vegetation will remain preserved. The current erosion control standards of the Engineering Department will be maintained throughout construction of the timeshare building pads and streets to deter erosion and potential lagoon sedimentation. No agricultural lands exist on or near the project site, therefore no impacts to such will occur. The project site is located 0.21 miles from the Pacific Ocean, therefore no oceanic shoreline access requirements exist on site. There is a master plan trail that traverses the Four Seasons Resort site, mostly via a sidewalk, that allows visitors to the Coastal Zone to walk between Aviara Parkway and the North Shore Trail along Batiquitos Lagoon. Since the physical development scheme-and limits of development are not changing, this proposal will not affect this master plan trail. No significant visual resources exist on or near the project site. Given the above, the Four Seasons Timeshare project is consistent with the Mello I land use plan. C. Aviara Master Plan According to the Aviara Master Plan, all development in Planning Area 2B is to follow the requirements of the C-T, Commercial Tourist Zone, except as modified in the master plan. Timeshare units are an allowed use pursuant to the use allocations in Planning Area 2B, and the lockoff units are classified as a timeshare use, therefore no adjustments to the allowed uses is necessary to accommodate the lockoff units. With regard to development standards, the proposed operational restrictions would limit the occupancy of the main timeshare units and their lockoff units such that the required parking ratio of 1.2 spaces per units is not exceeded. Since either the total occupancy or the proportion of lockoff units in use could affect the total parking need, the developer has prepared an operating range of occupancy and lockoff use that maintains the minimum of 1.2 spaces per occupied unit. This range extends fYom 95 percent timeshare occupancy with 35 percent of the lockouts in use, to 80 percent occupancy with 15 percent of the lockouts in use. The resulting parking ratio would range from 1.39 spaces per unit to 1.9 spaces per unit, which f&r exceeds the minimum 1.2 spaces per unit. 14 - SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES April 21,1999 Page 5 No alterations to the exterior of the timeshare units are necessary to accommodate the lockoff units. As mentioned above, the Planning Director did approve a Substantial Conformance Exhibit to add 40 parking spaces to the timeshare development, raising the total number of spaces to 415. These spaces were added in non-essential landscaped areas and did not adversely impact the required percentage of landscaping, traffic or pedestrian circulation. These parking spaces are shown on Exhibits “A” - “D”, dated April 21, 1999 and their construction and continued existence are part of this Site Development Plan Amendment. Given the above, the Four Seasons Timeshare proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Aviara Master Plan. D. Planned Community Zone The underlying zoning of the proposed Four Seasons Timeshare project is P-C, Planned Community. In accordance with that designation, the Aviara Master Plan was created to implement that zoning. No specific development standards or design criteria exist in the P-C zone, however all applicable standards and criteria are contained within, or referenced by, the master plan documents. As discussed in Section C above, the planning area is to be developed in accordance with the C-T Zone, except as modified in the master plan. The lockoff units are still timeshare units and no adjustments to the zoning of the property are necessary since they are an allowed use in the master plan. Conformance with the master plan requirements also indicates conformance with the Planned Community Zone. E. Growth Management Ordinance Since the resort is a commercial use, and the timeshares are considered commercial units, the facilities impacts based upon population do not apply. Since the other facilities impacts are based upon square footage of commercial uses, and the timeshare buildings are not expanding, the facilities impact assessment remains the same as originally analyzed with SDP 86-02(B). Table 2 below repeats the previous facilities impact assessment for the entire Four Seasons Resort, including the hotel, timeshares, and future sports center. TABLE 2 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES April 21,1999 F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan Local Facilities Management Zone 19 covers the entire Aviara Master Plan area, including Planning Area 2. No special development standards, such as roadway construction or other infrastructure requirements, apply to this Site Development Plan Amendment. The LFMP does require that all facilities needed to serve the development be in place concurrent with, or prior to, need. The Four Seasons Timeshares project, as conditioned, will be served with all utilities and improvements prior to occupancy of any unit. The project is also conditioned to pay the required public facilities fee prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Zone 19 LFMP. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed adjustments to the resort use restrictions that allow the use of lockoff timeshare units were reviewed with respect to their potential environmental impacts, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Title 19 - the Environmental Protection Ordinance. The project site has undergone three previous environmental reviews. One is the certified Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality. Another source in the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Aviara Master Plan (EIR 83-02(A) for CT 8535/MP 177), which analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 dwelling unit master plan with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial site. The third previous environmental review on the project site was the Conditional Negative Declaration for Aviara Planning Area 9 development (CT go-lo), which reviewed the impacts of grading for and constructing of 86 multifamily townhomes in the areas now designated for the east and west timeshare villages. The current proposal for timeshare lockoff u@ts still conforms to the parameters established through the previous environmental reviews and all adjustments to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance have already been implemented or are incorporated into the project. The project is conditioned such that the parking demand will not exceed the originally anticipated demand. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary. A Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was issued and duly noticed on March 12, 1999 and no comments were received. After circulating the Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, the City received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report, which recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to $15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a “Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. /L SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES April 21,1999 Page 7 A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements”, thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. MG:mh Planning Commission Resolution No. 4530 Location Map Disclosure Statement Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated March 12, 1999 Environmental Impact Assessment Form, dated March 1, 1999 Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Background Data Sheet Four Seasons Resort Club Memorandum with attachments, dated August 4, 1998 Exhibits “A” - “D“, dated April 2 1,1998 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of cenain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information must be disclosed: 1. APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Aviara FSRC Associates Limited Partnership 7100 Four Seasons Point CA 92009 2. OWNER List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Aviara FSRC Associates Limited Partnership 7100 Four Seasons Point Carlsbad, CA 92009 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 4. . If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. N/A -a - ,--- . 5. Have you ha nore than $250 worth of business insacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? cl Yes ICI No ’ ’ If ye& please indicate person(s): ’ ’ Person is defined as ‘Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county,. c&. municipality, ..dict or .other poliical subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.’ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date \ \ Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Aviara FSRC Associates Limited Partnership, a California limit&d partnership zveT;i Inc. D. L. Clemens Vice President 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: Four Seasons Timeshares - SDP 86-02(C) Project Location: Aviara Planning Area 2, located south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego Project Description: A Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the use restrictions and allow the limited use of lockoff units within the timeshares based upon the amount of parking availability. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of publication. DATED: March 12, 1999 CASE NO: SDP 86-02(C) CASE NAME: FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES PUBLISH DATE: March 12, 1999 Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 86-02(C) DATE: March 1. 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Four Seasons Timeshares 2. APPLICANT: Aviara FSRC Associates. Ltd. Partnershin 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7100 Four Seasons Point. Carlsbad. CA 92009 (760) 931-1190 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 20.1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for a Site Develooment Plan Amendment to adiust the use restrictions and allow the use of lockoff units based uDon the amount of Darking availabilitv for the Four Seasons Resort Aviara timeshares. 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 El Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources cl Utilities 82 Service Systems cl Geological Problems cl Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics Cl Water q Air Quality 0 Hazards cl Noise III Cultural Resources 0 Recreation III Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03128196 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 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 earlier EIR’s and a Negative Declarations pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR’s and a Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has bee prepared. w Date Date - 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. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘Wo Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially 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. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but fl 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. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03128196 a3 a 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 EIP 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 E&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. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): #I, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pg 10) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #3, pg 10) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (~71, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-l - 4- 26; #3, pg 10) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #3, pg 10) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #3, pg 10) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a> b) c) Cumulatively exceed offtcial regional or local population projections? (#l, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pg 10) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pg 10) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #3, Pg 10) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a> b) c> d) e) f-J 8) Fault rupture? (#I, pgs 5.1-l-- 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4- 150 - 4-156; #4, pg 9) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #4, pg 9) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #4, Pg 9) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #4, pg 9) Landslides or mudflows? (#I, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #4, pg 9) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #4, pg 9) Subsidence of the land? (~71, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #4, pg 9) 5 Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl 0 cl Cl Cl cl Cl 0 Cl Cl cl 0 Cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Cl cl cl Cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl Cl Cl 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact cl 0 0 Cl Cl 0 cl 0 Cl Cl 0 Cl Cl cl Cl No impact Rev. 03128196 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). h) Expansive soils? (#l, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4- 150 - 4-156; +I, pg 9) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#I, pgs 5. l- 1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #f4, pg 9) Iv. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4 b) c) 4 e) g) h) 0 Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11;#2,pgs4-llO-4-118;#3,pg9) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pg 9) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #2, pgs4-110-4-118;#3,pg9) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-l 18; #3, pg 9) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-l 18; #3, pg 9) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; 772, pgs 4-110 - 4-l 18; #3, pg 9) Altered direction or rate of flbw of groundwater? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, Pg 9) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pg 9) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-l 18; #3, pg 9) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3- 12; #2,pgs4-110-4-118; #3,pg 10) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3- 12; #2, pgs 4-l 10-4-l 18; #3, pg 10) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Potentially Significant Impact lzl Cl cl 0 cl cl cl cl cl 0 cl IXI El cl cl El Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q cl cl 0 q cl 0 cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Less Than Stgnificanl Impact cl 0 0 cl cl q cl cl cl cl cl Cl cl cl Cl II No Impact lxl !xl IXI El El El El lzl [XI Ix] lxl Cl cl [XI El 0 6 Rev. 03128196 26 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) c) e> f) g) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7- 22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 11) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 11) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 11) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 11) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4- 63 - 4-80; #3, pg 11) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 11) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 4 b) c) 4 e) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including ,but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3, pg 10) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, Pg 10) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4- 24; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, pg 10) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l, pgs 5.4-I - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4- 149; #3, pg 10) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, pg 10) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109; #3, pg 9) c) 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? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 9) Potentially Significant Impact 0 cl 0 Cl Cl cl cl Cl Cl 0 Cl 0 cl 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated cl 0 0 cl cl cl cl 0 Cl 0 cl Cl Cl 0 Less Than Significant Impact Cl cl Cl 0 0 cl 0 cl Cl cl cl cl Cl cl No impact El 1s El 151 lx lxl IXI El lx Ix1 El lxl lxi ixl IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 7 Rev. 03128196 27 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 4 b) c) d) e) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pg 10) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pg 10) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.4-6; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) b) Police protection? (#I, pgs 5.li.5-1 - 5.12.4-6; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) c) Schools? (#1, pgs 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) e) Other governmental services? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 4 b) cl 4 Power or natural gas? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109; #3, pg 10) Communications systems? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#I, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2, pgs 4- 94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) Potentially Significant Impact 0 cl 0 0 Cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Cl III cl 0 q Cl cl Cl 0 0 Cl cl cl cl Cl Cl Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl Cl Cl 0 cl Cl cl 0 Cl cl No Impact El El El Es3 Ed Ix1 lxl Ix1 Is1 lx lxl IXI El Ix] El Ix] 8 Rev. 03128196 638 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIII. XIV. xv. XVI. e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3- 7; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 10) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l, pgs5.11-1 - 5.11-5;#2,pgs4-35 -4-62; #3,pg 10) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l, pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5; #2, pgs 4-35 - 4-62; #3, Pg 10) c) Create light or glare? (#l, pgs 5.10.3-l - 5.10.3-2; #2, pgs 4-35 - 4-62; #3, pg 10) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c> 4 e) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pg 10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pg 10) Affect historical resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pg 10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#I, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, Pg 10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#I, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pg 10) RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pg 10) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l, pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pg 10) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl Cl 0 Cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Cl Cl cl 0 cl Cl 0 Cl Cl .I7 0 Cl cl Cl Less Than Significant Impact 0 Cl Cl Cl cl .o cl 0 Cl cl cl cl Cl cl No Impact 9 Rev. 03128196 a9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? q (“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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human Cl beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 0 [XI q 151 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis that have been conducted for the project site. Source #l is the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83- 02(A) for CT 8535/MP 177) which analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 dwelling unit master plan (now known as Aviara) with its associated 19 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial center. Source #3 is the Conditional Negative Declaration for Aviara Planning Area 9 development (CT 90-l 0), which reviewed the impacts of grading for and constructing of 86 multifamily townhomes in the areas now designated for the east and west timeshare villages. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary. DISCI JSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAT, EVAI SJATION The proposed project involves the adjustment of use restrictions for the Four Seasons Resort Aviara timeshares, allowing the use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability. Through normal business and special operational restrictions, the total amount of parking demand will not exceed that required and provided with the original timeshare development. The physical development of the project site will remain unchanged, as will the impacts to facilities. No adverse impacts should occur due to this Site Development Plan Amendment. AIR 01 JAJ,JTY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. 10 Rev. 03128196 36 To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. , This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s 11 Rev. 03/28/96 31 Master ER, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. GATING MEASURR3 (IF APPJJCAsJ E) n/a (IF APPLICABJX) n/a PLICANT CONCT JRIWNCE WITH MITIGATION MEASI JRES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED TJ3E ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 12 Rev. 03/28/96 - - 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: SDP 86-02(C - Four Seasons Timeshares LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: T-R ZONING: P-C DEVELOPER’S NAME: Aviara FSRC Associates. Ltd. Partnershin ADDRESS: 7100 Four Seasons Point. Carlsbad. CA 92009 PHONE NO.: (760)931-l 190 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: see Background Data Sheet QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): n/a ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: n/a 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: Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (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 EDU (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = n/a n/a 646.1 n/a PLDA D 4.826 #2and## 16.47 n/a 646.1 142.142 33 - BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SDP 86-02(C) CASE NAME: Four Seasons Timeshares APPLICANT: Aviara FSRC Assoc.. Ltd. Partnershin REQUEST AND LOCATION: Site Develonment Plan Amendment to adiust the use restrictions and allow the use of lockoff units based unon the amount of muking; availabilitv. for pronertv generally located in the Four Seasons Resort. south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiauitos Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: see attached APN: see attached Acres: 78.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: n/a GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: T-R - Travel Recreational Density Allowed: n/a Density Proposed: n/a Existing Zone: P-C - Planned Communitv Proposed Zone: P-C Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Site North South East West Zoning P-C P-C P-C P-C P-C- General Plan T-R T-R OS OS Current Land Use Developing timeshares Single-family residential Vacant sports center site Golf course and native open space Golf course and native open space PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): n/a Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: March 25, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT u Negative Declaration, issued u Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated w Other, Notice of Prior Environmental Comnliance. dated - BACBGROUND DATA SHEET - continued CASE NO: P 86-07C CASE NAME: Four SeasonsTimeshares LEGAL DESCRIPTION: c according to Map No. 12406. filed in the Office of the COUJ-@ Recorder on June 2% 1989:Cbad Tract No. 95-02. 1 Jmt 1. according to Map No ’ Recorder on June 13. 1996: AND Lots 4 to 3 4 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02. 1 Jnit 3. accap to Map No. 13398. AT.T, in the City of . . Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of C-a, APN: 215592 - - mm - - -- - - - * - - 35 4 FOUR &SONS RESORTCLUB .&7&+&s VACATIOII ownzumr MEMORANDUM DATE: To: cc: FROM: !%JECT: Introduction 94 August 1998 Michael Grim Planning Depadment City of Carlsbad, California Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Stephen Smith, Hillman Properties Larry Clemens, Hillman Properties Chris Neils, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton Tony Sharp, Four Seasons Tom Delaney @ 0 Four Seasons Resort Club Aviara Amendment to Site Development Plan 86-02(B): Additional Parking Pursuant to the request of City staff, and as background information regarding the SDP amendment currently being processed, this memorandum summarizes the steps taken to resolve an operational problem concerning parking availability at the Four Seasons Resort Club Aviara. The issue related to the vehicular parking needs resulting from implementation of the lockoff feature, which allows the lockoff portion of a timeshare unit to be separately occupied from the master suite. The City’s concern was that the designed ratio of 1.55 parking spaces per Resort Club unit could be diluted beyond an acceptable limit if lockoff usage was too high. Recapitulation In a memorandum dated 17 November 1997 and supplemented on 4 December 1997, Aviara FSRC Associates (UFSRC”) presented data substantiating the adequacy of the parking supply that was designed for the Resort Club. The information submitted to the City demonstrated that the expected operating characteristics of the Resort Club will be such that only in very rare cases would the designed parking supply not provide at least 1.2 spaces per occupied key. The term ‘occupied key’ was used to describe any of the three possible occupancy conditions: a full villa unit, a stand-alone master suite, or a stand-alone lockoff. This conclusion derived from the expectation that occupancy for the resort as a whole will range from 75% to 95X and that the lockoff ratio (i.e., tf?e percentage of occupied keys that are assigned to stand-alone lockoffs) will be less than 35%. These projected occupancy characteristics are consistent with timeshare industry averages as measured in a survey presented in the November memorandum. Since then, our parking demand projections have been validated: Exhibit T represents the project’s parking demand in cars per occupied key and is taken from actual occupancy and parking data during the Resort Club’s first 7 months of operation. It is clear that the supply is adequate even before additional steps are taken. 7100 FOUR SEASONS POINT. CARLSBAU, CALIFORNIA 92009, U.S.A. TEL: (760) 603-3781) FAX: (760) 603-3788 WORLD WIDE WEB: www.C~~urn~a~~~nm,eem 36 DEFININI: THE AHT OF SERVICE AT 40 HOTELS IN 19 COUNTRIES - Additional Protection falreadv implemented) Irrespective of the sufficiency of the parking supply as designed, FSRC resolved to take two additional steps to ensure that the parking is in compliance with even the most conservative interpretation of the City standards. 1. FSRC and the project operators agreed to restrict the occupancy of the Resort Club units so there never will be less than 1.2 parking spaces available per occupied key. When the vacation ownership staff has received a number of reservations for any given week such that the parking supply of 1.2 spaces per occupied key is “exhausted,” no more reservations will be accepted. This protection has already been put into place. . By way of enforcing this condition, the governing documents of the resott club have been modified so that interval owners are aware of and subject to this restriction. The Amended and Restated Declaration of Annexation for the project was approved by the DRE; this document was recorded and has been in force and for all sales made since early December. The amendment is enhanced by a provision that any future changes to the restriction would require the City of Catisbad’s approval. 2. FSRC has committed to the addition of 40 parking spaces - 20 in the North Village and 20 in the East Village. The Landscape Architect and Civil Engineer have selected locations for these spaces as represented on the enclosed conceptual landscaping plans (Exhibit R). Final locations will be subject to review by the City of Carlsbad. This addition represents an increase of over 10% to the project’s overall parking supply while reducing what would otherwise be common area landscaping by approximately 6,000 square feet or about 1% of the total landscaping (excluding slopes). These remedies were satisfactory to City staff as evidenced by the executed letter agreement dated 2 April 1998 (Exhibit S). Their cumulative effect is to remove the possibility of having occupancy scenarios that are not accommodated by at least 1.2 parking spaces per occupied key. Conclusion The relationship between the Resort Club’s expected operating range and the enhanced parking supply is illustrated on the enclosed Exhibit Q, which demonstrates that there are very few occupancy scenarios that fall below the 1.2 threshold. In any event, the point is moot because the dark line representing problematic occupancy scenarios is now a fixed boundary by virtue of implementation of the amended governing documents. The combination of additional parking and restricted lockoff usage ensures that the chances of incurring this operational problem have been downgraded from unlikely to impossible. The foregoing infonation is provided as background. The Amendment to SDP 86-02(B) is being processed with respect to the actual locations of the additional parking spaces. c - 37 86-W -08 86-lW'BZ 86-W-81 86-m-60 86-IWZO 86:‘JnMZ 86-W--81 864Jw11 86-W--PO 864w-8z BG-&‘J-IZ 86-mkvl B6-WWO 86-J&WE 86-JWEZ 86-JdV-9 1 ewdv-60 86-h’-Zo 86-ww8z 86-Jew-6 1 86-=w-z 1 86-@W-SO 86-W+8Z 86-w-61 86-w-zi 86-w-80 86-w--6Z 86-w--zz 864Jw-s 1 86-w--80 86-~PlO 38 . . . - * ; ‘, ,. ; - . ‘. c u .., . ., . . . : . I ~ . - . . . . . . , . ,I. *. *. *. a: , . . . . ,.- . . . . -. . . . . . . . ‘. , .- f . . (. 1. . . , . *I . , . . . . . . . . . ; . . I .I . . . . ,. . I -.. . . . * I : . ’ . ,. . . .: . : , -. : . . ,, Aprii2,;OiS.:. ‘-. l ‘:- : ’ ’ ., ’ * .‘. . . ‘., ’ : . . .: : ,’ ’ I : . . . , , l . .* . . . . . . .‘.I . . . ., . . . ‘.’ . . . . . ,. , . . . * . . . . ., . . . ,- *., . . I.. . : . . ,. . .:) . - .‘I ,jr-~M&gn.~te”ya,( . . ‘.._ : , . -. .‘.. . . Corprynity Development bife@or. e* ’ CityofCarkb@ . : ’ . . 2075LasP@masD&e’ . - : ’ 1 . ’ . CartSbad; Califo@a:,9200$ ’ . : . ” . . . ’ . . . . . .I.. . . ‘I . * . * . . . . . . ,* * -’ -.* ‘* *. ,, L . . *. , - ._ . . . -. ’ . . ,, ms’iettw ls a f&&V* up ‘td my In& rece*tk&r ta.$su & &ii&@tXt d&d F&&y, . * * . 2Q,‘1908,andoursu&~qentcorrvenatipns. . - :. .L* . .-. t ‘.‘.’ . :, . . . ‘.’ . . . . . . , . ‘. ;.-- ..,-. . .._ 1 . . . * ’ . . ’ w way.d’b&k&nd, ‘1 kfe~‘totti~ op&tio&t problem *o&a& ked by the a&n *. : . lettei@frMn~~~e city. The’operati&l probtem.uWJhat the&npleh@tatton if the’ . . : -- , 1: : tod<ofi @atwe raised me possib#tt of gre@er v~hicufar~ p&ng needs. Flotq’tin . ’ .opeiaticW standp&t, the City agreed v&h the solution proposed by-Atiara FSRC , ’ I**~ . ‘. . Mqi&s (“FSRC”), which @+ded the combin&tioti ot (a) a corrimi@@t by ‘fS@C.to ’ . . -. :. . . . build up to,40 additiorkt) park@ spa’ces wlie& as’and if required b~fie’C%y, and (IIJ) an . ’ operatio~81 timRatIon whiqh p~echxi& thk use of t@twff factltWs.in:g~at&r than ‘a . ., * . * -. ‘. defined maximum. t)timbei of timwfwie dwe(litig units (the “O$erhiorialf Lif$htianY). ’ z ’ That maxiinum nwnbhvqs de&n&M in’ quch a fashion so as td &s&e that the . . . , . . ‘.’ . required nwi~ber ti pMn$ spaces in the timeshare project WOW always eqU,or . . . exceed the n~xtmum number fleedd unckr apptidahte City standard& .‘l’hat : . , . ’ . ’ Operational om:?atton W’buiN into an qdditicinat modifiwi~on @D ~e.Cbvtinant$ . Conditfonk and ~esfrt&ns (“C%XiR’k”) for ~ettmesha~.pioject, and in add&n, was ‘* . . ’ . ’ : referen’ced in an amendment to the Public deport. .moir‘g’ other ttirigs, the provjsior! @ * . 8 . * the CC&R’s p6ctains ,a i&ret@& Wch,. by its teys, predudek i@‘am@dmi3nMtho~ , . I .specifto~nseti,ofttie’City. . . ’ ’ .: . . I. . - ., . . ’ .- . . ’ %* :.:. ’ , .,; 1. ,: , . *. . * I , . . , .‘. . . . : kkithstanding thk operatttihal I;btufton, C& st&f has’&r@ud& thai i is neck& to . . * .’ . . . proq&s~ a? amendment to the ‘SXe Dt$vet&m@ Plan, as to the Iocation’6f thk bp to 40 : add.ttiqnat parkiirg Spa=, 7rfre Site Development Plan (SDP) is SbP-B&fZ(B), as. ’ :’ ’ e . estabtiihed by Planking ~grnpii$sion Resolqtibn’,.No, 3807:’ ihwrporated tinto and : a . , ., . ..approved:(u@tj other items) +y CiQ Council Kesotuiion ND. 9!5$88, ’ : . ,... ‘.- ( . . . a. . . . ‘. , ‘. . %a , - 1 II . : . . -. ‘. .‘. , . . . . . . : . . - . ’ . , : ’ , . . ’ i *. ’ . .* . . . . . . * * . . . . .* * . . . . . 2011l?~o~~~~ltoruLs~r;206~MO.~92009 : - . *. ’ (760) 931490 ' . 4.' I ' _ Far (760~9~1~7950 ' , . . , . , ,, . . . . . . . .. . . . ,. : :.. * . . .: . I . .‘, . . - . * . 5 . * ‘0 . . . . .3Q . . 0 S : . . : ’ ; . . . t’ idc’*$~~ agrqed ti pro&s s+qh an &II&~& the SDP k~gether .w& a : : .’ *, .’ ~~pa~ion.‘~mndment’ter Coa$tc$ D~veld~ment P&t ~q&87-6~O-AJ1 (ffie nC~p”).- ’ : : ,’ . this letter b ‘submitted to confirm our ‘uqckmd@g +nckagree@rk as tij the;sub&Ql . , : . ..* aid processing .bfthqse ;imendnienfs, a~.foll&&: ‘. ‘-.:. . . . . ’ . I . ’ . . . * , . . . . . . . . . . , ’ . , . . . * 3. ~pippkati~~, f&r & &&$I& to ‘$ SDP &j CD* Will be&&&ted piompuy I’ following this I&&. ihey Ajl,be p@$ssed byh !Jty in the ordinary co&& a&. . . . . *. . I. ’ ~e+tiouslyagp~~l#e~ l . . . . ; . ; * ; - . , . * . . .-:. . ., . ; : . ‘. * .I$ ‘, *- . Cit) staff has pkevio$yk!v&&,d and is&d bu‘iiding petii fdr G ag&‘eg& : . ’ tot@ ti 36 timash& unk &hip the North Viliagg. To date, CerWicates& . . ’ . . , ‘, . .T . I’. . . C+qyq have’be@n &sued fq 22 ti thoke tirnf2sbar.e urlits.withlcl the &#I 1 . ,. . . . . * . . i 1 Wag&. wfien &nsttucKon is cornpIe@ as to these k!bm units, the @t mat: eithei # both pf w SDP’qnendm@ and GDP ‘&Wrnem. hav& not y& .’ :’ -. . , . ’ . ‘. - . . ’ ” complbthd pMes&ng’ and final appr&aJ, &al r@?t be ‘gpw@ fk.Cii to i&e . : ..- . - I ; ‘, *. is~uanci5ofC#iflc++fOccupa~cy. .. . . ,, ’ . . : ;‘: : .-. ‘a : . . . * .:..., *, ,,. . . .., -. . *.” .3.’ . ..‘I FSRC in&&& fh ~&&‘~pp&~s for b&& p&& & an &&a(~$ ’ . . . : : ’ I * ’ . c tim’&haiie dWell@g,un*B.s icuithih the Noa VW&e, t&n& &c&l. of W&ark ’ * ‘. : , -. . . . -. ur$ts in ~&Wh Vif&ge to 28 p&i&d,. ln.ir&I@, ~ndWxkq~~nt’td~$&&~ ‘.I . . . . . . * . . ’ . FSRC. .inW@s to iubmlt’applic$ioris W the. byildiflg pq~~+~its f~ the W@t WI&. . whk#~ hBa+mitted ttil-qf 78 timksliara unk. Oirr,und.erstandlnQ’ !s*.$at. - . . . ’ :.FSRC+@y continue tosubmif’applications f&b&&g perniitk for timesh- J ’ ’ :’ : : : . .t dwelling utii, Until thq runnktga&kga@ total of @efli.ng unks%@i~ the . ’ tk@&hate proje@ for@& building permits h&e beqn &sued reaches 156 (tt~i‘~ .- e -. . . ’ . aggrqate number of timeshare units pew for m N;qe aob~&t.VilkqeS), ’ . .’ -‘and so kng 8s FSRC.iq n&t In defiult urr%ertfrjs !w a@eqmeti.brwder t!! . * ’ . . - , ’ . . , a, .Operational Limitation r&r0nced bn’page I above: 36 fact that either or both of , . . . . . . . :* the .FDP smdmnt andCOP amendment hav&‘r;ot yet qomp@ed@&ssitig. . . ’ p@ .finQ 6ppro@ ,ei@ not be groupdk foi Cw to either (i) &use tcJ iqque . ’ . : t ’ . . building pmiits for @qy or 41 of sQ@ tidiio~@l ?$TM?S~~ZUE ,Wt& dr (ii WUti’tO . . : -,a .’ V . ~ * ,* *, . . I, . . ‘ssv~ C.ehifiatk’of O-an@ r ai$dr all of.such add&n+ tin+krq uni& :’ ’ ’ 1. . . s . ,’ > *:... . . . I ** . , . ’ . . !# k\l& &i&d && 61 * . iwithin the FSF?c tfmeIsh~~ . . ‘.. . ’ - . . . :* ., . : . proje& shall not bs de&@ed to constitute griy Waiver by Cw of an)i of its ’ . : . : a. :* ,’ ’ . enfWCefTie&igh~. . In ‘pcirticu~r, and without limitatiph: ‘(a) no &fi appfwai or #. . , . . @u&e by city shall in anyway liinit &be mti to limit m:fufl vr kf$ii- .-. . . . .’ . : to take et’lf~rCqneht*a&on against FSRC arid arqjr subse@ent qwqer W&I* . , . . ’ . . ‘“pect t6 any’violation p’ the Qperati’ahil Limitation re~~,c++~ page. 1 , *. :. . : . :. _:’ ’ , ~_ ., : .. * - . . . , . . . . : . . ,.e . . . . * ‘ 4**. , . . .: . . . * . * . * , I . a. . . ‘7 / ’ . . . , . . . ‘. :. . .: ., . . . . . ’ , _:‘_ , - . .*, . . ; .,. - ..: - . . - , . , . *: .-. .‘. c * . . ,* .’ . - ‘. - . . . . . . . ” . . ,.. . c . ..’ . . . . . .P. . , . . iJa . . 1 i F. . q . . .'.' * -. I' : -- M;.Martino&$- .- . ;. c *,.- I,. . - ". . _ ~,.. ; . , _ - '. *. . ; @fll+ 1Qgg . * - :.' . . . -+ :* ', . . .' : . . . . . ' - Page3 . . *I .* . . .* . . . _. : * . . , ., . ’ . . I . . . .a ‘. . . ! . I . . . . . . f . a- . . . . - . .- . * . ‘. .’ ’ ’ I \ ,. .: . above, and (&I no tkh’approval and issuati~.by’Cily s&!‘oblig&6y to i . . . . . . pess any application for building permits or Certik&s of &cup&& for any ‘. * dwelling wits within tt?e FSRC timeshare p*ct above the aggnegate limit . . , * , . ’ .e+lishedhparag~ph3above. ; . 8. .‘, I _ . ’ . .* . -5 . . . . .I .. .; - I ’ ’ < . *: PI&se c&f@ ydir undtManding by coukter-signing’and returning tine &py of U$s- 4et&er:. . .‘. -. ., , * . . . . ‘. . . . . ,.sin&ty,’ ’ . . ;H.*‘- ’ - I . . . 0 . . , .i . . ’ . . . ’ ’ ~j,kA F;R&+SSO&@S L(MITkD P&W&RSl+lq . . ,. . . Managirii GWwal Partner ’ < ‘c . . . . . . . * - , . . . .’ I * *, ; 1 . . . ; .- . ‘_ ., *. . ‘. . I, . . . . ‘, . . Vice PresMeWG&ral kanager . . . . . ’ . . * . I. . . . . . *. . . ‘.< . . . . .- *.a* . . . : * . . ’ . . . . , . . . . . . % . . . * . ’ . . 1. . . . f i . . I . _‘. . I . I.’ ‘ . * . Community Dev6foprkni pirectot . * . . . *. . : . . ’ : ,. ’ cc . . &i&herjJeiQ s . ’ Steptwn Smiih *.. , 3 . , Torn Cklaney . . . . . t ‘j . . , . 3 - . . . . . . I .-A.. ,‘. ’ . . . . ‘. . . ..’ . . . ’ . : . . . . -. . : I... . . . . . . . . ’ . . . . . I ’ . . ’ ‘. r . . . . w . . . . .- 8. : 2 . . a -. . . .. \ \. v . - . . . - 0 I * -c, . . , * . * . . : \ *, . . .,’ . . . . . . . : \ -. i, . ,‘* . .* . * . . : . . . . ’ * . . .: , . . I . 41 . . . - - EXHIBIT 5 6. SDP 86-02iCl - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES - Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the operational restrictions and allow the limited use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability, for property generally located in the Aviara Planning Area 28 (Four Seasons Resort Timeshares), south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 19. MINUTFS 43 _-__..- ^“. __...-I PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner Segall excused himself from hearing this item citing a possible conflict of interest, in that his wife is an employee of Four Seasons Resort Aviara. Chairperson Heineman asked if the applicant objected to this item being heard by less than a full Commission. The applicant stated no objection. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne introduced the item and stated that the Commission’s action on this item is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Mr. Wayne introduced Associate Planner, Michael Grim who presented the staff report as follows: The site is located south of Aviara Parkway. The major street that intersects and runs through the resort is called Four Seasons Point and there is a signalized intersection. Surrounding the Four Seasons Resort is open space, a golf course, sports center, and golf course clubhouse. To the north, across Aviara Parkway, is a gated community known as Aldea. The Hotel was originally part of the Aviara Master Plan and it has come down in size since its original inception to the current 330 hotel rooms and 240 timeshare units. There were many issues in the processing for the resort. One of the issues that was not discussed and is now being brought back to this Commission and City Council, is the fact that those timeshare units are also “lockoff units. A lockoff is a mechanism by which a two bedroom suite can be divided into 2 one bedroom units with a locked door in between. The lockoff unit also has a separate outside entrance. By using this mechanism, one unit can be sublet and the result is that the two units are occupied by two different reservations parties. For ease of discussion, the term “occupied key” has been adopted. “Occupied key” can mean one of three things; 1) an entire two bedroom villa being occupied, in its entirety, by one reservation party; 2) a master suite being occupied separately; or, 3) a lockoff unit being occupied separately. If the master unit and the lockoff were to be simultaneously occupied by separate parties, that would constitute two occupied keys. Staff realized that with lockoff units in addition to the master units, the possibility exists that there could be more than 240 units (maximum approved) occupied at any given time, and could increase facility impacts and the parking requirements. Staff then met with the applicant to work out a solution. One solution was since the area was still under construction, 40 more parking spaces were added. These were done in non-essential landscape areas and non-essential circulation areas. Since the project was under construction, staff felt it was the appropriate time to add the spaces. The more important solution to this problem is more operationally based. The Four Seasons provided data showed that, on the average, timeshare units don’t often reach 100% occupancy. While the lockoff units are a good marketing tool, they are not used as often as one might think. The expected occupancy of the lockoffs is between 15% and 35%. Therefore, the applicant felt very comfortable in coming to staff and stating that they will place operational restrictions, both in the operating documents and in the CC&Rs, to disclose to the potential property owners that they will never take reservations for a number of units that would place the parking availability below the 1.2 spaces per unit. Basically, that would then allow the code requirement of a minimum of 1.2 spaces per unit to always be accepted and the Four Seasons would be obliged to turn guests away if there are too many units occupied. Staff feels this is a good resolution of the issue. It will limit occupancy, guarantee the parking, and guarantee that the facilities impacts will not increase. An added safety net is that this is located within a resort community and is not a stand alone timeshare amongst private residential property. If ever there is an issue with parking, the Four Season Hotel is immediately adjacent to the timeshares and guests could be accommodated there. On Page 3, Line 1, Condition No. 6, Resolution No. 4530, . . . Aviara Planning Area 2 . . . should read . . . Aviara Planning Area 28 . . . Conditions No. 6 and No. 7 are the operational restrictions giving the Planning Director the right to recall (in the event the timeshares are not being operated correctly) the Site Development Plan and further condition the Plan or require physical improvements to provide additional parking. Commissioner Welshons pointed out that on Page 2, Finding No. 4, Resolution No. 4530, in the reference to Alga Road, the name Alga Road should be replaced with the name Aviara Parkway. Commissioner Welshons further pointed out that while Condition No. 7, Resolution No. 4530, speaks of the allotted 1.2 spaces per occupied key, . . . there is no definition in the Resolutions as to what an occupied key is. MINUTES 44 - PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Grim stated that such a definition could be added and stated that there are other places in the resolutions that also refer to occupied keys. Referring to the applicant’s letter (a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department), Commissioner Welshons stated that she heard Mr. Grim give four possible scenarios for the lockoffs while the letter only stated three, and asked Mr. Grim to clarify. Mr. Grim responded by stating that there are actually only three scenarios; 1) master suite only; 2) one bedroom only; and, 3) the entire unit only. What Commissioner Welshons thought to be a fourth scenario (the master suite w/one party and the lockoff w/another party) would be considered a “stand alone” master suite and a “stand alone” lockoff unit being used, both on the same unit. Commissioner Welshons asked how many possible occupied keys are there in the entire development. Mr. Grim replied that there is a possible 446 occupied keys. He added that the definition of an occupied key is as follows: occupied key: to describe any of three possible occupancy conditions; 1) a full villa unit; 2) a stand alone master suite; or, 3) a stand alone lockoff unit. Mr. Grim further stated that staff would be happy to add this definition to the appropriate resolutions, findings, and conditions. Commissioner Welshons asked when staff discovered the lockoff units and what action did staff take. Mr. Grim replied that it was when staff received a copy of one of the marketing brochures they realized that lockoff units were being marketed. They then contacted the Four Seasons Resort Club and asked them to come in for a conference. Commissioner Welshons asked if staff issued an immediate “freeze” on the construction of the units in question. Mr. Grim replied that that had been their initial reaction. However, when the applicant came in and talks began, staff realized that enough building permits had not been issued to get to the point where there would not be enough room left on the resort to make them come in and amend their Site Development Plan to provide a parking structure. They were on a construction schedule and were selling the units that, to the best of their knowledge, were fully within City approvals. The ultimate agreement was that they needed to resolve this problem before such time as there is not enough land left in the timeshare area to build enough parking if this operational restriction didn’t work out to accommodate every unit at 1.2 parking spaces. Knowing now that the future east and south units are going to be lockoff units, Commissioner Welshons asked if staffs concerns have been sufficiently satisfied regarding parking. Mr. Grim replied that if this operational restriction is approved by this Commission and City Council, staff is absolutely satisfied even if the applicant came in and pulled all of the permits for the rest of the entire resort. Commissioner Welshons asked how staff will know if the operational restriction is being violated. Mr. Grim replied that there are a variety of ways; there are already overflow accommodations within the resort that staff is required to monitor. Also, Mr. Grim stated that whenever he gets out it that area, he personally drives through the area to check on parking. Another way staff will be alerted to parking problems is that when guests, who are paying for such expensive accommodations, do not have adequate parking, they will complain to the City almost immediately. Commissioner Welshons asked where the employees were parking when the hotel opened. Mr. Grim replied that the employees had, apparently, started using the sports center parking lot and this became an example of how the City’s CUP monitoring program works. Staff noticed that the sports PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1999 Page 13 center’s parking lot was full (daily) even though there was no sport center there as yet. As soon as Four Seasons was notified that they were in violation of their CUP, all the cars disappeared from the sports center’s lot. Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Rudolf if he is satisfied with the enforcement mechanism through monitoring. Mr. Rudolf replied that he is satisfied with the monitoring program. Tom Delaney, representing Aviara Four Seasons Resort Club Associates, 7100 Four Seasons Point, Carlsbad, stated that he had no presentation but would be available for questions. Commissioner Welshons asked if the applicant would be agreeable to maintaining a monitoring report. Mr. Delaney replied that they would be very agreeable and that the mechanism for such monitoring is already in place. They have been tracking their occupancy and parking, on a daily basis, since the resort opened. They have also furnished the historical information to support the request before this Commission. He added that Mr. Grim was quite right, in that Four Seasons has a vested interest in making sure that there is adequate parking for all the guests of the resort club. Chairperson Heineman opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Seeing no one wishing to testify, Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim if a monitoring report is absolutely necessary or will staff be able to get adequate data to monitor this situation based on the resolutions and conditions. Mr. Grim replied that staff is comfortable with the way it is conditioned, currently. Obviously, a monitoring report would be one more layer. However, a monitoring report or some other proof that they have been meeting their parking requirements would be a result of staff contacting the applicant via Condition No. 7, should there be a perceived problem. Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the City is in a position to prohibit, or stop, other projects proposing lockoff units. Mr. Grim replied that he feels this is setting a precedent, in that the City is gaining information about how lockoff units work, what percentage of occupancy can be expected, industry standards, the requirement for additional parking spaces, and operational restrictions. He added that since this is new, staff would have to see how things progress for a year or two. However, if another timeshare project should come in, that is not within a resort community, staff would have to take a harder look at the project. Because this is a rather special situation, staff feels that this is not a rote recipe for anyone to come in with timeshare lockoff units. Chairperson Heineman added that lockoff units are unique to extremely upscale timeshares and if someone were to proposed a timeshare, similar to these, that would sound the alarm for staff to look closer at the project. Mr. Grim stated that staff has looked at all timeshare plans that have come into the Department, much, much closer than they might have otherwise. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4530, recommending approval of Site Development Plan No. SDP 86-02(C), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, plus the correction to Finding No. 4, Page 2, Resolution No. 4530 - Aviara Parkway, plus the revision to Condition No. 6, Page 3, Resolution No. 4540 - Aviara Planning Area 2B, plus the addition to Condition No. 6 - the PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1999 Page 14 definition of an occupied key as stated by staff as excerpted from the applicant’s letter. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 5-O Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Welshons, Nielsen None None NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SDP 86-02(C) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARE 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 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday June 1, 1999, to consider a request for approval of an amendment to a Site Development Plan to adjust the operational restrictions and allow the limited use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability for property generally located in the Aviara Planning Area 2B (Four Seasons Resort Timeshares), south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 19 and more particularly described as: Lots 6 to 9 of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 85-35, Phase I, Unit A, according to Map No. 12406, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 29, 1989; AND Lots 1 and 6 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 1, according to Map No. 13335, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 13, 1996; AND Lots 4 to 34 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 2 according to Map No. 13398, ALL in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 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 or after May 28, 1999. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mike Grim in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4499. If you challenge the Site Development Plan Amendment 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 Office of the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. APPLICANT: AVIARA FSRC ASSOC., LTD. PARTNERSHIP PUBLISH: MAY 21,1999 .i,. - PKWY I FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES SDP 86-02(C) TO: CIT.Y CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Form A) AE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached art the materials necessary for you to notide SDp 86-02(C) - Four Seasons Timeshares for a public hearing before the Cfty Council. Please notice the ftem for the council neetlng of First Available Hearing Thank you. Assistant City Han May 4, 1999 Date - - FILE CElPY City of Carlsbad NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 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, April 21, 1999, to consider a request for a Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the operational restrictions and allow the limited use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability for property generally located in the Aviara Planning Area 2B (Four Seasons Resort Timeshares), south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 19 and more particularly described as: Lots 6 to 9 of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 85-35, Phase I, Unit A, according to Map No. 12406, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 29, 1989; AND Lots 1 and 6 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 1, according to Map No. 13335, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 13, 1996; AND Lots 4 to 34 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 2 according to Map No. 13398, ALL in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 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 April 15, 1999. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4499. If you challenge the Site Development Plan Amendment 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 86-02(C) CASE NAME: FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES PUBLISH: APRIL 8, 1999 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @ I . CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST i 801 PINE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DIANE SCOTT AVIARA MASTER HOA 7243 SPOONBILL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER MIKE GRIM CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME ; STE 50 ' 330 GOLDENSHORE 1 LONG BEACH CA 90802 ; AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR , SAN DIEGO CA 92123 / CA COASTAL COMMISSION I STE 200 ! 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO ' SAN DIEGO CA 92108 ; NED GOOD : STE 600 70 S LAKE AVE PASADENA CA 91101-2601 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 ; SD COUNTY PLANNING ; STE B I 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET I SAN DIEGO CA 92101 I I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 i CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ALD,EA AT AVIARA HOME Cb D R HORTON INC - i I’ 10179 HUENNEKENS ST _ SAN DIEGO CA 92121 AVlARA LAND ASSOClAT C/O HILLMAN PROPERTI 450 NEWPORT CENTER D . NEWPORT BEACH CA 926 - AVIARA MASTER ASSOCI C/O HILLMAN PROPERTI 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRISTENSEN WARREN A 7194 AVIARA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CUNNINGHAM ARTHUR J8 1773 BLACKBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAVIDI ISAAC&JANET 78 W 47TH ST NEW YORK NY 10036 GILL 1977 TRUST 44625 ADOBE DR HEMET CA 92644 AVlARAFSRCASS= C/O CHARLES TYSON 7166 BLUE HERON PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 AViARA LAND ASSOCIAT 469 NEWPORT CENTER D NEWPORT BEACH CA 926 AVIARA POINT ASSN C/O THE WALTERS MANA 2251 SAN DlEGO AVE # SAN DIEGO CA 92110 BREHM-AVIARA Ill DEV 2835 CAMINO DEL RIO SAN DIEGO CA 92108 CICOUREL EDWARD N8BL 823 INVERNESS DR RANCH0 MIRAGE CA 922 CURTIS LEE A 1664 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92909 DODSON FAMILY TRUST 1616 WARBLER CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 GOOD NED&MARGARET K 70 S LAKE AVE #600 PASADENA CA 91101 .. , : ‘. *:‘. ,.)’ ..-.., . . : AVlARAFSRCABSOC 7100 FOUR SEASONS PT C ARLSBAD CA 92009 AVlARA MASTER ASSN Cl0 CONTlNENTAL HOME 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR SAN DIEGO CA 92130 AVlARA RESORT ASSCOC C/O CONTINENTAL HOME 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR SAN DIEGO CA 92130 AVIARA RESORT CLUB 0 7100 FOUR SEASONS PT _ CARLSBAD CA 92969 BURRUSS RICHARD P JR 7226 AVIARA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ’ CLONINGER ELIZABETH , POBOX2666 RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 9 CYR RODERICK J TRUST P 0 BOX 36698 KANSAS CITY MO 64171 ELLIS KMN M&DONNA 2330 BYRON PL CARLSBAD CA 82008 GORDON ROBERT 6839 ADOLPHIA DR CARLSBAD CA 92669 r . ” ./“. : . . -. . . . . . -,..\’ : ‘. : : -1 . - HANSON IRENE TRUST d ,a ’ ‘. HAYGEMAN DREW OaTAM ,, 36 CALLE MERIDA 7214 AVIARA DR RANCH0 MIRAGE CA 922 CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAGEMAN JERRY E 7243 SURFBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOSEPH JOHN&G ELAINE ’ 7143 TERN PL / CARLSBAD CA 92009 KIENAST KEVIN MBAMAljl KUOLT RONALD R 7187 SURFBIRD CIR 7160 AVIARA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 LIEW FAH SEONG&POLLY 7238 SURFBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 NEILSON ROBERT K&MAR 16652 CALLE DE NANCY PACIFIC PLSDS CA 902 POZNAK MORTON 1111 401 N MICHIGAN AVE # CHICAGO IL 60611 RODRIGUEZ ALFRED 7082 SURFBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SCHNITZER BETTY J 7215 SURFBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 WADE ONE TRUST 02-25 7251 SURFBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 , MAREA AT AVlARA HOME , 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR SAN DIEGO CA 92130 MEYBERG LILI MUROYA AKlRACLTOSHlKO 7180 AVIARA DR P 0 BOX 9900-602 CARLSBAD CA 92999 CARLSBAD CA 92018 ’ NELLE KELLY A I 615 STRATFORD CT #l7 ’ DEL MAR CA 92014 PRICE JENNIFER 7118 SURFBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92999 ROOHANIPUR MANOOCHEH , 2221 FIERO DR LAS VEGAS NV 89134 TREJO lSAl&ALlSA V 7137 TERN PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 MLKEY MANUEL E(LNANC 2140 E THOMAS RD PHOENIX AZ 85916 HORTON D R INC 10179 HUENNEKENS ST SAN DIEGO CA 92121 KELLY DAVlO PQSHELLY 7111 SURFBIRD Clli CARLSBAD CA 92009 L&W INVESTMENTS INC 12636 HIGH BLUFF DR SAN DIEGO CA 92130 MEANS DAVlD W&LISA L 7317 BLACK SWAN RD CARLSBAD CA 82009 PIN0 RICHARD 7085 SURFBIRD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92009 PROWSE STANLEY D&JOY 6515 AVENIDA DEL PAR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAINTAMOUR FRANK8DOR P 0 BOX 2947 RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 9 TRUSLOW JAMES M(LNANC 7133 TERN PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 WlSE ALAN 1612 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHANNA LOVELESS 1644 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 STEPHANIE WILLIAMS 6909 GOLDFINCH PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 . CHARLES MCCRAIG 2 SLEEPY HOLLOW RD ANDOVER NJ 07821 AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATION SUITE A-250 225 1 SAN DIEGO AV SAN DIEGO CA 92110 IRENE HANSON 36 CALLE MERIDA RANCH0 MIRAGE CA 92270 EDITH GILBERT RICHARD STINSON 6913 GOLDFINCH PL 6904 GOLDFINCH PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MKHAELKANTROWITZ 69 12 GOLDFINCH PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROSJE RANDENBURG #6 125 E 83RD ST j NEWYORK NY 10028 I MORTON POZNAK / #l900 401 N MICHIGAN AV i CHICAGO IL 60611 . CHET FRANCISCO - 6905 THRUSH PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ‘ OSBORN FAMILY TRUST t 568 CORMORWT DR i CARLSBAD CA 92009 KARIN TOMPKINS 1580 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 TUAT FAMILY TRUST 6909 AVOCET CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOAN DANZINGER 6904 AVOCET CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 : MARJOPEYROT 1600 CORMORANT DR I CARLSBAD CA 92009 ALAN WISE 16 12 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAN STATE 162 1 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ROY WILLIAMS 8360 TURTLE CREEK CIR LAS VEGAS NV 89113 MARTIN CASPER 1632 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAVID SMITH 1560 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 LESLIE CONSTNATINI PO BOX 9854 RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067 LEE CURTIS 1584 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 BET’IY L DODGE TRUST 69 13 AVOCET CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 cLARIsHALLxwELL 6908 AVOCET CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 ELMER KITINOJA 1604 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 ELLEN ROSTON 1613 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 HERSHMAN 1997 TRUST 1625 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 HOOVER TRUST 1624 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOANNE GAETA 163 6 CORMOROJT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 MICHAEL voss 11947 N FOREST DR I MEQUON WI 53092 CRAIGTANNER 1576 CORMOIWNT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 TONITA NAGLE 8 CHESTERFIELD DR VOORHEESVILLE NY 12 186 HELEN PETERSON ’ 6917 AVOCET CT I CARLSBAD CA 92009 MELINDA GUSTAVSON 6912 AVOCET CT CARLSBAD .CA 92009 : / AKJRAMUROYA ’ 1608 CORMORANTDR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHARP FAMILY TRUST 1617 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHARON GUY 1616 CORMORANT DR ’ CARLSBAD CA 92009 NLVTRUST 1628 CORMOlbWT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 JERRY LAIBSON TRUST 1640 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 8 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 Proof of Publication of 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: May 21, 1999 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. .sa!l Marcos Dated at California, this 21st day nf Mav 1999 .&5---- -------_ _ _----------- NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp Public Hearing -_----_------------------- -_-- ____------------------ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SDP 66.02fC) - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a pubfic hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 600 p.m., on Tuesday June 1.1999, to consider a request for approval of an amendment to a Site Development Plan to adjust the operational restrictions and allow the limited use of lcokoff units based upon the amount of parking availability for property generally located in the Aviara Planning Area 28 (Four Seasons Resort Timeshares). south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 19 and more particularly described as: Lots 6 to 9 of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 85-35, Phase I, Unit A, according to Map No. 12406, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 29, 1989; AND Lots 1 and 6 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02. Unit 1, according to Map No. 13335, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 13,1996; AND Lots 4 to 34 of Carfsbad Tract No. 95-02. Unit 2 according to Map No. Cii of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.’ 13396, ALL in the 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 or after May 28, 1999. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mike Grim in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department at (760) 430-l 161, extension 4499. If you challenge the Site Development Plan Amendment 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 Office of the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. APPLICANT: AVIARA FSRCASSOC. LTD. PARTNERSHIP . . Legal 63334 May 21,1999 fax. FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES SDP 86-02(C) City of Carlsbad June 151999 Aviara FSRC Associates 7100 Four Seasons Point Carlsbad, CA 92009 FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES SITE DCVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 86=2(C) Enclosed for your reference are copies of Carlsbad City Council Agenda Bill No. 15,239, and Resolution No. 99-201. These documents went before the City Council on June 1, 1999, where the Resolution was adopted, approving the project referenced above. If you have questions concerning the project, please contact Mike Grim, in the Planning Department, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4499. Kathleen D. Shoup Sr. Office Specialist 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 - (760) 434-2808 @