Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-22; City Council; 19525; Carlsbad Boat Club and ResortCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# MTG. DEPT. 19,525 07/22/08 PLN CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT CUP 06-1 6/CT 06-16/SUP 07-05 DEPT. HEAD M?7 %J CITYATTY. ff/t CITYMGR. l/L RECOMMENDED ACTION: 2008-216That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. upholding the Planning Commission's recommendation DENYING Conditional Use Permit 06-16 and ADOPT Resolution No.2008-217 DENYING the appeal of CT 06-16 and SUP 07-05 based upon the findings and conditions contained therein. ITEM EXPLANATION: Project Application(s) CUP 06-16 CT06-16 SUP 07-05 Administrative Approvals Planning Commission RD DENIED DENIED City Council X On Appeal On Appeal RD = Recommended Denial X = Final City decision -making authority •= requires Coastal Commission approval On November 7 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort project which proposes the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The item was continued to allow the developer time to address a variety of Planning Commissioners concerns which focused on the project's incompatibility with the adjacent single family uses based upon the project's: 1) intensity of use; 25 unit timeshare condominium units, and 2) bulk and scale of the structure. On May 7, 2008 the project was again brought before the Planning Commission which recommended denial (4- 2-1 (Boddy and Douglas - no, Dominguez absent)) of the Conditional Use Permit for the timeshare project because the project applicant was unwilling to redesign the project to address their concerns. The Planning Commission also denied the associated Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-16) and Special Use Permit (07-05). The applicant has appealed the latter two permits to the City Council. At the latter hearing, the Planning Commission reiterated their significant concerns regarding the incompatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. A presentation was made by the applicant and eight persons spoke against the project. A full disclosure of the Planning DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch 760-602-4613 vlync(5)ci.carlsbad.ca.us FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED WITHDRAWN AMENDED *nnnn CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN RETURNED TO STAFF OTHER -SEE MINUTES Xnnn q//if/OK/ I Page 2 Commission's actions and a complete project description and staff analysis of the proposed project are included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending denial of the proposed discretionary action (CUP). Staff also recommends the denial of the appealed Tentative Tract Map and Special Use Permit. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission's denial of the Tentative Tract Map and the Special Use Permit. The applicant states there are significant errors and interpretations of the City Ordinance that were used to justify denial of the project. The section below follows the outline of the appeal filed by the project applicant and lists the staff response to each item. Please refer to the appeal filed by the project applicant which is attached as Exhibit 7 for the complete text of the reasons for the appeal. Planning Commission Resolution Number 6348 - Tentative Tract Map 06-16 Finding 1.A. Appellant - "The subject property is consistent with and does satisfy all requirements of the General Plan." Staff Response - Staff and the Planning Commission determined that the project at the proposed intensity, bulk, and scale does not implement Item C.3 of the Implementation Policies and Action Programs of the General Plans Overall Land Use Pattern which places a high priority on the compatibility of adjacent land uses along the interface of different densities or land uses. Finding 1.B. Appellant - The buildings cannot be determined to be incompatible because of size or bulk, if the building meets or exceeds development standards. Staff Response - The Planning Commission and Staff have found that the proposed building is too large and would appear out of character with the surrounding residential single family neighborhood. The Conditional Use Permit must make the findings of compatibility with adjacent uses for the approval of a timeshare project. Finding 1.C. Appellant - The applicant indicates that the proposed project cannot be found to be incompatible because of potential boat launch, boat house, and traffic because these activities have been occurring for more that 50 years. Staff Response - The use of the property as a private boat club and sporadic use as a restaurant is not the same as a 25 unit timeshare project. Staff concerns are that a timeshare project of 25 units would more disruptive as compared to the existing private Boat Club operation and restaurant use, which has not been in operation for many years. Finding 2.A. Appellant - The appellant quotes the statement in the finding that "surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low Medium Density on the General Plan." as if it is an incorrect statement. The appellant then states "The three lots across the street are Zoned R-T, the same as our project." Page 3 Staff Response - The General Plan Land Use Map does show adjacent surrounding properties as Residential Low-Medium Density. The lots across the street (northerly) are zoned R-T and are developed with single-family homes. Finding 2.B. Appellant - "That property was developed inconsistent with the General Plan." Staff Response - The Appellant is referring to property located two lots easterly of the subject site which was developed with three single family homes. The General Plan once allowed projects to develop below the density range of the land use designation. Finding 2.C. Appellant - "This property is designated Commercial and cannot be deemed to be incompatible by comparing it to residential standards. Our property is entitled to be developed according to Commercial standards and conditions. In fact, to be consistent with, and comply with, the General Plan and LCP, it must be allowed to go forward." Staff Response - Staff does not disagree with the use of the property for commercial purposes, only the intensity, size and bulk for compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The project is not being subjected to residential development standards. The appeal letter references Planning Commission Resolution Number 6349. which is the Conditional Use Permit. This item is being heard by the City Council and is not an appeal item. Please refer to the findings in Planning Commission Resolution Number 6349 for information supporting the Planning Commission recommendation. Planning Commission Resolution Number 6351 - Special Use Permit 07-05 Finding No. 1. Appellant - The applicant states that the project does comply with and conform to the Scenic Preservation Overly Zone. Staff Response - Staffs response is that the Scenic Preservation Overly also addresses land use compatibility and staff, and the Planning Commission, has determined that the proposed project at the intensity, bulk and scale is not compatible with the neighborhood. The project could potentially be disruptive and impact the adjacent residences because of the amount of vehicular traffic of occupants, service vehicles, boat launch, and boat house activities associated with a 25 unit timeshare. The project's size will also impact the scenic quality of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The proposed building will project further towards the lagoon than adjacent structures and will present a much larger building mass. Finding 2.A. Appellant - The project does implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Specifically: the Land Use Element, Section C.3, Commercial c. Travel Recreational Commercial. Page 4 Staff Response - The Land Use section identified describes the intended uses of the Travel/Recreation Commercial Land Use designation. The description does include visitor attractions and commercial uses located near lagoons. This section also states, "Commercial uses should be compatible with and designed to protect surrounding properties, should ensure safe traffic circulation and should promote economically viable tourist-oriented areas of the City." Finding 2.B. Appellant - The statement that "The project has the potential to generate noise from the boat launch, boathouse and traffic, which would significantly impact adjacent and surrounding single family residences" is absurd. The Restaurant and Boat Club were in full operation and all the impacts of high intensity uses, traffic, noise, etc. were occurring daily, when the surrounding houses were approved and constructed. These activities have been occurring on this property for more than 50 years, long before any of the surrounding houses were built! Staff Response - The Applicant is comparing the existing use of a single family residence, a private boat launch facility, and a restaurant with sporadic use to a new use which consists of a 25 unit timeshare. Staff's concerns are with the intensity of the new use and associated impacts to the surrounding residential community, which continues to develop. Finding 2.C. Appellant - "Once again, the Red Herring" of compatibility is injected with no basis of fact or criteria to base it on. Staff Response - The finding addresses the issue of incompatibility between a 25 unit timeshare project and a single family neighborhood. Staffs concerns are over the intensity of the use and the related impacts associated with the use and operation of the 25 unit timeshare along with the physical size and aesthetics of the project in relation to a single family neighborhood. Finding 3.A. Appellant - The proposed project will not adversely affect the scenic, historical or cultural qualities of the property or lagoon. Staff Response - The project will impact the scenic qualities of the lagoon as the mass of the building is very large and projects further towards the lagoon than adjacent structures. Finding 3.B. Appellant - "Once again, the Red Herring" of compatibility is injected with no basis of fact or criteria to base it on. Staff Response - See 2.C. above. Pages FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts to the City have been identified. All public infrastructure required for this project will be funded and/or constructed by the developer. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Per Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Accordingly, Staff has deferred environmental review at this time. If the denial recommendation is not upheld or is upheld without prejudice to allow the reapplication of the project, the project must be referred back to staff to complete environmental review consistent with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and CEQA. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2008-216 2. City Council Resolution No. 2008-217 3. Location Map. 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6348, 6349, and 6351. 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, May 7, 2008 (without PC Resolutions, location exhibit, and minutes). 6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 7, 2007 and May 7, 2008. 7. Applicant appeal request. 8. Correspondence received relating to project. EXHIBIT 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-216 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING 3 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-16 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A 4 RESTAURANT AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWENTY-FIVE (25) UNIT TIMESHARE 5 CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON ONE ACRE OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, BETWEEN 6 HIGHLAND DRIVE AND PARK DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 7 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT CASE NO.: CUP 06-16 8 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as 9 follows: 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning 11 Commission did, on November 7, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law 12 to consider a Conditional Use Permit and continued said hearing; and 13 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning 14 Commission did, on May 7, 2008, hold a second duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by 15 law to consider a Conditional Use Permit; and 16 WHEREAS, on May 7, 2008, the Carlsbad Planning Commission recommended 17 denial of CUP 06-16 for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and the 1 O construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City 70 of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 21 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 22 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6349 on file with the City Clerk, and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 24 3. That the application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 06-16) on property 25 generally located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 is denied as shown in Planning Commission Resolution 26 No. 6349. 2? /// 28 /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the of the City of Carlsbad on the 16th day of September, 2008, by the following AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard and Nygaard. NOES: None. ABSENT: None./i//7 /? / /y if/ // J/7 /TS \/M/^ [K/Jfo** foCAlJDE A eEWJB, Maytfr ATTEST: . r ££ ~ . ^^C\ ^ VA!O^ ^^ * (j2*l^oj^\ LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk<SEAL) 4S% — O l*Sjtt^$9L&^E** ^ • ^^p^''"•.,,5,11^ City Council vote to wit: ^,1 \^\Q£>trhjH .« TO u 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-217 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF 3 THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY A 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AIRSPACE SUBDIVISION OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) 5 UNIT TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON ONE- ACRE OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 6 ADAMS STREET BETWEEN HIGHLAND DRIVE AND PARK DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 7 ZONE1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT 8 CASE NO.: CT 06-16 / SUP 07-05 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning 10 Commission did, on November 17, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing as 11 prescribed by law to consider a Tentative Tract Map and Special Use Permit and 12 continued said hearing; and 13 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning 15 Commission did, on May 7, 2008, hold a second duly noticed public hearing as 16 prescribed by law and denied Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-16) and Special Use Permit 17 (SUP 07-05) for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and the 18 construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project; and 19 WHEREAS, the appellant on May 14, 2008 timely filed an appeal with the City 20 Clerk; and 21 WHEREAS, after providing the opportunity for all persons both in favor and 22 opposed to testify on the appeal and having considered all documents, reports, 23 correspondence and other evidence and having duly deliberated on the appeal ?5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 26 Carlsbad, California, as follows: 27 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 28 1 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No. 6348 and 6351 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference 2 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. 3. That appellant's appeal is denied with prejudice and that appellants shall 4 bear their costs of appeal. 5 4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the 6 Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: 7 NOTICE TO APPLICANT . "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil 10 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 ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings , ~ accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California, 14 92008." 15 /// 16 III 17 II, 18 III 19 III 20 III21 22'" 23 '" 24 '// 25 /// 26 ,// 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 16th day of September, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard and Nygaard. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ;LAUDE A^LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: EXHIBIT 3 SITE SITEMAP NOT TO SCALE Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05 ID EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6348 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CARLSBAD TRACT CT 06-16 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A 3 RESTAURANT AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWENTY-FIVE (25) 4 UNIT TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON ONE 5 ACRE OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, BETWEEN HIGHLAND DRIVE AND PARK 6 DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE ONE. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT 7 CASE NO.: CT 06-16 . o WHEREAS, VIP Partners, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application 9 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 10 Westerly half of Lot 7, Block D of Bella Vista Tract 2152 12 ("the Property"); and 13 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract 14 Map as shown on Exhibits "A" - "P" dated May 7, 2008, on file in the Planning Department 15 CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - CT 06-16, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the 16 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of May, 2008, hold a18 in duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 20 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 21 and arguments of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to 22 the Tentative Tract Map; and 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of November, 2007, 24 held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the surrounding neighbors expressed 27 concerns regarding the project's proposed intensity (number of units), bulk and size, and 2° resultant incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, since the applicant has not adequately addressed the intensity, bulk, 2 and architectural compatibility concerns of the Planning Commission, surrounding neighbors or 3 staff, staff continues to recommend denial of the project. 4 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. g B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 9 DENIES CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - CT 06-16, based on the following findings: 10 Findings: , 2 1 • That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is not consistent with and does not satisfy all requirements of the General 13 Plan in that the project has been determined to be incompatible with the adjacent single family residential neighborhood at the intensity, bulk, and scale of development proposed and the project has the potential to generate noise (boat launch, boathouse and traffic) which would significantly impact adjacent and surrounding single family residences. 16 2. That the proposed project is not compatible with the surrounding future land uses since 17 surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low Medium Density development on the General Plan, in that the timeshare use at the intensity, bulk, and scale proposed will be disruptive to the surrounding residential community by generating increased noise and traffic above and beyond what is typical for a single family residential neighborhood. 20 3. That the site is physically not suitable for the type and density of the development since 21 the site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate commercial development at the intensity, bulk, and scale proposed, in that the project cannot adequately function ^ without noise and traffic disruption by guest and service provider traffic to the 23 detriment of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 24 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the 25 public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 26 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1 965 (Williamson Act). 6. That the project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to 1 5270 of the PC RESO NO. 6348 -2- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which states that CEQA does not apply to 2 projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. 3 7. The project is consistent with the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and 4 ordinances. 5 NOTICE 6 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 o "fees/exactions." 9 You have 90 days from 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 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 12 annul their imposition. 13 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise 16 expired. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6348 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of May, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Chairperson Whitton NOES: Commissioners Boddy and Douglas ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6348 -4- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6349 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE 4 DEMOLITION OF A RESTAURANT AND SINGLE FAMILY 5 RESIDENCE AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWENTY-FIVE (25) UNIT TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM 6 PROJECT ON ONE ACRE OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, BETWEEN HIGHLAND 7 DRIVE AND PARK DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE ONE. 8 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT 9 CASE NO.: CUP 06-16 10 WHEREAS, VIP Partners, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application * * with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 12 Westerly half of Lot 7, Block D of Bella Vista Tract 2152 13 ("the Property"); and 14 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use 16 Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "P" dated May 7, 2008, on file in the Planning Department, 17 CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - CUP 06-16, as provided by Chapter 21.42 18 and/or 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of May, 2008, hold a 20 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 21 7» WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 23 and arguments of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to 24 the Conditional Use Permit; and 25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of November, 2007, 26 held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 27 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the surrounding neighbors expressed 2 concerns regarding the project's proposed intensity (number of units), bulk and size and resultant 3 incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; and. 4 5 WHEREAS, since the applicant has not adequately addressed the intensity, bulk, 6 and architectural compatibility concerns of the Planning Commission, surrounding neighbors or 7 staff, staff continues to recommend denial of the project. 8 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 9 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 10 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 11 ,2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL of CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - 13 CUP 06-16, based on the following findings: Findings; 14 1. That the requested use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community in that the timeshare use does not provide any services to other uses 16 within the community, is not in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan in that the use would be detrimental to the existing surrounding 17 residential uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located, in that the proposed timeshare project at the intensity, bulk and scale of development proposed is not compatible with the existing surrounding single family 19 residential uses in addition to generating increased traffic on residential streets and noise associated with the timeshare operation. The project will generate 200 20 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which will traverse through existing residential neighborhoods. The existing site presently generates 10 ADT as a restaurant (which is closed) and a single family residence and possibly a few more depending on the 22 private boat club member's boat launching activity. 23 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the proposed building, required parking, and landscaping can fit within the 24 boundaries of the developable portion of the property with no need to encroach into required setbacks. The project has a building coverage of 42% when 75% is allowed. 26 3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to 27 adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood have not been provided and maintained, in that the project has been determined to be incompatible because of the intensity, bulk and scale of development proposed and PCRESONO.6349 -2- cannot be adjusted by walls, fences, landscaping or other features to make the 2 project compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. 3 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that access to the site is by way of Adams Street. Adams Street is adequate in size to handle the proposed traffic generated by the r proposed timeshare use. However, all of the traffic to and from the site will need to traverse through residential single family neighborhoods which will negatively 6 impact the neighborhoods with increased noise and traffic. 5. That the time-share project is located in reasonable proximity to an existing resort or public recreational area and, therefore, can financially and geographically function as a successful time-share project and that the project will be disruptive to existing or future 9 uses in the surrounding neighborhood in that the project at the intensity, bulk and scale of development proposed is not compatible with the existing surrounding 10 single family residential neighborhood. The project is located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon which provides recreational activities for water sports such as boating, sailing, fishing, and kayaking. Water access from the site would allow the j 2 aq u atic activities. 13 NOTICE 14 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 15 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 16 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in. accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely 19 follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.20 F 21 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, 22 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 23 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise 24 expired. 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6349 -3- n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 'PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of May 2008 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Chairperson Whitton NOES: Commissioners Boddy and Douglas ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: /£RANK H. WHITTON, chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU Planning Director PCRESONO. 6349 -4- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6351 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A SCENIC PRESERVATION SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE 4 DEMOLITION OF A RESTAURANT AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWENTY-FIVE (25) UNIT TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM 6 PROJECT ON ONE ACRE OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, BETWEEN HIGHLAND 7 DRIVE AND PARK DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE ONE. 8 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT 9 CASE NO: SUP 07-05 10 WHEREAS, VIP Partners, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application 11 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 12 Westerly half of Lot 7, Block D of Bella Vista Tract 2152 13 ('the Property"); and 14 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Scenic 16 Preservation Special Use Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "P" dated May 7,2008, on file in 17 the Planning Department, CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - SUP 07-05, as provided by Chapter 21.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of May, 2008, hold a 20 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 21 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 23 and arguments of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to 24 the Special Use Permit; and 25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of November, 2007, 26 held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 27 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the surrounding neighbors expressed 2 concerns regarding the project's proposed intensity (number of units), bulk and size and resultant 3 incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; and.4 WHEREAS, since the applicant has not adequately addressed the intensity, bulk, 6 and architectural compatibility concerns of the Planning Commission, surrounding neighbors or 7 staff, staff continues to recommend denial of the project. 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 9 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 10 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - SUP 07-05, based on 13 the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings; 14 1. The proposed project does not conform to the intent of the Scenic Preservation Overlay in that the project is incompatible with the adjacent single family residential 1 g neighborhood at the intensity, bulk and scale of development proposed. 17 2. The proposed project does not implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan in that the project is incompatible with the adjacent single family residential neighborhood at the intensity, bulk and scale of development proposed and the project has the potential to generate noise (boat launch, boathouse and traffic) which would significantly impact adjacent and surrounding single family 20 residences. 3. The proposed project will adversely affect the scenic, historical or cultural qualities of the _~ property in that the project is incompatible with the surrounding open space lagoon environment because of the project's intensity, scale, and bulk of development 23 proposed. 24 NOTICE 25 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, 26 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions."27 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section PCRESONO. 6351 -2- '10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on May 7, 2008 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Chairperson Whitton NOES: Commissioners Boddy and Douglas ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU Planning Director PCRESONO. 6351 -3- ^\ The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 5 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: May 7, 2008 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno SUBJECT: CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Special Use Permit for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6348, 6349, and 6351 DENYING Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-16) and Special Use Permit (SUP 07-05) and RECOMMENDING DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-16 based on the findings contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort project was presented to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial on November 7, 2007. At the hearing, Planning Commission and surrounding neighbors had concerns about the project's incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood and the hearing item was continued to a date uncertain to allow time for the applicant to work with staff to resolve the compatibility issues raised at the public hearing. The Planning Commission provided specific direction to the applicant regarding project redesign. The applicant has met with staff and has proposed some minor project modifications. However, because the proposed modifications do not adequately address the Planning Commission's compatibility issues and specific direction, staff recommends denial of the project. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The original project proposed the demolition of the existing restaurant and single family residence and construction of a new 26-unit timeshare condominium along the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission and the surrounding neighbors expressed concerns regarding the project's proposed intensity (number of units), bulk and size and resultant incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission identified that the overall intensity, bulk and scale of the project were to be reduced to make the project more compatible with the surrounding single-family residences. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with Planning Staff to address the issues presented. The Planning Commission specifically identified the following items that were to be addressed:o CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT May 7,2008 Page 2 • Intensity of the project in the number of units proposed. The project was presented to the Planning Commission as a 26 unit timeshare. The Planning Commission recommended that the number of units in the project be reduced. Suggestions for reducing the number of timeshare units in the project ranged from 6 to 19 units or similar to a 19 dwelling units per acre residential project. The project was reduced from 26 units to 25 units. The applicant is unwilling to further reduce the number of units pursuant to the direction of the Planning Commission. • A reduction in the physical size and bulk of the project. The Planning Commission recommended that the project be reduced in size and bulk. The building's coverage of 12,000 square feet and the total building's square footage of 40,500 square feet have not changed. The only reduction in project size has been the removal of the elevator tower feature and the reduction of the third level balcony area from 480 square feet to 213 square feet for the two upper level units. The third level balconies have been modified to be less deep and do not extend to the sides of the buildings as before. The reduction in depth allows a roof element to be added over the second level, where the previous balcony used to be locatedr It was the direction of the Planning Commission to have the applicant reduce the physical mass of the project. Overall, the physical size and bulk of the project has not significantly changed. • Architectural changes such as terracing of levels, multiple roof planes, and eliminated/reduced/relocated roof deck. The Planning Commission requested that the project be architecturally enhanced by terracing/stepping back of the levels and providing roof planes for each level. The projects roof deck was to be relocated to a lower level, eliminated or reduced in size and the tower element was to be eliminated. The applicant has partially responded to this direction. The architectural changes consist of reducing the size of the third level balcony and removing the second level side and third level southerly balcony covers. The result of the these changes give the appearance of the buildings upper third level stepping back, but the actual floor area of the building does not significantly change. Staffs original concerns were that the project did not comply with the Hillside Development Guidelines for projects to follow the slope of the property. The project appears from the side elevations to adequately meet this requirement as revised. The project continues to present a flat roof design and does not provide for a variety of roof planes. The project has eliminated the tower element and has reduced the size of the roof deck from roughly 2,350 square feet to 1,136 square feet. The project no longer needs the Variance application for exceeding the height of Adams Street. • Public beach access from Adams Street. The Planning Commission recommended that vertical beach access be provided from Adams Street to the shoreline. No change in public access has been proposed. The project provides only the lateral beach access trail. The applicant does not wish to provide beach access across the property from Adams Street. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT May 7, 2008 Page 3 • Overall project compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission concluded that a project which was reduced in intensity, scale, and architecturally modified to better fit within the residential community could be found to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The projects intensity, scale and overall architecture have not changed significantly from the previous submittal. • Working with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant continue to interface with the neighborhood to resolve their concerns. The developer has stated they have spoken with the surrounding neighbors. • Timeshare conversion clarification. Timeshare projects are required to provide a conversion plan in the event the project is not economically feasible. During this subsequent review period, staff has also addressed issues raised by both the applicant and the Planning Commission regarding what type of land use (hotel ~ or residential condominium) the project should be converted to. The initial response from staff was to convert the project to a residential use as it would be consistent with the Residential- Tourist (RT) Zoning designation, which allows residences by right, and would be more compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. After further review, Staff concludes that the-timeshare should instead be required to convert to a hotel use since the project site has a Travel Recreation/Commercial General Plan Land Use designation and the conversion to a commercial use would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. Furthermore, the R-T Zone allows hotels as a conditional use and section 21.42.155(a)(iv) of the Zoning Ordinance states that projects that are located within non-residential zones shall be converted to a hotel if it cannot be successfully marketed as a timeshare project. In summary, since the applicant has not adequately addressed the intensity, bulk, and architectural compatibility concerns of the Planning Commission, the surrounding neighborhood, or staff, staff continues to recommend denial of the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6348 (CT) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6349 (CUP) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6351 (SUP) 4. Staff Report dated November 7, 2007 5. Letters dated February 5 and February 8, 2008 from applicant and owner. 6. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes dated November 7, 2008. 7. Reduced revised exhibits. 8. Revised Exhibits "A" - "N" dated May 7, 2008 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: November 7, 2007 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno SUBJECT. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit and Variance, for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and to allow the construction of a twenty-six (26) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6348, 6349; 6351 and 6352 DENYING Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-16), Special Use Permit (SUP 07-05) and Variance (V 07-04) and RECOMMENDING DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit CUP 06- 16 based on the findings contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission received a staff report and resolutions on the Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort on October 11,2007. The City requested that project be continued until the November 7, 2007 Planning Commission meeting due to the need to resend the public hearing notice for the project. The original 10 day public notice was incomplete. The staff report for the October 17, 2007 meeting is attached. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. ( 2 P.C. AGENDA OF: October 17, 2007 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno SUBJECT: CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit and Variance, for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and to allow the construction of a twenty-six (26) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6348, 6351 and 6352 DENYING Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-16), Special Use Permit (SUP 07-05) and Variance (V 07-04) and RECOMMENDING DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit CUP 06- 16 based on the findings contained therein. II.INTRODUCTION The proposal involves the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence (Boat Club) located on the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and to construct a 26-unit timeshare condominium. The project is located on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street between Highland Drive and Park Drive in LFMP Zone 1. The property is within the Agua Hedionda Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Agua Hedionda LCP Segment is in an area of deferred certification where the City of Carlsbad does not have permit authority to issue Coastal Development permits and thus, the project will need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. Staff is recommending denial of the project because of the inability to meet the required Conditional Use Permit findings for a timeshare project. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project consists of demolishing the existing "Boat Club" facility and constructing a new 26- unit timeshare condominium along the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The new timeshare building is three stories over an underground parking garage. Access is via a concrete driveway off Adams Street which will circulate down on the westerly side of the property to the garage level. The garage level is at the eight foot elevation, eight feet above the mean high tide. The parking garage provides 30 parking spaces plus two boat storage spaces. Two guest parking spaces are provided outside the parking garage. Above the garage is the first floor living space for nine timeshare units and individual storage units for 20 of the timeshare units. In the center of the first floor is a courtyard, roughly 30 feet by 45 feet which is open to the sky above. The second floor provides nine timeshare units and six storage units, which are the storage units for CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 2 the first floor living units. The third floor contains eight living units. The project provides a balanced mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom units. The roof plan calls for a flat roof with an area for an observation deck, elevator penthouse and mechanical equipment yard. The building has a sloped 4:12 barrel tile roof parapet element which wraps around the building. The project also proposes to remodel the existing recreation center building and to recondition the existing boat launch ramp. Trash enclosures will be located at the garage level. Two stairwells and an elevator provide vertical access from top to bottom. An at-grade exterior stairway is located along the easterly side of the property from Adams Street to the bottom of the property. A pedestrian trail as part of the citywide trail plan is proposed within the existing sewer line easement which traverses the site on the lower portion of the property. On August 16, 1955 the City Council approved a Special Use Permit by Ordinance 9043 (attached) for the operation of launching and docking of boats, a soft drink and lunch stand and a structure for the sale of gasoline, oil and related sales. A history of building permits issued for the site is as follows: December 1963 - Commercial Service building 576 sq. ft. April 1964 - Addition to F-2 occupancy 864 sq ft. March 1970 - addition (alteration) of 1639 sq ft of dining room - 81 person occupancy. (Ernie Carter). 1972 - correction letter to allow use as a restaurant (Circus Restaurant). September 1982 - 336 sq ft desk for restaurant. November 1982 - 40 amp commercial panel. October 1988 - restaurant remodel Zdravko Simonovic - Chez Milene Restaurant (V.I.P Partners). October 1988 - 422 patio addition. May 1990 - electrical panel upgrade. August 1995 - new gas line service. April 1999 - re-roof clubhouse 800 sq ft flat roof. In past years, the boat club has operated as a variety different restaurants: Peanuts, The Restaurant, La Maison Du Lac, Chez Milene and Jose's Baja Grill. No specific history or dates are available other than building permit history noted above. As early as 1956, the site and four other surrounding properties were General Plan Land Use designated Recreational Commercial (RC - since redefined as Travel Recreation/Commercial (TR)) and zoned as Residential Tourist (RT). In 1991, the General Plan Land Use designation of the adjacent site to the east was changed from Recreational Commercial (RC) to Residential Low Medium Density (RLM). The Zoning was also changed from Residential Tourist to R-l-15,000. Three other parcels to the north across Adams Street have been developed with single family homes (1991) yet retain the RT Zoning designation and are RLM Land Use designated. The Boat Club parcel is the last remaining parcel with a TR Land Use designation and RT Zoning in the immediate area. The facility has operated without neighbors until 1991 when residential construction began to fill in around the site. The surrounding residences are fairly new in relation to the operation of the Boat Club. The single family residence adjacent to the east was finaled on November 2002. The other two further to the east were finaled in July, 1999 and August, 2000. The two residences to -27 CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17,2007 Page 3 the north, across Adams Street were built in 1991 and 1997. To the west is a new residence approved in 2007 which is currently under construction. The site is presently occupied by a restaurant which is closed but maintains an active business license, a two bedroom single family residence, and the existing 576 square foot boathouse which will remain. The Boat Club which provides the boat launch facility for members has been in continuous operation. No significant habitats exist on the site which is landscaped with ornamental plantings. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards: A. Travel/Recreation Commercial (T-R) General Plan Land Use Designation; B. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); C. Residential Tourist (RT) Zone, Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.20; D. Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance); E. Conditional Use Permit findings (Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.155); F. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Agua Hedionda Segment; G. Special Use Permit- Floodplain (Chapter 21.110); H. Variance for Building height (Chapter 21.50); I. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance); and J. Growth Management Ordinance Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1. The recommendation for denial of the project was developed by analyzing the project's inconsistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance or non- compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The project is not consistent with the all applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the Timeshare project are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, and Public Safety elements. Table A below indicates how the project complies or does not comply with these particular elements of the General Plan. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 4 TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Element Use Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Use and Improvements Compliance Land Use Site is designated for Tourist/Recreation Commercial development. Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority on compatibility of adjacent land uses. Encourage commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities, as long as they protect the residential character of the community. Proposed Timeshare project serves the travel and recreational need and is located adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The project has been determined to be incompatible with the adjacent residential single family neighborhood at the scale and intensity of development proposed. Project does not protect the residential character of the community. Yes No No Circulation Require new development to construct roadway improvements needed to serve the proposed development. Adequate circulation infrastructure to serve the projected population. The project would be conditioned to provide street improvements to Adams Street. Adams Street is adequate for the traffic generated by the use. Use of Timeshare is roughly half of traffic generation of previous restaurant uses. Yes Yes Noise A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise. The project site is not impacted by noise but has the potential to generate noise (boat launch, boathouse activities and traffic) which could be significant to adjacent single family residences. No u CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 5 _ TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED Element Use Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Use and Improvements Compliance Public Safety Provision of emergency water systems and all-weather access roads. Enforce the State Map act provision that subdivision maps may be denied if a project site is not physically suitable for either the type or density of a proposed development. All necessary water mains, fire hydrants, and appurtenances must be installed prior to occupancy of any unit and all-weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. Project is not physically suitable for the density of development proposed. Yes No B.Subdivision Ordinance The project proposes an airspace subdivision of 26 timeshare units. Chapter 20.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance addresses the requirements of a major subdivision (a subdivision creating more than four parcels). These requirements deal mostly with providing the drainage, sewerage, and circulation dedications and improvements needed to serve the subdivision. The proposed timeshare subdivision will provide all necessary facilities prior to, or concurrent with, construction. The hydrology report, submitted by the applicant, indicates that all runoff can be controlled on-site with no overall increase. The on-site sewer system would be connected to the existing system which traverses the site. The water system would involve provision of looped service from the existing lines in Adams Street. Improvements will be made along the frontage on Adams Street. No standard variances are needed to approve the project. Both the Map Act and Title 20.12.19 (required findings) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code require findings for approval of maps. One specific finding that cannot be made is that the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The analysis above and below discuss the suitability of the site for the proposed timeshare project. C. Residential Tourist (RT) Zone The Residential Tourist (RT) Zone (Chapter 21.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) implements the Travel/Recreation Commercial General Plan Land Use designation. The RT Zone only permits dwellings and large and small family day care homes by right. A variety of Conditional Uses which are commercial- and recreational in nature, including Timeshares, are allowed by Conditional Use Permit. The project complies with the development standards of the RT Zone as shown in Table B below. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17,2007 Page 6 TABLE B - RESIDENTIAL TOURIST COMPLIANCE Code Section Building Height Setbacks- Buildings Setbacks- Driveways and Parking Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Parking Standard Not to exceed 35 feet. Front: 20 feet Street side: n/a Interior side: 5 foot minimum one side 1 0 foot minimum on other side. Rear: 20ft. Front: 20ft. Street side: 10ft. Interior side: 5 ft. Rear: 20ft. Min. 7,500 square feet 60 ft wide minimum 75 % max. 1 .2 parking stalls per unit required; 32 spaces Provided 35 feet to top of building with elevator penthouse at 36 feet*. Front: 26ft. Street side: n/a. Interior side: 6 feet on east side 3 1 feet west side Rear: 80ft. Front: 26ft. Street side: n/a. Interior side: 10ft, Rear: 45 ft minimum. J. 02 Ac (44,431 sq ft) 133.81 ft 69.4% 32 parking stalls Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ~~ Yes Yes * Roof structures specifically for the housing of elevators may be erected above the building height prescribed. D. Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance) The project is subject to the Planned Development Ordinance per the Conditional Use Permit requirements for Timeshare projects identified in Section 21.42.155. A Planned Development compliance table, attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit A, details how the project complies or does not comply with the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance for the General Development Standards and the Multi-family Development Standards. As seen in Exhibit A, the project does not fully comply with all applicable Planned Development standards and is therefore inconsistent with the Planned Development Ordinance. E. Conditional Use Permit findings, Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.155. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to allow special consideration for certain uses to be located in zones other than those in which they are allowed as permitted because of their particular characteristics. Such uses may only be suitable in specific locations or designed in a particular manner on the site or subjected to specific conditions to assure compatibility within the zone and its surroundings. Timeshare developments are conditionally allowed uses within the Residential Tourist Zone per Section 21.20.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and timeshare developments are subject to the findings found within Chapter 21.42.030 for Conditional Uses 21.42.140(B)(155) for timeshare projects. Per the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Timeshare projects are reviewed by the Planning Commission with recommendations being made to the City Council who is the final decision making body. 01 CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 7 The timeshare project is embedded within an existing single family neighborhood and will be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood at the scale and intensity of development proposed. The findings for support of the timeshare project cannot be met. Timeshare projects are subject to the following findings: 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, including, if applicable, the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), specific or master plan. The proposed timeshare use is not a necessary use for the development of the community. The timeshare does not provide any services to other uses within the community. The timeshare is a private development and will not provide vertical public access (street to shore) or public boat launching facilities. Lateral coastal access is required to be provided by projects along the lagoon and is provided by this project. The use could be considered desirable for the development of the community as it would provide tourist serving units and supports the economic viability of the city through some limited Transient Occupancy Tax and visitors- patronizing local establishments. Per the General Plan Land Use Element, projects are to be found to be compatible with adjacent land uses. The scale and intensity of the timeshare project would be incompatible at the scale and intensity proposed. The proposed structure is 40,500 square feet over a 17,000 square foot parking garage. Local residential buildings are from 5,300 square feet to 8,150 square feet. The three story structure over an underground parking garage is very large compared to the adjacent two story structures. The project will generate 208 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which will traverse through residential neighborhoods. The existing site generates 10 ADT as a restaurant (closed) and single family residence and possibly a few more depending on the private boat club member's boat launching activity. Associated with the traffic will be additional noise from vehicles and increased activity associated with the timeshare and boat club facility. The increased traffic and noise would not be compatible with the existing residential neighborhood. The site is not covered by a Specific or Master Plan. 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The 26-unit timeshare project has the potential to be detrimental to the existing single-family neighborhood. The transient nature of the timeshare residents and guests will generate additional noise and traffic in the residential neighborhood. The projected ADT for the site is 208 ADT where the existing restaurant and residence and boat club activity is 10 ADT. The increase in vehicular traffic and the transient nature of the timeshare project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it would increase the intensity of development on a singe lot which would not foster the tranquility of a single family environment. The magnitude of the proposed project is not in the same scale and character as the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed building is four stories tall where others in the area are two stories. The facility provides minimal parking for boats and trailers as a boat club facility. No adjacent on street parking is available. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 8 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the planning director, planning commission or city council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed 26-unit timeshare facility as the project does not meet all required development standards. The project is proposing to develop to the maximum extent allowed by the Planned Development ordinance, as shown on Exhibit "A," and exceeds the 60 percent lot coverage. Inadequate yards, setbacks and loading facilities have been provided. As noted above, the amount of guest/boat and boat trailer spaces are minimal. The required 100 foot wetland buffer from the lagoon is impacted by the existing boat launch ramp, boat clubhouse and recreational area. The primary structure on the site had previously been used as a restaurant which is not in operation and a single family dwelling. Since the restaurant closure, the immediate area has developed with single family residential homes. There no longer exists a buffer of open space from the site of the boat club operation to surrounding single family residential uses. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. Access to the site is by way of Adams Street. Adams Street is adequate in size to handle the proposed traffic generated by the proposed timeshare use. However, all of the traffic to and from the site will need to traverse through residential single family neighborhoods which will negatively impact the quality of life and tranquility of the existing residential neighborhood. 5. That the time-share project is located in reasonable proximity to an existing resort or public recreational area and, therefore, can financially and geographically function as a successful time-share project and that the project will not be disruptive to existing or future uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The project is located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon which provides recreational activities for water sports such as boating, sailing, fishing and kayaking. Water access from the site would allow the aquatic activities. It is unknown if the site can financially and geographically function and succeed as a time-share project. Because of this, timeshare projects have a requirement that they must be designed such that they are able to be converted to a residential use consistent with the Planned Development Ordinance. A conversion plan has not been submitted and the project design proposed does not conform to all the applicable standards of the Planned Development Ordinance, nor does the design lend itself towards future conversion to residential use. Specifically, residential parking standards, community recreational facilities, recreational vehicle parking and private recreational space (balcony/patio) standards could not be met. The project has submitted the required management and maintenance plan. 33 CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 9 F. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Agua Hedionda Segment The project site is within the Agua Hedionda Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP), an area of Deferred Certification, and will require Coastal Development Permit approval from the California Coastal Commission. The LCP recognizes that there are a wide variety of land uses and that a balance must be maintained which provides for a continuance and expansion of recreational opportunities. Policy 1.1 of the Agua Hedionda LCP Land Use Plan states that "Land uses in the Agua Hedionda Plan area shall be consistent with those indicated on the Land Use Plan." The project site is designated as Recreation Commercial (RC) on the Land Use Plan. Environment: The project does not propose any improvements near the waters edge. There are existing improvements (reconditioned boathouse and driveways/parking) within the 100 foot wetland buffer. Recreation and visitor serving facilities: There are a variety of Coastal Act Policies which encourage, Where appropriate and feasible, public facilities for recreational use and visitor- commercial serving recreational facilities. The plan recognizes Sung Harbor and Whitey's Landing (subject property) as major boating facilities. As such, the plan states that Snug Harbor and Whitey's Landing shall be designated for continued recreational-commercial use and expansion of existing facilities at these locations shall be encouraged. The City does not believe that the timeshare use would provide any significant additional recreational access to the public or visitors as a private facility. In fact it would further limit the ability for public access from Adams Street and be no different than the present day lack of vertical public access to the lagoon. Shoreline access: The project will provide lateral access across the property. A gated pedestrian walkway would preclude vertical access to the shoreline. Visual Resources and Historic Preservation: Adams Street is designated as a scenic roadway in the LCP. As such, no structures are to exceed the height of the roadway and shoreline development shall "step down" in height to produce a perceived transition from open space (lagoon) to developed areas. The project has an elevator penthouse and roof deck guard rail that project above the height of Adams Street, and is therefore not in compliance with the building height requirement. (See variance discussion below) The proposed building does step down in height, but not to the degree that would provide a significant visual benefit to the area. The stepping provided just breaks the edge off the overall mass of the building. To comply with the LCP, the structure should be designed with a more pronounced stepping effect which follows the natural slope of the property in order to reduce the visual and physical mass of the building. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on the undeveloped property. The proposed project is not located on an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. To reduce the potential for soil erodibility and sedimentation, driveway and parking areas shall be limited in size and shall be restricted to an area adjacent to the local street. The project design provides a long driveway which circulates down to the bottom, or garage, level. The driveway has the potential of collecting rainfall and increasing the "54 CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 10 runoff potential of the site. The underground parking is covered and helps to prevent contaminants from leaving the site and entering the lagoon. The subject site is located in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, however, due to its location and the absence of slopes steeper than or equal to 25% inclination and/or native vegetation, additional submittals, standards or requirements do not apply. Based on estimated grading quantities, the project will require a grading permit. Construction of the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion. G. Special Use Permit - Floodplain The project site is identified as being within Zone A of the Flood Insurance Rate Map 06073C0764 F, dated August 22, 2000. Zone A is a special flood hazard area inundated by the 100 year flood with no base flood elevation determined and requires the processing of a Special Use Permit. The permit is required to review the project for protection of public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flooding. At this time there are no threats to public improvements, only private. The existing Boat Club- clubhouse facilities are partially located within the floodplain. The proposed surface improvement of two parking spaces, turn-around area and interior improvements to the existing clubhouse do not affect the carrying capacity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon or increase the water surface elevation of the flood height. The existing boathouse, which is proposed to be remodeled, will be required to conform to the Standards of Construction for nonresidential structures located within flood hazard areas per Chapter 21.110.160. The Special Use Permit code recognizes that floodplains are areas of potential open space resources and encourage compatible open space uses wherever possible. The 100 foot wetland buffer and floodplain should remain as open space and not be improved with structures, parking and turnaround facilities. H. Variance The project is proposing to exceed the building height limit established by the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Policy 8.3 of the Agua Hedionda LCP states that no portion of a structure shall be permitted to exceed the elevation of the roadway (Adams Street). The elevation of Adams Street is shown to be 53 feet Above Sea Level (ASL). The project has an open guard rail for the roof deck which is at 53.5 feet ASL and an elevator penthouse at 61 feet ASL. Both of these improvements exceed the structure height limit of the LCP. The applicant has submitted for a Variance to deviate from the standard. Below are the required findings that need to be made and the associated discussion on why the findings cannot be made to support the Variance application. 1. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because all the adjacent properties along the southerly side of Adams Street slope down to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon with similar topography. Although the subject property is General Plan Land Use designated differently from the adjacent properties, the project could be modified and designed to conform to the building height limit of the LCP. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 11 2. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question because other properties in the vicinity have been developed in conformance with the height requirement of the LCP. The project could be designed with a lower building height and conform to the height requirement and still have adequate use of the property. The lower building height would not bias the ability to develop the property. The project is not comparable to other properties as no other properties have the same Residential Tourist (RT) General Plan Land Use designation. Other properties are zoned similarly, but have been developed with single family residences consistent with their RLM General Plan Land Use designation. 3. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed height increase is located away from the public right of way and would not interfere with public improvements, but will partially impair the public's ability to view the lagoon from Adams Street. 4. The granting of this variance will adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the project has been determined to be incompatible with the adjacent residential single family neighborhood at the scale and intensity of development proposed and the project does not protect the residential character of the community. The project site has the potential to generate noise (boat launch, boathouse activities and traffic) which could be significant to adjacent single family residences. The project is not physically suitable for the density of development proposed. I. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance) Because the site contains slopes that are over 15% and over 15 feet in height, the project is subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. Since the site was previously graded, a Hillside Development Permit is not required but the project must follow the Hillside Development and Design Guidelines. The project site does not have any slopes over 25% or prominent landform features. The proposed grading is within the "acceptable" limits at 6,000 cubic yards per acre. No slopes or contour grading is required or proposed for the project. The development of the site is mostly cutting into the existing site for the development of the underground parking garage and building levels above the garage. The building is subject to the Hillside Development and Design Guidelines for the development of hillsides. Hillside architecture is encouraged to step away from the dominate slope face and have roof structures oriented in the same direction as the slope. As designed, the building does not provide adequate stepping of the structure to follow the slope of the property. The parapet style roofs do follow the orientation of the slope but are very short and compact and do not significantly soften the building edges. Overall, the project does not comply with both the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance or the Hillside Development Guidelines. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 12 J. Growth Management Ordinance Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 The project is subject to the provisions of the Growth Management Program, as contained in Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. Table F below details the project's conformance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program. TABLE F - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard City Administration Library Wastewater Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Impacts/Standards n/a n/a 26EDU n/a Provided (NAH Basin) 208 ADT Station #1 OK Carlsbad Unified n/a 26EDU(1I) 5,720 gallons per day (GPD) (220 gpd/EDU x 26 EDUs). Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Conclusion: Because the proposed project is too intense for the site with the number of units proposed, the building mass is too large in relation to other residential single family homes in the vicinity, the project does not meet the development standards and that the proposed use will be disruptive and incompatible with the character of the single family residential neighborhood, staff is recommending denial of the project. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Per Section 15270 of the CEQA guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Staff will defer environmental review at this time. If the denial recommendation is not upheld or is upheld without prejudice to allow the reapplication of the project, the project must be referred back to staff to complete environmental review consistent with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and CEQA. The Planning Commission or City Council may give input to help focus the future environmental review of the project. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT October 17, 2007 Page 13 ATTACHMENTS: 4-7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6348 (CT) 3r. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6319 (CUP) 3-: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6351 (SUP) A-. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6352 (V) & Exhibit "A" 6. Location Map 7. Background Data Sheet 8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 9. Disclosure Statement 10. Original Special Use Permit, City Council Ordinance 9043 11. Applicant Variance Justification letter 12. Reduced Exhibits 13. Exhibits "B" - "R" dated October 17, 2007 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 06-16/CUP 06-16 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT APPLICANT: JAMES COURTNEY REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Tentative Tract Map. Conditional Use Permit. Special Use Permit and Variance, for the demolition of a single family residence and to allow the construction of a twenty-six (26) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. : LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Westerly half of Lot 7, Block D of Bella Vista Tract 2152 APN: 206-200-06-00 Acres: L02 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 26 timeshare units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Tourist/Recreation Commercial (TR) Proposed Land Use Designation: n/a Density Allowed: n/a Density Proposed: n/a Existing Zone: Residential Tourist CRT) Proposed Zone: n/a Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: General Plan Current Land Use Site R-T TR Residential (SFD) North R-T RLM Residential (SFD) South O-S OS Lagoon East R-l-15,000 RLM Residential (SFD) West R-l-15,000 RLM Residential (SFD) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: 1X1 Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Segment: Agua Hedionda Within Appeal Jurisdiction: n Yes [3 No* Coastal Development Permit: HH Yes[>3 No* * Area of Deferred Certification. CDP issued by California Coastal Commission. Local Coastal Program Amendment: [~| Yes [X] No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: RC Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: RC Existing LCP Zone: Recreation Commercial (RC) Proposed LCP Zone: RC Revised 01/06 ft PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 26 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT /\ Statutory Exemption, 15270 - projects which are disapproved Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated. Other, Revised 01/06 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN:Tourist/Recreation Commercial (TR) ZONING: Residential Tourist CRT) DEVELOPER'S NAME: Jim Courtnev ADDRESS: 4509 Adams Street. Carlsbad CA 92008 PHONE NO.: (160} 809-7710 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 206-200-06-00 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC.. SO. FT.. DID: 26 Timeshare units ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: unknown A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = n/a B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = n/a C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 26 EDU D. Park: Demand in Acreage = n/a E. Drainage^ Demand in CFS = 4.25 Identify Drainage Basin = H F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 208 G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 0 I. Schools: Carlsbad J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 26 Identify Sub Basin. = II K. Water: Demand in GPD= 5.720 City of Carlsbad_,. J K'iWMMMriMMri'WIHHBMHMWVDepartment DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain 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 at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, .corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.' . Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property ownerjnust be provided below. • 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10%;OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A).IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Ca«/Part Mitti&E'LPerson.; Title Title /Iff- Address/fffef Address OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e. partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) v/jp Person. Title A Corp/Part Title Address/^/ £. \)l£k) &£ Address 1 635 FAX 4750) 502-655* • -*-*-#. ^^ NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an- office?-or director of the non-profit- organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Title <X Afo Non Profit/Trust Address Title Address Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? DYes No If yes, please indicate person(s):. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that ajl the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. /•) <M^^^^W«B— ighature of owner/date /-y/-*£ gnature of applicant/date A. Print oft typeojj type na^ev°Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 of 2 ^.- «—_ -• - -~. >•* • •« 1 ORDINANCE NO. 9043 2 " AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LOTS 5 ?r 10 land 11 OF BLOCK "D" OF BELLA VISTA TRACT AND PARCEL 7 OF THE AGUA HEDIONDA 4 . - TRACT. _ 5 5 WHEREAS, the City Planning Cotrraission has recommended that 7 Lots ?, 10 and 11 of Block "D", Bella Vista Tract, and Parcel 7 8 of the Agua Hedionda Tract be granted a special use permit for 9 the docking and launching of boats, the .erection of one (l) soft 10 drink and lunch stand on Lot £, Block "D", Bella Vista Tract, and 11 one (1) soft" drink and lunch stand -on Lots 10 and 11 Block "D" 12 Bella- Vista Tract,, and ?arcsl;7 of Agua. Hedionda Tract, the 13 erection of a structure for the sale 'of .gasoline, oil and other 14 accessory- products necessary for the. •use of boats; and 15 WHEREAS, the Planhing~Commission has recommended that _, jl *• S- "' "" 16 certain- conditions be attached to the .granting of this special 17 use permit; and 13 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad finds ,19 that public ascessity and convenience require that such &dae ^JU\VA<« T W-<. ^ *" n-"^" S. d. , 20 c-hangO' bo mad.e. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad 22 does ordain as follows: 23 Section 1. That those lands described as: 24 Lots 10 and 11, Block "D", Bella Vista Tract and Parcel 7 of Agua Hedionda 25 " Tract as shown on Assessors Map in Book 35, Page 105 in the office of the County 26 Recorder of San Diego County, 27 be, and the same hereby is granted a conditional use permit to 2$ allow the owners thereof to charge for the docking and launching 29 of boats, the erection of one (1) soft drink and lunch stand, the 30 erection of a structure for the sale of gasoline, oil and other 31 accessory products necessary for the us_e of boats. COPY 1 Section 2. That those lands described , as: 2 Lot f , Block. "D", Bella Vista Tract in the City of Carlsbad, 3 ~ 4 be, -and the same hereby is granted a conditional use permit TO 5 allow the owners thereof to charge for the docking and launching 6 of boats, the erection of one (.1) soft drink and lunch stand, the 7 erection of a structure for the sale of gasoline, oil and other g accessory products necessary for the use- of boats. g Section 3. That the foregoing grant of a special use permit in the IQ" two preceeding sections is hereby declared to be subject to the 11 following conditions; 12 ' (=0 That all structures placed upon the aforesaid 13 described property shall be of a temporary nature, 14 ' and said structures shall be subject to removal and 15 relocation at any. time that the City may -request such 15 • removal and/or relocation; that said removal and/or 17 * relocation of the structures shall be at'-the. sole 13 expense of the owners. 19 (b) That at such time as the City shall hereafter 20 provide a new land use plan and/or master plan for 21 . the development of the proposed, harbor, that applicant 22 " will do ail things necessary to comply with such new 23 plans, and that this grant of the conditional use 24 permit shall not operate to create a vested right 25 for the maintenance of any structures contrary to the 25 provisions of such new. plans. 27 Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and 23 be in force on the 31st day after its passage. 29 Section 5. PUBLICATION The City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad 3Q is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published once 31 in the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper published and of general 32 circulation in said City of Carlsbad. - 2 -COPY 1 First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of 2 said City held on the 2nd day"of August 1955j and 3 finally adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of 4 said Council-held on the 16th day of August 1955, 5 by the following vote: 6 AYES": Councilman Helton, McClellan, Sutton, Acting Hayor Castorena* - 7 NOES: Hone. 8 ABSENT: Mayor Ede. 9 10 "- - " RAYMOND C. EDE, Mayor 11 'of the City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California , 12 - OO^i xw» X"~L if 13 ' - W. .M.. GASTOES8& ATTEST: " Acting- Mayor 14 15- M. 0. EWALD, City Clerk IS 17 18 19 20 21 22 , - 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 - 3 - COPY Icftduiig Design Group, Inc. CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - VARIANCE REQUEST LADWIG DESIGN GROUP JOB NUMBER L-1094 September 19, 2007 Brief Description of Variance: This is a request for variance to Policy 8.3 (a) of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan that states in part that "no portion of a structure in the intervening area shall be permitted to exceed the elevation of the roadway." The Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort meets all setback, height limitations and development standards with the exception of'an elevator penthouse structure on the roof that exceeds the height of adjacent Adams St. pavement. (Please note tfeat— Section 21.46.020 would allow this protrusion under most conditions.) The reasons for asking for approval of the elevator penthouse is as follows: with the elevator going to the roof, we will be able to provide emergency access from anywhere in the building to the roof and then directly to Adams St. Emergency vehicles could stay on Adams St. and personnel could easily transport people from the building directly to the Adams St. level via rooftop elevator access. We think the emergency access to the roof including access to any floor of the project is reason enough to have the elevator penthouse be the only portion of the building above the pavement of Adams St. The details of the size of the elevator penthouse are as follows: • The closest edge of the elevator penthouse to Adams St. is 148.5 ft. from the center line of Adams St. • The parapet of the main building is at elevation 53, the same elevation as Adams St. pavement. • The top of the elevator penthouse roof is elevation 61, which is 8 ft. above the street. 2234 Faraday Rvenue + Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-3182 + FRX (760) 438-0173 4 €mail ldg@dajilsoneng.com Carlsbad Root Club and Resort - Variance Request 1-1094 September 19, 2007 Page 2 • The size of the elevator is 6 ft. by 8 % ft. [51 sq. ft.]. • The elevator penthouse is 8 %ft. by 14 ft. [119 sq. ft.]. • The drip line of the roof or the outer roof edge is 9 Yz by 15. ft. [142 Yz sq. ft.]. • The total lot area of the Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort is 44,431 sq. ft. [1.02 acres]. • The elevator penthouse roof at the drip line is 0.32 percent of the site. Based on the above, there is only a 0.32 percent reduction proposed in the visual resource opportunities over the project from the pavement level of Adams St. opposite the project. As described above, the required variance findings identified in Section 21.50.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code can be made as follows: ••-=-- 1. All the properties in the area are very steep from Adams St. to the lagoon edge. By allowing the elevator penthouse to extend above Adams St. there is only a 0.32 percent reduction of view-lost from, the pavement level on Adams St. 2. Many of the adjacent properties have allowed vegetation to extend above Adams St. and the small reduction in view we are proposing would not be special privilege for the project. 3. The granting of this variance would allow preferred access to the structure for emergency personnel, if needed, and would diminish the need for emergency vehicles to enter into the site. 4. The small protrusion above the pavement level of Adams St. is consistent with the intent of the general plan and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan [less than one half of one percent reduction]. 5. The small reduction of view from the pavement level of Adams St. and with the major remainder [99.68%] of the site meeting the letter of the local coastal program and City codes, we request the City grant the variance as described. 2234 Faraday fivenue 4 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-3182 4 FflX (760) 438-0173 + €mail ldg@duuilsonsng.com 26 UNITTIMESHARE REDUCED EXHIBITS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 4509 ADAMS STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA /IB VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX nu wo, 9K njJisu zcnom, WAI uuiKMic nut m cao/tim 31 (mi uic) HWDI 1 Hint » WI BK- - _UUVIC rcOilWfe 13,(00 W (I. (JFFROMin) art Mtfc 1.01 K. (M.4U if .) FOH LWOKV««: ll.ND S/. (M«l) f*WK wwnaicnii KMKO » unts t u VKIS/UII »()i i) nurnc mcvwr KB cis t nicwc sui ct« (« t Eucmc**SR t ams,' cuitau MMCIFIL «ns asnicr SWOa OJBCT: CMLaU UIIIB SCHOOL B5IBCF si n«mwn PUK - Eusmc owixxs QO - 10 (win i i, 11.19, it. i), », ». 141 »|: 8IDHKN - 1 ANIS I, t. II. II II, 11, 31 » IS)IBIPIKN - ) MliIS ), ». 10, HAD]to. eornw - i juurs i, ? t (} PROPOSED 26 UNIT 3 STORIES W/ BASEMENT 4 ROOT DECK TIMESHARE CONOOMINIMUM TENtATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 SITE SECTION 1 \ fr- j »ri*aC3:~ ;Bt~ -m mns."::3C:::sr's*i» SITE SECTION SITE SECTION SITE SECTION BOAT LAUNCHING PL/jN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 A/V REVISIONS O KIT o00 UJct: QQ • " Q CDGO O A-1BASEMENT (GARAGE) FLOOR PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 II 1 I ^1 —1'« 1 siwitt 1 yonux 1 STWUUtr ffi'.r a^ .w. i^^jj i__ _J.| __,.^ ^^ ,._. JU._ /IB IMHIliCIURt * (MlttHG REVISIONS O Bits' ct:ooo U.Ja: =a oz m ^=>l1 Q-o n. £% CD Q •< QD OO o;•< CJ KU£ *! NO BRAIN UKXOI A-2FIRST FLOOR PLAN *.,, 0 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 REVISIONSo raw o a:ooo I <1 Q-O „• OCD Q<c CD00 oc Dill DI-ll-D) A-3SECOND FLOOR PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 UJ UJce oo en 2 Q i . ; : \ ^ — u* or UOTM MI a SRUCIWE KL<H . \ \ 1 • ii ^[ 1 x^\FHTTfr'F *^^ — ^_ \ »aun utt „„„,-„ ___.,___. A. > 1 I 1 II | 1 II K OJU/lduwc nu | |i ri i i REVISIONS O S"M" A ^'[wi?1 Q_ Ooo UJct; m ; og03 "• <c CO 00 A-5ROOF PLAN ><•'•> (D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 NORTH ELEVATION »,..,-.• (4^ SOUTH ELEVATION p-erorvJiaiPurHgug *4r-a' W ff got «WBI1(L_ tSJ'J' -n^-Fwfltfli-.tf?wgnvniai got >»•-if &o <S5c m ' CJ> occ WEST ELEVATION osm "- Q«CODCOIC£<=t.CJ xui *) witc A-6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 ENTRV I SrORACE STORAGE RECREATION ROOM EXIT 42" GUARDRAIL - TYP. CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE - 42" GUARDRAIL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 Gt REVISIONSo aw A SB,*1 O OCO UJo: •*» CD CD<C CDCO KNC M«00 A-8RECREATION CENTER / DOCK FLOOR PLAN' TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION RECREATION CENTER ROOF PLAN WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION RECREATION CENTER ELEVATIONS Uicluiig Design Group, Inc. February 5, 2008 Van Lynch City of Carlsbad QfTy Qp CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue p, AMM||s Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 ' w ^'" RE: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT [CT 06- 16/CUP 06- 16/SUP 07-05 (LADWIG DESIGN GROUP JOB NUMBER L-1094) Dear Van: We have made some revisions to the Boat Club and would like to go back to the Commission with a positive Staff recommendation. My clients will ask for 25 timeshare units [One less than our current application]. There are several major issues raised by the Planning Commission that I will address and that we ask for your consideration. 1. Variance for elevator penthouse above Adams Ave. We have deleted the elevator penthouse and requested a return of our variance deposit. 2. South edge of the building facing the lagoon. Significant relief and stepping back have been added to the south face of the building. Additional clay mission barrel tiles have been added along with the stepping back of each floor and corners. Stone veneer, the clay tile roof and stucco will highlight the deck areas and windows and doors. The building colors will blend in and not .stand out from the surrounding units and vegetation. The third floor living unit wall face is setback 23 feet from the first floor wall at the south edge of the building. 3. Staff has commented that the project is not physically suitable for the type or density proposed. The project exceeds all setback requirements both horizontally and vertically. No variances are needed or requested. Building coverage is significantly less than allowed. Parking needs and requirements are exceeded, and there is no negative traffic impact and density is not a consideration. This is not a residential project and what is proposed is consistent with what is allowed by the existing zoning, general plan and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. 4. Staff comment "the project has been determined to be incompatible with the adjacent residential single-family neighborhood at the scale and intensity of development proposed." I would like to re-state the above staff comment. Governmental agencies have allowed uses to be constructed surrounding the Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort that are incompatible with our existing and allowed future uses. Now we are being measured whether we are compatible with our adjacent uses. 2234 Faraday flvenue i Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-3182 + FflX (760) 438-0173 + €mail ldg@dujilsoneng.com Van Lynch February 5, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The proposed building that is visible from off-site is smaller in size and scale than the adjacent single-family home to the east. Our building is 91 feet wide within a lot width of almost 134 feet. The single family home to the east is 110 feet wide on a same width lot. The top of the buildings are at Adams St. level and the building separation on the east will be 22 feet (20 feet required) and 40 feet (17.5 feet) on the west. The front yard setback on Adams St. is 47 feet, where 20 feet is required. We are not close to our setback lines on 3 of the 4 sides of our parcel and the overall building footprint is compatible in size and appearance with the surrounding development. The intensity of our development is compatible with the existing general plan, zoning, and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. Our zoning, and general plan designation was in place long before the adjacent single-family homes were built. To say we are incompatible with the adjacent single-family neighborhood at the scale and intensity proposed is not a valid comparison. Our type of development — timeshare - is a low-impact development. Traffic generation is reflective of our minimal services needed — no school impacts and onsite recreational needs are provided. 5. Staff has incorrectly stated that timeshares must be designed so that they are able to be converted to a residential use consistent with the PD ordinance and that a conversion plan is needed. This is wrong. Section 21.42 (B) and (155) clearly states that a timeshare project in a non-residential zone shall be conditioned to convert to a hotel if the timeshare can not successfully be marketed. This supports our statement that comparison of our non-residential project to neighboring single- family homes constructed recently is not valid. We will be either a timeshare or a hotel project, not a converted residential use. In summary, we would like to meet with you and discuss these items in more detail. Our request to you will be to amend your recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval and appear before them as soon as possible for their consideration. Sincerely, LADWIG DESIGN Robert C. Ladwig, President RCL:ssr cc: Mike Pfankuck Jim Courtney 2234 Faraday flvenue 4 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-3182 + FFCC (760) 438-0173 + €mail ldg@dujilsoneng.com February 8, 2008 Van Lynch, Senior Planner Planning Dept. City of Carlsbad Ref: Carlsbad Boat Club & Resort CT 06-16 & CUP 06-16 Van: Bob Lagwig told me you were having a meeting Monday and would like to have our current drawings, and other exhibits, so you could discuss the project at that time. I have enclosed herewith 3 sets of the current building plans. I did not enclose the Landscape plans, because nothing on it has changed. However, several things have changed on the building plans. 1. We have deleted the elevator pent-house, and the top part of the roof, so that we do not exceed the elevation of Adams St. There fore we are no longer requesting a variance. 2. We have stepped the building back farther as requested by staff. 3. We have reduced the # of units to 25. (Resulting in the loss of a considerable amount of floor space.) 4. The exterior architectural has been redesigned so that the exterior has a more pleasing appearance. 5. The architect has made the minor corrections needed to the balconies for each unit. There are a few other things that I would like to offer, to help you look at the project more favorably. As I said in our previous meeting, we really want staffs recommendation for approval. We want the project to move forward, and we want the project to be one that we can all be proud of. To resolve some of the problems that caused staff to recommend denial, I offer the following. A. The concern was that the project contained too many units and is too dense for the property. (There is a 22 unit, Condo project, on .7 of an acre, zoned R-T, just three lots to the east of the Carlsbad Boat Club. That's approximately 30 units per acre.) It really doesn't matter, because there is no Density on Commercial. 1. Land uses that are designated residential, such as RLM, RMH, and RH, have an associated density that determines the number of units per acre, that could be built on the property. 2. Land uses that are designated commercial, do not have any density associated with the property. 3. There are no numerical limits on how many hotel rooms, time-share units, offices, dining rooms, etc. that could be built on the property. 4. Time-share projects, like most all commercial projects are limited in size by other constraints, such as: front, side, and rear set-backs from property line, overall height above grade, parking, and other code requirements. 5. Parking requirements are the primary factor that determines the ultimate size of hotels, office buildings, time-shares, or other commercial projects. 6. If you're building an Office building, Hotel, or Time-shares it doesn't matter if it's 10,000 or 100,00 sq.ft. and it doesn't matter if it contains 10 or 100 offices, rooms or units. 7. What does matter is the code required property line setbacks, usually a height limit, and a specified number of parking spaces. 8. For example: Office buildings-1 for each 200 sq. ft. of space; Hotel-1.2 spaces for each room; Time-shares-1.2 for each unit 9. If you comply with the aforementioned constraints, and provide parking for 60 cars, you could build: a 12,000 sq. ft. office building, a 50 room Hotel, or 50 Time-shares. 10. We have one parking plan for 36 cars, at 1.2 spaces per unit, we could build 30 units and comply with the city code. 11. We have reduced the number of units to 25, so we are only showing 30 parking spaces to demonstrate compliance with the code. B. Another concern was that it was too big and would not fit on the property. 1. The allowable lot coverage for time-shares in the city code is 75 percent. 2. The actual footprint of the new building at finish grade is only about 11,000 sq. ft. or approximately 25% of the lot. 3. Even if you use the outside dimensions of the underground parking structure, which extends out under the driveway, and add the small Clubhouse, the total coverage is only about 18,000 Sq. ft., which is less than 42% of the lot. 4. That is far less than the incorrectly stated coverage of 69%, and far below the 75% coverage, allowed by the code. 5. The new building meets and exceeds all requirements, for property line setbacks, lot coverage, and height restriction. The structure is not too large for the property and fits in nicely. C. There was another concern that the building was too big and would not blend in with the adjacent structures. 1. I have attached herewith a photograph of the three buildings as seen from the water. The photo is just a quick paste-up, however the structures are all in truce scale to each other, and is a realistic view of what they will look like when finished. I have also attached the same photo with the dimensions of the three structures. 2. As you can see, the structure to the east is actually about 20% wider on the lot than the Boat Club building. Since the roofs are all in line with the street above, visually, from the water, the structure to the east looks bigger. — 3. I have also attached a large drawing (Plan sheet) which contains the east elevation of the structure to the West, and the west elevation of the new Boat Club building. Both buildings are drawn at the same scale and all dimensions were taken from the plans. The existing grade and the finish grade is the driveway between the two buildings. 4. As you can see the silhouettes of both structures are about the same. However, if you cut out the silhouette of the Stewart house, lay it on top of the Boat Club elevation, align the north ends and bottoms of both buildings, you will see that the Stewart house completely covers the new Boat Club building. D. One of the reasons Staff felt that the required findings for the CUP could not be made was because they felt that the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood. 1. The required findings for the CUP were made by the various governmental agencies involved, when they allowed a General Plan amendment, and down-zone to R-1, of the eastern half of Whitey's Landing. 2. We objected to that process at all the various hearings and meetings. 3. However, the findings were made that a fully operational restaurant, and a very active Boat Club and launch ramp, right next door and directly adjacent to a single family residence was not detrimental to the neighborhood, and the various governmental agencies approved, both the GP amendment and, the rezone. 4. That should help staff because the determination of compatibility was made in 1991. We hope that this additional information will allow staff to be in a position to review and re-analyze their position and after further review, recommend approval for our project. Thanks again for your attention and consideration in this matter. fames Courtney, Carlsbad Boat Club & I 25 UNIT TIMESHARE REVISED REDUCED EXHIBITS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 01-05 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA THIS IS /t T/ME SH4RE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION fF) OF SECTION 735) OF THE CIVIL CODE THE PROJECT CONTAINS 25 TIME SHARE UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPOSED 25 UNIT 3 STORIES W/ BASEMENT ( ROOF DECK TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 0fc-lfc SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 0T-05.*_w ™/1IB REVISIONSo ssw A r«C6TBIGaie&CD'TESITE SECTION hC OF Ex&INS (HUH •S- 10 ton. BE 4 SITE SECTION SITE SECTION .,,,,,(4) SITE SECTION BOAT LAUNCHING PLAN ^^ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT Z>b-\b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 0fc-l SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 01-05 BASEMENT (GARAGE; FLOOR PLAN /s/v/IttB CP TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06- CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT / CUP 0fc- SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 01 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 06- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 0fc-lfc SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 01 REVISIONS O BSB"' A BBSS" SECOND FLOOR PLAN O TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 0fc-lfc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I CUP 06-lfc SPECIAL USE PEH1IT / SUP 0T-05 LU Q UCHIEC1UK « PIMMNC REVISIONS O ffiBS'A SB," ftlOcOLUQL o CD g <t CQ O THIRD FLOOR PLAN TT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 0fc.|fc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 0fc-! SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 0T-05- 1.1 j UJ " ^\EXIST MS PRIVATE i1 1 i " "^ j -( _«__«,y ' / EOATTRAMP , _U^ I1 [1 r^ m ^ m /1IB o UJ MJ- CQITSI O O O <l "-: O > CQ g Q " £0 0<t A = TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 0fc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 0&-I6. ""•"TSWCWL USE PERMIT / SUP 01-05 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT gfe.fe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 0fc- SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 01-05 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 0fc-lfc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 0fc-l SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 0T-05 RECREATION PECK F.F. REVISIONS O fM-BosttIS9IEDME AK4IBOM1OUIMIE o<x> LU o| CQ 1 Q<t CDo> ^<[ O RECREATION CENTER / DOCK FLOOR PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / CT 0fc- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP 06-16 SPECIAL USE PERMIT / SUP 01-05 A) NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION RECREATION CENTER ROOF PLAN © NEST ELEVATION EA5T ELEVATION RECREATION CENTER ELEVATIONS TENTATIVE MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CT 06-16 CUP 06-16 SUP 07-05 V (WE SHAKO PK04CT ISK3V IF) OF SlCfiW >JSI OF !HE CltlL CODE 1H€ P#QJ£C! CUNTMNS 25fl.Vf SHAXf UNITS. OWNERS CER71FICAJF: if "Cfter ctznrr THAT HC AXC rue RCCQRD QHHWS •:• me p/?o?r#Tr SHOW KHTAi/vE HAP. Ana THAT $t<S HA? SHOWS CUR fft/lfff C:"<7IGt:'QtJS OMiCRSHtf It TENTATIVE MAP EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY CT 06-16 CUP 06-16 SUP 07-05 •j*t'~ --*r 31"\~!:rzr.-"-~ • SHEET C2 CP SEE PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND ON SHEET LC-2 IRRIGATION NOTB ALL PLANTfNG A«EAS SHALL BE IRWGATED ACCORDING TO IENVIRONMENT/ PLANTING ZONES ZONE I: LUSH ZONE :: AREAS SHALL BE IRWGATED accede INC. TO PLANT TYPE ANDL EXPOSURE ALL IRRIGATED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE UNIFORM COVERAGEBY ngANS OF AN AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED. ELECTRICALLY ACTIVATEDUNDERGROUND PIPED IRRIGATION 6TSTEM "OR HATER CONSERVATION AND TO MINffllZEEROSION. STATE Of THE ART AUTOHAttC CONTROLLER WITH MASTER VALVE AND RAINamjrcFF CAPABILITIES. A REDUCED PRESSURE SACKPLOW PREVENFER MILL BE USED INACCORDANCE HITH LOCAL AMD NE<JIONAL STANDARDS REHCTE CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE UTILIZED HHU LCW PRECIPITATION HEADS tOK REOJCED MATER CONSUMPTION. PRESSURE COnPENSATINO DRIP AND LOW PRECIPITATION RATE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED HHERE APPLICABLE. ALL PRESSURIZED MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINES HILL BE PVC INSTALLED BELCW GRADE PER LOCAL AND REGIONAL STANDARDS. AN AUTOMATIC. WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION STSFgrl SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY NOTE: THE PROPERTT OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS CN SITE. THE EXISTING PLANTING. AREAS H1THN THE PUBLICRIGUT.OF-HAT ARE TO BE MAINTAINED Br THE PROPERTY CVWERS. ALLAREAS 5UALL BE KEPT FREE Of WEEDS ANO DEBRIS. PLANTINGS, SHALL•4D1TION AND SHALL RECEIVE REGULAR RRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE REGULARLY 1ATCCNAL CONDITION Aa AT ALL TIME* LANDSCAPE NOTE' ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL COT^ORTI TO THE CITT OF CARLSBAD'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS AS Of THEE PLANS =AvlNG SHALL BE PLANTED WffH IF ANY EXISTING HAROSCAPE OR LANDSCAPE INDICATED ON THE APPROVED PLANS AME DAMAGED OK REMOVED DURING DEnoclTICH OR CONSTRUCTION. IT SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REPLACED IN KIND AND EQUIVALENT SIZE PER THE APPROVED PLANS BY THE OMNeR/PERMITTBE. ILIZING. MOWING Al ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL « PEWIAMENTLr MAINTAINED IN A .H6ALTHT CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. INCLUDING TRITI-HNG AS APPROPRIATE TO MAINTAIN APPROVED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. y 9»JftH MANAGEMENT S PLANTNG ZCNE ZONE li II ft* ZONE 1: V. R6WNBD H A TURALI ZtNQ/TR ANSI T ION AL E SOUARE FOOTAGE- ARHA OF EACH K».^W IfQUJ if W «8 1K 1O S!2<o§ LC-/ INNER COURTYARD AREA SCALE t30 PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND BOTANICAL NAME COMT1ON NAME BLOW-UP OF COURTYARD AREA SCALE 1=4 SIZE MT. SPD. G!TT. REMARKS 'ARCHONTOPHOENIX CUWINGHAT11ANA CANARY ISLAND PALM BIRD'S NEST FERN BLACK TARO BLOOD-RED TRUMPET VINE TREE MALLOW HAXLHAF PRIVET STRAIGHT TRUNK. FULL HEAD STRAIGHT TRUNK, FULL MEAD STRAIGHT TOMSK. FULL MEAD ZONE I: LUSH ZONE I: LUSH 5 GAL. 5 GAL. NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL. WINTERBOURN PHILODENORON s GAL. GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE 13- BOX BIRD Of PARADISE S GAL. I GAL YELLOW OATLILY I GAL. LILT TUW I GAL. MONDO GRASS I GAL. KAFFIR LILT j G£L. STAR JASMINE FULL AND BUSHT. GOOD COLOR ZONE I: LUSH FULL AND BU&HT. GOOD COLOR ZONC I: LUSH FULL AND BU6MT. GOOD COLOR ZONE 1, LUSH FULL AND BUSHT.GOOO COLOR zot*E I' LUSH FULL AND BU6HT, GOOD COLOR ICN6 I, LUSH FULL AND BU&MT. GOOO COLOR ZONE 1= LUSH FULL AND BUSHT. GOOD COLOR ZONE I: LUSH FULL AND BUSHT.OOOD COLOR ZONE I: LUSH FULL AND BU&MT. SOOD COLOR ZON6 I. LUSH FULL AND BU&Hr. GOOD COLOR I01* 1^ LUSH FULL AND BUSHT. GOOD COLOR ZONE I. LUSH " I»-O.C. ZON6 I, LU6H • I* OC. ZONE I, LUSH • ia-oc. zone i^ LUSH • 18' OC. ZON6 h LUSH • W OC. TONE I; LUSH • Id-O.C. ZONE I LUSH • !»' O.C ZONE I, LUSU IRRIGATION NOTE: ALL PLANrihtt AREAS SHALL BE IRM&ATED ACCORDING TO PLANT TTPE ANDENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE ALL IRRIGATED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE UNIFORM COVERAGEBT HEANS OF AN AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED. ELECTRICALLT ACTIVATEDUNDERGRCUND PIPED MRIOAtlcN ST&TEfl FOR HATER CONSERVATION AND TO tllNlrilZEEROSION. STATE CF IME ART AUTOMAtlC CONTROLLER WITH MAftTER VALVE AND RAINSMUTOFF CAPABILITIES. A REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOH PREVENTER HILL BE USED INACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL STANDARDS REMOTE CONTROL VALVESSHALL BE UTILIZED WITU LOW PRECIPITATION MEAOS PON REDUCED HATER CONSUMPTION.PRESSURE CONPENSATNG DRIP AND LOW PRECIPITATION RATE EQUIpnENT SHALL BE USED HHERE APPLICABLE. ALL PKE&&URIZED MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINES HILL BEPvC INSTALLED BELCH GRADE PER LOCAL AND REGIONAL STANDARDS. AN AUTOMATIC.WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION STSTEM $HALL BE PROVIDED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAINLANDSCAPING. MAMTENANCE RESPONSBIUrY NOTE' THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE Of ALLLANDSCAPED AREAS ON SITE. THE EXISTING PLANTING AREAS WITHIN THE PUBLICRIGHT-OB.WAT ARE TO BE MJUNTAINED BT THE PROPENTT OWNERS. ALL LANDSCAPEDAREAS SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF WEEDS AND DEBRIS. PLANTINGS SMALL BE MAINTAINEDIN A HEALTHY. VIGORCUSLT GROWING CONDITION. AND SHALL RECEIVE REGULARFERTILIZING. MOWNG AND TWMMING. IRRIGATION STSTEnS SHALL BE REGULARLVINSPECTED AND KEPT IN FULLT OPERATIONAL CONDITION ACCORDING TOMANUFACTURERS' DESIGN STANDARDS AT ALL «1ES LANDSCAPE HOTE= I. ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CLANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE STANOAfAPPCSOvED DATE OF THESE PLANS. PI ANTING ZONES ZONE 11 11.8% ZONE 1. er>. . IF AMY EXISTING MAMDSCAPE OR LANDSCAPE INDICATED ON THE APPROVED PLANSARE DAMAGED OR REMOVED DURING DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BEREPAIRED AMD/OR REPLACED IN KIND AND EQUIVALENT SIZE PER THE APPROVED . ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY M HEALTHY CONDITION AT ALL TK1ES, INCLUDING TlMAINTAIN APPROVED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. 1. NO BRUSH MANAGEMENT SHALL BE BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJEC' pS* C|UgnE = CD D O QUJ IT I K OI1 LC-2 ZONE 1-LUSH LANDSCAPE 1. Criteria; a. Zone One should be utilized only In areas of a development which require a lush green landscape such as areas of high use or visual Importance. b. The plantings require an Intensive maintenance operation to produce the desired appearance c. This Zone's anticipated appearance relies on large amounts of irrigation. Annual amounts for a healthy, mature landscape are estimated at over thirty (30") Inches of supplemental water annually. 2. Description: Zone One may be thought as a tradtional landscape, green, lush, and flowering. Most plants used to produce this effect do not come form a semi-arid type climate found in Southern California, These exotic plants require large amounts of water and intensive maintenance. Although Carlsbad has a mild temperate dimate, it remains a semi-arid region, characterized by poor, infertile soU. Natural lush landscapes are found within our area, but only in very limited micro-climates whose special environment can produce (he requirements to support this types of landscapes. This natural pattern of limited lush landscapes should act as a guide for Zone One's use. These lush landscapes should be utilized for areas of Intensive use Is as a sensory rich setting in areas visible and important to the majority of users, such as entries, courtyards, pedestrian ways, and recreational areas. ZONE 4-NATIVE LANDSCAPE 1. Criteria: a. Zone Four Is an area of existing vegetation whose native character shall remain with very little modification. b. it Is planned for low-level active use, which is compatible with the area's natural character. c. In this zone, no water is required. The use of Irrigation can adversely affect many plants found in this zone. Introduced plants should be watered individually 2. Description: Zone four consists of natural vegetation, native or naturalized, In which there is no or very little disturbance from site improvements. An area may be planned as a Zone Four landscape to preserve It physical features, its qualities as a natural ecosystem, wildlife habitat, or as open space. These qualities may be used to provide passive recreational opportunities, possibly linked to hiking trials. Zone Four will require a minimal level of upkeep. Its maintenance program will consist of periodic control of debris and minof clearing and/or pruning for fife protection and removal of normative species. Retained In their natural non-irrigated condition, these areas will remain relatively dry. Due to this characteristic, a "Fire Protection Program" may be required. E=] PLANTING ZONES j ZONE It LUSH | ZONE 1: REFINED ZONE *- NATIVE E SOUARE FOOr.HC.Ei ZONE 4: n*v VICINITY MAP r*QLU I OK §85 oO i LC-3 EXHIBIT 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing and asked Planning Director Don Neu to introduce the first item. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit Special Use Permit and Variance, for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and to allow the construction of a twenty-six (26) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced the item and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 1. Mr. Lynch gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. "f-c Chairperson Baker stated -the Commission received several letters left on the dais prior to .the night's meeting. .. - Chairperson Baker asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Dominguez stated he has had ex parte communications with the applicants. Commissioner Douglas asked if the lagoon has a view ordinance. Mr. Lynch stated that as part of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan there is a viewshed allowance along Adams Drive with the intent to preserve the view of the lagoon. For projects that are not as steep along Adams Drive, for example closer to Bayshore Drive, those areas are required to preserve 1/3 of the frontage for views of the lagoon. Commissioner Douglas asked about the condominiums near Bristol Cove and the single family homes that surround that area. Mr. Lynch directed the Commissioners' attention to the slide showing the photo of the site, and he gave a description of the area and clarified the zoning of the area. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the zoning to the properties to the east and if the property owners developed the property at a much lower density than would have been allowed. Mr. Lynch stated that was correct for the property directly to the east of the project site. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the standards for a hotel are higher or lower than a timeshare application. Mr. Lynch clarified that the site would have to be converted to a residential use consistent with the Planned Development Ordinance as opposed to a hotel if the timeshare were to not be financially viable. Commissioner Dominguez asked the project did in fact have to be converted to a hotel, would it be held to higher or lower standards. Mr. Lynch clarified that it would have to be converted to a residential use and not a hotel as stated in his presentation and would follow the Planned Development Ordinance. Commissioner Dominguez further asked about the property to the east of the project site and why the City allowed it to be developed at a lower density than was allowed. Mr. Lynch stated research shows that there was an application to convert that property to single family residential back in 1991. The Coastal Commission was hesitant to accept the change because of the concern of losing the zoning designation for commercial serving uses. There was a finding that there were other commercial serving uses in the area and in Carlsbad in general. There has been an increase in timeshares in the City so the Coastal Commission felt comfortable allowing that property to convert to single family residential. There were concerns from the Commission at the time that the conversion of that property may lead to issues in the future. Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 3 Chairperson Baker asked what the parking requirement would be considering people would be using boat trailers. Mr. Lynch stated there is very limited parking on the site. There are a couple of guest parking spaces outside of the parking structure, and there are 2 spaces allocated for boat trailer parking currently in the parking structure. Chairperson Baker asked if docks are allowed on the lagoon, and who has jurisdiction. Mr. Lynch stated the state agencies would be concerned with docks on the lagoon since it is an open space area. The project does not currently show any docks on the plans. Chairperson Baker asked if the timeshare could operate as a hotel if the owners were not using it. Mr. Neu stated that the Commission could include in the resolution that it was timeshare with allowed hotel use. Mr. Neu further stated that most of the larger projects in the city have been approved as both. Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission would need to approve it as both. Mr. Neu stated that if the Commission was concerned about the compatibility with the neighborhood and had concerns about how the hotel would operate, Staff could address those concerns. Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission did recommend approval the project would it be contingent upon an EIR and Negative Declaration. Mr. Lynch stated the Staff would be directed to complete the environmental analysis and CEQA process. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the proposed variance. Mr. Lynch stated the variance is for the railing on the roof deck and the penthouse w the elevator. Commissioner Montgomery inquired as to why the variance did not--cover the other areas of the project that did not meet-the development standards. Mr. Lynch stated that because the .project does not meet the 'development standards, Staff and the applicant agreed to bring the project forward for denial. Commissioner Montgomery asked if a denial would force a complete redesign of the project. Mr. Lynch stated Staff is very concerned with the scale and the size of the project and with compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the roof projection and what is triggering the variance that is needed for that part of the project Mr. Lynch stated that the Yards section of the code does allow projections for structures required for the maintenance of the building. Because of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, and the height of the building going above Adams Street, the variance is being required. Commissioner Whitton stated that Adams Street in that area was going to be redone and asked how those changes might potentially affect this project Mr. Lynch stated that the improvement plans show that Adams Street will not change significantly from its current alignment Commissioner Dominguez asked if the roof appurtenance is an absolute necessity in the design of the project. Mr. Lynch stated that there are other alternative designs that could meet the requirements without the need for a variance. Commissioner Whitton stated that there would have to be some sort of handicap access and therefore the elevator would be required. Mr. Lynch stated there are other alternative designs that could be used to access the roof. Mr. Neu commented that if the building was not at the maximum height limit the height of the roof appurtenance could be below Adams Street to meet the Coastal standards and still provide the elevator for handicap access. Commissioner Douglas asked how many units would be acceptable to Staff. Mr. Lynch stated Staff has not analyzed that issue. Commissioner Douglas asked if Staff could give the Commission some sort of guidance as to an acceptable amount of units. Mr. Lynch stated Staff could not give a number at this time. Commissioner Douglas asked what type of use would be acceptable. Mr. Lynch stated that Staff is looking for a use that would be compatible with a single family neighborhood. Depending on scale and intensity, Staff is looking at the size of the project, the bulk of project, number of traffic trips, actual use of the site and how that will impact the neighbors. Commissioner Douglas inquired if Adams Street could support the amount of traffic. Mr. Lynch stated it could. Commissioner Douglas asked for clarification as to what type of use would be compatible for that site. Mr. Lynch stated that given the neighborhood a single family home would be compatible, a structure of 8,000 square feet in size would be compatible. Mr. Neu stated that if the adjacent properties which are single family residential, and you look at the standards for that zone in terms of height and lot coverage, and applied those standards to this lot, it Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 4 would create a development envelope similar to the envelope on the adjacent properties. In terms of the building and space it takes up, it could then be determined that it is compatible because it would be no more than what could happen on the other adjacent properties. There would still be question of whether a timeshare use is compatible in a single family neighborhood. The Commission would then need to apply its discretion. Staff has had a difficult time with the scope and size of the project as well as the non compliance with standards and policies issues. Staff does recognize that the Coastal Zone, does have this designation that allows these uses if they are compatible, and Staffs opinion is that this project is not compatible, which is the basis for Staffs recommendation. Mr. Neu further stated that Staff was not given another project design to review and it is not Staffs role to redesign the project. Commissioner Douglas asked if the Coastal Commission would have final approval of the project. Mr. Neu stated that the project would have to have some sort of City approval prior to going forward to the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Douglas asked if the Planning Commission and Council approve the project could the Commission still deny the application. Mr. Neu stated that was correct. Commissioner Boddy asked about traffic impacts on Adams Street and if the traffic generated from the project would negatively impact the neighborhood. Mr. Lynch stated that the project would create about 200 ADT which Adams is capable of carrying. However the route to the project is through single family neighborhoods not anticipating the desire to handle the traffic through neighborhoods. €' -. Commissioner Whitton stated that the project does contribute to recreational activities-such as the trails and the lagoon. .. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the area was frequented by visitors using the Snug Harbor area in the previous use for the site. Mr. Lynch stated the applicant could better answer that question. Commissioner Cardosa asked about the shoreline frontage. Mr. Lynch stated it was about 137 feet. Commissioner Cardosa asked if mooring was allowed on the lagoon. Mr. Lynch stated he was not sure. Commissioner Cardosa stated he was concerned about the boat trailer parking on the site. He stated that currently many people use Adams Street to get back and forth to Snug Harbor. Commissioner Cardosa stated his concern regarding parking for upwards of 26 additional boat trailers with this project Commissioner Douglas asked if Staffs recommendation would be different if the project was a condominium project Mr. Lynch stated the zoning does allow for dwellings however the land use designation does not provide a density, to provide a number of units that would be acceptable. Commissioner Douglas stated that the use itself, a residential condominium, would be more compatible. Mr. Lynch stated that was correct Commissioner Dominguez asked for clarification on the variance. Mr. Lynch stated the building coverage was at 69% which is just above the 60% allowed. There are minor setbacks along the westerly side from the driveway to the structure itself meeting the Planned Development requirements, there are balconies that are too small for the Planned Development Ordinance. Commissioner Dominguez stated that the reason for asking that is because thought .the maximum allowed lot coverage was 75% and this one came in at 69%. Mr. Lynch stated that is for the R-T Zone but the property is required to comply with the Planned Development Ordinance which has a more restrictive requirement of 60% lot coverage. Commissioner Montgomery asked if that was due to the possible conversion of the project. Mr. Lynch stated that just a timeshare alone is required to comply with the Planned Development Ordinance. Commissioner Cardosa asked if there have been previous reports of incompatibility of the surrounding properties. Mr. Lynch stated that there is quite a topographic change between Adams Street down to Cove Drive which creates a natural separation between the areas, and he was not aware of any issue regarding incompatibility. Chairperson Baker asked if there any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 5 Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, representing the applicant, gave a presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any questions of the applicant Commissioner Whitton asked if the garage would change in size if the project was downsized by a few units. Mr. Ladwig stated the garage would stay the same. Commissioner Whitton asked if it is anticipated if an owner or owners will occupy any of the units. Mr. Ladwig stated there will be CC&Rs and 24 hour management onsite and there will be a management plan. Commissioner Douglas inquired about the number of boats. Mr. Ladwig stated there will be 3 boats, 2 jet skis and 3 kayaks. Commissioner Douglas stated there will only be 2 parking spaces for boats. Mr. Ladwig stated there will be plenty of room outside. There will also be a tractor onsite to put the boats into the water so there will not be a need for any vehicles to do that Commissioner Douglas asked if they are anticipating any extra guests along with the owners of the timeshares to visit the site. Mr. Ladwig stated he could answer that question but the parking standard is based on that assumption. Commissioner Douglas inquired about the number of owners needed to break even and make a profit One of the letters she read indicated there will be more than a thousand owners. Commissioner Douglas inquired how many weeks the owners will be able to buy. M£. Ladwig stated owners can buy one week up to three or four months. There is a restriction in the code* Mr. Ladwig further stated they can only sell 50 weeks a year for maintenance purposes. Commissioner Boddy asked if the owners of the timeshares not be allowed to bring their own boats. Mr. Ladwig stated that was correct and they would have to use the boats onsite. Commissioner Dominguez inquired if the onsite management would schedule the use of the boats along with the required maintenance and replacement of the boats as needed. Mr. Ladwig stated that was correct Commissioner Montgomery inquired why the property owners chose this location for a timeshare use. Mr. Ladwig stated the proposed use is an allowed use for the site and they do not feel this use is different from the previous uses. Mr. Ladwig further stated the property owners felt the proposed use would be highest and best use of the property financially. RECESS Chairperson Baker called for a ten minute recess at 7:26. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. with all Commissioners present Chairperson Baker opened the public testimony on the Item. Robert Phillips, 4430 Adams Street, stated the Commission received a copy of a petition from the neighborhood tonight. Mr. Phillips went over the issues contained in the petition. Mr. Phillips stated the neighbors are concerned about the size of the project, the intensity of the use, the architectural design of the project, the substantial adverse impact on surrounding property values, the increase in traffic and noise. Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Phillips what number of units would be acceptable. Mr. Phillips stated he would like to see some use that is architecturally compatible such as a residential use. Mark Merhab, 4523 Adams Street, stated that having a timeshare project within the residential neighborhood would be acceptable to him. He stated however that he is concerned with noise, safety and traffic. Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 5 Commissioner Douglas asked where his property was in relation to the project site. Mr. Merhab stated his property is two lots to the east. John Simons, 2744 Carlsbad Boulevard, stated that the Commission should recommend approval of the project. Norine Sigafoose, 2805 Ocean Street, stated her support of the project and the applicant. She also stated the project promotes tourism in the area. She stated that even though others chose to downsize the development of the adjacent properties, these property owners have decided to develop their property to its greatest potential. David Cipolla, 4470 Adams Street, identified his property on a slide and emphasized the fact the neighborhood is a single family residential neighborhood. Mr. Cipolla stated the applicant's report and comments are greatly misleading and inaccurate. Colby Enger, 4049 Adams Street, stated his family uses the lagoon on a regular basis and travels Adams Street often. He stated he feels this project is an improvement over what is currently on the site. He stated he is in favor of the proposed development Dolores Kaulbach, 4915 Cove Drive Unit 2, Stated she was speaking on behalf of the Bristol Cove development, and further stated she supports the City's decision stated in the staff report and hopes the City maintains that decision. Lowell Grimaud, 4517 Cove Drive, stated this proposal is not smart growth. He stated he is concerned with the watershed of the lagoon and is also concerned about the increase in traffic. Todd Cardiff, Coast Law Group, 169 Saxony Road, Encinitas, representing the neighbor to the west, stated that the highest and best use of a property does not rob your neighbor of the value of their property while increasing the value of your own property- Zoning changes all the time so that there are not incompatible uses next to each other. He stated, looking at the maximums, there is the potential for up to 1,300 owners for the entire project if there are 26 owners. Anything that is not included in the permit is not enforceable. He is concerned with the management of the units. Jean Greenwald, 1710 Bruce Road, stated the traffic impacts would be devastating to the neighborhood. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on the item. Chairperson Baker asked if the applicant wished to respond to any issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Ladwig stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Montgomery asked how the view blockage was calculated. Mr. Ladwig stated he calculated it from the largest spot of the roof. Commissioner Montgomery stated that a better calculation might be taken from the linear width of the cupola as compared to the entire lot. Mr. Ladwig stated that would be another way to look at that calculation. Commissioner Montgomery asked if that was something he could agree with. Mr. Ladwig stated that would be fair. Chairperson Baker asked if Staff wished to respond to any issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Lynch stated that he did not have any responses to the comments raised during public testimony but there were a few items he wanted to clarify. Mr. Lynch stated the boat house and structure itself would make up 42% of the property, not the 69% he stated earlier, which is the impervious surface and building coverage, and the adjacent property to the east was amended with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to convert that property to residential. Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 7 Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Lynch to clarify the General Plan designation for the subject property as well as the underlying density that is applicable. Mr. Lynch stated the Land Use designation is Travel Recreation Commercial. There is not a residential density allocation to that Land Use designation. Mr. Lynch referred back to the Staff presentation which discussed the various uses within that designation. Chairperson Baker commented that the issue of density was mentioned frequently during the public testimony and asked if the 26 units would be above what would be allowed at the most dense part of the city. Mr. Lynch stated that was correct for residential development Mr. Lynch commented that there is a difference between intensity versus density. Density refers to dwelling units per acre. As a timeshare project it is not a residential project It is a non residential commercial development so it is the intensity of 25 units not a dwelling density at 26 units per acre. Commissioner Douglas asked Mr. Lynch to explain the downsizing the adjacent lots. Mr. Lynch stated that the one lot adjacent to the east is the only lot to be downsized which was done in 1991 and it was previously zoned similar to subject property. The properties shown as Residential Medium density were developed as Residential Single Family homes, subdivided and developed below their potential as far as residential development Commissioner Douglas inquired as to how many units were allowed on those properties. Mr. Lynch stated that the Residential Medium allows up to 6 units per acre. Commissioner Boddy stated the applicant asserted the 100 foot setback was met however the Staff Report indicates there are some encroachments into the setback. Mr. Lynch stated -there are improvements of the existing boathouse drive access and the launch ramp. What is difficult is that each home on either side of this site is required to provide a 100 foot buffer. The Land Use Plan calls for that buffer to be a buffer from the open space which is the lagoon to provide ecological and environmental benefits to support the lagoon. With this property being a Land Use Designation and zoned for somewhat of a commercial active use it seems a little contradictory to what the Land Use Plan calls for as far as buffers from the lagoon. It is almost anticipating and somewhat encouraging development within that buffer area. It is a dichotomy as far as one side requiring a buffer for environmental purposes and this project requiring a setback buffer but also encouraging development. Staff is stating there are improvements in that area but does not function as an open space buffer. Commissioner Boddy asked if those improvements impact lagoon. Mr. Lynch commented that most of the improvements are there today. There would probably be some minor increases in impervious surfaces and there is a runoff and water quality issue with the increased impervious surface with this project with its impacts to the water quality of the lagoon. Commissioner Boddy asked if there had been any analysis of the BMPs and Storm Water Regulations. Mr. Lynch stated that the project has proposed some BMPs for runoff for storage and treatment prior to release of that water. There are still low impact design issues the project has not identified that still need to be addressed. Commissioner Whitton inquired about the parking structure and water table, and if there will be any adverse impacts on the parking structure with the rise and fall of the water table. Mr. Lynch deferred to the applicant Mr. Ladwig stated the garage floor is higher than the highest level the lagoon will ever get. Commissioner Montgomery inquired what the highest allowable density in the RLM and RH zone. Mr. Lynch stated that starting at the bottom or the RLM, it 3.2 dwelling units per acre with provisions in the General Plan to allow up to 5 dwelling units per acre depending on location and lot size compatibility. The growth control point in the RH Zone is 19 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Montgomery stated the applicant commented the number of units in the timeshare can be reduced so that the project would then be able to comply with the lowest threshold of the PD ordinance and with more of the development standards. Commissioner Montgomery inquired as to what that threshold is. Mr. Lynch stated that he believed it would be 25 units where there is a break in development standards. Commissioner Montgomery asked if being below 25 units puts this project into a different development threshold. Mr. Lynch stated that was correct. Commissioner Montgomery asked what constitutes those changes in the ordinance. Mr. Lynch stated he did not recall why that number was selected as a threshold, but it is designated as a threshold and projects that have less than 25 units have lesser development standards. Those projects above 25 units have increased development standards such as RV parking, as well as an increase in recreational standards. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the project were to become something different, the architectural could potentially have different roof design. Mr. Lynch stated that Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 8 was correct and that there is no requirement for a flat or pitched roof. It is at the discretion of the developer. Commissioner Montgomery commented that there is a large structure to the east of this property that in theory could have had a different roof design. Mr. Lynch stated that as a residential development, that particular property would have to comply with a different set of standards. In the R Zone, a flat roof has a lesser building height than a pitched roof. This project site does not have that restriction. Commissioner Whitton asked if the Commission could be polled to determine if the project should be sent back to Staff at this point Chairperson Baker asked Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi about the highest and best use for the property and if any guidance is available for a situation such as this where the surrounding properties have different zoning designation. Ms. Mobaldi stated that term is usually used in appraisals and not necessarily applicable in this situation and in this situation it is being used to indicate a single family home is not going to have as much return on the investment as a denser development would. Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission were to not allow, for example a multi-family use or a timeshare use but suggest redesignating the property to single family or a lot split which could possibly imply a less return on the investment for the property owner, at what point does it become a taking of property or is it even allowed. Ms. Mobaldi stated she could not .give a definitive answer to those questions. Taking of property is always a factually intensive question and it would be very speculative of her to answer at this point. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the applicant is not requesting a Zone Change at this time and the Planning Department is not proposing a down-zoning. That issue would need to be addressed through some other mechanism if and when it arose. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Dominguez stated it would be unfair to leave the applicant without some sort of guidance as to the development of the subject property. Chairperson Baker stated that because this Commission is not the Coastal Commission, they would have no way of knowing what would be acceptable. Testimony was given that the Coastal Commission is not in favor of timeshares, and testimony was also given that the Coastal Commission is still interested in this property remaining as some sort of tourist serving property. Commissioner Dominguez suggested that broad outlines be given to Staff as to what would be acceptable to the Commission, and let the applicant make the determination as to what project is brought before the Commission again. Commissioner Whitton stated he agrees with Commissioner Dominguez; however, he does not feel any suggestions can be made as far as the Coastal Commission is concerned. Ms. Mobaldi suggested the Commission address the issues that are before them with this proposal, citing what they like and do not like with the proposal, rather than branching out to what could be proposed or if is not supported. DISCUSSION Commissioner Whitton stated this property existed with in this configuration for a long time. He further stated that the Commission as a whole should agree to either supporting the TR zone or not. Commissioner Boddy stated she in concerned with the intensity of the project in terms of the number of units as well as the size of the project. She would like to see the development standards met also. As far ^as the compatibility issues, it is difficult she stated because of the surrounding residential areas. She feels that a timeshare project could work on the property if it is designed very well. c> 0 Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 9 Commissioner Douglas commented that she is concerned that the project got this far without some sort of agreement between the applicant and the city for the proposed project. She further stated she is very concerned with the traffic however there is a need for increased access to the various waterways in the city. She would like to see this project return less dense as currently proposed and perhaps with architectural changes that would fit the neighborhood better. Commissioner Douglas feels this needs to happen in the Planning Department with the applicant. She further stated she understands the concerns raised by the neighbors during public testimony but it is the Commission's job to value and understand the needs of each property owner. She is also in favor of property rights. Commissioner Dominguez commented that the intensity should be scaled down and a reduction in scale, the item should be redesigned, and it should be more compatible with the hillside with some sort of terracing in the architectural design. He would like to see a reduction in the roof deck cupola therefore losing the need for a variance therefore sustaining and respecting the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Overlay Zone. He feels there are options to overcome the necessity for that rooftop access. Commissioner Dominguez further stated he would like to see a reduction in the roof deck. He also feels 19 units to an acre would be something that is agreeable. Commissioner Montgomery stated the Conditional Use Permit allows the Commission to look at compatibility issues. He stated perhaps a 12 to_14 unit an acre project might be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he ageees with stepback architecture from the lagoon, multiple levels should have different roof planes rather than straight flat surfaces, the roof deck should either be eliminated or dropped down, and with a decrease irrthe units. A reduction in units allows for an increase in parking, an increase in boat parking. As for the coastal access, with a hotel development as opposed to a timeshare project, it allows for greater public access to the waterway. Commissioner Cardosa stated he supports the T-R land use designation on the property. He stated he believes in property rights. He further stated he would like to see the cupola removed, and the roof deck removed. He feels the number of units is overscaled and would be overbuilt for the area. He commented that traffic is not a serious issue. Commissioner Cardosa stated he also feels the building should fit with the slope by using stepback architecture, it should not be held to RM or RH development standards because it is a completely different type of property and that issue is completely irrelevant It is a TR land use overlay and the owner has a right to develop the property with a compatible use. He further stated he does not feel the proposed use is compatible. The project should be scaled down, it should have better beach or coastal access, the boathouse should be removed and he would like to see a clear 100 foot space from the open space to the project Chairperson Baker stated this is a very difficult project from the standpoint of also believing in property rights. Ultimately whatever project comes back before the Commission will be a Conditional Use Permit and findings need to be made that it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This issue of compatibility will always be an issue with this property. She stated it is a question of compatibility. Chairperson Baker stated she feels the project as designed is too dense, too big, does not provide access for the public to the lagoon, and she cannot make the finding that it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. She suggested that the applicant, the property owners and Staff get together to work out a project that will ultimately be compatible and that everyone can accept. Chairperson Baker stated the project could be continued until a date uncertain or the Commission could agree with Staffs recommendation to deny the project. Mr. Ladwig stated he would like a chance to return with a revised project and he agrees with the compatibility issues. Chairperson Baker suggested that the applicant spend some time with the neighbors to work something out that would be acceptable to all parties. Planning Commission Minutes November 7,2007 Page 10 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, to continue the item until a date uncertain. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Baker thanked staff and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 2. SUP 05-18 - BRESSI RANCH PLANNING AREA 2 - Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Bressi Ranch Master Plan Program EIR and thatthe Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA; and approval of a Special Use Permit for the development of a 23.085-acre site with eight office/industrial buildings totaling 390,000 square feet and a parking deck located in Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2 north of Town Garden Road, south of Gateway Road, east of El Camino Real, and west of Alicante Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 17. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Jason Goff would make the staff presentation. Mr. Goff gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Goff to give a description of the parking structure. Mr. Goff stated the roof deck of the structure will be at grade level with El Camino Real. Chairperson Baker asked if there any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning and Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court Suite 100, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Whitton asked about trash, utility and electrical boxes along El Camino Real. Mr. Sobcyk stated there will be enhanced landscaping in the area. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the top of the berm is approximately to the top of the building structures. Mr. Sobcyk responded stated that was correct. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes May 7,2008 Page 7 VOTE: 5-1 AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Douglas and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: Commissioners Baker ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Whitton asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 3. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05 - CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Special Use Permit for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence and to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson Whitton asked if the applicant wished to proceed with the hearing without a full Commission present. The applicant stated he wanted to proceed. Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing on Item 3. Mr. Lynch gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitton acknowledged the Planning Commission received three letters regarding the project. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Baker asked what uses are allowed by right on this particular piece of property. Mr. Lynch stated the zone allows for residential, small and large family daycares. Commissioner Baker asked if there are any commercial uses that are allowed since it is a commercially zoned property. Mr. Lynch stated commercial uses are not allowed by right. Commissioner Baker inquired if the project were built as a hotel could it then be converted to residences if the hotel were not successful. Mr. Lynch stated no because it would be inconsistent with the land use designation of the property. Commissioner Baker asked how the CEQA review would be completed and the project brought back before the Planning Commission if the project were approved. . Mr. Lynch stated the Commission could not approve the project tonight; however, the Commission would direct Staff to perform the CEQA review, in which Staff would look for findings of land use compatibility and then return to the Planning Commission with documents for approval. Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, 2234 Faraday Avenue, introduced Jim Courtney, part owner of the project, who gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Boddy asked if a traffic study has been conducted for the proposed project. Mr. Courtney stated that by using the numbers provided in the city's zoning ordinance and the most compatible use to a timeshare which is a hotel/resort, for 25 units the ADT would be 220. Commissioner Baker inquired if the private boat club would continue if this project is built. Mr. Courtney stated no. Planning Commission Minutes May 7,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Douglas asked about the boats the project will provide for the guests. Mr. Courtney stated they will provide two or three boats and that the timeshare owners will not be allowed to bring their own boats. Only the boats owned by the club will be allowed to launch. Commissioner Douglas asked how many boats today the club has and how many trips will be saved per week without the restaurant. Mr. Courtney stated that it was difficult to determine. Commissioner Douglas inquired if he will be promoting the site as a boathouse. Mr. Courtney stated no. Commissioner Douglas asked if Mr. Courtney was aware as to how many boats, jet skis and other equipment the Snug Harbor facility had. Mr. Courtney estimated that there are about a dozen jet skis and a couple of boats. Commissioner Douglas asked about the footprint of the building. Mr. Courtney stated it is roughly 11,000 square feet above grade which is far below what is allowed by code. Chairperson Whitton asked about the proposed management for the project. Mr. Courtney stated he is proposing a full-time manager onsite with a unit for that manager to live in. Chairperson Whitton asked the manager would be able to control any parties or events that might get out of control. Mr. Courtney stated they are currently negotiating with several management firms that are well-known and the project will be professionally managed. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Mr. Courtney and the owners looked at reducing the number of units in the project. Mr. Courtney stated that due to the cost of construction, this project will cost more than double what had been anticipated three or four years ago, and they will not be able to decrease the number of units any more. Commissioner Douglas asked Mr. Lynch to speak on the issues regarding compatibility and a slide shown on the screen. Mr. Lynch directed the Commission's attention to the slide and discussed compatibility around Snug Harbor. Mr. Neu commented that even though Mr. Courtney did a good job discussing the applicable development standards, the Commission is dealing with discretionary permits, and it is the Commission's discretion to determine what is or is not compatible. Those numerical standards are the first thing Staff uses to review a project, but if it was all that was used, it would be a building plancheck and the Commission would not be considering the item. There are other principles that Staff as well as the Commission puts into review of a project, such as good site design and good architecture, and this Commission has always addressed those types of things as has Staff. It is not just a case of meeting the setbacks, lot coverage or building height. There are other principles that go into designing a good project that is compatible with the neighborhood. RECESS Chairperson Whitton called for a ten minute recess at 7:35 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Whitton called the meeting to order 7:45 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Whitton asked if any members of the audience wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Whitton opened public testimony. Jim Strickland, 4747 Marina Drive #30, representing the Bristol Cove Board of Directors and speaking on behalf of the residents of Bristol Cove, stated they support Staffs recommendation of denial of the project. He stated that they are concerned with compatibility of the 'project and it does not fit the neighborhood. Linda Hayes, 4513 Cove Drive #23, representing Cove Point Condominiums, requested denial of the project. She stated they are concerned with the traffic and the usage of the beach by the transient vacationers. <yz. Planning Commission Minutes May 7,2008 Page 9 Stacy Ewing, 4465 Adams Street, stated she is concerned with traffic, noise, parking and sales of the project and is completely opposed to the project. David Cipolla, 4470 Adams Street, refuted some of the issues brought up by Mr. Courtney and stated his opposition to the project. Hollyce Phillips, 4480 Adams Street, spoke in opposition of the project. Kirk Cowles, 2684 Sutler Street, stated his concern regarding the project and the number of boats that will be added to the lagoon because of this project. He feels the project does not belong in that part of Carlsbad. Russ Campbell, Coast Law Group, 169 Saxony Road, representing Tom and Nicole Dean, 4517 Adams Street, respectfully requested denial of the project. Ruth Hayes, 4421 Highland Drive, stated her opposition to the project. Laurie Kellas, 4410 Highland Drive, stated her opposition to the project. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony. Chairperson Whitton asked if Mr. Ladwig wished to respond to the issues raised by speakers. Mr. Ladwig stated that the Commission needs to uphold the city's General Plan and zoning maps. The owners have complied with all the applicable codes. They are aware that because of the zoning, the project requires a Conditional Use Permit and findings of compatibility need to be made. He stated it is difficult to satisfy all of the conditions and every effort has been made to design a project that will be a real asset to the neighborhood. He stated several changes have been made to the project such as moving the front of the building back, additional roof lines were added, and the number of units was reduced by one. He asked that the Commission direct Staff to prepare the environmental review and conditions of approval so that the Commission can approve the project. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions. Commissioner Baker asked how the Commission can approve the project when the environmental review has not yet been completed or may make approving the project difficult. Mr. Lynch stated that the applicant is not asking the Commission to approve the project but to direct Staff to complete the necessary CEQA review and then return with documents for approval. Commissioner Baker asked if the CEQA review would use the existing intensity. Mr. Lynch stated that one of the issues of land use compatibility in the CEQA document is to make the finding of compatibility. Commissioner Boddy asked if there are any current plans to improve Adams Street. Mr. Hauser stated that many years ago the City set up a plan to establish the standards for the development of Adams Street. There are no plans to do the actual improvements set up in that plan. It is being improved piece- meal as the development comes along. Commissioner Boddy further asked what other developments along Adams Street that will provide for sidewalks, lighting and other improvements. Mr. Hauser directed Ms. Boddy's attention to the slide on the screen and stated that because of the unimproved properties along Adams Street, as those projects are approved, they will be developing the frontage or entering into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement to do the improvements; however there is no cohesive plan to build all the improvements at one time. Commissioner Douglas asked if the burden will be on the developer to install any improvements along Adams Street if the project is approved. Mr. Hauser stated that would need to be reviewed during the context of project review and at a minimum they would have to improve their frontage. He further stated whether or not the requirement for offsite improvements remains to be seen. Commissioner Douglas Planning Commission Minutes May?, 2008 Page 10 inquired as to how conditions for improving Adams Street would be added to the project. Mr. Mauser stated that traffic analyses are part of the CEQA review. A request for traffic analysis would need to be submitted as part of their project submittal package. As it progresses through the review process, it would be reviewed to see if the existing road is adequate for the proposed uses and impacts created by the project. Commissioner Douglas asked what the process would be if the project were condominiums instead of timeshares. Mr. Mauser stated the process would be the same. Commissioner Douglas inquired if the project would be compatible if the timeshares were converted to 23 condominium units. Mr. Lynch stated it would not be compatible with the present land use designation which does not allow for a residential project. Commissioner Douglas asked what type of development can be built on this property. Mr. Lynch stated the zoning does allow for residential but it does not specify density. Commissioner Douglas asked why the applicant cannot build condominiums if the zoning allows for residential. Mr. Neu stated that the land use designation that has been talked about is Travel- Recreation-Commercial so there are not units allocated to the project site through the General Plan. Any units placed on the property would be taken from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank but then Staff would be looking at what number of units would be compatible. The Commission would then be looking at the idea of condominium units at some density and determining what number of units would be compatible or appropriate at that location. One of Staffs difficulties would then be that the site, as it currently exists, is surrounded by development at an existing low-medium density. One of the difficulties with state law and good planning is that you do not want to create an island or "spot zoning" or creating a zone that is not compatible with the surrounding area. Staff has never said the issue of timeshares is not feasible but it is rather an issue of scale and intensity of the number of timeshare units. Chairperson Whitton asked if the surrounding homes are on similarly zoned properties but have chosen to build a private residence. Mr. Lynch stated that was correct. The three properties on the north side of Adams Street are all zoned R-T. Chairperson Whitton asked if a hotel would be allowed if those property owners decided to build a hotel on their property. Mr. Lynch stated the project would come before the Commission as a Conditional Use Permit for compatibility. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Staff has addressed or responded to any of the issues or statements brought up by the applicant. In regards to the applicant's right to build what they want to build and that it is an allowed use, Mr. Lynch clarified that it is a Conditional Use and it is not a right they get to enjoy. They need to make that compatibility finding through the Conditional Use Permit process. The concept that if they meet the development standards, they can build as many units as they can fit on the property again falls back to the compatibility issue. It is true that the applicant does meet the development standards for the project site but again a project of that scale and size would not be found compatible with the neighborhood. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Cardosa asked Staff specifically where this project falls short to meet the current General Plan and zoning. Mr. Lynch stated that Staffs primary concern is the intensity of the proposed use and that comes down to the number of units. The second issue for compatibility purposes is the size or the bulk of the building. It is too large to be compatible with the predominantly single family neighborhood. The project as proposed would project further out than any of the single family homes in the area and it would be very prominent from views of the project site from a distance. Commissioner Cardosa inquired about a view ordinance. Mr. Lynch stated the City of Carlsbad does not have a view preservation ordinance; however, the LCP does have a view protection that buildings do not exceed the height of the Adams Street roadway. DISCUSSION Commissioner Boddy stated she is less concerned with the size and scale of the building and overall design. She is more concerned about the traffic and parking issues, and with the community opposition. She further commented that she would like to see the project go through a full CEQA review so that all of these issues are vetted out to see if there is a way to mitigate some of the impacts. Planning Commission Minutes May 7,2008 Page 11 Commissioner Douglas stated she is concerned with the opposition from the neighbors but is also looking at private property rights. She too would like to see a full Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project to see how the project can fit the neighborhood. She is also concerned with the number of units and dictating the number of units for the project. Commissioner Cardosa stated he is also concerned with the compatibility of the project, the size of the project, the amount of proposed parking and the number of units. He feels there has not been enough evidence to show that the proposed project will not impact the neighborhood negatively. Commissioner Baker agreed with her fellow Commissioners regarding the private property issues and the compatibility of the project with the neighborhood. She does feel there is a difference when people choose to build a residential development next to an existing commercial development as opposed to a commercial development going in next to residential. Commissioner Montgomery commented that he feels similar to Commissioner Baker. He feels that because there was not a significant change in the project from the previous hearing, it might be best if the Commission deny the project and the applicant appeal it to City Council. Mr. Lynch commented that the Conditional Use Permit is a recommendation for denial which automatically goes to City Council. The applicant would only need to appeal the Tract Map and Special Use Permit. . Chairperson Whitton stated that he would like to return the project to Staff for findings of compatibility. Commissioner Boddy asked if the project would only be returned for findings of compatibility or if an entire environmental review would be completed. Mr. Neu stated that one of the first areas under the CEQA review in the initial study is land use compatibility. Staff would complete the initial study and based on the answers to the different topics, it would then be determined what level of review the project would need which could range from an Environmental Impact Review to a Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as taking into the consideration the controversy of the item. Chairperson Whitton asked if the applicant wished to respond. Mr. Courtney stated that he would like to see the project move forward with either a concept for approval or a denial. If the Commission denies the project, it will move forward to City Council. If Council then approves the project, it will return to Staff for the CEQA review and then back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Neu clarified that if Council were to approve the project, it would still need CEQA review. Council would need to determine if the project were to then be referred back to the Planning Commission or if Council would retain the decision-making. In all likelihood, Council would refer the project back to the Commission to make a recommendation on the project. Mr. Neu further stated the CEQA review could possibly change the project or require changes to the project through mitigation measures. For example, for the land use compatibility or visual analysis, mitigation measures may come up that might recommend certain changes to the project so that it fits in better with the neighborhood. It would be difficult for the Commission to approve the project as a concept. Staff does share the applicant's frustration as they have been working on this a long time, Staff does not feel it is compatible and therefore has made the recommendation for denial and would prefer not to see the project come back. For the CEQA review, Staff would most likely lean towards more of an Environmental Impact Report which would take up more time and additional funding that the applicant would have to provide. Sending the project back to Staff would cause more work. Mr. Neu stated at this point, Staff would benefit from Council's opinion if the Commission cannot support the project. If the Commission can support the project, then it would need to return to Staff for the environmental review. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2008 Page 12 MOTION ACTION: VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6348, 6349, and 6351 denying Tentative Tract Map (CT 06-16) and Special Use Permit (SUP 07-05) and recommending denial of Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-16 based on the findings contained therein. 4-2-1 AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, and Commissioner Montgomery NOES: Commissioner Boddy and Commissioner Douglas ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of May 7, 2008, was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. DON NEU Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk EXHIBIT 7 City of Carlsbad Office of the City Clerk APPEAL I the of the Planning Commission to the City Council. of Decision you are 7,2008 MAY 1 4 2008 CrrYOFCtflSBAD"CITY CLERICS OFFICE ,, -- ~" «""""/ f -»1"--»J- * O*A"? f* < B.UJP§gJF|C_Examptes: if the is a City Engineer's Decision, say so. If a project has rrwltiple J) elements, (sych as a Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Plan, ete.) please list them all. If you only want to a part of the whole action, that here, Planning Commission Denial of Boat Club & Resort tentative Map CT ©6-18 and Scenic Preservation Overlay Use Permit SUP 67-05, plus recommending denial irf Conditional Permit CUP ReaSOnCsj Jor Please Note, Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you wil be limited to the grounds here when presenting your appeal. BiJjPjClFjC....How did the decision maker err? What the is wtth state or local iaws, plans, or policy? We are appealing the above items because we feel that them art significant errors and interpretations of the City Ordinances were used to justify denial of project i.e. In Reference to Commission No, €348 Finding fl isjn trror A. The subject |s consistent with and does satisfy ail requirements of the Genera) Plan. The property Is Commercial on the General Plan and is consistent with the Land Use Map of the Agya Hedionda Segment of the Local Coastal Plan. The LCP soectficaiiv identifies, this property amt niaQdite§...that.it remain Reereatjort-CommerciaJ. and ..should be encouraged to expand. B. The building cannot be determined to be incompatible of or bulk, if the building meets or all requirements for height, front, and rear yard setbacks, it complies with all pertinent and regyiatiorss, policies, and ordinances for this The ordinances allow 75% lot coverage, end the footprint of this building is only 25%. C. The project cannot be deemed incompatible -"because K has the potesttal to generate noise {boat launch, boathouse and traffic! which would significantly Impact adjacent and surrounding 'family iwidteneas. These activities have_been occurring on this progerfy_for_more..feanjjg s. tono any of the surrounding house were bujjti Finding A. It that — "surrounding properties are for Low Medium Density development on the General Plan." The three Jots across the are zoned R-T. ..the same as our project The lot adjacent to the east was down-zoned from Commereta! to residential, and the remaining property to the east, is designated on the General Plan as: RM (4 to 8 dwelling unis per acre), RMH (8 to 1 5 dwelling units per acre), or RH { 1 5 to 23 dwelling units per acre) and is zoned R-1 , 15,000, 8. That property was developed InconsfelMtt with the General Plan. You cannot put 4 single family residences (R-1 , 15000) on an acre of land, (4 x 15,000 = §0,000 sq, f . An acre is 43,560 sq. ft) The owners of these properties had Hie right to develop to far greater but elected to under-develop, Just because the various governmental agencies ailowed this to happen, dtoes not take away our rights to develop our property according to the ordinances, regulations and requirements pertinent to it, The General ptan demonstrates that ft jf nojt j...stajgj|e,§t|i|lv neiahborttood, C. This property is designated Commercial and cannot be deemed incompatible by comparing it to residential standards. Our property is entitled to be developed according to Commercial standards °n and conditions. In feet; to be consistent with, and comply with, the General Plan and LCP, it must be allowed to go forward, A, it "That the site is physically not for the type and density of the development since the site is not in size and shape to accommodate commercial development at the intensity, and proposed,—". We have that the site is more for the project, the is only approximately 25% of the lot and the City's Ordinances lot coverage of 75% for this type of project. The side of the new club building is actually ten the .new home built to tie and the South end of the building is about 20% narrower that the to the The of ail are with the of Adams St. B. The new project will ,be less disruptive and less noise and than the existing uses. This mil reduce the and other by approximately 60% over the In to No, A, This to neces$ary..an(t for the community, oyr visitors will their time and money, the various and other various and entertaining opportunities in and around Carlsbad. B, The to comply with, and is in harmony, tie various and of the General Plan, and is with the LCP. C, It is and to that "The prpjecLwiLgeoefate. 200 AM§BgeaiDajiiJjJB§ CADI} which through existing residentialnelBhborhoodsV: The existing sitegesgnjjy ggngrgfel OADTjs^a. restauant fwhich is dosed) and a ...single. family residence." The site contains a 2500 sq. ft. restaurant on the main with a 24swdlmoifi apt. (not a single family residence) it, and on the lower level there Is a room, two bathrooms, and the Clubhouse. The extettng Commercial Use® for this site (which have been in for the past 40 to 60 years) are as a Restaurant and Boat Launching facility- These uses are with about 520 ADT if the Restaurant re-opened. This will noise, and other by 80%! A. This find Im Jirecly. contradicts |hg findiggs made in Resolution .No. ,6348. This finding is correct, and confirms that the lot is suitable and is than adequate to accommodate our project! A. Ail for yards, walls, landscaping, and by the ^ met. Finding Mm in error because: B, It makes the required Jjjdjrtg: but continues misleading C, If the is to properly handle ail traffic by the proposed use, what it matter where It originates? This new will the ADT over by 60%, and will and noise, Finding f SJs aj it makes., theregyifgtj finding: but continues to insert the : assumption that it is incompatible because of its intensity, bulk and of development Based 0n what criteria? In Reference to Planning Commission Resolution No. 8351 Finding M Is In timor becatise: A. The comply with and conform to the Overlay Zone, B. The assumption and statement 'that tie project is of intensity, bulk and scale", is any on which to the A, The project in fact implement the and of the Sf«cifieaify: the Land Use Element II, C,, 3, Commercial, c, Travel/Recreation Commercial. 8. The that SiThe has the to the tat teynch, and traffic, which w»wld impact and suraotmcliftg single family residences" Is absurfl The are: Th* Restaurant Glwb were In fell operation all tt» impacts of intensity use, traffic, Me, occurring daiiy, when the and These activife s tevf been oeairrinQ on this for more 50 years, long before am of the houst Mtt! C. Once again, the "Red Herring'' of is wife no of feet or criteria to it on. 8. The will not the or cultural of the property or the lagoon, ^ incompatibility,- is with no of feet or to it on. We the City oyr In and it to Staff to the do the CEGA and return it to the City Council for VIP ^CALIFORNIA 3532 Donna Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-7986 _ May 14, , Gen. May 14,irtner CA (760) 729-7710 12OQ Carlsbad Village Drive- Carlsbad, Caiifornia 92OO8-19S9 - (?6O) 434-2808 OPEN LETTER TO THE CITY (cs Mayor City Council ' City Manager July 16, 2008 CityAttorney ; City Clerk Mayor Lewis and Fellow Council Members: Reference: Carlsbad Boat Club We are on the City Council Agenda for July 22, 2008. We are only allowed a very short time to present our project, so we ask you to please review the following information. On May 29, 1991 The Planning Commission adopted Resolution's #3250, 3251, 3252, & 3253. The STAFF REPORT to the Commission recommended adoption, based on their "Findings". In item 4. CONSISTENCY WITH COASTAL ACT AND AGUA HEDIONDA LUP. The planning staff made the finding that it was consistent because; "To meet the requirement for boat launching facilities — a 100' easement along the shore of the Lagoon is being required. This easement will allow the existing Boat launching facility on the adjacent parcel to continue operation and uses of the area for boat launching circulation to continue, —." Please refer to attached exhibit "A". Planning Commission Resolution No. 3251 : Finding #2 states in part: "The proposed land uses are compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area --- and compatibility with the Recreational Commercial land use adjacent has already been shown." Finding #4 states in part: " — white not reducing the existing boat launching, and circulation capacity of the area." Condition #4 states in part: "Prior to issuance of any grading, building, or discretionary permit for the project site, an easement shall be placed over this 100 foot buffer strip for public access purposes including boat launching." Please refer to attached exhibit "B". Planning Commission Resolution No. 3253; Finding #3 states: "The residential uses allowed by the zone change are compatible with the existing and permitted uses in the area." Please refer to attached Exhibit "C". On October 1, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-324 incorporating by reference all the findings of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3250, 3251, 3252, and 3253 recommending APPROVAL of GPA 90-2/LCPA 90-4/ZC 91-8. Please refer to exhibit "D". Also, please refer to page 6 & 7 of the minutes from the May 29, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, showing our protest and objections to the all the Resolutions. Marked Exhibit "D"-1~. A Conditional Use Permit Requires 4 Findings We can make the 4 findings as follows: Finding #1 That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan; > Yes, it is necessary and desirable because the money spent by our owners and visitors, throughout the city, will contribute to the City of Carlsbad's economy. > This project is in harmony with the General Plan & Zoning, and is consistent with the LCP, because it implements the mandate contained in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, i.e. • Section III. Item 1. & 6. Coastal Act & Land Use Policies o Land Uses in the Agua Hedionda Plan areas shall be consistent with those indicated on the Land Use Map (Exhibit C) o Whitev's Landing and Snug Harbor shall be designated for continued recreational- commercial use. Expansion of existing facilities at these locations shall be encouraged. Finding #2 That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; > The requested use is not detrimental to existing uses because, it is a use that has existed on the site for more than 50 years, prior to any development near it > In 1991, A General Plan Amendment and Down-Zone to R-1,15,000, changed the adjacent property to the east from Commercial to Residential. The various governmental agencies involved, made the finding in 1991 that putting R1 residential, adjacent to an existing and very active commercial use, "is compatible and is not detrimental to the existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the permitted use is to be located." Finding #3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the planning director, planning commission or city council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; > As with any commercial project, the size the building and it's ability to fit the property, is determined by compliance with the set-backs from the property line, the height restrictions, and the parking requirements, as well as other code requirements. > The property meets or exceeds the above stated requirements and is more than adequate to accommodate this project I0\ Finding #4 That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. > Title 18, Carlsbad Municipal Code, shows that the uses that have existed for more than 20 years (Restaurant & Boat Launching Ramp) are charged with generating a total of 520 trips per day. > Time-shares would generate about 200 trips per day. That's a reduction in traffic of about 60% > The street system is more than adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. COMPLETE DA1 JULY 22. 1990 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 29, 1991 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GPA 90-2/LCPA 90-4/ZC 91-8 - LAGUNA POINT - Request for an amendment to the General Plan and Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan land use designations from Recreational Commercial (RC) to Residential Low Medium density (RLM), and a change in the zoning designation from Residential Tourist (R-T) to One-Family Residential (R-l-15) of a 1.12 acre site on property located on the south side of Adams Street between Hoover Street and Highland Drive, on the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3250 recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No's. 3251, 3252, and 3253, recommending APPROVAL of GPA 90-2/LCPA 90-4/ZC 91-8, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. n.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting the cas&exsasa of a commercially-designated parceL to a TesifeHtially-designated parcel as described-above. The parcel is located on the north shore of the Agua Hediondsr Eagoon, east of Interstate 5. The site topography slopes steeply downward from Adams Street and levels out to two flat areas, eventually sloping southward into the lagoon tidal area. Gross site acreage is 1.12 acres, but some of the land has wetland constraints. The project site has been disturbed but not developed, and the lower, southernmost portion of the site is occasionally used for boat launching access and boat parking. Along with the adjacent parcel to the west, the parcel is designated for tourist oriented uses and currently shares a boat launching ramp with the parcel to the west. In addition to the boat ramp, the parcel to the west contains a storage building and a restaurant. Since the site has an average slope of over 15% and a greater than 15 foot elevation difference, any development proposal would require a Hillside Development Permit to be processed. Additional standards for development are found in the Agua Hedionda segment of the Local Coastal Plan. These development standards would apply to both commercial and residential development proposals. GPA 90-2/LCPA 90-4/Zv, « \ A * LAGUNA POINT MAY 29, 1991 PAGE 4 3. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN One of the goals of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is to encourage the type of development which the area can best support without impacting the surrounding land uses. The element also states that land uses should be arranged so that they are orderly, functionally efficient, healthful, and convenient to the public. As mentioned above, the site is constrained from both a topographical and a circulation perspective. Allowing a more intensive commercial land use, such as a motel, would impact the surrounding residential land uses. One of the commercial guidelines of the Land Use Element states that "commercial recreation or destination tourist facilities, in particular, should be carefully controlled so as to protect the residential character of the community..." Since the site of the proposed amendment is so constrained, it is unlikely that adequate buffering and screening of the commercial activities from the adjacent residential land uses could be provided. The Circulation Element states that whenever possible, adverse impacts of new development on the circulation system should be mitigated. A recreation commercial development would produce significantly more average daily traffic than a single-family residential project. A restaurant generates between 100 and 300 daily trips per 1,000 square feet and a motel generates 8 to 10 daily trips per room or 100 to 200 trips per acre, whereas single family residential uses only generate 10 daily trips per unit. The only street serving the site is Adams Street which, as a local street, has a maximum recommended traffic capacity of 500 average daily trips. This reduction of potential traffic generation is increasingly significant when the existing and future improvements along Adams Street are considered. Adams Street is currently improved to a width of 28 feet and, because of topographical constraints, will not be able to be fully improved to the standard local street curb-to-curb width of 36 to 40 feet. The Circulation Element also states that the use of local streets as thoroughfares should be discouraged and the traffic generated by a recreation commercial uses should not be directed from the freeway or arterial along a local street. Given that the proposed amendment encourages the type of development which minimizes the impacts to existing and future neighboring uses and reduces the possibility of adverse impacts to the circulation system, the proposal is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. 4. CONSISTENCY WITH COASTAL ACT AND AGUA HEDIONDA LUP One of the policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 is to promote the public safety, health, and welfare and that existing, developed uses, and future developments be carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act. As discussed previously, the recreational commercial designation was given to the project site because of the boat launching facility that existed on the site which was originally part of Whitey's Landing. Since public recreational uses are a high priority of the Coastal Act, and boat GPA 90-2/LCPA 90-4/Zo >i-8 LACUNA POINT MAY 29, 1991 PAGES launching facilities are vital to maintaining the active recreational character of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, any proposal for a change in land use designation must preserve the recreational nature of the site to be consistent with die applicable Coastal Act policies. To meet this compromise between adequate circulation for public safety and die requirement for boat launching facilities until development on the soutii shore is established, a 100 foot wide easement along the shore of die lagoon is being required. This easement will allow die existing boat launching facility on die adjacent parcel to continue operation and uses of die area for boat launching circulation to continue, as well as lateral public access to facilitate die development of a public trail system. 5. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS The proposal for a Low-Medium density Residential land use designation requires a zoning tiiat would allow single family residential development to implement its provisions. The One-family Residential zoning designation properly implements die Low-Medium density Residential land use designation as it provides for single family residential development. The required minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet is proposed in recognition of die constraints of die subject property. Because of die requirement for a Hillside Development Permit, and die mandated consistency witii die Local Coastal Plan development standards, no Qualified Development Overlay is being proposed. 6. CONSISTENCY WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Since these amendments propose to convert a commercially-designated parcel witii no residential density to a residentially-designated parcel witii a low-medium density, die units created must be taken from die excess units witiiin die Northwest quadrant of die city. Normally, tiiis would require a vote of die citizens, as stated in Section 21.90.030(b) of die Municipal Code. These amendments fall under the purview of City Council Policy No. 43 which states tiiat die excess dwelling units may be created by a zone change from non-residential to residential if die following findings can be made: 1. The property was zoned for otiier tiian residential uses on July 1, 1986. 2. The property is compatible for residential use witiiout significant mitigation. 3. The density of die project does not exceed die Growtii Management Control Point of any adjacent developed residential property. The above findings can be made for die proposed amendments since die project was designated for commercial uses in 1976, and it has been shown tiiat a residential land use would be more compatible to die surrounding land uses. Considering the tiiird finding above, die application is for a low-medium density residential designation which does not exceed die low-medium density across Adams Street or die medium density on die adjacent parcel to die east. 105? PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3251 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING 3 APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM RECREATIONAL 4 5 STREET AND HIGHLAND DRIVE. 6 CASE NAME: LACUNA POINT 7 May 29, 1991, attached and incorporated herein, has been filed with the Planning 11 Commission; and 12 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment.Lo 15 COMMERCIAL (R-C) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ADAMS STREET BETWEEN HOOVER CASE NO: GPA/LU 90-2 ? WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the General Plan Designation for certain property located, as shown on Exhibit "GPA 90-2," dated as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 29th day of May, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; 17 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 18 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission 19 considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment.20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission 22 of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 24 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 25 recommends APPROVAL of GPA/LU 90-2, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. 26 27 28 Findings: 1. The proposed site is suitable for the land use and zoning designations proposed , because the site topography and traffic circulation system serving the site are constrained and favor low-medium density residential uses that are less 4 development intensive and generate lower traffic volumes. 5 2. The proposed land uses are compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area since virtually all surrounding uses are and will be residential and compatibility with the recreational commercial land use adjacent has already been shown. 8 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan because it encourages the type of development which the area can best support without impacting surrounding land uses and reduces the possibility of adverse impacts to the circulation system. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan because the less 12 intense land use proposed promotes the public safety, health, and welfare of the neighborhood while not reducing the existing boat launching, and circulation capacity of the area. 14 5. The proposed Zoning, General Plan, and Local Coastal Land Use Plan designations 15 are consistent with each other as a single family residential zoning properly implements a low-medium density residential land use designation. 16 6. The proposed amendments are consistent with the City's Growth Management Program as the findings required by Council Policy No. 43 regarding conversion of non-residential designation to residential designations can be made. 19 | Conditions: 20 1. Approval of GPA 90-2 is granted subject to approval of LCPA 90-4 and ZC 91-8 and is subject to all conditions of approval of LCPA 90-4 and ZC 91-8 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No's. 3252 and 3253, incorporated herein by 22 reference and on file in the Planning Department. 23 2. Approval of GPA 90-2 is subject to approval of the proposed amendments by the California Coastal Commission.24 25 26 27 RESO NO. 3251 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. Any development on this parcel shall require a Hillside Development Permit from the City of Carlsbad and may require a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. 4. As required by the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, a 100 foot buffer must lie between any development of the parcel and the edge of wetland or environmentally sensitive habitats. Prior to issuance of any grading, building, or discretionary permit for the project site, an easement shall be placed over this 100 foot buffer strip for public access purposes including boat launching. No building permits shall be issued for structures within this easement that do not conform to the findings and conditions of this approval. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of May, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Savary, Noble & Erwin. Commissioner Hall. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. IOBERT HOLMES, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLE& Planning Director RESO NO. 3251 1 Findings: 2 l. The proposed Zone Change from Residential Tourist to One-Family residential is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan as demonstrated in the staff report for the project. 4 2. The proposed zone change will provide consistency between the General 5 Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element. 6 „ 3. The residential uses allowed by the proposed zone change are compatible with the existing and permitted uses in the area. 8 4. All findings of GPA 90-2 and LCPA 90-4, Planning Commission Resolutions 9 No's. 3251 and 3252 apply to ZC 91-8 and are incorporated herein by reference.10 11 Conditions: 12 1. Approval for ZC 91 -8 is granted subject to approval of GPA 90-2 and LCPA 90-4. ZC 91-8 is subject to all conditions of approval of GPA 90-2 and LCPA 90-4 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No's. 3251 and ... ! 3252, incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department. 15 2. Approval of ZC 91-8 is granted subject to approval of the proposed amendments by the California Coastal Commission. EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective thirty days after adoption by the City Council of the ordinance for ZC 91-8. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PCRESONO3253 -2- 28 CIT IF CARLSBAD - AGEND/r ILL MTQ. 10/1/91 CA Tm p. APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION,JALkBt AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: LACUNA POINT GPA/flft 90-2/ DEPT. HD..**> CITYATTY CITYMGR. s§ocQ. RECOMMENDED ACTION:LCPA 90-4/zc 91-8 If Council concurs your action is to adopt Resolution No. approving the negative declaration, amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA/LU 90-2) and Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA 90-4), and adopt Ordinance No. NS-174 approving ZC 91-8. ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council at your meeting of September 17, 1991 introduped Ordinance No. NS-174 and directed our office to prepare documents approving the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA/LU 90-2) and Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA 90-4). The resolution is attached. The Council should satisfy itself that the findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission accurately reflect your intentions in the matter. If the Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolution No. 9/-J.JW and Ordinance No. NS-174. EXHIBITS Resolution No. ?' Ordinance No. NS-174 o 8 '/(ft MINUTES May 29, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS »\ Given his knowledge of the area and the constraints the applicant will have to deal with. Commissioner Schlehuber feels the applicant should realistically be aware that only one lot is actually being approved tonight. Chairman Holmes opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that Hofman has been working on this project for over two years, during which time a great deal of research has been done. Notices have been sent to all of the surrounding neighbors, far exceeding the 600 ft. requirement, and there has been very little opposition to the proposed project. He is aware that Adams Avenue is a substandard street and can not be widened. Hofman feels that the site can be developed for residential purposes without adversely impacting the boat launching facility because there is in excess of a 100 ft. buffer. He noted that Bristol Cove has a boat launching facility that is located much less than 100 ft. from multi-family projects. In addition, this lot has not been used for recreational- commercial uses for the past decade. He noted that Hofman & Associates has performed a detailed constraints analysis and feels that three units can easily fit on the site. Re requested an opportunity to speak to any public comments which may be made. Commissioner Hall inquired if Elinor Knox is the property owner. Mr. Howes replied to the affirmative. Commissioner Hall inquired who Hofman was representing. Mr. Howes replied that Hofman & Associates represents George Florit and Stephen Brindie, who are in escrow. Commissioner Hall inquired why the site development plan was not brought in at this tine. Mr. Howes replied that staff usually prefers to do a General Plan Amendment and.a zone change first, and then look at a detailed site plan. Commissioner Hall reiterated that three units on the site is not a given. Mr. Howes stated that he is aware of that issue. Commissioner Erwin inquired if additional access would be granted to this property should the boat launch access not be needed at some later date. Mr. Howes replied that it is physically Impossible to access the boat ramp from this property due to the 90 degree angle and steepness of grade. Randi Fjaeran, representing the Ague Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, P. 0. Box 4281, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the Foundation has a vested interest in protecting and preserving the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. They hope this zoning change will be an airtianrammit rather than a detriment. The Foundation would like special attention given to (1) sedimentation during and after construction; (2) public access as provided for in the Agua Hedionda land use, including walkways and trail systems; and (3) height restrictions, especially on infill lots. James Courtney, 1861 South View Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is half owner of the adjacent parcel to the west. He believes the staff report was in error when it stated that this lot is a minor portion of the Whitey's Landing, especially since the Knox property . J MINUTES May 29, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS comprises more than half of the remaining acreage in that area. Mr. Courtney feels that staff merely "attempted" to make findings. He does not feel the proposed project is suitable for the site due to the 90 degree angle needed for access. He noted that there is no boat launching activities available on this side of the lagoon but, rather, just a flimsy public access; further, there is no perking anywhere close to that site. He is concerned that recreational- commercial acreage is being rezoned for other uses and it won't be long before it is all gone. Further, the public access area discussed in the staff report is currently under water. However, the major problem Mr. Courtney sees is the buffering problem being created between his restaurant/boat launch and the adjacent residential uses. Finally, he feels the proposed project is not compatible with the existing recreational-commercial uses of Whitoy's Landing and they will ultimately be forced out of business by complaints from homeowners. He feels that rezoning the proposed site will cut the value of his property by 50Z. Mike Pfankuch, 3532 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is Mr. Courtney's partner. He has always been impressed with the land use mix in Carlsbad, thanks to the foresight of Carlsbad's early planners. He feels that the commercial-recreation uses in Carlsbad need to preserved for the future. He hopes that the Commission will have the foresight not to rezone everything to residential. Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, returned to the podium and stated that future access to the lagoon will be created when the Macario Canyon Park is developed. There are other existing boat launching facilities in close proximity to residential properties that have not caused major problems, i.e. Bristol Cove. Since the proposed site is currently zoned Residential-Tourist which, basically, permits hotels. He does not feel a hotel would be suitable because the local streets could not handle the added traffic. He does not feel the proposed usage would eliminate public access to the lagoon. He requested approval of conversion to residential. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the access to the lagoon will be provided on land. Mr. Howes replied that the Agua Hedionda coastal program provides for a trail along the northern edge of the lagoon. The portion of land under water is not where the trail would be located. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Holmes declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schlehuber believes the proposed project is good, primarily because Adams Avenue is not a good commercial street. He can support the proposed dowiutoning to residential. Commissioner Schramm can support the staff recommendation because Adams Avenue cannot handle much more traffic. She likes the restaurant and boat landing but hopes that the site will only contain two units when it is built out. Commissioner Erwin stated that he is sorry that Mr. Courtney and his partner did not buy Mrs. Knox's property for themselves. He would like to see it remain commercial but he (Id- 0 I. n. m. rv. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND LAND USE PLAN 1. Land Use 2. Agriculture 3. Environmental 4. Geologic Hazards 5. Public Works 6. Recreation/Visitor Facilities 7. Shoreline Access 8. Visual Resources ATTACHMENTS 1. Chronology 2. Archaeology 3. Letter from Coastal Commission to State Department of Fish and Game regarding Cannon Road (date: 2/17/82) 4. Common Birds of the Lagoon 5. Common Plants of the Lagoon Pagel Page 3 Page 10 Page 12 Page 18 Page 22 Page 30 Page 33 Page 44 Page 46 Page 52 Page 56 Page 56 Page 59 Page 63 Page 65 Page 67 V.BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 69 city o-f carlst>s*d local coastal progra tfl D 1. Land Use Coastal Act Policies 30001. That the California Coastal Zone is a distinct and valuable resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem. That the permanent protection of the State's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residences of the State and nation. That to promote the public safety, health, and welfare and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction. That existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of mis division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this State and especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone. (Amended by Cal. Stats. 1979, Ch. 1090.) Discussion The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is somewhat unique in its status as a multiple-use wetland area. The lagoon provides an extensive range of water-related passive and active recreational uses, as well as providing habitat for a wide variety of marine and terrestrial life forms. It is this diversity of activities upon which fundamental land use policies are based. The land use plan recognizes that a balance must be maintained which provides for continuance and expansion of recreational opportunities, while protecting the integrity of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Existing land uses within the plan area include a variety of residential, commercial and recreational uses. The north shore includes a range of residential densities, commercial and semi- public recreation uses, and large areas of undeveloped property.' The south shore blufftop area, east of the 1-5 freeway, is primarily in agricultural production, the SDG&E power facility occupies the entire south shore west of the freeway, and the eastern end of the lagoon contains extensive wetland and floodplam areas. Policies 1.1 Land uses in the Agua Hedionda Plan area shall be consistent with those indicated on the Land Use Map (Exhibit C). J\ 6. RECREATION AND VISITOR-SERVICING FACELinES • Coastal Act Policies 30212.5 Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities including parking areas or facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area. 30213. (in part) Lower cost visitor and recreation facilities ... shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. 30220. Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational facilities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. 30221. Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities mat could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. 30222. The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. 30224. Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged in accordance with this division, by' developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non-water- dependent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas and in areas designed by dry land. I s-city of carlsbad local coastal program | ^ VIP PARTNERS P.O. Box 2117, Carlsbad, CA 92018 1861 S. View Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 July 22, 2008 Lisa Hildabrand, City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Ail Receive-Agenda Item #_/o For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Asst. City Manager V^ Ref: Carlsbad Boat Club & Resort, CUP 06-16, CT 06-16, & SUP 07-05 Dear Ms Hildabrand: It has come to my attention that some of the council persons would like to have more time to review our project which is on the agenda for a hearing at today's City Council meeting. Therefore, we would like to ask that the item be pulled from tonight's agenda and rescheduled to the September 9, 2008 meeting if possible. Thank you very much for your help and attention in this matter. Sincerely, James Courtney, General Partner CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB —Since 1985— JIM COURTNEY (760) 809-7710 4509 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Email: jim@carlsbadboatclub.com Or: jcinspects@yahoo.com www.CarlsbadBoatClub.com CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE o CL& COAST LAW GROUP July 22, 2008 All Receive -Agenda Item # J.Q . co _ D .• 169 Saxony Road For Information of Suite 204 THE CITY COUNCIL Encinitas, CA 92024 CM CA t^CC ^ I!^SL\ l£\ ''"' 76°-942-8505 Oate y^ok From ClwlM Asst. CM r* 760-942-8515 Attn: Van Lynch Via Facsimile and E-mail City of Carlsbad (760) 502-8559 City Council Vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort Project Comments in Opposition to Proposed Project Case No. CT06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05 Honorable City Council Members: Coast Law Group LLP represents the interests of Tom and Nicole Dean with respect to the above-referenced project and the City Council's review of the same at the July 22, 2008 meeting. The Deans reside adjacent to the proposed project at 4517 Adams Street. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process. This office submitted detailed comment letters at both the November 2007 and May 2008 Planning Commission hearings, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. For the reasons set forth in our prior comment letters and as further addressed below, we respectfully request that the Council adopt the recommendations of both the Planning Commission and Staff, and deny the Conditional Use Permit outright. We further request that the Council deny the applicant's appeal with respect to the associated Special Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. Because the applicant did not respond to the Planning Commission's direction after the November 2007 hearing, or revise the project in any meaningful way, our prior comments continue to apply with respect to the project's lack of substantive change and inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood. Again, the intensity and scope of the proposed 25-unit time share is not consistent with neighboring residential uses and the determination by the Planning Commission and Staff to that effect are amply supported by substantial evidence in the record. We also reiterate our CEQA-related concerns, including the following additional comments raised by the applicant's appeal (see Exhibit 7 to the Agenda Bill). First, the City Council cannot legally issue any approvals at the July 22 hearing because the project has not undergone CEQA review. In this regard, the applicant has requested that the City Council "approve our project in concept and send it back to Staff to prepare the necessary conditions of approval, do the necessary CEQA review, and in City of Carlsbad, City Council Carlsbad Boat Club Project July 22, 2008 Page 2 return it back to the City Council for final approval." (Agenda Bill, p. 99; emphasis added). Such a request is in direct contravention of the statute. Please be advised, the Council cannot issue any approval, in concept or otherwise, as doing so would absolutely compromise the integrity of any subsequent environmental review, particularly the City's review of potentially significant land use impacts. The courts have made clear that the review process cannot serve as a post hoc rationalization for a decision already made. Critical here, there is no basis for the Council to find that the project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood because the full extent of the time share's traffic, noise, boating and other associated impacts have not been evaluated in a CEQA document. The extent of this problem is reflected by inaccurate representations in the applicant's appeal. For instance, the applicant improperly attempts to minimize project impacts by comparing them against prior unrelated uses on site. (See Agenda Bill, p. 99). However, staff has correctly noted the impropriety of "comparing the existing use of a single family residence, a private boat launch facility, and a restaurant with sporadic use to a new use which consists of a 25 unit timeshare." (Agenda Bill, p. 4). Under CEQA, those prior uses are not relevant to the evaluation of project impacts because the time share constitutes an entirely new and different project. As such, the prior uses cannot serve as an accurate benchmark for environmental review and the project must be evaluated based on the current state of the physical environment. This is particularly true given ,the significant amount of time that has lapsed since the prior uses were operational. Because the applicant's contentions regarding noise, traffic and associated impacts have not been subject to CEQA scrutiny, the City cannot rely upon them to find that the project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood . In short, the Planning Commission and Staff have properly concluded that the proposed project is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the appeal should therefore be denied. Further, the Council is effectively handcuffed from approving the project at this time and any attempt to do so at the July 22 hearing will be subject to immediate challenge under CEQA. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit the foregoing comments. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing the foregoing. Sincerely, COAST LAW GROUP LLP Ross M. Ca CC: Client enclosures ATTACHMENT n<\ 169 Saxony Road Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 COAST LAW GROUP UP Tel 760-942-8505 Fax 760-942-8515 www.coastlawgroup.com October 30, 2007 Planning Commission , Delivery Via First Class Mail C/O Van Lynch City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: Comments in Opposition to Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort Project No.:CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 Honorable Planning Commissioners, Coast Law Group submits these comments on behalf of Tom and Nicole Dean, who reside at 4517 Adams Street in Carlsbad. Mr. and Mrs. Dean are neighbors living directly adjacent to the Carlsbad Boat Club. They have substantial concerns over the proposed project and urge the Planning Commission to deny the application in its entirety. The applicant, Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort, proposes to construct a 26 unit timeshare condominium complex on a one acre lot, bordering Agua Hediona Lagoon. The project will encompass approximately 40,500 square feet, built over a 17,000 square foot garage. The proposed project is surrounded by large single family residences. We strongly urge the Planning Commission deny the project in its entirety. As discussed in the recommendations and findings contained in the Staff Report dated October 17, 2007, the proposed 26 unit timeshare condominium project is entirely inconsistent with the neighborhood. The project will have substantial impacts on noise, boating and landuse. In addition, the project has not complied with CEQA. The Planning Commission must deny the project. A. Carlsbad Boat Club Does not Have a Vested Right to Construct Multi-Unit Timeshare Housing. As noted in the Staff Report, the parcel is zoned "residential-tourist" (RT). (Staff Report at pp. 2 & 5.) Timeshare projects are permitted under RT zoning designation if findings can be made to support the project. However, while timeshares may be permitted within RT zones, a discretionary conditional use permit is required. There is no unconditional right for such development. The City must make a number of findings under the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) to approve a conditional use permit. These findings include: Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Opposition to Project No. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 October 30, 2007 Page 2 of 6 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan; 2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; 3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the planning director, planning commission or city council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. (CMC§21.42.030(A).) If the City cannot make any one of the findings, the project must be denied. Most notably, the City must find that the proposed use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community. (CMC § 21.42.030; See a/so CMC § 21,42.140(B)(155)(vii).) As will be discussed below, it is impossible for the Carlsbad Boat Club to establish that it is both necessary and desirable for the development of the community to build a 26 unit timeshare condominium complex in the middle of a single family neighborhood. It is entirely within the discretion of the Planning Commission to deny the project. Furthermore, no one has a vested right in particular zoning. (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 785, 795.) Considering that the Carlsbad Boat Club primary use over the last 15 years has been as a single family residence, there is no reason for the parcel to retain its RT zoning designation. We urge the City to rezone the parcel to a more appropriate single family residence zoning, as was done with neighboring parcels. (Staff Report at p. 2.) Rezoning the parcel will ensure that the parcel's use remains consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. B. The Proposed 26 Unit Timeshare Condominium Project is Inconsistent with the Surrounding Single-Famly Neighborhood. As noted in the Staff Report, the proposed project will consist of 26 timeshare condominiums contained in a single massive building. The building will occupy 40,500 square feet over a 17,000 square foot garage. (Staff Report at p. 7.) Such structure Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Opposition to Project No. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 October 30, 2007 Page 3 of 6 will dwarf the other homes in the area, which range anywhere from 3,000 to 8,000 square feet. Not only will the proposed project be aesthetically inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood, it will substantially lower the fair market value of the adjacent single family residences. Few wealthy individuals are willing to purchase a home directly next to what could be described as a party hotel. It is not only the bulk and scale of the project that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, but the project's intended use. Much like a hotel room, a timeshare is purchased specifically for vacation use. A timeshare owner stays for a specific amount of time, usually between a week and a month. However, as a timeshare, it is not their primary residence. Patron's do not have the same sense of responsibility or pride in a timeshare as they would in a condominium. A timeshare patron is not about to spend his/her time maintaining the interior of their unit. However, unlike a hotel, where a person is renting a space on a short term basis and is subject to the rules and regulations and immediate supervision of onsite managers, a timeshare is actually an ownership interest in property. A manager cannot simply evict an unruly patrons at a moment's notice. It will be the worst of all worlds, where you have a transient population which not only feels like they own the place, but does own the place. The power of any manager, if one happens to be located on-site, will be greatly diminished. Substantially increasing the likelihood of problems is the fact that this will not be a condominium hotel or "condo-tel". At least condo-tels, which are very controversial, have onsite management and staff which continually monitor the units as if it was a hotel. Formal management and staff not only serve patrons, but continually maintain the premises and ensure that things do not get out of hand. In this case, the project is being built as a condominium complex, lacking a formal management structure and staff. The proposed project would be problematic in a hotel district. In a quiet residential neighborhood, the proposed project is a disaster. Furthermore, because the proposed project is a timeshare, each unit will have a numerous owners. Pursuant to the Carlsbad Zoning Code, the maximum ownership interest of a timeshare unit is four months out of a year. (CMC § 21.42.140(B)(155)(vi)). At a minimum, the proposed project must have at least 78 owners. It is likely to have more than 100, and possibly more than 200 owners. Theoretically, the project could have over thousand owners (26 units x 52 weeks = 1,352 unit weeks). The more owners, the more likely that a few of the owners will not be respectful towards the neighbors. Furthermore, timeshare owners often lend their units to family or friends. Considering that it only takes a few "bad apples" to completely disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, the project is guaranteed to create a significant impact on the adjacent community. Finally, the design of the project actually encourages group gatherings, socials and partying on the top deck. As displayed by the building plans, the roof will have an Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Opposition to Project No. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 October 30, 2007 Page 4 of 6 "observation deck/patio" that is over 2,800 square feet in area. (Building Plans plate A- 5.) It is entirely predictable that large gatherings, with the associated drinking, music and rancorous behavior will occur on the rooftop deck. The project as proposed is almost guaranteed to destroy the quiet use and enjoyment the adjacent neighbors. To approve the project the Planning Commission must find that the proposed project is both necessary and desirable to the development of the community. Because the surrounding community has already been developed as a single family neighborhood, the project is neither necessary nor desirable. The Planning Commission should deny the proposed project. C. The Project Fails to Consider the Impacts Caused by the Increase in Boats. One of the potential design problems not discussed in the Staff Report concerns boating. According to Table C attached to the staff report, the project solely provides two boat storage parking stalls. This is clearly insufficient for the number of boats which can be reasonably anticipated for the 26 unit vacation timeshare project. The City should consider the likely use of the project. The project is entitled the Carlsbad Boat Club. It will be marketed to people who own boats and wish to use the Agua Hedionda Lagoon for boating recreation. Thus, it is likely that on any given week, there will be numerous owners who have brought their boats. Two boat parking stalls will be entirely insufficient for boat storage. In fact, if the project is successful, 20 boat parking stalls will be insufficient. If the project is not properly designed, then boats and trailers will be forced to park on Adams Street, thereby narrowing the street and slowing traffic. The parking of boats along the street will further block the public views along Adams Street toward the lagoon. There has been no analysis of the impacts of increased boating on the lagoon caused by the project. Currently, the lagoon can become quite crowded with personal water crafts (PWCs) and skiers. Assuming one boat per unit, the proposed project is likely to add another 26 boats to the lagoon. However, it is entirely foreseeable boat club patrons may bring more than one boat on vacation. Already Carlsbad struggles with enforcement of regulations on Agua Hedionda Lagoon. There may be a cumulative impact on boating and boating safety posed by the additional water craft. This also brings up another point. The originally submitted plans for the project included a boat dock and other improvements along the shoreline. Obviously, if the project is built and is successful, some kind of dock will be highly desirable to the owners. Patrons will not want to pull their boats out of the lagoon every lunchtime, and every night, especially if they plan on skiing, fishing or otherwise using their boats the next day. Thus, the construction of a dock is a reasonably foreseeable future project which must be analyzed with an EIR. (See City ofAntioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325,1337 (discussing analysis of reasonably foreseeable future Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Opposition to Project No. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 October 30, 2007 Page 5 of 6 projects).) The Carlsbad Boat Club is improperly segmenting the project to avoid full environment review. Of course, as discussed below, the project has not even begun the proper environmental review as of yet. D. The Project Cannot Be Approved without Complying with CEQA. The Staff Report correctly notes that compliance with CEQA is not required for projects which are rejected or disapproved. (Staff Report at p. 12 (citing CEQA Guidelines § 15270).) In certain circumstances, a project may be properly submitted to a lead agency without complying with CEQA if the project cannot approved on its merits. As discussed in the Guidelines: This section [15270] is intended to allow an initial screening of projects on the merits for quick disapprovals prior to the initiation of the CEQA process where the agency can determine that the project cannot be approved. Staff correctly applies the CEQA Guidelines in this case by submitting the project it feels cannot be approved under the City's ordinances prior to conducting any CEQA review. However, by failing to conduct CEQA, this also means that the Planning Commission cannot approve the proposed project at this time. CEQA requires an agency to comply with CEQA before it approves a project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15004; No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 79.) The only legal courses of action available to the Planning Commission is to deny the project outright, or direct City Staff to fully evaluate the project. It cannot approve or even "conditionally approve" the proposed project. If the Planning Commission decides to direct staff to fully evaluate the proposed project, the City must prepare a full environmental impact report (EIR). A mitigated negative declaration cannot be completed based on the information in the Staff Report. The proposed project is simply so incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, it is not possible to mitigate the impacts to a point where clearly no significant impact on the environment would occur. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2).) An EIR is required whenever there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence that there may be a significant impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f).) Thus, the City would be required to prepare a full EIR on the project. In light of this mandate, the applicant should seriously consider whether the proposed project would actually survive the rigors of CEQA without significant modification. There are clearly alternatives which would greatly reduce the significant impacts of the project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) In fact, the City may find, after fully evaluating the project under CEQA, that the "no project" alternative is the least environmentally damaging preferred alternative. The Carlsbad Boat Club may seriously wish to consider whether timeshare condominiums are appropriate for the site before it Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Opposition to Project No. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05/V 07-04 October 30, 2007 Page 6 of 6 spends tens of thousands of dollars on environmental review. Regardless, at this point, the Planning Commission cannot approve the project as currently proposed. We urge the Planning Commission to exercise its discretion by denying the project in its entirety. The Carlsbad Boat Club is clearly not the proper location for timeshare condominium complex. Sincerely, COAST LAW GROUP LLP Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. Attorneys for Tom and Nicole Dean COAST LAW GROUP 169 Saxony Road Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 tel 760-942-8505 fax 760-942-8515 www.coastlawgroup.com May 2, 2008 Attn: Van Lynch Via U.S. Mail and E-mail City of Carlsbad (760)602-8559 Planning Commission Vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort Project Comments in Opposition to Proposed Project Case No. CT 06-16/CUP 06-16/SUP 07-05 Honorable Planning Commissioners: Coast Law Group LLP represents the interests of Tom and Nicole Dean with respect to the above-referenced project and the City's review of the same at the upcoming hearing on May 7, 2008. The Deans reside adjacent to the proposed project at 4517 Adams Street. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process. As detailed below, we .respectfully request that the Commission adopt Staffs recommendations, and deny the project outright. Indeed, because the project has not been subject to CEQA review, the Commission cannot approve the project as a matter of law. These issues are addressed in greater detail below. 1. Lack of Substantive Change As a preliminary matter, the applicant has not responded in any meaningful way to the comments and feedback provided by the Commission and Staff when the matter was first heard in November of 2007. Because the applicant has essentially submitted the same project (with only token changes), the project should be denied in its entirety. In this regard, we fully support and agree with Staffs analysis and proposed findings in recommending project denial. In addition, given the project's lack of substantive change, I have attached Coast Law Group's original comment letter of October 30, 2007, addressing the project's deficiencies in greater detail. We reiterate the comments set forth therein. 2. Lack of CEQA Review In addition to the foregoing, approval of the project at the May 7 hearing would constitute a fundamental CEQA violation. As the Commission is aware, CEQA applies to "discretionary projects proposed to be carried our or approved by public agencies." Pub. Res. Code §21080(a). In this regard, the statute is triggered whenever an agency City of Carlsbad Carlsbad Boat Club Project May 2, 2008 Page 2 exercises its discretion to approve a "project." Pub. Res. Code §21065. Agency action satisfies this criteria whenever it is "necessary to the carrying out of some private project involving a physical change in the environment." Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Comm. (1975) 51 Cal.App. 3d 648, 664. Relevant here, the legislature has expressly determined that the approval of Tentative Tract Maps and Conditional Use Permits qualify as "projects" under CEQA. Pub. Res, Code §21080(a). As Staff has correctly noted, the City need not conduct CEQA review to the extent such applications are rejected or denied. Pub. Res. Code §21080(b)(5); CEQA Guidelines §15270(a). However, because the statutory thresholds have otherwise been triggered, the Commission cannot approve the proposed project until its environmental impacts are appropriately reviewed and evaluated. To do so would prejudice the review process in favor of justifying a decision already made and would constitute an improper deferral of mitigation under the statute. See Sundstrom v. County ofMendocino. (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 307. In short, the Commission is effectively handcuffed from approving the project at this time and any attempt to do so at the May 7 hearing will be subject to immediate challenge in the courts. Based on the foregoing, and because the project has been agendized as an action item despite the lack of substantive change, the Commission's only available course of action is to deny the project. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit the foregoing comments. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing the foregoing. Sincerely, COAST LAW GROUP LLP Campbell CC: Client enclosures . T September 15, 2008 DATE " CITY ATTORNEYTO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL o'er FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: ITEM # 7 - APPEAL OF CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT (CT 06-16) Please substitute the attached resolution for proposed Resolution No. 2008-217 (Exhibit 2) in your book as this is more appropriate for denial of an appeal and sets out the time limits for judicial review. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. RONALD R. BALL City Attorney rn/enclosure c: City Clerk City Manager Planning Director Senior Planner, Van Lynch City of Carlsbad Office of the City Clerk MAY H 2008 CITYOF CARLSBADCITY CLERKS OFFICE APPEAL FORM I (We) appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Carlsbad City Council. Date of Decision you are appealing: May 7, 2008 Subject of Appeal: C' BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has . _ elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. Planning Commission Denial of Carlsbad Boat Club & Resort tentative Map CT 06-16 and Scenic Preservation Overlay Special Use Permit SUP 07-05, plus recommending denial of Conditional Permit CUP 06-16 Reason(s) for Appeal: * Please Note. Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? We are appealing the above items because we feel that there are significant errors and interpretations of the City Ordinances that were used to justify denial of this project i.e. In Reference to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6348 Finding #1 Is In error because: A. The subject property w consistent with and does satisfy all requirements of the General Plan. The property is designated Recreation Commercial on the General Plan and is consistent with the Land Use Map of the Agua Hedionda Segment of the Local Coastal Plan. The LCP specifically identifies this properly and mandates that it remain Recreation-Commercial, and should be encouraged to expand. B. The building cannot be determined to be incompatible because of size or bulk, if the building meets or exceeds all requirements for height front side, and rear yard setbacks. It also complies with all pertinent and applicable regulations, policies, and ordinances for this zone. The ordinances allow 75% lot coverage, and the footprint of this building is only 25%. C. The project cannot be deemed incompatible -"because it has the potential to generate noise (boat launch, boathouse and traffic) which would significantly impact adjacent and surrounding single family residences. These activities have been occurring on this property for more than 50 years, long before any of the surrounding house were built! Finding #2 is in error because: A. It states that —"surrounding properties are designated for Residential Low Medium Density development on the General Plan." The three tots across the street are zoned R-T. the same as our project The tot adjacent to the east was down-zoned from Commercial to residential, and the remaining property to the east is designated on the General Plan as: RM (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), RMH (8 to 15 dwelling units per acre), or RH (15 to 23 dwelling units per acre) and is zoned R-1, 15,000. B. That property was developed Inconsistent with the General Plan. You cannot put 4 single family residences (R-1,15000) on an acre of land. (4 x 15,000 = 60,000 sq. ft. An acre is 43,560 sq. ft.) The owners of these properties had the right to develop to far greater uses, but elected to under-devetop. Just because the various governmental agencies allowed this to happen, does not take away our rights to develop our property according to the ordinances, regulations and requirements pertinent to it. The General plan demonstrates that It is not a single family neighborhood. C. This property is designated Commercial and cannot be deemed incompatible by comparing it to residential standards. Our property is entitled to be developed according to Commercial standards and conditions. In fact; to be consistent with, and comply with, the General Plan and LCP, it must be allowed to go forward. Finding #3 is in error because: A. It states; "That the site is physically not suited for the type and density of the development since the site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate commercial development at the intensity, bulk, and scale proposed,—". We have demonstrated that the site is more than adequate for the project, because the footprint is only approximately 25% of the lot and the City's Ordinances allow lot coverage of 75% for this type of project. The side silhouette of the new boat club building is actually smaller than the new home being built adjacent to the west, and the South end of the building is about 20% narrower that the home to the East. The roofs of all three buildings are even with the surface of Adams St. B. The new project will be less disruptive and will generate less noise and less traffic than the existing Restaurant uses. This project will reduce the traffic and other impacts by approximately 60% over the existing restaurant Uses. In Reference to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6349 Finding #1 is in error because: A. This project is necessary and desirable for the community, because our visitors will spend their time and money, patronizing the various businesses, and other various recreational and entertaining opportunities available in and around Carlsbad. B. The project is necessary and desirable to comply with, and is in harmony, with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is consistent with the LCP. C. It is false and grossly misleading to state that: "The project will generate 200 Average Daily Trips (APT) which will traverse through existing residential neighborhoods. The existing site presently generates 10 APT as a restaurant (which is closed) and a single family residence." The existing site contains a 2500 sq. ft. restaurant on the main level with a small 2-bedroom apt. (not a single family residence) above it, and on the lower level there is a storage room, two bathrooms, and the Clubhouse. The existing Commercial Uses for this site (which have been in existence for the past 40 to 60 years) are as a Restaurant and Boat Launching facility. These uses are charged with about 520 ADT if the Restaurant were re-opened. This new project will reduce noise, traffic and other impacts by approximately 60%! Finding #2 is Correct: A. This finding directly contradicts the findings made in Resolution No. 6348. This finding is correct, and confirms that the lot is suitable and is more than adequate to accommodate our project! Finding #3 is in error because: A. All requirements for yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features required by the pertinent and applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations have been met. Finding #4 is in error because: B. It makes the required finding: but continues insert misleading statements. C. If the street system is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, what does it matter where it originates? This new project will reduce the ADT over existing uses by 60%, and will decrease traffic and noise. Finding #5 is in error because: A. It makes the required finding: but continues to insert the false assumption that it is incompatible because of its intensity, bulk and scale of development. Based on what criteria? In Reference to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6351 Finding #1 is in error because: A. The proposed project does comply with and conform to the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. B. The misleading assumption and statement: "that the project is incompatible because of intensity, bulk and scale", is once again injected, without providing any criteria on which to base the project. Finding #2 is in error because: A. The project does in fact implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Specifically: the Land Use Element, Section II, C., 3. Commercial, c. Travel/Recreation Commercial. B. The statement that "The project has the potential to generate noise from the boat launch, boathouse and traffic, which would significantly impact adjacent and surrounding single family residences" is absurd! The true facts are: The Restaurant and Boat Club were in full operation and all the impacts of high intensity use, traffic, noise, etc. were occurring dairy, when the surrounding houses were approved and constructed. These activities have been occurring on this property for more than 50 years, long before any of the surrounding house were built! C. Once again, the "Red Herring" of incompatibility is injected with no basis of fact or criteria to base it on. Finding 03 is in error because: A. The proposed project will not adversely affect the scenic, historical or cultural qualities of the property or the lagoon. B. Once again, the "Red Herring" of incompatibility,- is injected with no basis of fact or criteria to base it on. We hereby request that the City Council approve our project in concept and send it back to Staff to prepare the necessary conditions of approval, do the necessary CEQA review, and return it back to the City Council for final approval. LIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP May 14, 2008 / 0W^ \Jt<WA<tL*i May 14, 2008 Mfchael J^PfafrKuch, Gen. Partner flames Courtney, Gen. F/artner3532 Donr/a Df. /1861 South View Drive / Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-7986 (760) 729-7710 12OO Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1989 • (76O) 434-28O8 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Cashier: (760) 602-2401 ater Utility Billing: (760) 602-2420 REC'D FROM V f P DATE ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT c T OO/- 3ZI6- 4%I2> (J tikttff) Printed on recycled paper. NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY CASH REGISTER TOTAL NOTICE OF A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hear testimony on a continued public hearing item (continued from the July 22, 2008 meeting) at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, to consider the following: 1. The Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-16 for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land on property generally located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1; and 2. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of denial of Tentative Tract Map CT 06-16 and Special Use Permit SUP 07-05 for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land on property generally located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Westerly half of Lot 7, Block D of Bella Vista Tract 2152 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after September 12, 2008. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. The time within which you may judicially challenge the Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map and/or Special Use Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map and/or Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CUP 06-16/CT 06-16/SUP 07-05 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2008, to consider the following: 1. The Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-16 for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land on property generally located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1; and 2. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of denial of Tentative Tract Map CT 06-16 and Special Use Permit SUP 07-05 for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land on property generally located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Westerly half of Lot 7, Block D of Bella Vista Tract 2152 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after July 12, 2008. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. The time within which you may judicially challenge the Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map and/or Special Use Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map and/or Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CUP 06-16/CT 06-16/SUP 07-05 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT PUBLISH: July 12, 2008 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times- Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: thJulyl2tn, 2008 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at OCEANSIDE, California This 14th, day of July, 2008 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of NQQCE QF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, be-cause your interest may be affected, that theCity Council of tie City of Carlsbad will holdSpublic hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200ailsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2008, to consider thefollowing: 1. The Planning Commission's recommendation ofdenial of Conditional Use Permit 06-16 for the demo-lition of a restaurant and single family residence toallow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit time-share condominium project on one acre of land onproperty generally located on the south side of AdamsStreet, between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Lo-cal Facilities Management Zone 1 ; and 2. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decisionof denial of Tentative Tract Map CT 06-16 and Spe-cial Use Permit SUP 07-05 for the demolition of arestaurant and single family residence to allow theconstruction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare con-dominium project on one acre of land on propertygenerally located on the south side of Adams Sfreet,Between Highland Drive and Park Drive in Local Fa-cilities Management Zone 1 and more particularlydescribed as: Westerly half of Lot 7, Block D of Bella Vista Tract2152 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal arecordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copiesof the agenda bill will be available on andafter July1 2, 2008. If you have any questions, please call VanLynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. The time within which you may judicially challenge theConditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map and/or"~iecial Use^Permit, if ^approved, js. established by 'entative___________ _________ _______ ___ . _ ......... _____ 1, youmay be limited to raising only those issues raised byyou or someone else at the public hearing describedin this notice or in written correspondence delivered tothe City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or pri-or to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CUP 06-16/CT 06-16/SUP 07-05 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB ANDRESORT PUBLISH: July 12, 2008 NCT 21 60658 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY COUNCIL Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®J^Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature j^ CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST STE 250 255 PICO AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 iAVERY®5i60® ! ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 10124 OLD GROVE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92131 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SCOTT MOLLOY - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 PRIESTLEY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER 16/02/2008 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de charaement Consultez la feuille www.avery.com 09 L8/09 L9,g/J3A\/08AB aiqijedwoo LULU /g x LULU gg IBLUJO^P 3Uanb!l3 ,,8/g 2 x j dz\s |aqe| NELSON FAMILY 33596 VIA DE AGUA SAN JUAN CAPI, CA 92675-4944 GEORGE 33596 VIA DE AGUA SAN JUAN CAPI, CA 92675-4944 MICHAEL & CONSTANCE CAS SO 26651 BRANDON MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692-416"/ D S & E SARKARIA PO BOX 5766 ORANGE, CA 92863-5766 MICHAEL MEYER 4044 N GAYLE ST ORANGE, CA 92865-1506 DAVID T & CYNTHJA-KEARNEY 1529 KANAPUtTDR 96734-4180 *** 126 Printed *** GLEN STEWARD 1415RAVEANCT ENCINITAS CA 92024 JAMES STRICKLAND 4747 MARINA DR #30 CARLSBAD CA 92008 STACY EWING 4465 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUTH HAYES 4421HIGHLANDDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 KIRK COWLES 2684 SUTTER ST CARLSBAD CA 92010 RUSS CAMPBELL COAST LAW GROUP LLP STE 204 169SAXONYRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CURRENT RESIDENT 4520 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CURRENT RESIDENT 4470 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CURRENT RESIDENT 4480 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CURRENT RESIDENT 4509 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CURRENT RESIDENT 4517 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SD COUNTY DEPT OF STEB 5201 Rl SA>H5IEGO CA 92123 STAPLES label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery'B5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec AveryB5160/8160 09L8/09L9rs,/J9AV09AB3|qi}EduJOO uiui /g x UJLU gg JBIUJOJ 9P 091.8/09|.9aiAJ8AV ift|M 8|qpdwoo ,,8/s 2 x ,,i azis |aqe| MARK BALDWIN 195 BINNEY STL, CAMBRHX3&r"MA 02142-1045 DARIA R THOMAS 5000 TOWN CTR 202 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1111 ELEANOR MILLER 102 S 2500 W HURRICANE, UT 84737-4408 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH FIOREN1: 9526 N 132ND PL SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259-6324 CHESTER WILLIAMS 495 LAKE MERRITT LN BOULDER CITY, NV 89005-1012 DOBBS JEFF & 3305 SPRING^MOTJNTAIN RD 60A LAS VEflAS"; NV 89102-8609 RONALD C & HAYATE ABBOTT 4280 ARBOADA VIA 210 LOS ANGELES, CA 90042 JACK H & LU LIETZKE 6420 INNSDALE DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90068-1626 W B PO BOX 2794 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90213-2794 KIRK PATRICK DEVELOPMENT L L 659 MILDRED AVE VENICE, CA 90291-4709 ROBERT B ADAMS. 10981 BOAT 90680-2602 J J L ENTERPRISES 234 E COLORADO BLVD 505 PASADENA, CA 91101-2211 JAMES & JEANNETTE LEVY 421 PROSPECT SQ PASADENA, CA 91103-3247 ALBERT S & MARIE KARAM *M* 645 LYNWOOD ST THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360-2155 SAM A & GRACE LOVULLO 16825 BAJIO RD ENCINO, CA 91436-3522 ESCAMILLA PETE J & SARA 405 N PINE ST SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775-2332 FLAHERTY FAMILY 860 W 25TH ST UPLAND, CA 91784-1005 RICHARD P & ROSALEE ELIA 1830 HOLIDAY AVE UPLAND, CA 91784-7443 BENJAMIN & EUNICE MEDINA PO BOX 1766 BONITA, CA 91908-1766 ANDREW & KATHERINE PERRY 6423 VIA DE LA REINA BONSALL, CA 92003-7004 GARY SHORE 4529 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008 KATHLEEN OUELLETT.E 4553 COVE DR 4 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1549 CARRIE MADARIAGA 4576 COVE DR A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4273 PATRICK J & GEORGINA BRIDGES 4576 COVE DR C CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4273 RUSSELL J HARNISH 4570 COVE DR A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4220 ALISON S FUGATE 4570 COVE DR D CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4220 WILLIAM GRIVAS 4556 COVJ 3AL\ CA 92008-4209 JOHN C & DIAN SODANO 4550 COVE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4209 IRENE NISHIHIRA 4546 COVE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4209 KATHLEEN OUELLETTE 4548 COVE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4209 STAPLES label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery®5160/8160 Etiquette cle format 25 mm x 67 mm comoatible aver Avenr si fin/Rim 09 L8/09l9,5,A\i3Av 38/iE aiquedwoo LULU /g x uiui gg iBituoj ap 091-8/09 LSr/^V LftjM 8|q!iediuoo ,,g/g g x „). 9Z|S |8qe| GLORIA HALL 4549 COVE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4210 RICHARD E & DEBRA MULLIN *M* 4549 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4210 GERALDINE R PETERSON 4571 COVE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4282 HERBERT PAPENFUSS 4575 COVE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4282 BROADUS & SANDRA WALL 4531 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4266 BRUCE A ROELOFS *M* 4533 COVE DR A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4267 DARREN DAVIS 4533 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4267 DIANE LOSEY 4535 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4268 DENNIS R & MARTHA BRADY 4537 COVE DR 1 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4291 CHRIS K & ANDREA ALTONA 4539 COVE DR A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4292 TODD & ALISA EICHELBERGER 4539 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4292 ALLAN B NEEDHAM 4543 COVE DR 1 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4269 DONALD W ROSTOW 4543 COVE DR 3 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4269 RICHARD MAHLER 4517 COVE DR 1 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4218 LOWELL A GRIMAUD 4517 COVE DR 2 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4218 FREDRIK J JANSSON 4519 COVE DR 3 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4219 DOLORES A KAULBACH 4519 COVE DR 2 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4219 TOM TREPANIER 4525 COVE DR 2 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4262 MICHAEL MCFARLAND 4525 COVE DR 7 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4263 JAMES BUSCHER 4525 COVE DR 10 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4263 GEORGE & KAYE BLACK 4525 COVE DR 11 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4263 RAYMOND FAJADO 4525 COVE DR 14 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4264 JANE E SWEENEY 4525 COVE DR 15 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4264 LAUGHLIN FAMILY 1993 4513 COVE DR 5 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4212 JAMES SHARP 4513 COVE DR 6 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4212 CINDY DEPACE 4513 COVE DR 8 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4212 MICHAEL S MEYERS 4513 COVE DR 9 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4213 KATHLEEN M KROLI 4513 CO' CARLSBftD^CA 92008-4213 JOHNSON 4513 COVE DR 12 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4213 KATHLEEN HAYS 4513 COVE DR 15 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4214 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery®5160/8160 Etiaiiette de format ?5 mm v fi7 mm rnmnatihlo :J£-\ cn/o-icn 09L8/09L9@AJ8/\v 08AB aiqpduioo LULU /g x LULU gg JBLLIJOJ ap 0918/09 IS®AJ9AV U.UAA 9|q!iBdiuoo ,,g/g g x „ L szis |8QB| GARY J WILCOX 4513 COVE DR 19 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4215 PUGLISI 4513 COVE DR 22 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4216 LINDA E HAYES *M* 4513 COVE DR 23 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4216 KELLY STRANGE 4537 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4291 HOFFMAN 4589 COVE DR 4 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4282 RICK J RYBERG 4599 COVE DR A CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4274 RICK J RYBERG 4599 COVE DR B CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4274 GARY SHORE 4529 COVE DR 101 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4210 JACK D PHILLIPS 2667 OCEAN ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2238 VIP PARTNERS 3532 DONNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2722 WAYNE P MANDELBAUM 3700 WESTHAVEN DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2752 THOMAS P & JILL FARMER 4425 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4228 ELIZABETH J CARNES 4435 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4228 TAKESHI & REIKO ISHII 4445 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4228 JAY L & GERALDINE SMITH 4465 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4228 JAMES A HOLCOMB 4444 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4205 ELOISE M OHERN 4444 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4227 SAAD FATHI 4424 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4227 DAVID A CIPOLLA *B* 4470 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4205 ROBERT & HOLLYCE PHILLIPS 4480 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4205 MICHAEL J GILLIGAN *M* 4465 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4206 GLEN STEWARD 4485 ADAMS^ CARLSBAETTCA 92008 TOMMY M & NICOLE DEAN 4517 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4208 MARK E MERHAB 4523 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4208 MARK E & DONNA MERHAB 4523 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4208 ALBERT & KLEMENTYNA BOROWICKI 4525 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4208 OLSON PETER & I 4975 VIA MARTA CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3823 BRISTOL COVE PROPERTY OWNERS 7720 EL CAMINO REAL 2A CARLSBAD, CA 92009-8510 BRISTOL COVE PROPERTY OWNERS 7720 EL CAMINO REAL A-2 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-8508 HUBER 6407 EL PATO CT CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4309 STAPLES label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avefiAvfirv®5lfifVRifin 091.8/09 LSaA~J8Av 38AE aiqiieduioo LULU /g x LULU 93 jeuuo} ap 09L8/0919SAJ8AVift!/w siqpdLLioo ,,g/9 2 x,,\. 8Z|S |8qE| ROBERTS FAMILY INTERVIVOS 2984 CAMINO SERBAL CARLSBAD, CA 92009-2900 MCKENNA CAPITAL INC 621 SALTGRASS AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92011-3258 JOHN R ZUMONT 7020 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92011-4651 CAROL J GRAY 1155 CAMINO DEL MAR PMB 132 DEL MAR, CA 92014 JERZY & JOLANTA LEWAK 4954 SUN VALLEY RD DEL MAR, CA 92014-4227 GERALD W BRYAN PO BOX 748 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-0748 RANDI FJAERAN PO BOX 1097 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-1097 KEVIN E EDGETT PO BOX 1698 CARLSBADr"CA 92018-1698 CHER IE R JOHNST^ 111 FLETCHER-'PKWY EL CAjeU; CA 92020-2510 RALPH & SANDRA GOLDEN 1996 BELMORE CT EL CAJON, CA 92020-1003 ROBERTO VIGILUCCI 505 S COAST HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CA 92024-3532 FITZGERALD 3021 VIA DE CABALLO ENCINITAS, CA 92024-6924 RUPPHARTMAN 1633 CUATRO LN FALLBROOK, CA 92028-3601 L M & FAY EDELSTEIN 847 MUIRLANDS VISTA WAY LA JOLLA, CA 92037-6204 EDWARD & JAMES KAEN 9740 BLACKGOLD RD LA JOLLA, CA 92037-1113 SHERRY & EDWARD KAEN 9740 BLACKGOLD RD LA JOLLA, CA 92037-1113 ROBERT E & MARGARET PETERSEN 13391 SUMMIT CIR POWAY, CA 92064-2167 MICHAEL A & JONI DEMICH PO BOX 7201 RANCHO SANTA , CA 92067-7201 MANUEL & IRENE DIAZ 807 W SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS, CA 92078-1112 IRENE H DIAZ 807 W SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS, CA 92078-1112 TOM & BEVERLY COLLIMORE 10171 CIRCLE R DR VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082-4834 HUBER INGER J ROTH IRA NO 00.' PO BOX 85410 SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5410 KOEPKE PO BOX 27342 SAN DIEGO, CA 92198-1342 MIGUEL & KAREN RUIZ 40240 YUCCA LN BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92203-8144 ARTHUR S BLOCK 38635 MARACAIBO CIR W PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264-0208 D YOUNG 1852 APACHE CIR PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264-9239 PAUL KELLAM *M* 23706 FIELDCREST LN MURRIETA, CA 92562-3460 DORIS F ELG 9 TIDEWATER IRVINE, CA 92614-7447 EDWARD P HECHT PO BOX 1894 COSTA MESA, CA 92628-1894 KAPLAN 21345 BAY CREST CIR HUNTINGTON BE, CA 92646-7502 label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery "'5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mmx 67 mm compatible avecAveryB5160/8160 Page 1 of 1 Marilyn Strong - Fwd: AB #19,525 Mayor City Council From: Van Lynch To: Marilyn Strong Date: 09/16/2008 4:06 PM Subject: Fwd: AB #19,525 City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Marilyn: Just wanted to make sure you got this, and I'll send another. Thanks, Van >» "Kimberly Mclnerney" <kimberly@passages2ireland.com> 09/16/2008 3:17 PM >» Dear Esteemed Elected City Council Members, I applaud the city planning department's repeated rejection of the proposed Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort. I have been a resident of Carlsbad for almost twenty years and live right around the corner of this proposed project. I walk my dogs to the lagoon and enjoy the proximity of nature in our very urban city. The idea of having a twenty- five unit timeshare property built on one acre of land in a single family residential zone is appalling. Even the name of the project implies community when in fact it is really exclusivity- available to the select owners. As a city we've done everything possible to screw up our city coastline from "The Bars" to the seawall which restricts the coastal views. Please, please, keep the lagoon free from this development. Kind regards, Kimberly Mclnerney 4216 Isle Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 760.729.3300 www.passages2ireland.com file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mstro\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\48CFD984GW... 09/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 •«• j# Marilyn Strong - Fwd: Regarding AB #19,525 " Mayor •mwiMmniimiiiiiii mu •• in iiiiiiriiiiiiiiiniii •OTMBMMI i in 11 iiiiiiiiiiiniiiniiiii in mmmmmmmmmmim^^mjii^gggmm City Manager From: Van Lynch City Attorney To: Marilyn Strong City Clerk Date: 09/16/2008 4:07 PM Subject: Fwd: Regarding AB #19,525 Marilyn: Here is the other letter. Thanks, Van >» "Dave Vogel" <dvogel@csiccorp.net> 09/16/2008 3:58 PM >» Carlsbad City Council, As a resident of Carlsbad for over 20 years and a neighbor, I agree that the idea of this development, to be located on the lagoon, is a poor one. The concept of a high-density timeshare to be located in a single-family neighborhood is outrageous. I urge the City Council to deny the appeal of the denial of permit for the development. Thanks, Dave Vogel 3860 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 AB #19,525 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE CARLSBAD BOAT CLUB AND RESORT PROJECT. To consider denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-16 for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land on property generally located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive; and, To consider denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision of denial of Tentative Tract Map CT 06-16 and Special Use Permit SUP 07-05 for the demolition of a restaurant and single family residence to allow the construction of a twenty-five (25) unit timeshare condominium project on one acre of land on property generally located on the south side of Adams Street, between Highland Drive and Park Drive. Resolution Nos. 2008-216 and 2008-217. Reference http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php7view id=&event id=5&meta id=33936 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mstro\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\48CFD9A9G... 09/16/2008 From: <pnorby@sbcglobal.net> To: <Council@[205.142.109.13]> Date: 09/16/2008 1:00 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: AGENDAITEM # Carlsbad City Council c: Mayor City of Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. City Manager Carlsbad Ca 92008 CilyAttonfey Agenda item 7 City Clerk City Council meeting of September 16th . - Dear Council Members, As a resident in close proximity to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and as a weekly user, kayaker on the lagoon, I wanted to let you know of my support of the Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort to the extent allowed by it/Es zoning and development parameters. I am not in favor of any variances or exceptions and it is my understanding that there are none requested in this project. I am a strong supporter of property rights and the right for communities to apply zoning on private properties. This project is consistent with it/Es zoning, has a 43% lot coverage which is considerable less than the 75% maximum allowed. Often times projects seek to go beyond their lot coverage/Es or develop in a manor not allowed under the underlying zoning. In those instances the community has every right to oppose on the merits or lack thereof to the lot requirements or zoning. When a project is consistent with its zoning, and is consistent with the lot parameters, I believe the project deserves support even if we dislike the project. To do anything other and deny the project would constitute a talking of private property. I/Em tired of the all to prevalent ohypothetical situations where there are ten lots each zoned for one house. Nine of the lot owners build their houses right away and one decides to wait a few decades. During that time, the other nine decide that the tenth lot should become a park and seek to deny the tenth lot owner the same rights that they enjoyed in the building of their lot. In this case others have built first. Many have chosen to build luxury single family homes (I have nothing against that) instead of a visitor serving development that the lot was originally zoned for. That is there choice. What is not their choice is what to do with othe tenth loto This property owner is entitled to develop under the zoning and constraints of the general plan and I support their right to do so. Regards, Peder Norby 4795 Hillside Dr Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort 25 unit timeshare September 16th Page 1 of 2 Council Internet Mailbox - Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort 25 unit timeshare September 16th From: "Strickland, Jim" <jim.strickland@viasat.com> AGENDA ITEM # *"? To: <Council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> c: Mayor Date: 09/05/2008 12:43 PM " City Council Subject: Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort 25 unit timeshare September 16th City Manager "" " " " " " ~ " "~ " ~~ "~ City Attorney City Clerk Kira, Thank you for getting my email to the Council members. Dear Mayor Lewis, Ann Kulchin, Matt Hall, Mark Packard, Julie Nygaard, I support our City Planning Commission Staff recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed "Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort" 25 unit timeshare on Agua Hedionda Lagoon. I am the Vice President of the Bristol Cove Property Owners Association Board of Directors. On February 20th 2008 the Board formally re-affirmed Bristol Cove POA's position against this project. As a Board member I am speaking on behalf of the 258 "living units" / households on Bristol Cove who are major stakeholders and stewards of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In a North County Times article published on June 2, 2008 the applicant was quoted: "I'm confident thai the council is going to do the right thing," Jim Courtney, who co-owns the 7-acre site with Michael Pfankuch, said Monday. "They're going to protect our private property rights." "Private property rights" are not the issue. The Timeshare is a conditionally permitted use. Not specifically permitting "by right" as stated by the applicant. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required as the use is NOT permitted by right. Specific findings are required for conditional uses. The project is far too intense and incompatible with the area. This project is a square peg in a round hole. I respectfully request that you accept Planning Commission Staff's professional recommendation and report, and do the right thing, and stop this project. Regards, Jim Strickland 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 From: Council Internet Mailbox [mailto:Council@ci.cat1sbad.ca.us] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:20 AM To: Strickland, Jim Subject: Re: email addresses file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48C12954GW-... 09/08/2008 From: Marilyn Stemen <mdstemen@sbcglobal.net> To: <council@ci. carlsbad. ca.us> CC: Marilyn Stemen <mdstemen@sbcglobal.net>, Jim Strickland <jim.strickland@... Date: 09/16/2008 2:02 PM Dear Mayor Lewis, Ann Kulchin, Matt Hall, Mark Packard, Julie Nygaard, I support our City Planning Commission Staff recommended DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed "Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort" 25 unit timeshare on Agua Hedionda Lagoon. I am the President of the Bristol Cove Property Owners Association Board of Directors. On February 20th 2008 the Board formally re-affirmed Bristol Cove POA's position against this project. As a Board member and President, I am speaking on behalf of the 282 "living units" / households on Bristol Cove who are major stakeholders and stewards of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Sincerely, AGENDAITEMff ^ Marilyn Stemen M 4665 Park Drive ' ' Carlsbad, CA. 92008 City Manager City Attorney City Clerk 7AGENDA ITEM #. c: Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Re: Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort, Case #CUP 06-16/CT 06-16/SUP 07-05 City Clerk's Office 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 September 15,21 a SEP 1 5 2008 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE To Whom It May Concern: Initially, I wanted to thank our City Council for its time involved with this project. I realize how busy you all must be and your time is greatly appreciated. As per your Public Hearing Notice, I'm submitting a written correspondence for your review. As a homeowner with a family adjacent to resort, I see the following as potential concerns: 1. Traffic impact throughout area due to: 50+ cars for guests No restaurant onsite, guests traveling for meals Constant Boat Launching Visitors of guests Management, Maids, Support Staff, Vendors, Delivery Services & Trash 2. Density & Noise: • 25 units with guests and visitors would produce a considerable amount of noise from their rooms, beach, rooftop deck, boat launch & dock area as well as foot and car traffic. • People traffic would be heavy for Timeshare beach and has a good chance of spreading to neighboring properties. • Safety for children and homes in the neighborhood could be jeopardized due to large amounts of "strangers" consistently coming into area. 3. Boats: Potentially 20 boats/guests launching at all hours Potential gas spills while filling at docks. If not filling at docks, then boats will all need to be removed for filling and brought back for additional launches. - Added traffic Boat cleaning with potential runoff into lagoon. Boat storage concerns. Safety issue - o Blind corner on Adams with boat trailers traffic in and out of driveway. o Boat trailers negotiate launching, cleaning and storage within a tight area with heavy foot traffic. 4.Appearance: • Large structure for lot size. • Possible Congested Areas - driveway, rooftop deck, shoreline and boat launch area. • Timeshare structure is approximately 400%+/- larger than our neighboring SFR. ** Applicant's presentation is a little misleading with overall size of "Steward" project. This is due to the angles shown during presentation. Steward structure is primarily one story with a walkout basement. South View is of the two story portion and East View makes house appear massive, however, it's an "L-shape" layout with a 4-car garage perpendicular to house. Approximately 50% of East View is the backside of 4-car garage. Garage is only 20 feet in depth and has a large courtyard area on the opposing side. Please call #760-580-2657 or email glcnstcwardwgniail.com with any questions and/or updates. Thank you for your time and consideration. AGENDA ITEM # « Mayor City Council ' City Manager • City Attorney City Clerkflen Steward 4485 Adams Street Respectfully Submitted, 1 AGENDA ITEM # /_ c: Mayor City Council City Manager From: <kevinallanbender@gmail.com> City Attorney To: <Council@[205.142.109.13]> City Clerk Date: 09/15/2008 2:25 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. *************************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Our family has owned a home on Adams St for 45 years and we don't want the 'Boat Club' development. There is too much traffic on our part of Adams St. already and we don't need more people there! We vote, so please oppose and deny this development. Kevin Bender 4070 Adams St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 USA kevinallanbender@gmail.com Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.22 72.197.130.9 Page 1 of Council Internet Mailbox - Proposed timeshare project. From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Bruce Roelofs <broe777@yahoo.com> <council@ci. carlsbad. ca.us> 09/1 1/2008 9:27 AM Proposed timeshare project. <j im. strickland@viasat. com> AGENDA ITEM # ( c: Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Dear Council Members, As a homeowner in Bristol Cove, I am strongly opposed to the timeshare project that is being proposed. Here are some of the problems I foresee: 1 - Traffic -1 would assume many of the timeshare users would drive their cars or rent cars. Where would they all park? Adams is a narrow, windy road and to have numerous cars exiting that small driveway would present a real danger. We used to eat at the small French restaurant and then the small Mexican restaurant that were just above the Carlsbad Boat Club. Traffic and parking problems were present then, despite their relatively small size compared to the proposed project. 2 - Boating -1 would assume that many of the timeshare users would want to rent ski-boats, jet-skis, kayaks, etc. Apparently the Carlsbad Police Department is already concerned about the number of watercraft present on the lagoon at any one time. Any significant increase could present a real safety hazard and probably require full-time boat patrols by the Carlsbad Police Department. 3 - Aesthetics - The lagoon is beautiful now and this timeshare project, as others have stated, would be " a square peg in a round hole". 4 - Precedence - If one such project were allowed in, I would guess many more would come in in the near future, turning our peaceful little lagoon into a commercial catastrophe. Thank you for your consideration. Bruce Roelofs 4533 Cove Dr., #A file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48C8E497GW-... 09/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 . Council Internet Mailbox - Conditional Use Permit for the proposedX'<SMfefcilfe8f a* Club and 7 Resort" c: Mayor City Manager From: "The Cassos" <cassosathome@cox.net> City Attorney To: <Council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> City Clerk Date: 09/09/2008 11:43 AM Subject: Conditional Use Permit for the proposed "Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort" CC: <jim.strickland@viasat.com>, <lahkyfn@aol.com> Dear Mayor Lewis, Ann Kulchin, Matt Hall, Mark Packard, Julie Nygaard, We are homeowners who live on the Lagoon, and we believe that developing timeshares there would be a huge mistake. We own a boat and use the lagoon, which already seems to be at capacity. Overburdening of the lagoon will be at the expense of the wildlife and the people who actually live there. We also do not believe the neighborhood is suited for a hotel or a huge complex of tourist units. It is a neighborhood! In addition, we already have one commercial entity on the lagoon, but fortunately their use of the water is restricted to the far end. Therefore, we support the City Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed "Carlsbad Boat Club and Resort" 25 unit timeshare on Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Constance and Michael Casso file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48C66152GW-... 09/09/2008 Page 1 of Council Internet Mailbox - Boat Club Timeshare Project, Hearing 9/16/08 c: Mayor From: Inger Huber <inger.huber@att.net> . /-Il™_ -IX-N • 7, 1 City ManagerTo: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> CitvAttornev Date: 09/09/2008 9:22 AM City Clerk Subject: Boat Club Timeshare Project, Hearing 9/16/08 Kira Linberg, I received an email from Jim Strickland that you would be willing to forward objections from people concerned with the Timeshare Project on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Please add me to the list. Thank you for your help. Inger J Huber Owner of 2 lots just west of the Boat Club. Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: I am the owner of two lots just west of the Boat Club and I would like to join all other people concerned with the proposed 24-unit timeshare on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. So far, my properties are undeveloped, but I am honestly afraid that they might stay that way if a large timeshare becomes my neighbor. During one of the Boat Club owners' very first presentations at the Discovery Center, I voiced my concerns with out-of-towners wandering the sandy strips along the shores and how to enforce the "no swimming" policy on the lagoon. By City Ordinance I am not allowed to build a fence/wall to protect my own property (when built) from people possibly wondering up the hill and into my backyard. Mr. Pfankuch's answer to me was, it would not be his responsibility to keep their tenants from wandering - that would be a matter for the police. It would be my responsibility, as the harassed and injured party, to make the call. That comment says it all - once the project is built the owners will not get involved. There are many more things I am concerned with, but will not bother you with more complaints. Please reject the building of the large timeshare project. Respectfully, Inger J. Huber & daughter Sara S. Huber file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48C64049GW-... 09/09/2008 Page 1 of 1 Council Internet Mailbox - Time Share ¥. vsr-f'-. AGENDA ITEM # From: "lowell grimaud" <lowell.grimaud@gmail.com> c. Mayor To: <Council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> City Council Date: 09/06/2008 4:24 PM City Manager Subject: Time Share City Attorney " " ~ " ~ '' City Clerk Carlsbad City Council RE: Continued pressure by property owners on the Council to override the Planning Dept. decision to allow multi residential property to be built on the Lagoon. As a former City Manager, the Carlsbad Watershed Director and both a city planner and an employee in Parks and Recreation. I say NO, and a big Thank You to the City Planning Department for their professional decision. The Time share, does not fit in the vision of the City to retain the single family zoning on the Lagoon. The Carlsbad Watershed Plan specifically requested to the city not to allow Big structures that would create large amounts of storm water to enter the lagoon. The vision was to allow the rainwater to enter the soil, not land on parking and big roofs. Further, with the new law requiring boat operators to have completed the State Boating exam, renters and others staying in a timeshare will be required to have a State Boat Operators certificate to operate any watercraft on the lagoon. Further, the city has to acknowledge that the vision of the tax payers was to keep open space, and not to pave over all remaining undeveloped space. The City should also be concerned that a timeshare will bring weekend renters, who care less with our efforts to conserve water, retain quite neighoods, retain safe roads for our children as they walk to and from school or play. I am a native, have been a public servant all my life and request that you not give in to the demands of a few so that you can obtain more tax!s. Lets start thinking about our future, the future of the lagoon that is stressed at this time, we do not need to make another Mission Bay in the county. Lowell Grimaud 4517 Cove. Carlsbad CA. file://C:\Documents and Settings\Klinb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48C2AEDOGW-... 09/08/2008 Carlsbad Boat Club and Carlsbad Boat Club and ResortResortCT 06CT 06--16/CUP 0616/CUP 06--16/SUP 0716/SUP 07--0505 PARK DR ADAMS STCOVE DR S U N N Y H IL L D R H I G H L A N D D R C O A S T L IN E A V HOOVER STMARINA DRCT 06-16/CUP 06-16Carlsbad Boat Cluband Resort0400800200FeetAdams St „„Recommendation of denial of a Conditional Recommendation of denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a 25 unit timeshare.Use Permit for a 25 unit timeshare.„„Appeal of the Planning CommissionAppeal of the Planning Commission’’s denial s denial of a Tentative Tract Map and Special Use of a Tentative Tract Map and Special Use Permit.Permit. Project DescriptionProject Description„„Demolition of existing restaurant/residenceDemolition of existing restaurant/residence„„Remodel of existing ClubhouseRemodel of existing Clubhouse Project DescriptionProject DescriptionConstruction of a 25 unit timeshareConstruction of a 25 unit timeshare––Three storiesThree stories––Underground parking garageUnderground parking garage––Remodel of existing ClubhouseRemodel of existing Clubhouse ADAMS STCOVE DRPARK DR HIGHLAND DROSRLMRHRMT-RRLMRHSITESITEGeneral Plan Land UseGeneral Plan Land UseTravel/Recreation CommercialTravel/Recreation Commercial Travel/Recreation & CommercialTravel/Recreation & Commercial„„Visitor attractions and commercial usesVisitor attractions and commercial uses„„Serve the travel and recreational needsServe the travel and recreational needs„„Hotels, motels, restaurants, recreation facilities, Hotels, motels, restaurants, recreation facilities, museums, travel support and specialty retailmuseums, travel support and specialty retail„„Transportation corridors, recreational and resort Transportation corridors, recreational and resort areas (spas, hotels, beaches, and lagoons)areas (spas, hotels, beaches, and lagoons)„„Compatible and designed to protect surrounding Compatible and designed to protect surrounding propertiesproperties CompatibleCompatible„„Capable of existing or performing in Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others.combination with another or others.American Heritage Dictionary ADAMS STCOVE DRPARK DR HIGHLAND DROSR-WR-1-15000R-TR-1-15000R-TR-1-15000SITESITEZoningZoningResidential TouristResidential Tourist Residential Tourist ZoneResidential Tourist Zone„„Permitted uses by rightPermitted uses by right––DwellingsDwellings––Small and Large Family Day CareSmall and Large Family Day Care Residential Tourist ZoneResidential Tourist Zone––AquariumsAquariums––Athletic ClubsAthletic Clubs––BathhousesBathhouses––Bed and BreakfastBed and Breakfast––Boarding HouseBoarding House––Boat launching/dockingBoat launching/docking––Boat ridesBoat rides––CampsitesCampsites––CemeteriesCemeteries––ChurchesChurches––ClubsClubs––Hotels/MotelsHotels/Motels––Lodging HouseLodging House––ParksParks––PlaygroundsPlaygrounds––Meeting hallsMeeting halls––Public/quasi public buildingsPublic/quasi public buildings––Recreation facilitiesRecreation facilities––Refreshment facilitiesRefreshment facilities––Sporting clubsSporting clubs––Timeshare projectsTimeshare projects––Wireless communication facilitiesWireless communication facilities––Zoo (private)Zoo (private)Permitted uses by Conditional Use PermitPermitted uses by Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit FindingsFindings„„Necessary or desirable?Necessary or desirable?––In harmony with the General Plan?In harmony with the General Plan?••Projects need to be compatible with Projects need to be compatible with adjacent land usesadjacent land uses••The harmony of proposed buildings in The harmony of proposed buildings in terms of size, height, and location with terms of size, height, and location with respect to existing neighborhood respect to existing neighborhood developmentdevelopment Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Findings ContinuedFindings Continued••Detrimental to existing uses?Detrimental to existing uses?••Transient nature of Timeshare projectsTransient nature of Timeshare projects„„TrafficTraffic„„NoiseNoise••In scale and of character to fit within a In scale and of character to fit within a Single Family NeighborhoodSingle Family Neighborhood Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Findings ContinuedFindings Continued••The site is adequate in size and shape to The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the features to integrate the accommodate the features to integrate the use into the neighborhood?use into the neighborhood?••Minimum parkingMinimum parking••Scale and mass to integrate into Scale and mass to integrate into neighborhoodneighborhood Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Findings ContinuedFindings Continued••Street system adequacyStreet system adequacy••Adequate to handle traffic generatedAdequate to handle traffic generated••Traffic flows through single family Traffic flows through single family neighborhoodsneighborhoods Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Findings ContinuedFindings Continued••Located in an appropriate area for Located in an appropriate area for Timeshare?Timeshare?––Financially and geographically Financially and geographically functional?functional?––Disruptive to existing or future uses?Disruptive to existing or future uses?––Located on Agua Hedionda LagoonLocated on Agua Hedionda Lagoon––Compatibility with Single Family Compatibility with Single Family ResidentialResidential––Conversion PlanConversion Plan Timeshare ConversionTimeshare Conversion„„Conversion to Hotel useConversion to Hotel use––Travel Recreation General Plan Land Use Travel Recreation General Plan Land Use designationdesignation––RR--T Zone allows hotels as a Conditionally T Zone allows hotels as a Conditionally permitted usepermitted use PlanningPlanningCommission Commission Concerns:Concerns:„„Intensity of the projectIntensity of the project„„Reduction in physical size and bulkReduction in physical size and bulk„„Architectural changesArchitectural changes„„Public beach accessPublic beach access„„Overall project compatibilityOverall project compatibility„„Working with the neighborhoodWorking with the neighborhood Intensity Of The ProjectIntensity Of The Project„„Original project Original project ––26 units26 units„„Proposed project Proposed project --25 units25 units Reduction In Physical SizeReduction In Physical Size„„Original project Original project ––40,500 sq ft40,500 sq ft„„Proposed project Proposed project ––40,500 sq ft40,500 sq ft Architectural ChangesArchitectural Changes„„Terracing of levelsTerracing of levels„„Multiple roof planesMultiple roof planes„„Revised roof deckRevised roof deck OldNew OldNew Appeal of the Tentative Tract Map Appeal of the Tentative Tract Map and Special Use Permitand Special Use Permit„„The findings of the appeal primarily deal The findings of the appeal primarily deal with neighborhood compatibility as with the with neighborhood compatibility as with the Conditional Use PermitConditional Use Permit California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Coastal Commission„„Project located within the Agua Project located within the Agua HediondaHediondaLagoon Lagoon deferred certification areadeferred certification area„„CCC concurs that project is too intense and CCC concurs that project is too intense and incompatibleincompatible„„Timeshares are not a priority use. Recommends Timeshares are not a priority use. Recommends ““boutique commercialboutique commercial””such as a small such as a small hotel/motel or restaurant serving visitor needs yet hotel/motel or restaurant serving visitor needs yet subordinate to surrounding area.subordinate to surrounding area. Environmental ReviewEnvironmental Review„„CEQA does not apply to projects which CEQA does not apply to projects which are disapprovedare disapproved RecommendationsRecommendations„„That the City Council adopt the resolution That the City Council adopt the resolution upholding the Planning Commissionupholding the Planning Commission’’s s recommendation denying the Conditional recommendation denying the Conditional Use Permit.Use Permit.„„That the City Council adopt the resolution That the City Council adopt the resolution denying the appeal of the Tentative tract denying the appeal of the Tentative tract Map and Special Use Permit.Map and Special Use Permit. Site Agua Hedionda LCPAgua Hedionda LCP„„Recreation Commercial Land Use designationRecreation Commercial Land Use designation„„WhiteyWhitey’’s Landing as boating facilitys Landing as boating facility„„Encourages continued recreationalEncourages continued recreational--commercial commercial use and expansion of existing facilitiesuse and expansion of existing facilities„„Shoreline access (lateral vs. vertical)Shoreline access (lateral vs. vertical)„„Visual resourcesVisual resources––Mass of buildingMass of building––Height protrusionsHeight protrusions Hillside Development OrdinanceHillside Development OrdinanceStepping of the structure to follow slope and building Stepping of the structure to follow slope and building form to relate to the slope of the landform to relate to the slope of the landLCP LCP ––““step downstep down””in height to produce a perceived in height to produce a perceived transition from open space to developed areastransition from open space to developed areas SnugHarborHoover St.Whitey’sLandingSouth ShoreBristol CoveBayshore Dr Location MapC O V E D R ADAMS STPARK DR HIGHLAND DR Existing Use PermitExisting Use Permit„„Special Use Permit issued in 1955 for:Special Use Permit issued in 1955 for:––Docking and Launching of boatsDocking and Launching of boats––Soft drink and lunch standSoft drink and lunch stand––Structure for sale of gas, oil and accessoriesStructure for sale of gas, oil and accessories Special Use Permit ConditionsSpecial Use Permit Conditions„„““That all structures placed upon the foresaid That all structures placed upon the foresaid described property shall be of a temporary described property shall be of a temporary nature, and said structures shall be subject nature, and said structures shall be subject to removal and relocation at any time that to removal and relocation at any time that the City may request such removal and/or the City may request such removal and/or relocation; that said removal and/or relocation; that said removal and/or relocation of the structures shall be at the relocation of the structures shall be at the sole expense of the owners.sole expense of the owners.”” Special Use Permit ConditionsSpecial Use Permit ConditionsContinuedContinued„„““That at such time as the City shall hereafter That at such time as the City shall hereafter provide a new land use plan and/or master provide a new land use plan and/or master plan for the development of the proposed plan for the development of the proposed harbor, that applicant will do all things harbor, that applicant will do all things necessary to comply with such new plans, necessary to comply with such new plans, and that this grant of the conditional use and that this grant of the conditional use permit shall not operate to create a vested permit shall not operate to create a vested right for the maintenance of any structure right for the maintenance of any structure contrary to the provisions of such new plans.contrary to the provisions of such new plans.””