The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-09-21; City Council; 17800; La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plann CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN 06/SUP 03-O3/SUP 03-06 RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinances No. NS-719 NS-720 1 and NS-72 1 APPROVING ZC 03-04, MP 03-02 and MP 149(S), respectively and ADOPT City Council Resolution No. , ADOPTING the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and APPROVING GPA 03-08, CT 03-01, PUD 03-06, SUP 03-06 and SUP 03-03, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2004-304 ITEM EXPLANATION: On August 18, 2004, the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan and related entitlernarts. The six-member Planning Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval; Commissioner Montgomery did not participate due to a conflict of interest since his residence is within the noticing radius of the project site. The Master Plan (MP 03-02) provides one regulatory document for the redevelopment and buildout of the La Costa Resort properties as currently owned by KSL Development. KSL Development purchased the resort with the intention of upgrading it and maintaining the site as a competitive resorVtourist destination within north San Diego County. The La Costa Resort is located in the southeast quadrant of the city, east of El Camino Real and generally north of La Costa Avenue. The project is described and assessed in the attached Planning Commission report dated August 28, 2004, however, the primary elements of the project include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Establishment of a master plan with 7 planning areas to account for existing and future uses. Approvals and processes to develop up to 197 cornmercial resort villas on four of the seven planning areas over 15 acres. These units would be privately owned but available for resort rentals and revenue generation for two-thirds of the year; the other third is for owner use. A shared parking analysis that proposes parking based on the shared use/campus type collection of on-site resort uses. Monitoring and mitigation measures are in place to ensure no impacts to public health, safety or welfare result from lack of adequate parking provisions. A mechanism for KSL, adjacent residents and city staff to interact effectively to consider adjusting lot lines for three specific "finger" lands of property located north of Arena1 Road within KSL ownership/master plan boundaries. The process concludes with a master plan amendment process that will require Planning Commission review and City Council approval. New procedures to guide Special Event Permits designed to protect the adjacent residences. I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,800 Facilities Zone Local Facilities Management Plan Growth Control Point Net Density Special Facility Fee 6. Mitigation measures addressing construction impacts, special events and parking adequacy. 6 Approved N/A; no residential development N/A; no residential development None ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and a corresponding Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published from May 26 to June 26, 2004. Various letters were received during this public review period and are attached to the Planning Commission staff report. Besides letters indicating support for the project, other letters addressed project aspects such as tennis facilities, parking and monitoring efforts, which are integrated into the master plan and/or addressed in city response letters also attached to the Planning Commission staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: A report titled “La Costa Resort and Spa Fiscal Benefit Analysis’’ dated November 3, 2003 outlines the fiscal impact to the city. It concludes that the master plan and new uses proposed will generate an additional $2.5 million in revenues to the city through Transient Occupancy Tax, Property and Sales Taxes. At project buildout projected for 2009, the site is anticipated to generate over $6.6 million annually to the City of Carlsbad. While providing services to the site (outside the scope of Special Events) will be an expense to the city, these efforts are compensated and balanced by the expected revenue generation from the upgraded resort. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. City Council Ordinance No. NS-719 City Council Ordinance No. WE29 City Council Ordinance No. 1Jl721 City Council Resolution No. 2004-304 Location Map Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697, 5698, 5699, 5700, 5701, 5702, 5703, 5704 and 5705 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 18, 2004 Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 18, 2004 Master Plan Document (previously distributed; copy on file in Planning Department) 10. Exhibits “A”-“TTTTT”, dated August 4, 2004 (Full sized exhibits previously distributed) (On file in the Planning Department.) DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Eric Munoz. (760) 602-4608, emano@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-719 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM (1) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C); (2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) TO P-C; (3) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MULTIPLE (RD-M) TO P-C, AND; (4) RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL (RP) TO P-C, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA PROPERTIES EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND SOUTH OF ARENAL ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: ZC 03-04 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the City’s zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibits “ZC 03-04 existing and proposed, attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5699 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. Ill 111 ill 111 Ill ill Ill 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 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 21st day of Septenber 2004, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-720 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: MP 03-02 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, has reviewed and considered a master plan to guide the operations, special events and development of commercial dwelling units for properties within the La Costa Resort and Spa so that they can be regulated by proposed master plan MP 03-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 21st day OfSeDta, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a master plan consistent with Chapter 21.38 of the municipal code as shown on Exhibit “MP 03-02”, incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Master Plan MP 03-02, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference, is adopted. The La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan (MP 03-02) shall constitute the development plan for the property and all development within the plan area shall conform to the plan. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5700 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 21st day of September 2004, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAl N: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-721 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LA COSTA MASTER PLAN, MP 149, TO REMOVE THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA PROPERTIES CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: MP 149(S) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, has reviewed and considered a master plan amendment (MP 149(S)) to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties so that they can be regulated by proposed master plan MP 03-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 21st day of September , 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a master plan amendment consistent with Chapter 21.38 of the municipal code as shown on Exhibit “MP 149(S)”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Master Plan Amendment MP 149(S), removes the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from the La Costa Master Plan (MP 149) and allows for the proposed La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference, to be adopted. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5701 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. Ill 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 1c 11 1; 1: 14 15 16 17 18 15 2c 21 22 23 24 25 2f 2; 2E INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 21st day of September 2004, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- ZC 03-04 - existing August 4, 2004 EXISTING SITE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN ZC 03-04 ZC 03-04 - proposed August 4, 2004 PROPOSED /SITE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN ZC 03-04 MP 149(S) I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose This Master Plan constitutes an amendment to the La Costa Master Plan first adopted by the City Council on September 5, 1972 (Ordinance #9322). This Master Plan is intended to comply with the requirement for a Master Plan contained in the Planned Community Zone Ordinance (Chapter 21.38) and, therefore, provides the basis for further decisions by the City on future land use for the La Costa community. Historically, the La Costa community was divided among three local governmental agencies of general jurisdiction: the City of Carlsbad, the County of San Diego and the City of San Marcos. Approximately 5,287 acres, consisting of both developed and undeveloped lands, of the La Costa community are within the City of Carlsbad. Of this 5,287 acres, 3,200k already have been developed or approved for development. The historic La Costa community also includes an additional approximately 240 acres in the City of San Marcos and approximately 157 acres in the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego. This Master Plan is not applicable to the portion of La Costa in the City of San Marcos or the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego. The portion of the historic La Costa Master Plan located within Carlsbad can be divided into four portions. 1. Old La Costa consisting of approximately 2,888 acres centered around the La Costa Golf Course. Most of this area has been built out. Any remaining development will basically be infill development of the few remaining vacant lots. Properties in this area have a variety of different zonings. All future development in this area will comply with the requirements of Chapter 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 2. The Southwest Area consisting of approximately 529 acres is located south of Levante Street, east of El Camino Real and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. All development within the Southwest Area of the La Costa Master Plan shall comply with the requirements of MP 88-1, the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan. 3. The Southwest Area consisting of approximately 1,121 acres is bisected by Rancho Santa Fe Road and San Marcos Canyon. The Southeast Area also includes the Rancheros estate area located east of El Fuerte Drive. 4. The Northwest Area consists of approximately 744 acres and is located north of Alga Road and east of El Camino Real. The Northwest Area is bisected by the northern extension of the La Costa Golf Course. I- 1 B. General Provisions 1. Nonvesting?; of Rights Individual development projects shall be governed by the specific land use and development standards set forth in this Master Plan and by applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code including, but not limited to, Title 20, Subdivisions, and Title 21, Zoning. Where a conflict in development standards occurs, the most restrictive and limiting regulation and standards shall control. Approval and construction of a development project pursuant to this Master Plan shall not vest any rights to construct any other development projects nor create any vested rights to the approval of any subsequent development projects. 2. Amendments to the Master Plan Approval of this Master Plan indicates acceptance by the City Council of a basic framework for development of the subject property. It is part of an on- going planning process and is subject to amendment in the future by the City. Said amendments may be initiated by either the City Council or the - landowner at any time. 3. Availability of Public Services Approval of this Master Plan does not constitute any guarantee that individual development projects within the Master Plan area will be approved nor that the availability of public facilities and services will necessarily coincide with the developer’s timetable for construction. The adopted Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan and the Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 6, 10, 11, and 12 address adequacy of public facilities. Availability of public services will be evaluated in the context of subsequent approvals of individual development projects as well as compliance with the City of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and all other policies or ordinances in effect at the time of approval. 4. Dedications All dedications to the City of Carlsbad of land and/or easements required by this Master Plan and the adopted Local Facilities Management Plan for Zones 6, 10, 11, and 12 shall be granted to the City without cost to the City and free of all liens and encumbrances except (a) nondelinquent taxes and (b) liens and encumbrances in favor of public agencies. C. Location The historical La Costa community, within the City of Carlsbad, comprises 5,287 acres of land located 2.6 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean at the easterly end of Batiquitos Lagoon and approximately 6.5 miles southeast from the commercial center of Carlsbad. It is located approximately 7 miles south of the City of 1-2 Oceanside, 5 miles southwest of the City of San Marcos, 10 miles west of the City of Escondido and 30 miles north of downtown San Diego. The property is bounded on the west by El Camino Real, on the south by Olivenhain Road, and bisected by Rancho Santa Fe Road. It is bounded on the east by the City of San Marcos and on the north by the Bressi Ranch property. D. Legal Description The long standing La Costa community, which is located in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, is as shown on Exhibit 1-1 [on file in the Planning Department] Legal Map, and described as follows: Fractional Section 23, Fractional Section 24, Section 25, portions of Section 26 and 35, Section 36 and a portion of Lot A of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, all in Township 12 South, Range 4 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian; Fractional Section 1, a portion of Fractional Section 2, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 10 of Rancho Las Encinitas, Map No. 848 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, all in Township 13 South, Ranch 4 West, of the San Bernardino-. Meridian; portions of Section 19 and Section 29, Section 30, Fractional Section 31, a portion of Section 32, all in Township 12 South, Range 3 West; and Fractional Section 6, Lots 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of said Rancho Las Encinitas, all in Township 13 South, Range 3 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian. E. Legislative Background The following, in chronological order, represents official actions pertaining to those areas covered by this Master Plan or adjacent areas thereto: August 1, 1972 Pre-annexation of changes of zone (ZC-26) with a Specific Plan, adopted by Carlsbad City Council Ordinance #9318 on 1190 acres. September 5, 1972 City Council adoptions of pre-annexation change of zone (ZC- 26) to Planning Community Zone on 2900 acres by Ordinance #9323. September 5, 1972 Adoption of Master Plan (Mp-6) for 2900 acres subject to annexation by City Council Ordinance #9322. September 5, 1972 Carlsbad, composed of 4090 acres, by adoption of City Council Ordinance #1147. Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.12 to City of May 15, 1973 Pre-annexation of change of zone (ZC-106) to Planned Community for Rancho Ponderosa, 124.5 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9351 June 5, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-105) to Planned Community for El Camino Glens, 31 1 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9354. 1-3 MP-l49(M): Amendment was to change densities and land uses on property generally located in the southwest portion of the La Costa Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommended denial to the amendment to the City Council (Planning Commission Resolution #2277). The amendment was withdrawn before it was heard by the City Council. August 9, 1985 MP-l49(N): Amendment was to request land use change from C to RM on property generally located on the southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future Camino de Los Coches. Withdrawn on August 9, 1985, with no formal action taken. September 4, 1990 MP-149(0): Elimination of any reference to the area previously known as Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and stipulation that updated EIRs and new Master Plans be required prior to future development occurring in the Northwest and Southeast areas of La Costa. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-123. MP-l49(P): Submitted for the La Costa Town Center Project on August 31, 1993. Withdrawn on Janu’ary 12, 1996, with no formal action taken. MP-149(0): An amendment to remove portions of the Northwest and Southeast - areas (including the Rancheros) from the plan. The areas removed are subject to the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-604. MP-l49(R): Submitted for the La Costa Town Square Project on March 20, 2001. It is pending formal action. MP-l49(S): An amendment to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from the plan. The area removed will be subject to the La Costa Resort & Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02. F. Existing and Approved Development (See note at end of Section F) The areas that previously have been developed or committed to development consist of the La Costa Plaza area, La Costa Resort and Recreation area, including golf course, La Costa Valley Condominiums, and developments of various types of living units, such as single family, duplexes, cluster developments, condominiums, and homes of all types from luxury to more modest homes. The area already developed within old La Costa can be generally defined as located from El Camino Real on the west, Alga Road on the north, Levante on the south and Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose Drive on the east. Outside of the Master Plan area, an industrial park has been constructed east of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of San Marcos. In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan, Neighborhoods previously designated SW 5 and SW 4 have been developed with single family homes. In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan Neighborhoods SE 20 and SE 21 have been developed with Single Family Homes. Neighborhoods SE 12 and SE 23 have 1-6 been developed with apartments. Neighborhoods SE 10, SE 16, SE 18, SE 19 have been approved for development with single-family homes. Neighborhood SE 15 has been approved for development as a neighborhood shopping center. No development has been approved in the Northwest portion of the Master Plan. Except as otherwise specifically indicated in this Plan or exhibits hereto, nothing in this Master Plan shall be deemed to regulate or prohibit the development, redevelopment or rehabilitation of any area in the Master Plan (see Exhibit 1-2 [on file in the Planning Department], Existing Zoning). The following eleven areas are zoned P-C but have already been developed or are in the process of being developed and the documents governing such development are described in Section 111, Land Use and Development Standards. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Existing 27-hole golf course and San Marcos Canyon Estates North Rancheros de la Costa Vale 2 & 3 . Vale 4 Corona La Costa Spanish Village Green Valley Knolls Santa Fe Knolls Santa Fe Glens SMCWD Reservoir Other than the eleven areas listed above, there exist areas within the 3,200k acres zoned other than P-C. The development of such areas (see Exhibit 1-2, Existing Zoning [on file in the Planning Department]) shall be governed by the applicable zoning. Note: The above information for historical purposes only. See Map on Page 1-8 for existing remaining areas of the La Costa Master Plan after the approval of MP 149(S) and adoption of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan MP 02- 03. 1-7 MASTER PLAN 149 VICINITY MAP N A 1-8 Rev. 9/04 d. All areas with extremely unstable soil conditions (as identified in detailed soil and geologic investigations) shall be preserved as open space. e. Development in areas of twenty-five (25) percent or greater slopes 15’ or more shall be designed to maximize hillside integrity. 3. Preservation of San Marcos Canyon All riparian habitat areas, as identified in EIR-307 within the Master Plan, shall remain in a natural state as open space. Prior to approval of individual developments adjacent to San Marcos Canyon, the developer shall submit a plan for protection of the natural environmental in the canyon. This plan shall include, where necessary, provisions for limiting access to the Canyon and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director and Parks and Recreation Director. (Note: See MP 03-02.) 4. Accommodation of Public Transit All major cultural, commercial and recreational facilities shall accommodate public bus systems in their design. 5. Street Lighting All new streetlights in the Master Plan shall be of a type, which conserve energy. Maximum spacing of streetlights shall be utilized consistent with City standards and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. B. Grading Permit Issuance Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the various neighborhoods, provisions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer shall be made for the following: 1. Construction Timing All construction in the project area shall occur during normal daytime worlung hours. 2. Protection of Batiquitos Lagoon The following conditions are designed to reduce impacts of grading, siltation and water pollution on the Batiquitos Lagoon: a. Grading shall be limited to the minimum areas necessary to accomplish the planned development. Where impacts are excessive, alternatives (such as less intensive uses) shall be considered. This requirement shall be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11 - 2 10 and SE- 16 and where significant environmental impacts, which cannot be reasonably mitigated would otherwise result. D. Special Neivhborhood Development Standards Neighborhood development applications utilizing the Development Plan Review Process alternative provided by this Master Plan shall be subject to the following special standards in addition to the Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section 111-L and all other applicable requirements of this Master Plan: 1. There shall be permitted in all RL and RLM neighborhoods: single family attached and detached housing including condominiums; accessory structures and buildings incidental to permitted uses; maximum building heights not to exceed thirty five (35) feet; a minimum of two (2) off-street parking not less than one (1) space per dwelling unit. 2. There shall be permitted in all RM and RMH neighborhoods in addition to all uses permitted in the RL and RLM area: duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and other forms 6f multi-family development, whether apartments or condominiums; off-street and visitor parking for single family detached housing shall be as provided in D-1; off-street parking for all other permitted uses shall be at a minimum for one and half (1.5) spaces per dwelling unit for one bedroom units and two (2) spaces for all others plus visitor parking not less than .25 space per dwelling unit. _. 3. In those RM and RMH neighborhoods wherein a minimum dwelling unit density is set forth in Section 111-L or where the density bonus described in Section 111-K applies, building heights may be approved up to six (6) stones or seventy (70) feet, whichever is less. 4. A Development Plan shall be submitted for all N and TS neighborhoods designated on Tables III-1-and 111-2. 5. Development standards, other than those identified in this Master Plan, may be modified by the Development Plan if such modification is found to be consistent with this Master Plan, the General Plan, protection of the environment and the public welfare. All uses, and development standards not addressed in the Development Plan, shall be established per the applicable zoning standards identified for each neighborhood in Table 111-1 and 111-2. I11 - 4 E. Community Core and Neighborhood Commercial Zone and Development Max. * Gross Type for Standard Review D.U. Acres Process NW-14 OS 0-S Golf Course 85.0 1. Neighborhoods SE-IO, SE-11, SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, SE-16, are designated in this Master Plan as the Community Core. Utilization of the Site Development Plan Review Process shall meet the requirements of the Special Treatment Area as established by the Carlsbad General Plan. Open Individual Space Neighborhood Development Regulations 85 .O 1.a. (p.III-13) 2. Preparation of all neighborhood development plans within the Community Core shall insure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods particularly regarding the placement of open spaces, selection and location of landscaping material, continuity of pedestrian and bike paths, siting of structures for view opportunities and architectural harmony. 3. The Development Plan for neighborhoods SE-13, SE-14, and SE-15 shall set forth designated land uses pursuant to Table III-2, external and internal traffic circulation, a landscaping plan, building bulk, height and location, exterior architectural style and signing, in addition to other standards of this Master Plan. Also refer to the Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section II1.L. The preparation of Development Plans for neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11, SE-12, SE-16 and SE-23 shall be governed by the Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section 1II.L in addition to other standards of this Master Plan. 4. Note: The area described in Table 111-1 below is for reference onlv and is removed MP 149(S) and bv inclusion in MP 02-03. TABLE 111- 1 General Neighborhood Development Standards LA COSTA NORTHWEST 111 - 5 G. Homeowners’ Associations 1. The essential design characteristics of the La Costa residential communities will be adhered to as set forth in this Master Plan in and through the use of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be established by the developer. These CC&Rs shall provide regulations known as Architectural Committee Rules and Guidelines, which shall be administered by an Architectural Committee. The essential design characteristics of the La Costa residential Communities will be adhered to as set forth in the respective Master Plans (Southeast, Northwest and Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and through the Villages of La Costa Master Plan through the use of covenants, conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) established by the Developer and subject to the approval of the Planning Director. This Committee’s responsibility shall only be in matters more restrictive than the minimum standards allowed by this Master Plan and the City. This Committee’s approval shall be required on all building plans prior to review by the City unless the Planning Director determines there are extenuating circumstances that would allow the City to accept the plans without the Committee’s prior approval. The City shall not participate as a member of this committee. 2. The CC&Rs shall incorporate by reference this Master Plan, and shall state expressly that the declaratians are subject to the provisions of this Master Plan and that the City shall have the right to enforce the provisions of this Master Plan through its normal enforcement procedures if the City Council determines such enforcement is necessary to protect the public welfare. 3. CC&Rs for subsequent developments shall be submitted to the Planning Director for his approval as to consistency with the paragraphs 1. and 2., above. H. General Grading Guidelines Exhibits 111-2 to 111-16 inclusive, in addition to those standards set forth in Sections 1I.B. and C. above in Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, shall be utilized when reviewing Development Plans for each of the neighborhoods in this Master Plan. I. Noise Attenuation 1. Purpose There shall be incorporated into the development of the areas included in this Master Plan physical designs which insofar as practical attenuate the adverse impact noise has on residential neighborhoods, schools, parks and other recreational areas and open space. nr - 8 conditions of approval for such a project shall include provisions that guarantee the ongoing availability of the units to low and moderate-income persons. Mobilehome park development should also be considered within the following neighborhood of this Master Plan: SE-18. When considering mobile-home parks in the RLM areas, the allowable densities may be twice the amount established by this Master Plan. Said mobilehome parks would be processed per requirements established by the City and must be consistent with the Housing Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. A requirement of The City of Carlsbad’s General Plan Housing Element is to provide sufficient affordable housing. The Housing Element sets forth goals, policies, and a variety of methods to meet this General Plan requirement, however, specific programs to meet the goal are a product of the continuing development process Citywide. As a part of this process, The Fieldstone Company or successor in interest has agreed to enter into a “Housing Element Agreement” as follows: 1. The City of Carlsbad shall develop a definition of affordable housing using, but not restricted to, the options set forth in the City’s Housing Element, which shall include, among other things, the estimated “fair share” of affordable housing which should reasonably be required of all La Costa Master Plans. If it is determined that a fair share contribution to Affordable Housing is to be calculated with reference to the amount of an applicant’s property approved for development, the Southeast area of the La Costa Master Plan shall all be included within that calculation. This calculation shall be determined prior to approval of future Master Plans for the Southeast portion of La Costa. Said Master Plans shall require developer’s agreement to provide the specified ratio of affordable housing within the Master Plan areas. - 2. The City of Carlsbad, with the assistance and cooperation of the Developer, shall compile an inventory of affordable housing units within the City consistent with the definition of affordable housing to be established in Item 1 above (preceding paragraph). This inventory is necessary to determine future need. 3. All of the foregoing shall be documented in an Agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Developer. This Agreement shall be recorded as a lien on the Developer’s Southeast Master Plan Property to insure compliance. L. Individual Neighborhood Development Regulations The following individual neighborhood development regulations shall apply when neighborhood development proposals utilize the Development Plan Review Process alternative provided by this Master Plan. 1. Individual Regulations for the Northwest Area (See La Costa Resort & Spa Master Plan - MP 03-02 N. OPENSPACE A. Introduction This Master Plan for La Costa designated 228 acres to be set-aside as open space prior to the various amendments, which have removed areas from the plan. These open space areas, as shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department], Open Space Plan, provide buffers between residential areas and roads and commercial and public areas as well as define neighborhoods. A system of pedestrian trails will traverse these open space corridors to connect schools, parks and the community core with the housing areas. These trails may connect to a broader citywide circulation system. This Master Plan also includes the improvement of two public parks totaling 5 1.5 acres. The open space trails requirements of this chapter shall be applicable to all areas of the La Costa Master Plan except for the southwest area which has its own detailed open space/trails program delineated in the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan and Villages of La Costa Master Plan. B. Dedication _. Approval of development of each neighborhood shall include the dedication of an open space easement over its respective open space area as shown on Exhibit IV- 1 [on file in the Planning Department]. Approval of development of each neighborhood containing a portion of the pedestrian trail shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department] shall include an offer to dedicate a public access easement covering that portion of the pedestrian trail located within that neighborhood. This offer to dedicate shall provide that the pedestrian trail shall not be open for public use unless and until the City accepts the offer to dedicate and assumes liability and maintenance responsibility for the pedestrian trail. Adjoining areas, including but not limited to slopes, shall not be included in this offer to dedicate. If the City does not accept this offer to dedicate by a recorded written instrument within five years from the date of recordation of the final map for each neighborhood, the offer to dedicate shall expire and the owner shall have no further obligation to offer to dedicate or dedicate a public access easement and the use and maintenance of the property shall be governed by the CC&Rs. The width and location of the open space corridors shall be as shown on Exhibit IV-1 [on file in the Planning Department]. A deviation of ten percent (+/- 10%) shall be allowed when determining said width and location. The minimum width allowed shall be twenty feet. Additional open space areas may be required within each neighborhood development. C. Improvements 1. Landscaping and Grading The landscaping in the open space corridors will be Undisturbed Native Vegetation, Restored Native Vegetation or Fire Control Vegetation as described below. Efforts shall be made to retain existing natural landforms. Wherever grading is necessary the general grading guidelines in Section III shall apply. IV - 1 V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PHASING PHASE NEIGHBORHOOD MAX ARTERIALS PARK SCHOOL PUBLIC DU’S SITES SITES SITES I NW-14 -- 342 of Alga Road & 1/2 -- -- -- Carrillo Way A. Introduction OPEN SPACE& TRAILS Private golf The following represents the public facilities and services required to support development in those areas subject to this Master Plan. The Public Facilities and Phasing proposed by the La Costa Master Plan have been superceded by the City of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and the Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 6, 10, 11 and 12. All necessary public facilities shall be provided per the requirements of these plans. Note: This chart does not comply with current City Policies and Growth Control Points. It is for illustrative purposes only. See also the following Master Plans: 1. 2. Villages of La Costa (MP 98-01), and Rancho Carrillo (MP 139 as amended) -. TABW V-1 NORTHWEST PHASING SCHEDULE v-1 VI. SIGN PROGRAM A. Purpose The purpose of this program shall be to promote a comprehensive approach to the establishment of a high standard of visual directional and identification signing within the La Costa community to serve both residents and visitors, to promote community identity and to avoid unnecessary visual clutter detracting from the community appearance. The Arroyo La Costa Master Plan establishes a detailed sign program for the southwest portion of the La Costa Master Plan. All signs in that area shall comply with the requirements of the Community Identity Chapter of that Master Plan. The Community Identity Chapter details the design and location of all signs proposed within the southwest portion of the La Costa Master Plan and Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Similar detailed Community Identity Chapters dealing with sign design and location will be included in the updated master plans prepared for the southeast and northwest areas of the La Costa Master Plan. B. Sign Categories and Locations 1. Combine IdentificationDirectional Signs There shall be established a maximum of eight (8) signs located at the peripheral entrances to clearly identify the La Costa community and provide initial directional guidance to major neighborhoods, activity centers and points of interest within the community. These locations, shown on Exhibit VI-1 [on file in the Planning Department], Sign Plan, are as follows: a. b. C. d. e. f. g. h. The southeast corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The northeast corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Costa Del Mar Road. The future intersection of El Camino Real and proposed Carrillo Way. The future intersection of El Camino Real and Camino de Los Coches West. The future intersection of Alga Road extension and proposed Melrose Avenue. The future intersection of proposed La Costa Avenue extension and proposed Melrose Avenue. The future intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and proposed Melrose Avenue. El Fuerte Road as it enters the La Costa community from the Carrillo Ranch area to the north. VI- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-304 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF SAN MARCOS CREEK IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, NON- CASE NO.: GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03- Ol/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-O3/SUP 03-06 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on August 18, 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the land use actions and entitlements outlined above to establish a Master Plan for the La Costa Resort and Spa properties. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697 through 5705, recommending to the City Council that the above listed items be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 21st day of ~eptemb~?. y , 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the above listed items and; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the above described project; The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697, 5698, 5702, 5703, 5704 and 5705 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter. 3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adopted as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. a5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for a General Plan Amendment, GPA 03-08, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5698, is hereby approved in concept, and GPA 03-08 shall be formally approved with GPA Batch No. 2 comprised of GPA 02-05, GPA 03-05, GPA 03-08, GPA 03-13, GPA 04-01, GPA 04-04, GPA 04-07, GPA 04-08, GPA 04-1 1 and GPA 04-13. EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption, except as to the General Plan Amendment, which shall be effective thirty (30) days following its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 21st day of September , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finilla, Kulchin, Hall and Packard. NOES: None n /7 ATTEST: 36 Resolution No. . EXHIBIT5 LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN GPA 03-081ZC 03-041MP 03-021MP 149(S)/ CT 03-011PUD 03-061SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5697 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO APPROVE A MASTER PLAN AND RELATED ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE LA COSTA RESORT LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, AND SOUTH OF ARENAL ROAD, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04MP 03-02MP 149S/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as See attached (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Program, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated May 26, 2004, and “PII” dated May 21, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. b. C. d. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment, with the implementation of the mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. PC RES0 NO. 5697 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: -4 ‘ 4- /&?z.- ,7&3&$5---7~ 4?kANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLYMILL& Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5697 -3- PARCEL 1 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 26 AND SECTION 35, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF EL CAMINO OF RECORD; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1961 AS DOCUMENT NO. 138155 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; REAL PER ROAD SURVEY NO. 682 AND ROAD SURVEY NO. 1800-1 AND VARIOUS DEEDS ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, PER MAP NO. 5434, LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 2, PER MAP NO. 5486, LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 3, PER MAP NO. 6129 AND LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 4, PER MAP NO. 6520, ALL FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL A, AS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 14 IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, AND LOT 3 OF LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM NO. 4, AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 6520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORD RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ALL IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ALSO EXCEPTING THE LA COSTA SHOPPING CENTER, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 9, 14 AND 15 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICAL PLAT THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 45 AND 46 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AND THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 25, 26, 35 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALL BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EXCEPTING ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 3, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6129, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 4, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUTNY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; ALSO EXCEPTION THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH, A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFONIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; ALSO TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. PARCEL 2: PARCEL A OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13427, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SAN DIEGO OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY AUGUST 16, 1984 AS DOCUMENT NO. 84-313333 PARCEL 3A: LOTS 121 THROUGH 129 INCLUSIVE OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY JULY 29,1964. PARCEL 36: LOT 225 AND 226 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 4, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5781, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SEPTEMBER 16,1966. PARCEL 3C: LOTS 145,146 AND 147 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5734, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 18, 1966. EXCEPTING THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 147, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 101 OF MAP NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, BEING AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 147; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY, NORTH 57O24'00" WEST, 128.03 TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE SOUTH 64°00'00" EAST, 95.16 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39°19'00" EAST, 35.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3D: LOTS 138,139 AND 140 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5486, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OCTOBER 28,1964. PARCEL 4: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PASSAGE, DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE OVER, UNDER, THROUGH AND ACROSS A PORTION OF LOT 148 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 4, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5781, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. PARCEL 5: PARCEL A, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE" RECORDS. RECORDED NOVEMBER 25, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81- 374108 OF OFFICIAL PARCEL 6; A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER COSTA DEL MAR ROAD AS DEDICATED AND REJECTED ON LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS NO. 3 AND 4 ACCORDING TO MAPS 6129 AND 6520 RESPECTIVELY; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL 9 HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL 7A: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS OVER AND THROUGH THAT PORTION OF LOT 9 IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 15 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, MORE PARTJCULARILY DESRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, RECORDED AUGUST 11,1961 AS DOCUMENT NO. 138155 OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED, NORTH 89'25'44'' WEST, 75.08 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH OO"34'16" WEST, 53.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 8: AN EASEMENT FOR A GOLF CART UNDERCROSSING STRUCTURE BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFlCAlL PLAT THEREOF. PARCEL 9: ALL THAT PORTION OF COSTA DEL MAR ROAD, AS SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON MAP OF LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM NO. 4 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6520, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, LYING WESTERLY OF A RADIAL LINE FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 3 OF SAID MAP NO. 6520, HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 38'33'43'' WEST, PER THAT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMEBER 25,1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81-374108 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 33 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO: GPA 03-OWZC 03-04MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03- 06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 PROJECT LOCATION: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA PROPERTIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of a Master Plan for the La Costa Resort and Spa DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director @ ./ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 Pursuant to Section 151 64 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration is possible if no new impacts or mitigation measures are involved, and the nature of the addendum does not alter the project description to a significant degree. The Addendum can be approved if none of the criteria requiring a Subsequent Negative Declaration can be applied per section 15162 of CEQA, which is the case. Specifically, no changes due to new environmental impacts, or the underestimation of the severity of previously identified impacts are involved with the Addendum. Additional, the Addendum is not the result of new information or analysis that omitted or in error from the originally prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration, and no new mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Given the above, the Addendum address four specific areas of the prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Existing zoning and General Plan designations for the area north of Arena1 Road: was originally shown as PC (Planned Community) zoning with OS (Open Space) General Plan; the area is actually R-I zone with RLM (Residential Low Medium) General Plan designation. The proposal, however, to rezone the area to PC and replace the RLM with OS was part of the circulated MND so the proposed land use designations are not changing. This addendum clarifies the prior mapping error. Within this area, there is an island of R-1/RLM covering the existing homes (outside of Master Plan ownership) that is not proposed for change to PC/OS. This is in keeping with public information provided regarding the proposed land uses for this area. The existing La Costa Master Plan (MP 149) which covered the greater La Costa area including the Resort property, needs to be amended to formally withdraw the Resort from the original master plan. MP 149(S) has been added to the entitlement package for this project to this purpose. CUP 258(D) is being withdrawn. The originally prepared MND contained an amendment to the existing La Costa Ballroom Conditional Use Permit (CUP 258) to depict new landscaping and parking areas; no uses changes or intensifications proposed. The CUP was required because the previous site zoning of C-2 (General Commercial) allowed resort uses like a ballroom via CUP approval. With the zone change to PC and the implementation of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan, the Ballroom will be regulated by the provisions for Planning Area 5 which designate the resort ballroom as permitted use without the need for CUP approval. The elements of project monitoring will remain, as is standard for all uses that are within a master plan in the city. SUP 03-06 is typographically noted, in error, as SUP 06-06; the proper case number is SUP 03-06. - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO: MP 03-02/GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/CT 03-3 1/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03- 06/SUP 06-06 PROJECT LOCATION: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Processing of a master plan and related entitlements to guide the implementation of infill redevelopment within the Resort property to develop up to 197 commercial dwelling units, related parking and a Golf Performance Center; plus guidelines for the approvals of future Special Event Permits onsite. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. _. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to .review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MAY 26,2004 OF JUNE 26,2004 PLJBLISH DATE MAY 26,2004 YalWl%%@, US 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP 03-02/GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/CT 03-3 IPUD 03-06/CUP 258(D)/SUP 03-O6/SUP 06-06 DATE: Mav 2 I. 3004 - BACKGROUND I. CASE NAME: La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Eric Munoz 760.602.4608 4. PROJECT LOCATION: La Costa Resort and Sua 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: KSL 50-905 Avenida Bermudas. La Ouinta CA 92253: 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Currently RMH. RWO and TR 7. ZONING: Currently PC, C-2. RD-M and RP 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Infill redevelopment of the La Costa Resort campus to construct up to 197 commercial dwelling units via implementation of a proposed master ulan for the property. Various entitlements are required since land use designation changes are involved as shown below. The project is depicted in the draft Master Plan document and related exhibits. all of which can be reviewed at the City of Carlsbad Planninp Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, CA 92008. The focus of the master plan is to allow for the development of Commercial Dwelling Units (CDU’s) on the uroperty as more fully described in the master plan document. Up to 197 CDU’s are proposed via phased development uer the master plan proposal. Mitigation measures are provided regarding adequate access, circulation and parking during construction to buildout. Three mitigation measures are proposed with this Mitigated Negative - Declaration: 1 Rev. 07/03/02 1. Traffic Impacts - Short Term Construction 2. Traffic Impacts - Special Events 3. Parking Adequacy A listing of entitlements being requested follows: . ZC 03-04: Zone Change: Designates entire Resort property as Planned Community (PC) in order to process and implement a comprehensive master plan. Existing C-2, RD-M and RP zones will be replaced with the PC zoning. MP 03-02: Master Plan: Processes the master plan for the development of the project. GPA 03-08: General Plan Amendment: Changes General Plan designations from RWO and RMH to TR - . . CUP 258 (D): Conditional Use Permit Amendment to CUP 258 (C): Minor changes to Ballroom circulation and landscaping for fire access. CT 03-31: Tract Map: To subdivide property into 41 lots which covers existing golf course and Resort uses and allows for commercial dwelling unit development. PUD 03-06: PUD permit. To process the Commercial Dwelling Units. SUP 03-03: Special Use Permit - El Camino Real. . . Reviews development and landscaping along the El Camino Real frontage. * SUP 03-06: Special Use Permit - Floodplain. Reviews development of Golf Center, which is located in a flood-hazard zone and subject to hydrological analysis. The proposal for development within the master plan, reviewed planning by planning area, is provided on the table below. Existing as well as proposed land uses for each planning area is provided. 2 Rev. 07/03/02 38 PLANNING AREA Vaca nt/Pa r ki ng Lot Vaca nt/Pa r ki ng Lot Hotel Units/Uses Resort Ballroom PA 3 38 Commercial Dwelling Units 46 Commercial Dwelling Units 38 Commercial Dwelling Units No Use Change Proposed PA 4 Resort/Golf/Tennis Uses Existing Resort/Clubhouse and Ad m i nistra tion/Golf Courses I USE EXISTING USE Golf Performance Center No Use Change Proposed 9 Executive homes/resort units I 75 Commercial Dwelling Units * All proposed uses noted above include parking as required. 3 Rev. 07/03/02 39 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 17 Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazardsklazardous Materials Population and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 17 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems ’ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4 Rev. 07/03/02 40 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT hav NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. significant effect on the environmen and a I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant.irnpact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. -. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. ...- Planner Signature Date 5 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONRIENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical. biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration. or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact’‘ answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless. Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an ”EIA-Part IT”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR the following circumstances: (I) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact. to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of signitkance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. be prepared if "'Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 7 Rev. 07/03/02 I. 11. 111. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? bj Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact 1 mpac1 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No violation? 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH OB IXI OH 8 Rev. 07/03/02 44 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)'? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sqnsitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan'? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Sipiticant Impact 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 U 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ixl [xi IXI [xi [xi _. 151 [XI [XI IXI [XI IXI 9 45 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $15064.5'? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to SS 13064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. 11. ... 111. iv. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil'? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction. or collapse'? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property'? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater'? 10 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 17 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 Less Than Significuni Impact 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 NO Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI Ixl IXI 0 Rev. 07/03/02 .Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment'? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands'? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project : aj Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 I7 o I7 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 17 0 0 I7 0 0 IXI IXI w lxl lxl w w w w 11 Rev. 07/03/02 47 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signi ticanr Impact so Impact 0 0 0 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ix1 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 0 0 e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 0 0 0 0 w El g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 0 0 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 0 0 0 k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals. pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)'? Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list'? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses'? IX. X. X. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Physically divide an established community? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? NOISE - Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels'? Potentially Significant Impact 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mi tigation Incorporated 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than S 1 pniii cani lrnpaci 113 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 NO I mpac 1 IXI IXI Ixl [XI Ixl w IXI Ixl IXI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)'? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ij Fire protection? iij Police protection? iiij Schools? iv) Parks? Potentially Significant Impact 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 cl 17 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI -. IXI IXI IXI IXI 0 0 0 OH 0 0 OH v) Other public facilities? 0 OB 14 Rev. 01/03/02 50 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. RECREATION Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction. or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic 'load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)'? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.& farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.. bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact 0 cl CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 El w 0 I7 0 w w 0 0 0 Less Than Significx~t Impact 0 0 17 IXI 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 Impact 15 Rev. 07/03/02 51 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation NO 1 mpac t Ixi IXI Ixi Incorporated 0 0 0 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 0 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 0 0 0 Ixl [XI IXI Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs‘? 0 0 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste’? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number ,or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 0 0 0 0 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) 0 0 cl Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the 52 16 Rev. 07/03/02 scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable Iepf standards. and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated." describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 53 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS The project does not have the potential for significant aesthetic impacts because it will implement the Spanish Colonial architectural theme that is proposed for the development of the Commercial Dwellins Units. The master plan provides guidelines for high quality architecture that will compliment the existing structures at the La Costa Resort. In addition, the development shall implement the El Camino Real (ECR) Corridor Standards as implemented by the master plan. The master plan modifies the Standards with regards to landscaping with addition of mixing date Palms along the ECR frontage to promote a resort feel in combination with Old Spanish theme of the Corridor Standards which designate the use of California Sycamores. While the conversion of the existing property from old resort units and parking areas to the development of commercial dwelling unit villas is an impact; the area being proposed for development is not restricted open space, General Plan designated open space, nor have any significant habitat or other biological or cultural resources. Furthermore, the Travel Recreation (TR) General Plan designation that covers most of the area proposed for commercial villas is already in place and would allow such development. The balance of the area proposed for commercial villa development is comprised of Planning Area 1 with 5 acres, which could potentially yield up to 57 dwelling units the existing General Plan designation of RMH; so the existing development on PA 1 of nine resort homes does not represent the maximum amount of development allowed. Therefore, in combination with the landscaping and architectural elements described above, there will not be significant aesthetic environmental impacts. 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No agricultural lands will be affected by this master plan or its proposed implementation. 111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03). and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval, After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid- 1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. In the present case, the project is a General Plan Amendment to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms to the RAQS which include the following: 18 Rev. 07/03/02 0 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way contlict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? NO Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. As described above, the project has no potential to result in emissions of any kind. Given the lack of emissions associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. concentrations. No impact is assessed. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. As noted above, the project has not potential to result in objectionable odors. 111. IV. V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to biological resources because all areas proposed for development by master plan implementation are already developed within the Resort; areas proposed for development including resort unit areas, parking lots or other open areas that not constitute native habitat and have been previously graded. Therefore, there will be no significant biological resource impacts from the approval or implementation of the master plan. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources because the subject development site have already been developed and converted from natural terrain as explained above for the Biological Resources discussion. Therefore, there will be no significant cultural resource impacts from the approval or implementation of the master plan GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to geology or soils because no unusual soils or geologic exist onsite that would prevent the typical construction proposed for the commercial villas. All development will proceed according to standard City processes which will ensure that no site-specific condition exists to conflict with standard grading and construction techniques. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to geology or soils due to approval and implementation of the master plan. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 VI. . HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The approval and implementation of the master plan does invoke the use or transport of hazardous materials beyond typical construction practices. The use of the villas in the context of resort and health spa setting does not involve activities by Resort users that would increase the use or risk of such materials. VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hydrology or water quality because it will implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to manage the construction and development of the commercial villas in addition to the operation of the Resort golf courses, tennis areas, swimming pool, parking lots and other resort amenities. This will protect San Marcos Creek and adjacent Batiquitos Lagoon from stormwater runoff and water quality impacts. The proposed Golf Center in Planning Area 7 is processing a Special Use Permit because of portion of the improvements are located near the 100 flood line. Therefore analysis is being undertaken to verify the flood line delineation and to design the site and structure accordingly so that all flood protection based findings of 2 1.110 which outlines the Floodplain Special Use Permit process can be made. No significant impacts to hydrology or water quality will result from the approval or implementation of the master plan. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project will not physically divide a community because the Resort already exists and no new areas of raw land are being converted into development or resort uses. There is an existing adjacent residential community that has seen the proposed villa sites remain as resort units or parking areas for several years. However, the underlying TR General Plan designation as discussed above for Aesthetics allows for the proposed master plan uses and therefore development of these areas would not constitute a significant land use or planning impact. The proposed General Plan changes to the RD-M and RWO properties would be supported because they will eliminate the residential allowance within the Resort property and replace them with uses consistent with the Travel Recreation designation such as the proposed villas and resort operations. The proposed zone change would place the PC zone over the entire property and allowed for the processing and implementation of the master plan. The master plan will provide a blueprint for the development of the property, the management of its operations and guidance for Special Events that will protect the interests of adjacent residents, as the safety concerns of the City, to a degree never before mandated or regulated via the attached mitigation measures. These three mitigation measures address Traffic Impacts from Short Term Construction and Special Events, as well as Parking Adequacy, and are attached to the end of this document. The City of Carlsbad has a pending Habitat Management Plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act and the State of California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning program and it does not indicate any habitat value on the developed subject properties. Therefore, there will be no significant environmental impacts to land uses or planning. X. MINERAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to mineral resources, because none are associated with the property or the uses proposed. XI. NOISE The project does not have the potential for generating significant noise impacts because commercial villas consistent with Travel Recreation uses are proposed. While noise levels will be higher than the current land uses onsite (resort units and parking lots), this does not prevent development of resort uses. Commercial villas adjacent to Arenal, which separates the resort property from the residential neighborhood, will be setback back a minimum of 20 feet from Arenal Road with most structures having a 30-50 foot setback. However, no standards of city review would apply to the noise generation from this use; the property is proposed to continue its resort functions with the development of the villas. The City Noise Policy applies to new residential projects in excess of five units. As a commercial dwelling unit project, these units are not 20 Rev. 07/03/02 5-6 XII. XIII. xv. XVI. a) considered residential units and therefore: (1) do not require compliance with the Noise Policy for noise impacts from El Camino Real; (2) are not considered Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) for facility impacts, (3) are exempt from generating affordable housing units. No impacts to noise will result from the approval and implementation of the master plan. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to population or housing because the proposed commercial dwelling units are not considered residential dwelling units and therefore do not affect planned or existing housing stock in the city or immediate area. There will be no impacts to population or housing from approval or implementation of the master plan. PUBLIC SERVICES The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to public services because it has been designed, and will be accordingly conditioned, to comply with the City’s Growth Mana, uement Program and specifically the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. This Plan is typical for all development in the city in that it ensures the availability of eleven public services and facilities for all approvals, ranging from sewer and water services to public safety. This project will not create significant impacts to public services. z-7 RECREATION The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to recreation because there are no public recreational amenities or resources associated with proposed development areas. The resort property represents a private recreational and resort interest, and its expansion within its property does not constitute an adverse impact to the recreational resources in the city. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: Cause an increase in traffc that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? No Impact unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not generate any ADT’s that exceed acceptable levels of service (LOS) since commercial dwelling units do not generate trips in the same manner as residential dwelling units. The master plan provides for adequate circulation onsite but the short term construction impact and special events have the potential to create significant impacts to traffic and capacity on the local street system of El Camino Real, Estrella del Mar and Arena1 Road. Mitigation measures are proposed for these impacts (short term construction impacts and special event impacts) which are outlined at the end of the document. These mitigation measures will guide construction and future special event permitting so that city safety concerns and impacts to the adjacent residential area will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The measures provide for monitoring and actions that provide a high level of protection for adjacent residents that previously has not existed nor been implemented. Therefore, with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the impacts will be less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: 21 Rev. 07/03/02 3-7 Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 Existine ADT* 15-32 21-50 10-52 120 183- 198 Buildout ADT” 28-43 32-65 29-77 143 2 19-239 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F“ if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g.. SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E’ standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and. highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. Given, the above and the fact that commercial dwelling units do not generate ADT, there will not be significant impacts. - C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is not subject to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. However, the nature and experience of past Special Events at the La Costa Resort have resulted in the development of mitigation measures which will reduce the adverse impacts to emergency access to a level of insignificance. These measures, Traffic Impacts - Special Events, are attached to the end of this document. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is requesting a shared use parking assumption for the commercial dwelling units. These units have up to two lock-out provisions so that up to 393 room keys could be generated for the 197 villas. The city’s requirement for 1.5 parking spaces per unit is designed for lock-out units. However, for the phasing of the villa structures, various measures are put into place for the monitoring and provision of adequate parking. These mitigation measures are summarized in the Parking Adequacy mitigation measure contained at the end of this document. The primary elements of the mitigation measure are: (1) the continual supply of at least 200 parking spaces in excess of the spaces required by the shared parking analysis (contained in the Parking Assessment dated 6 February 2004, available for reference and attached to the master plan) per the Phased 22 Rev. 07/03/02 58 Interim Parking program referenced in the mitigation measure, (2) parking structure option. and; (3) restriction on building permit issuance for the final phase of villas. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. there will be no significant impacts to parking adequacy. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e+, bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The master plan approval and implementation will not impacts any alternative transportation programs or efforts. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS Similar to the discussion on Public Services, there will be adverse environmental impacts to utilities or services systems, or the requirement to construct new such systems. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Final Master Environmental Impact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Parking Assessment, 6 February 2004 Hydrologic Report, dated November 3,2003 Traffic Analysis, November 3, 2003 Draft Master Plan, La Costa Resort dated April 30,2003 23 Rev. 07/03/02 59 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) - Traffic Impacts - Short Term Construction Prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permit issuance for the phased development of the Commercial Dwelling Units, a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) shall be filed with the City Engineer, Fire Chief and Planning Director. which reduces to the greatest extent possible, disruptions or adverse impacts to adjacent residential properties. In addition to typical requirements, the TCP shall address service delivery. trash collection, and construction traffic routing in addition to providing required parking and services for resort visitors. The TCP shall also assess all feasible alternative construction access routes that reduce th’e impacts of heavy traffic in close proximity to existine residential properties, especially alternatives for primary construction access via Arena1 Road. Traffc Impacts - Special Events Prior to the issuance of any Special Event Permit by the Carlsbad Police Department, the City’s Fire Chief. Planning Director and City Engineer shall provide written support for the Permit. Such support shall be based on the adequate inclusion of a Traffic and Parking Management Plan, which shall contain the following elements: a. b. C. d. e. Closine of adjacent public streets: Adjacent public streets within 1000 feet of the resort property of Planning Areas 1-6 shall be sign-posted “No Parking” by the Special Event Permit holder at least 72 hours in advance of the event with wording approved by the Police Department. Sign removal is the responsibility of the Permit holder within 24 hours after the-event, and fines may be assessed if not removed. The Police Department shall be responsible for the enforcement of the no parking restrictions on the posted public streets during the course of the special event. Residential Access Passes: The Special Event Permit holder shall provide documentation that certified mailings- to residents within 1000 feet of the resort property of Planning Areas 1-6 were provided two (2) Residential Access Passes to allow access through the public streets to their residence. Special Event Parking Passes: The Special Event Permit holder shall provide numbered parking passes to special event participants and attendees that correspond to the number of available parking spaces within the resort property, per a corresponding Special Event Site Plan that designates potential parking areas in a quantity equal to parking passes. Only vehicles with a Special Event Parking Pass may enter the resort during a Special Event; all others except emergency service vehicles shall be restricted access. SDecial Event Site Plan: The available parking areas are identified to generate parking passes per vehicle. Fire access lanes, restricted safety or buffer zones and any public service or safety staging areas shall also be depicted on the Special Event Site Plan. Areas not designated for parking may be required to be so posted, and vehicles in violation will be towed and/or cited. Special Event Offsite Parking Location Map: Emphasis for major special events will be on shuttling the general public from offsite parking locations per a Special Event Offsite Parking Location Map. All offsite locations need documentation of property owner approval. Onsite access will be limited to vehicles with a Parking Pass. Parking Adequacy In order to ensure the adequacy of parking for the development and operation of the Commercial Dwelling Units (CDU’s) from initial construction through the final phase, Phase 5 per the Phasing Plan of the Master Plan, the following three mitigation measures shall be implemented and enforced: 1. Phased Interim Parking Provision: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any phase of development, compliance with the requirements of the master plan’s Parking Assessment shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director; and for Phases 1,2,3 and 4 of the five-phased development, the provision of 200 additional parking spaces in excess of the Parking Assessment requirements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Minor improvements to these interim parking areas, including but not limited to, landscaping, signage, and striping, may be required by Planning Director, City Engineer or Fire Chief to ensure public health, safety or welfare. The Phased Interim Parking is depicted on pages 2-48 thru 2-52 of the Master Plan At the completion of Phase 5, the project will comply with the analysis of the Parking Assessment and not be required to exceed, except as may be provided by the Parking Structure Provision mitigation measure outlined below. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 2. Parkina Structure Provision: The 138-space Parking Structure within Planning Area 5 is designed as an option to provide additional on-site parking that exceeds the analysis of the master plan’s Parking Assessment. At project buildout, if conditions and operations at the site so warrant. the Developer and the Planning Director may determine an enforceable construction schedule of the Parking Structure by mutual agreement. If there is not mutual agreement, then the Planning Director will initiate a master plan amendment as allowed by city ordinance to bring the matter to the City Council for resolution. The Parking Structure is discussed on pages 2-46 and 3-30 of the Master Plan. - 3. Phase 5 Building Permit Restriction: Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a structure in Phase 5. the Planning Director shall make a determination of parking adequacy given the construction. operation and servicing of the development phases constructed thus far. If the Planning Director is unable to make a determination of parking adequacy, building permits will not be issued and the Developer may propose solutions, which may require further review and approval, with the exception of the Parking Structure Provision outlined above. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES - THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. c / Dke I s1, mature 27 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 3 I ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5698 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALlFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA, FROM RESIDENTIAL HIGWOFFICE (RWO) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (RMH) TO TRAVEL RECREATION (TR) IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASENAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO: GPA 03-08 WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as See attached (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibits “GPA 03-08” existing and proposed, dated August 4,2004, attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - GPA 03-08 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of August 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - GPA 03-08, based on the following findings and subject to the condition contain therein: Findings: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendments from RH/O and RMH to Travel- Recreation is consistent with the General Plan because all of the subject property is part of the La Costa Resort complex that is proposing a modernization of the resort given its original concept and construction of over 40 years ago. The properties proposed for a change in designation would currently allow residential development at the high and medium high densities. Residential development, while not fully actualized now onsite, is proposed for replacement by Travel-Recreation uses, specifically the requested commercial dwelling units. The proposed TR General Plan designation would combine with the existing TR designation that covers the balance of the KSL properties at the La Costa Resort and Spa with the exception of General Plan Open Space which covers golf, tennis and some parking areas onsite. Condition: 1. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 03-04/MP 03-02MP 149SICT 03-01/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697, 5699,5700,5701, 5702,5703, 5704, and 5705 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. PC RES0 NO. 5698 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: . WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: v MICHAEL J. HOLZMIL~ER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5698 -3- RLM TO OS LOTS 145, 146 AND 147 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5734, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 18,1966. RMH TO TR LOTS 121 THROUGH 129, INCLUSIVE OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO JULY 29,1954; TOGETHER WITH, LOTS 138, 139 AND 140 OF LA COSTA UNIT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5486, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO OCTOBER 28,1964. RHO TO OS A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDJNO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF LOT 3 AND THE NORTHEASTERLY PORTION OF LOT 4, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). GPA 03-08 - existing August 4, 2004 - EXISTING , SITE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN GPA 03-08 70 GPA 03-08 - proposed August 4, 2004 PROPOSED / SITE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN GPA 03-08 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5699 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1, RP, RD-M AND C-2 TO PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ON PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO: ZC 03-04 WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as See attached (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit “X“ dated August 4, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department, LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - ZC 03-04 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - ZC 03-04 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: /la 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 1. That Le three propose1 Zone Change requests for the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan, (1) from Residential Professional (RP) to Planned Community (PC); (2) from Residential Density-Multiple to Planned Community (PC), (3) Single-Family Residence (R-1) to Planning Community (PC), and; (4) from C-2 to Planned Community (PC) are consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that Land Use Element Implementing Policy C.10 encourages tourist destination facilities, as long as they protect the residential character of the community and the opportunity of local residents to enjoy the continued use of the beach, local transportation and parking facilities. The proposed zone change will allow for the development of a comprehensive master plan for the La Costa Resort and Spa, which will guide the future redevelopment of the subject properties into commercial dwelling units, as part of the Resort complex and consistent with existing and proposed Travel-Recreation (TR) General Plan designation onsite. The subject properties (currently RP, RD-M, R-1 and C-2) have existing development allowances regarding residential dwelling units and/or commercial uses, in addition to development standards such as building height, parking, and affordable housing compliance which will be replaced with commercial dwelling unit developments to modernize the Resort and its properties. The proposed zone changes do not affect the existing tennis court or golf course areas. In addition, the master plan process allows for continual monitoring and review of the subject property so that the City may bring any documented parking or other operational problems before a public hearing for resolution. This existing master plan process will apply to the La Costa Resort and Spa, which therefore makes it consistent with Land Use Element Implementing Policy C.13 which requires the review of parking requirements for commercial areas on a periodic basis to ensure adequate parking and to address identified parking problems. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that the proposed zone changes will implement the Planned Community zoning district over the entire Resort property, which then allows for the development and approval of a comprehensive master plan for the site. The PC zone will be consistent with the existing and proposed General Plan designations on the Resort property, and will be concurrently implemented by the master plan. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the Resort in the past did not have a comprehensive plan or vision for its future operations and bufldout. The zone change to PC and corresponding requirement for the development of a master plan, will provide regulations and procedures that will provide more long term protection to the area and adjacent residents than if no master plan existed. The master plan will accommodate the continued operation of the resort, tennis courts and golf courses while redeveloping other portions of the property with commercial dwelling units as part of the Resort’s development plans. -2- 73 PC RES0 NO. 5699 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Conditions: 1. This approval is granted subject to t,,e approval of the Mitigatec Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-08/MP 03-02NP 149S/CT 03-01/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697,5698, 5700,5701, 5702, 5703, 5704 and 5705 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from 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 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 feedexactions 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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5699 -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, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: J pf Zz?- & &jg$g.?$?---- /hUNK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOEME!f%R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5699 -4- 75 RI TO P-C LOTS 145, 146 AND 147 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5734, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 18,1966. RDM TO P-C LOTS 121 THROUGH 129, INCLUSIVE OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO JULY 29,1954; TOGETHER WITH, LOTS 138, 139 AND 140 OF LA COSTA UNIT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5486, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO OCTOBER 28,1964. C-2 TO P-C A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 2 AND LOTS 5 THROUGH 40, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). R-P TO P-C A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF LOT 3 AND THE NORTHEASTERLY PORTION OF LOT 4, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01)). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5700 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERKLY LOCATED AT THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASENAME: LA COSTA REPORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO: h4P 03-02 WHEREAS, KSL, ”Developer/Owner”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as See Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan as shown on Exhibit “Y” dated August 4, 2004 attached hereto and Exhibits “MP 03-02/A-Q”, dated August 4,2004 on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - MP 03-02 as provided by Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of August 2004, consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - MP 03-02 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 27 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 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 4, 2004 including, but not limited to the following: Land Use Element policies C.10 and C.13 pertain to the subject project in that Policy C.10 encourages tourist-destination developments where appropriate, provided there is protection for adjacent residential areas, which this project provides in the form of the mitigation measures addressing parking and special event operations. Policy C.13 requires non-residential projects to be monitored for parking adequacy, which is part of the standard master plan process. In addition, this project’s mitigation measures restrict the ability to issue building permits for the last phase of commercial dwelling units unless a determination of parking adequacy can be made by the Planning Director. The proposed master plan provides for the buildout of the La Costa Resort complex with commercial dwelling units while strengthening the special even$ procedures and requirements to better protect the local community. The proposed master plan is consistent with the General Plan by implementing appropriate designations without any conflicts or inconsistencies with zoning regulations or site-specific conditions. 2. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement Program applicable to the subject property, in that the project does not require any major public improvements since adequate infrastructure already exists and the master plan is conditioned to comply with the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Zone Plan which will ensure the availability of public services and facilities compliant with the City’s Growth Management Program. 3. That the proposed commercial and industrial uses will be appropriate in area, location, and overall design to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such development will meet performance standards established by Title 21, in that no industrial or heavy commercial uses that are subject to Title 21 performance standards are proposed with the resort master plan. Existing resort and recreational uses will remain onsite such as the tennis courts, ballroom, spa, and golf courses. The redevelopment of certain areas with commercial dwelling units and parking areas will comply with applicable development standards including setbacks and building height, which in most cases are comparable to the intensity and development standards that would pertain if the existing zoning and General Plan designations onsite were not proposed for amendment. 4. That in the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected from any adverse effects from such development, in that several aspects of the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding mitigation measures address the protection of the adjacent neighborhood by new special event procedures, and formalizing the requirement for a Planning Director determination of parking adequacy prior to building permit issuance for the last phase of commercial dwelling unit 78 PC RES0 NO. 5700 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 6. 7. development. In addition, standard master plan procedures allow for city-initiated master plan amendments to bring any operational or land use issues before the Planning Commission in a public hearing context for resolution. This further protects the residential area surrounding the resort property from adverse impacts. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic thereon, in that the El Camino Real roadway is designated as Prime Arterial with a design capacity in excess of 40,000 ADT. The current Resort trip generation is estimated at 2,600 ADT; the proposed increase in vehicular traffic based on the buildout of the proposed commercial dwelling units is 1,624 ADT for a total of 4,199 ADT sourcing from the resort site. The increase in ADT to the Resort equates to approximately 4% of the current total ADT on El Camino Real. Therefore, the streets in the area are suitable to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated with the exception of special events, which will be subject to a separate permit process and additional criteria and regulations, including the applicable components of this project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration. That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the development, in that while the Resort has been in existence for nearly 40 years in combination with the adjacent residential neighborhood, the master plan does involve development of areas previously used as parking or resort units. However, the underlying land use designations currently in place would allow for a similar scale of development with high and medium-high density residential development. Therefore, the Resort’s operations and special event efforts will be monitored over time to assist in promoting the most feasible compatibility between the project site and adjacent homes. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, in that mitigation measures are established for impacts to Short Term Construction Traffic Impacts, Special Event Traffic Impacts, and Parking Adequacy. These mitigation measures are intended to regulate the Resort’s operation and construction efforts; and to provide master plan-mandated protective measures for the adjacent neighborhood that were not developed nor applied previously at La Costa. Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Master Plan documents necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 149S/CT 03-01/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-O6/SUP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697, 5698, 5699, 5701, 5702, 5703, 5704, and 5705 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. PC RES0 NO. 5700 -3- 79 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. This master plan shall supercede all previous land use regulations associated with the site, including MP 149 and CUP 258 and all related amendments to CUP 258. CUP 258 and related amendments addressed the Ballroom, which is now regulated as an allowed land use that does not require a separate conditional use permit within the regulations for Planning Area 5 of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan. MP 149 only covered a portion of the area now covered by MP 03-02, and it is superceded by this master plan. Special Event Permits at La Costa shall be subject to applicable master plan provisions. All land uses and operations within the master plan are subject to on going monitoring to promote land use compatibility and operational function; and to enforce various programs contained within the master plan such as signage and stormwater runoff control. The city may initiate a master plan amendment at any time to initiate public hearings to address any issues. The shared parking analysis contained in master plan appendix item, Walker Parking Assessment, is supported for the proposed 50% reduction in total spaces required. This support is based on the concurrent approval and implementation of the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding mitigation measures. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions .” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. 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 annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions 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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of ,limitations has previously otherwise expired. PC RES0 NO. 5700 -4- 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: +/ J,-;zrl.-r/Lb ,i, ' pgj&& . I--- FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION /. ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOEMILYER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5700 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5701 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA FROM THE ORIGINAL LA COSTA MASTER PLAN, MP 149, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASENAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER CASE NO: Mp 1496) WHEREAS, KSL, ”Developer/Owner”, has filed a verified application with the PLAN City of Carlsbad regarding property described as See Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit “Z“ dated August 4, 2004, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - MP 149(S) as provided by MP 149 and Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of August 2004, consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Master Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA 8s 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 MASTER PLAN - MP 149(S) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 4,2004. 2. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement Program applicable to the subject property, in that the property will be subject to the requirements of Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. 3. That the residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof, in that removal of the subject property from the La Costa Master Plan, MP 149, and adoption of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02, for that area will provide an updated plan for the Resort’s operations, special events and proposed development of commercial dwelling units onsite, that is consistent with current city ordinance, regulations and policies. 4. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as noted in the environmental review for the project, in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared that includes measures to reduce any impacts to levels of insignificance. Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Master Plan documents necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03- 02/CT 03-01/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697, 5698, 5699, 5700,5702,5703, 5704, and 5705 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. ... PC RES0 NO. 5701 -2- 83 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 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions. ” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. 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 annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions 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 feedexactions 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 the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: 4 F&”K H. WHITTON, Chai@erson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H&MIL&R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5701 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5702 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS FOR 197 COMMERCIAL DWELLING UNITS; AND TO SUBDIVIDE ANOTHER 31 LOTS FOR THE BALANCE OF THE RESORT PROPERTY FOR EXISTING USES, OPEN SPACE, PARKING, AND PRIVATE STREETS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE LA COSTA RESORT PROPERTY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT CT 03-01 TO CASE NO.: CT 03-01 WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding.property described as: See attached ^. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibits “CT 03-01/R - RR” dated August 4, 2004, on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - CT 03-01, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of August 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - CT 03-01, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 8s 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 Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That the proposed map and the pro osed design and improvement f th subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the proposed subdivision is necessary for the development of commercial dwelling units and complies with all applicable regulations. The provision of commercial dwelling units further implements the partially existing, and proposed General Plan designation of Travel-Recreation (TR) for the master plan areas located outside of existing tennis court and golf course areas, which have a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS). That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for single-family development on the General Plan, in that the existing single-family neighborhood has been located adjacent to the La Costa Resort for several years so no new future land uses are anticipated. The project and related master plan’s obligation to the community to maintain compatibility will be an on-going source of monitoring and review. Given development standards that are not actualized now onsite by the Resort for existing residential designations, the presence of the adjacent neighborhood does not preclude the ability to propose development or modernization of the Resort, given proper City review and approval. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate commercial dwelling unit development, in that all structures, setbacks and landscaping can be provided; in addition to the provision of parking based on shared use concepts and also the proposal to provide up to 200 surplus parking spaces beyond the minimum required as the project phases through its development. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that there are no conflicts or issues with the property’s title or ability to secure the land use entitlements requested. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the areas proposed for improvements and Resort development per the proposed master plan are already developed with existing resort units, landscaping and/or parking areas. There are no areas proposed for development that represent raw land with sensitive plant or animal species; there are no listed species onsite and the plans do not affect any established habitat planning efforts 81 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project and master plan is conditioned to comply with all State and regional requirements, in addition to successful implementation of the corresponding Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 4, 2004 including, but not limited to the following in that Land Use Element policies C.10 and C.13 pertain to the subject project. Policy C.10 encourages tourist-destination developments where appropriate provided there is protection for adjacent residential areas, which this project provides in the form of the mitigation measures addressing parking and special event operations. Policy C.13 requires non-residential projects to be monitored for parking adequacy, which is part of the standard master plan process. In addition, this project’s mitigation measures restrict the ability to issue building permits for the last phase of commercial dwelling units unless a determination of parking adequacy can be made by the Planning Director. The proposed master plan provides for the buildout of the La Costa Resort complex with commercial dwelling units while strengthening the special event procedures and requirements to better protect the local community. The proposed master plan is consistent with the General Plan by implementing appropriate designation without any conflicts or inconsistencies with zoning regulations or site-specific conditions. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. r) The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that the project is conditioned to be consistent with the Zone 6 LFMP and Citywide Growth Management Program, which will secure the services necessary for the project. 83 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -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 13. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 14. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Note: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of a building or grading permit, whichever occurs first. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of-all future building permits; deny, revoke or fbrther condition all certificates of occupmcy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Tentative Tract Map. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the tentative tract map documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04MP 03- 02MP 149S/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06 and SUP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697,5698,5699,5700,5701,5703, 5704, and 5705 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, .and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 88 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 8. 9. 10. and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, fiom (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Tract Map, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising fiom the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. Developer shall submit to Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad UnifiedEncinitas and San Dieguito School Districts that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. Housing (Non-Residential) 11. Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the Developer, or hishedtheir successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null and void. PC RES0 NO. 5702 -5- a9 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 Landscape 12. 13. 14. Devwper shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Tree Preservation Plan showing existing onsite trees to be preserved, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Existing onsite trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed as needed. The Planning Director may approve the removal of trees, including but not limited to dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees during the review of the Tree Preservation Plan. All trees which are approved for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis, -. and all mature trees shall be replaced with minimum 36” box specimens. Miscellaneous 15. 16. 17. 18. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 6, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Planning. Prior to the issuance of the first Final Map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Map by Resolution No. 5702 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are distributed 96 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19. 20. 21 * 22. 23. 24. 25. or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to-the satisfaction of the Planning Director. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director a digital copy and a camera ready master copy of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan (MP 03-02), in addition to the required number of bound copies. “Prior to issuance of any building permit for commercial dwelling unithesort villa construction, an on-site inspection of the master plan property by city staff shall be conducted to ensure all elements of the site are compliant with applicable regulations. At minimum, the city staff team will consist of Planning Department, Engineering Department and Stormwater Division representatives. Areas of inspection shall include: the adequate relocation of the Acura trailers currently using parking spaces in the large parking lot south of Costa del Mar; and, adequate cleanup and site control of the area adjacent to San Marcos Creek and the property located south of the creek.” Eneineerinp: PC RES0 NO. 5702 -7- 9/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Genera1 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements withm the subdivision and all the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. This project is approved for up to 4 (four) Final Maps for the purposes of recordation in the order of phasing shown on the tentative map. _. If Developer desires to record a Final Map out of the phase approved on the tentative map, the new phasing may be approved or conditionally approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director if it is found to be consistent with the tentative map and all improvements and infrastructure (parking, water, sewer, recycled water, streets, utilities, etc.) necessary to support the proposed map phasing is identified on the substantial conformance exhibit, and designed and secured prior approval of the final map. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs). "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition." The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development. Fees/Agreements 32. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 33. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. -8- 92 PC RES0 NO. 5702 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 34. 35. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross lot drainage as shown on the tentative map. The deed restriction document shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall: A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course; B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying property owners; and C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict, impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public nuisance. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. Grading 36. 37. 38. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to start of any earthwork activities. Prior to any grading or issuance of any building permits within limits of inundation by the 100-year flood line as shown on the tentative map, a comprehensive analysis, to assess the impacts of the proposed grading within the fringe areas of a Special Flood Plain Hazard Area (SFHA) and to determine the post development 100-year flood inundation level for San Marcos Creek in these areas, shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If the analysis shows detectable changes to the limits of inundation as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), developer shall process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision with FEMA prior to start of any work within these areas. Development in the SFHA shall be limited such that there is no increase in the water surface elevations on adjacent properties. Dedications/Improvements PC RES0 NO. 5702 -9- 93 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 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be rededicated. Additional easement width shall be granted over all existing storm drain facilities where the current easement width is less than the City’s current standard width. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall upgrade the existing recycled water system connection as required by City and District staff. The existing meter shall be relocated to within public right-of-way, and the connection and service system shall be upgraded to meet current standards, Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plancheck and inspection fees. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, but not limited to paving, base, signing, sidewalks and striping, curbs, medians, grading, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, streetlights, retaining walls, and reclaimed water, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: a) b) c) The public storm drain system shown on the tentative map. The proposed water mains and appurtenances as shown on the Tentative Map. The public street improvements as shown on the Tentative Map. A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 44. Except for the approved driveway locations shown on the tentative map, Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all lots abutting El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. 45. Vacation of those portions of right-of-way on Palmer Court and Estrella De Mar Road, as shown on the tentative map, shall be processed prior to or concurrently with the final map. The resolution of vacation shall be recorded with the County 44 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -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 46. 47. 48. 49. Recorder prior to or concurrently with the first final map. Developer shall continue to work with City and District staff to upgrai.2 the existing on-site recycled water system and to convert potable water uses to recycled water wherever possible. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along and within the subdivision boundary in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Municipal Code. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (”DES) permit. Develop.er shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall: a. include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; b. include the receipt of “Notice of Intent” issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; -1 1- 9 5 PC RES0 NO. 5702 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 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. recommend source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right- of-way or natural drainage course; and d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP).” The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: a. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; b. identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; c. recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; d. establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident and employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; e. ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and f. identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall install streetlights along all public and private street frontages abutting and/or within the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Developer shall install sidewalks along all public streets abutting the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Developer shall install wheelchair ramps at the public street comers abutting the subdivision boundary in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall have design, apply for and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the building or grading plan review whichever occurs first. 96 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -12- 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 55. Developer shall incorporate into the gradinghmprovement plans the design for the project drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to prevent vegetation growth fiom obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed riprap, or other means deemed appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Final Map Notes 56. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. 57. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the exception of the following: 1. Those portions of the onsite storm drain system shown on the tentative map _. as “public”. 2. The water facilities owned by Carlsbad Municipal Water District. 3. The sanitary sewer facilities identified by Leucadia County Wastewater District as District facilities. 4. Existing public facilities and utilities within the project boundaries. C. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. D. Geotechnical Caution: 1. Slopes steeper than two parts horizontal to one part vertical exist within the boundaries of this subdivision. 2. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. E. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as sight distance corridors. Special Conditions 58. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the tentative map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. 97 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Water 59 60 62. a. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fue protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieno County Water Authority capacity charge(s2 prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Developer shall install (potable water andor recycled water services) and meters gt a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the (Tentative Map/Site Plan) to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the entire potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Leucadia Wastewater District sewer infrastructure available or required to serve this project. The Developer shall submit a detailed sewer study, prepared by a Registered Engineer, that identifies the peak flows of the project, required pipe sizes, depth of flow in pipe, velocity in the main lines, and the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement PC RES0 NO. 5702 - 14- 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 70. plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a Registered Engineer that identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Code Reminder The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 71. 72 73. 74 75. 76. 77. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months fiom the date this tentative map approval becomes final. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.04.320. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project inclucla the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” 97 PC RES0 NO. 5702 -15- 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 You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. 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 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 feeslexactions 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 the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT : Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: A"K H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMmER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5702 -16- PARCEL 1 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 26 AND SECTION 35, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF EL CAMINO OF RECORD; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1961 AS DOCUMENT NO. 138155 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; REAL PER ROAD SURVEY NO. 682 AND ROAD SURVEY NO. 1800-1 AND VARIOUS DEEDS ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, PER MAP NO. 5434, LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 2, PER MAP NO. 5486, LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 3, PER MAP NO. 6129 AND LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 4, PER MAP NO. 6520, ALL FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL A, AS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 14 IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, AND LOT 3 OF LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM NO. 4, AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 6520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORD RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ALL IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ALSO EXCEPTING THE LA COSTA SHOPPING CENTER, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 9, 14 AND 15 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICAL PLAT THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 45 AND 46 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AND THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 25, 26, 35 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALL BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EXCEPTING ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 3, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6129, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 4, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUTNY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; ALSO EXCEPTION THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH, A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFONIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; ALSO TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. PARCEL 2: PARCEL A OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13427, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SAN DIEGO OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY AUGUST 16, 1984 AS DOCUMENT NO. 84-313333 PARCEL 3A: LOTS 121 THROUGH 129 INCLUSIVE OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY JULY 29,1964. PARCEL 3B: LOT 225 AND 226 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 4, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5781, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SEPTEMBER 16,1966. PARCEL 3C: LOTS 145,146 AND 147 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5734, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 18, 1966. EXCEPTING THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 147, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 101 OF MAP NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, BEING AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 147; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY, NORTH 57"24'00" WEST, 128.03 TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE SOUTH 64"OO'OO" EAST, 95.16 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39"19'00" EAST, 35.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3D: LOTS 138,139 AND 140 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5486, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY OCTOBER 28,1964. PARCEL 4: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PASSAGE, DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE OVER, UNDER, THROUGH AND ACROSS A PORTION OF LOT 148 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 4, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5781, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. PARCEL 5: PARCEL A, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE" RECORDS. RECORDED NOVEMBER 25, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81- 374108 OF OFFICIAL PARCEL 6; A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER COSTA DEL MAR ROAD AS DEDICATED AND REJECTED ON LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS NO. 3 AND 4 ACCORDING TO MAPS 6129 AND 6520 RESPECTIVELY; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL 9 HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL 7A: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS OVER AND THROUGH THAT PORTION OF LOT 9 IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 15 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARILY DESRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, RECORDED AUGUST 11,1961 AS DOCUMENT NO. 138155 OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED, NORTH 89O25'44" WEST, 75.08 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH OO"34'16" WEST, 53.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 8: AN EASEMENT FOR A GOLF CART UNDERCROSSING STRUCTURE BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICAIL PLAT THEREOF. PARCEL 9: ALL THAT PORTION OF COSTA DEL MAR ROAD, AS SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON MAP OF LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM NO. 4 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6520, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, LYING WESTERLY OF A RADIAL LINE FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 3 OF SAID MAP NO. 6520, HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 38'33'43'' WEST, PER THAT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMEBER 25,1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81-374108 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5703 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, PUD 03-06, TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 197 COMMERCIAL DWELLING UNITS OVER 10 LOTS ON 15 ACRES AND TO PROVIDE FOR EXISTING USES, OPEN SPACE, PARKING AND PRIVATE STREETS OVER 31 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE LA COSTA RESORT PROPERTY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: PUD 03-06 WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the -. City of Carlsbad regarding property described as See attached (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Non-Residential Planned Unit Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “PUD 03-06/SS - 00000” dated August 4, 2004, on file in the Planning Department, LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - PUD 03-06 as provided by Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of August 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Non-Residential Planned Unit Development Permit NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 104 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 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - PUD 03-06, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the code, the general plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted plans of the city and other governmental agencies in that the proposed master plan will implement the Travel Recreation designation over the subject area with a non-residential Planned Unit Development for up to 197 commercial dwelling units (CDU). 2. The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility, which will contribute to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood and the community in that the La Costa Resort is proposed to modernize the 40+ year old property to match the visibility and quality destination that Carlsbad-has become. The proposed tourist-based development and commercial dwelling units will provide for a higher quality tourist destination and keep the property in line with the caliber of resorts nearby and in the region. 3. Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the project is conditioned to be monitored for operational function and to identify any parking or other issues over time. These issues may be resolved in a public hearing context as part of the standard master plan process. In addition, mitigation measures associated with the project further protect the area from detrimental impacts. 4. The proposed nonresidential planned development meets all of the minimum development standards of the underlying zone in that the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan, as proposed, designates the areas for non-residential developmend commercial dwelling units as a C-2 zoning district; which outlines the development standards that the commercial dwelling units will comply with. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building permit issuance. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all fi-iture building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to PC RES0 NO. 5703 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Non-residential PUD. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Non-residential PUD documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different fiom this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Non-residential PUD, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03- 02/MP 149S/CT 03-01/SUP 03-06 and SUP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697, 5698, 5699, 5700, 5701,5702, 5704, and 5705 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD, PC RES0 NO. 5703 -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 whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, ths project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null and void. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. 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 annul their imposition. . You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions 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. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5703 -4- 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: /:. .’ - &%. A I SrfiANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5703 -5- PA 1 - A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 9 THROUGH 16 AND LOT 39, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). PA 2 - A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 17 THROUGH 21, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). PA 3 - A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 24 THROUGH 30 AND LOT 36, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). PA 4 - A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 31 THROUGH 35, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5704 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A GOLF CENTER FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 OF THE LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO: SUP 03-06 WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS A PORTION OF LOTS 1,3, 4, 35, 37 AND 41, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). (‘the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Floodplain Special Use Permit as shown on Exhibits “SUP 03-06/PPPPP-SSSSS” dated August 4, 2004, on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - SUP 03-06, as provided by Chapter 21.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Floodplain Special Use Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: // 0 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 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - SUP 03-06, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The site is reasonably safe fiom flooding in that most of the area within Planning Area 6 is already in use as a driving range and/or portion of existing golf areas and can accommodate seasonal flows and occasional inundation without significant loss. The project as proposed has been designed to minimize the flood hazard to the habitable portions of the structure in that the proposed golf center structure will not be located on or within the.lOO-year flood hazard line or area. The structure will located outside of the risk area, however, minor grading is proposed on the edge of the flood line to improve the flood protection to the area and structure. The grading requires the need to process a Special Use Permit even though no structures in the hazard area are proposed. The proposed project does not create a hazard for adjacent or upstream properties or structures in that the proposed grading will not alter the flow of San Marcos Creek upstream nor create hazards for adjacent or upstream properties. Final assessments and certifications are still required in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which will further ensure that no impacts will occur either upstream or downstream from the proposed project and its location along San Marcos Creek. The proposed project does not create any additional hazard or cause adverse impacts to downstream properties or structures in that similar to the finding above for upstream properties, the proposed grading is minor in nature, will not involve future construction of a building or structure, and will be consistent with the provisions of FEMA. The proposed project does not reduce the ability of the site to pass or handle a base flood of 100- year frequency in that initial hydrologic studies verify the minor impact of the project on the floodplain and its ability to convey 100-year level floodwaters will remain unchanged by implementation of the proposed grading associated with the golf center. Finalized assessments and certifications still required of the project will further ensure the site’s ability to accommodate 100-year flood events. The proposed project taken together with all the other known, proposed and anticipated projects will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point in that submitted hydrologic assessments, reviewed against the project proposal, confirm that water surface elevations approaching one foot will not occur. //I PC RES0 NO. 5704 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 8. All other required state and federal permits have been obtained. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby fin( a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to adoption the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment _. Conditions: 1. 2. 3. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Special Use Permit document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Floodplain Special Use Permit. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this SUP, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. PC RES0 NO. 5704 -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 4. Developer shall submit to Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36,” mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 5. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04MP 03- 02/MP 149S/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06 and SUP 03-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697,5698,5799,5700,5701,5702, 5703, and 5705 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. Engineering 6. Prior to any grading or issuance of any building permits within limits of inundation by the 100-year flood line as shown on the tentative map, a comprehensive analysis, to assess the impacts of the proposed grading within the fringe areas of a Special Flood Plain Hazard Area (SFHA) and to determine the post development 100-year flood inundation level for San Marcos Creek in these areas, shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If the analysis shows detectable changes to the limits of inundation as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), developer shall process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision with FEMA prior to start of any work within these areas. Development in the SFHA shall be limited such that there is no increase in the water surface elevations on adjacent properties. 7. Developer is responsible to incorporate the necessary measures that are required to ensure all new structures located within flood hazard areas comply with Section 21.110.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations including but not limited to: a) Developer shall ensure all new construction is anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of structures resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. b) Developer shall ensure all new structures are constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. Developer shall utilize construction methods and practices that minimize flood damage to structures. c) Developer shall ensure all new structures are constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. d) Developer shall ensure all new structures that include fully enclosed areas, subject to flooding, are designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by registered professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: 1. Either a minimum of two (2) openings having a total net area of not less than one (1) square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to PC RES0 NO. 5704 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above finished grade; or .. 11. Be certified to comply with a local flood-proofing standard approved by the Federal Insurance Administration. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall provide elevation certificates, certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, for each new structure. These elevation certificates shall provide verification that the finished floor elevation of all new structures are no less than 1-foot above the base flood elevation as established by the FIRM maps or established by other technical documents deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “ fees/exactions.” _. You have 90 days from 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 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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ... ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5704 -5- 1 ?. 1 c - 4 4 d 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August 2004 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: /&ANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLAN"G COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5704 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5705 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SCENIC CORRIDOR SPECIAL USE PERMl’T FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE PROJECT’S EL CAMINO REAL FRONTAGE SUBJECT TO CORRIDOR STANDARDS ON PROPERTY ADJACENT TO EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF COSTA DEL MAR, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN CASE NO: SUP 03-03 WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding .property described as A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 37, 38 AND THE WESTERLY 19.00 FEET OF LOTS 1, 4, 21, 22, 35 AND 36, AS SHOWN BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR LA COSTA RESORT (CT 03-01). (‘the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit [Amendment] as shown on Exhibits “SUP 03-03RTTTT” dated August 4, 2004, on file in the Planning Department LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - SUP 03-03, as provided by Chapter 21.40 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - SUP 03-03, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. The proposed project conforms to the intent of the Scenic Preservation Overlay in that the proposal conforms with applicable standards of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards and specifically those of Area 5 which pertain the La Costa Resort and Spa property with frontage on El Camino Real. Area 5 calls for a preservation of the Old California/Hispanic design theme with architecture featuring white stucco walls and Mission barrel-style roof tiles. Architectural towers will further this design theme in combination with building setbacks that exceed the 30 foot minimum required. All other aspects of the Corridor Standards are satisfied including grading, building height, land uses and signage. However, the master plan provisions for landscaping will slightly alter the City’s Landscape Manual, which stipulates the landscaping theme for this stretch of El Camino Real. Allowed theme trees of Sycamore and London Plane Tree, supported by Eucalyptus species and Brisbane Box trees will be provided, in addition to the integration of Date Palm Trees. This is proposed by the applicants as a way to promote the existing Scenic Corridor landscaping criteria while combining the resort-type ambience that palm trees provide. The proposed project implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan in that the proposal is consistent the Open Space and Conservation Element Objective B.6 which requires, where possible, “increased setbacks along arterial corridors and establish greenways or similar areas to preserve and/or create open space areas as a means of maintaining community scale and identity.. .”. By exceeding the minimum building setback requirement of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards, in combination with the proposed landscaping and architecture, this Objective of the General Plan is satisfied. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to adoption the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and PC RES0 NO. 5705 -2- // 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 26 27 28 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Special Use Permit document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupGncy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit. 3. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this SUP, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. 4. Developer shall submit to Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36,” mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. 5. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04MP 03- 02/MP 149S/CT 03-0UPUD 03-06 and SUP 03-06 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5697, 5698,5699,5700, 5701,5702, 5703 and 5704 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. PC RES0 NO. 5705 -3- //8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Please take NOTICE iOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. 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 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 feedexactions 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 the 18th day of August 2004 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery ABSTAIN: -7 [+ e<-.----. __ <..&A r” g-3 d -- /f’RANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOI~M~ER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5705 -4- EXHIBIT 7 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. @ P.C. AGENDA OF: August 18,2004 Application complete date: December 17,2003 Project Planner: Eric Munoz Project Engineer: John Maashoff S UBJECT: GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/Mp 03-02MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03- 06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA - A request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, a Floodplain Special Use Permit and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit for the approval and implementation of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan to allow for the development of up to 197 Commercial Dwelling Units, a Golf Performance Center and related parking and landscaping within the existing property of the La Costa Resort and Spa. The project site is generaIly located south of Arenal Road and east of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. - I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5698,5699,5700,5701,5702,5703,5704 and 5705 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-08, Zone Change ZC 03-04, Master Plan MP 03-02, Master Plan Amendment MP 149(S), Carlsbad Tract CT 03-01, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development PUD 03-06, Floodplain Special Use Permit SUP 03-06 and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit SUP 03-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. EXPLANATION This item was scheduled to be heard at the August 4, 2004 meeting, which was canceled due to lack of a quorum. The dates on the staff report and plans have not been changed. The dates on the resolutions have been changed to reflect the meeting and adoption date of August 18,2004. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697, 5698, 5699, 5700, 5701, 5702, 5703, 5704 and 5705 Staff Report dated August 4, 2004, with attachments The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: August 4,2004 Application complete date: December 17,2003 Project Planner: Eric Munoz Project Engineer: John Maashoff SUBJECT: GPA 03-0S/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03- 06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA - A request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, a Floodplain Special Use Permit and El Camino Real Comdor Special Use Permit for the approval and implementation of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan to allow for the development of up to 197 Commercial Dwelling Units, a Golf Performance Center and related parking and landscaping within the existing property of the La Costa Resort and Spa. The project site is generally located south of Arena1 Road and east of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. -. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5698, 5699,5700, 5701, 5702,5703, 5704 and 5705 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-08, Zone Change ZC 03-04, Master Plan MP 03-02, Master Plan Amendment MP 149(S), Carlsbad Tract CT 03-01, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development PUD 03-06, Floodplain Special Use Permit SUP 03-06 and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit SUP 03-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The proposed project consists of land use designation changes, and various land use entitlements to allow for the establishment and implementation of a master plan for the La Costa Resort and Spa. The master plan process allows the Resort to propose a shared parking analysis that affects the number of required parking spaces, the development of commercial dwelling units, a Golf Perfonnance Facility and related parking and landscaping within existing resort property. Specifically, the 392-acre property owned by KSL Development at the La Costa Resort and Spa is proposing a master plan to guide its fiiture operations, parking compliance, special events and the redevelopment of 15 acres with up to 197 commercial dwelling units. The applicant intends to maintain the Resort, constructed in 1965, as a quality tourist and resort destination. GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04NP 03-02NP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 The proposed master plan divides the property into seven planning areas. No new area is being added to the La Costa Resort property to constitute an expansion of the master plan. Four planning areas (15 acres) propose up to a total of 197 commercial dwelling units; another planning area (360 acres) contains the existing golf courses onsite, tennis co~uts, and related resort structures including retail areas and administrative offices; another planning area (6 acres) contains the ballroom and adjacent parking area; and a final planning area (11 acres) is for the Golf Performance Center and driving range. Certain structures and buildings onsite, especially in the southern portion of the site near San Marcos Creek, will be demolished and removed as part of the master plan implementation. The exhibit package contains a demolition exhibit. These planning areas comprise the 392-acre resort property and are outlined along with the shared parking analysis, in the Project Description and Background section of this staff report. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is being processed with this project, which reviews the environmental impacts of the proposed master plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). -. The project’s requested entitlements comply with all applicable City Standards and all necessary findings can be made for the approvals being requested. Planning Commission action on the subject entitlements will be recommendation actions, which will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The “project” includes the permit applications and entitlement requests as outlined below: GPA 03-08 A general plan amendment is proposed to implement the proposed master plan and development of commercial dwelling units (CDUs). The proposed general plan amendments are depicted on Exhibit GPA 03-08 as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5698. Three areas are subject to general plan designation amendments: (1) existing RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan area is proposed for the TR (Travel-Recreation) designation. This area is within proposed Planning Area 1 of the master plan and will allow development of CDUs; (2) existing RLM (Residential Low Medium) General Plan areas are proposed for the 0-S (Open Space) designation. These areas are vacant properties located between existing single-family residences and the golf course at the terminus of Arena1 Road. This area is within proposed Planning Area 7 and will eliminate the existing residential density allowances, and replace them with permanent open space designations; (3) existing RH/O (Residential HigWOffice) General Plan area is proposed for the TR designation. This area is also within proposed Planning Area 7 and is part of the 519-space surface parking lot onsite. The residential and office designations will be replaced with TR to accommodate parking for the resort. GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SuP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 The general plan changes outlined above are necessary for implementation of the proposed master plan and will be accompanied with corresponding zone changes for the three subject areas as reviewed below. ZC 03-04 A zone change request corresponds with three general plan amendments noted above as follows: (1) the General Plan RMH change to TR will also have a zone change for the same area to replace existing RD-M (Residential Density Multiple) zoning with Planned Community (P-C) zoning. This allows for inclusion into the master plan and commercial dwelling unit development; (2) the General Plan RLM change to OS will also have a zone change for the same area to replace existing R-1 (Single-Family) zoning with P-C zoning. This allows for inclusion into the master plan; no development is proposed or allowed in this area; (3) the General Plan RH/O change to TR will also have a zone change for the same area to replace existing RP (Residential-Professional) zoning with the PC zone. This allows for inclusion into the master plan and use of the area as surface parking. A zone change request is also made for an area that does not have corresponding general plan amendments. This area is currently zoned C-2 (General Commercial) and affects all planning areas within the master plan except for proposed PAS 1 and 6. To include this area into the master plan, the C-2 zone will be replaced with P-C zoning. With the P-C zoning, each planning area is assigned a zoning district as discussed and depicted below in the discussion of MP 03-02. The proposed zone changes are necessary to implement the PC zone and allow for the processing of the proposed master plan. They also are necessary to maintain consistency between the General Plan and zoning designations for the subject properties. MP 03-02 By establishing the PC zone on the La Costa Resort properties, a master plan is required for the site. The master plan process is necessary to provide for a comprehensive plan to guide the daily operations, special events and future commercial dwelling unit developments onsite. The master plan divides the property into 7 planning areas. Four planning areas constitute the areas designated for development with commercial dwelling units, another for the ballroom, a planning area for existing Resort uses, golf courses and tennis areas, and a final planning area for a Golf Center and driving range. Under the PC zoning which requires a master plan, each Planning Area is assigned a zoning district consistent with the city’s zoning ordinance. The planning areas, assigned zoning districts, land uses and acreage are outlined in the table below GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 Planning Area Proposed PA Zoning District Master Plan Land Use 1 c-2 75 CDUs Acres 5.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 The proposed master plan (MP 03-02) will supersede the previous master plan that regulated the La Costa Resort and Spa (see MP 149(S) below), and it will also supersede the previous Conditional Use Permits (#s CUP 258 - approval of Resort Clubhouse/parking; CUP 258(A) - monument sign approval on El Camino Real; CUP 258(B) - parking lot relocation; and CUP 258(C) - approval of ballroom parking) that were associated with the Ballroom (located in proposed PA 5). The Ballroom was required to receive CUP approval because the existing C-2 zoning requires a CUP for resort uses. By replacing the C-2 zone with P-C zoning, the related master plan designates the ballroom as a permitted use in PA 5 rather than as a conditional use requiring a CUP. The Ballroom’s maximum seating capacity of 1,600 remains unchanged by this action; the 1,600 seating capacity is the basis for assessing required parking, as further discussed below under Analysis. A master plan amendment would be necessary to propose another use or to add or revise structures within PA 5. Any such future master plan amendments shall indicate the required permit to implement any proposed uses, changes or revisions to PA 5. - c-2 38 CDUs 3.0 c-2 38 CDUs 4.0 c-2 46 CDUs 3.0 c-2 Ballroom 6.0 0-s/c-2 Golf Courses/Resort/Spa 360.4 0-s Golf CenterDriving Range 11.0 MP 149(S) There is an existing master plan (MP 149) for the overall La Costa area of Carlsbad, which covers the La Costa Resort and Spa properties. This master plan dates back to 1972 and therefore an amendment is necessary to remove the Resort from MP 149. Other projects and master plans in the area have done similar amendments to MP 149; for example the Villages of La Costa Master Plan processed amendment MP 149(Q) to remove its properties. MP 149(S) will remove the Resort from the existing La Costa Master Plan so that it can be subject to the proposed master plan, MP 03-02 consistent with Planned Community zoning designation. CT 03-01/PUD 03-06 To process the approval of commercial dwelling units (CDUs), a subdivision of land is necessary via a tentative tract map (CT 03-01) and a non-residential planned unit development permit (PUD 03-06) for the approval of the architecture and location of the subject CDUs. The table below overviews the CDUs proposed by planning area and building phase. GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 Planning Area # of Planning Area Proposed Phase CDU Acreage 1 2 3 4 75 38 3 .O Phase 3A: 23 units Phase 4A: 15 units 38 4.0 Phase 2A: 20 units Phase 2B: 18 units 46 3 .O Phase 3A: 23 units 5 .O TOTAL Phase 1: 21 units Phase 5A: 36 units Phase 5B: 18 units Phase 3B: 23 units 197 15.0 CDUs are technically defined as commercial living units in Section 21.04.093 of the zoning ordinance. housing compliance; they provide services and recreational amenities in conjunction with the living unit intended for temporary owner lodging, and rental of the unit, or portion of, to Resort clients. The CDUs will be located in two to three story structures over the four planning areas and phases noted above. They are not residential dwelling units that generate the requirement for affordable -. As shown on project exhibits for the floor plans for the CDUs, a combination of options exist to rent out a portion of a unit. A three-bedroom unit will have the ability to be rented out as three separate units, or as one three-bedroom unit. Therefore, more than one “key” may be available with each unit. With the 197 CDUs proposed, up to 393 keys are possible for rental purposes. The parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit accounts for the additional keys per unit since there is variability in the dynamics of the Resort’s occupancy based on season, events, conference, etc. and related parking and arrival details. Part of the function of the proposed master plan is the processing of a shared parking analysis, which is reviewed under Analysis. It is important to note that while a 50% reduction of the overall master plan’s parking requirement is proposed, none of the parking spaces specifically required by the development of the 197 CDUs or the Ballroom will be reduced or eliminated. The 50% reduction is made by the shared parking dynamics between the Resort, Spa, Golf Courses and other resort amenities, rather than reducing parking for the CDUs and/or Ballroom. SUP 03-06 - Floodplain Planning Area 6 is the location of the proposed Golf Center and driving range. As shown on project exhibits “SUP 03-06” ”PPPPP”, the 100-year flood inundation line is located on the property north of San Marcos Creek and therefore requires the processing of a Floodplain Special Use Permit. The 8,600 square foot structure proposed with the Golf Center is not located in the 100-year flood line, however, some grading is involved that interfaces with the flooding area. This grading is designed to reduce any potential flooding impacts from a 100-year event to the adjacent Golf Center structure, parking area or driving range. GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 Element Land Use Land Use SUP 03-03 - ECR Corridor Goal, Objective, Policy Project Consistency Policy C.10 - Encourage clustering The Master Plan clusters CDU when it is compatible with adjacent development to preserve open development. space. Policy C 13 - Review the architecture A variety of architecture has been of buildings to ensure the quality and proposed and designed under integrity of design and enhancement of master plan and city wide the character of each neighborhood. architectural guidelines. The frontage property along El Camino Real (ECR) is subject to the ECR Corridor Standards. The Standards, in combination with the City’s Landscape Manual for ECR tree planting themes, regulate land use, architecture, setbacks, landscaping, grading, and signage. This project complies with all aspects of the above noted regulations with the exception of landscaping where a specific addition to allowed plants and trees is proposed. The landscape design theme tree is the London Plane Tree supported by Eucalyptus tree species; the master plan proposes to augment this requirement with the integration of Date Palms to promote the resort ambience. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. General Plan; Zoning Ordinance: Planned Communities, Chapter 21.38; Subdivision Ordinance: Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; Non-Residential Planned Development Ordinance: Chapter 2 1.47; Floodplain Management Regulations: Chapter 2 1.1 10; Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone: Chapter 2 1.40/E1 Camino Real Corridor Standards Growth Management: Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. A. General Plan As described above in Project Description, the implementation of the proposed master plan requires various general plan designation changes. These changes primarily remove all residential allowances and designations from the entire La Costa Resort properties. The residential designations are replaced by Open Space or Travel Recreation designations, based on planning area locations within the master plan. The proposed general plan amendments will maintain consistency with zoning designations given the corresponding zone change request (ZC 03-04). The general plan amendments also are consistent with various elements of the General Plan as outlined in the table below: General Plan Compliance GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 Element Goal, Objective, Policy Circulation Streets & Traffic Control Policy C. 18- Require new development to dedicate and improve all public rights-of-way for circulation facilities needed to serve develonment. Project Consistency Dedication and improvement of all circulation facilities, needed for the project, will be completed. Open Space and Conservation B. Zoning Ordinance: Planned Communities, Chapter 21.38 Objective B-6 requires increased setbacks along arterial corridors to create open space areas to maintain community scale and identity. Compliance with the ECR corridor standard and landscape manual with addition of Date palms. ZC 03-04 - Zone Change to Planned Community The zoning ordinance allows for zone change requests subject to Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval. The Planned Community (P-C) zone is allowed for properties over 100 acres in size where a need for comprehensive planning exists. The La Costa Resort and Spa, in existence since the mid-l960’s, never has had a comprehensive plan for its operations, special events, or redevelopment concepts. With the proposal for commercial dwelling units, or resort villas, the property owners are proposing a master plan so that there is an approved plan to guide the Resort in its villa development, as well as regulating the entire property via one primary regulatory document vs. various approvals and entitlements. By rezoning the entire property to PC, the master plan approval can be implemented and enforced. One fundamental aspect of securing a master plan to a property, is that the City has the ability to monitor all operations over time and if functional or quality of life issues arise, there is a process to address such issues for resolution. MP 03-02 - La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan and MP 149 La Costa Master Plan The master plan divides the property into planning areas as noted earlier, and as the regulatory document for the La Costa Resort and Spa, it provides the following primary hnctions: 1. Supersedes previous master plan: MP 03-02 will formally supersede the previous master plan (MP 149) onsite, which covers the La Costa area including the Resort property, but does not address current proposals or issues. MP 149(S) will formally amend the existing master plan to remove the Resort property. 2. Supersedes previous Ballroom CUPS: as noted earlier, with the proposed master plan regulations for PA 5, the Ballroom is designated as a permitted use, although it and all master plan uses are still subject to monitoring. No additional uses or structures are allowed in PA 5 unless a master plan amendment is processed. GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUl' 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 3. Commercial Dwelling Units: are a major part of the master plan effort. The CDUs are essentially pre-approved with the exception of parking adequacy determinations that must be made by the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance for the last phase (Phase 5A and 5B) and its 54 CDUs. The parking determination is further discussed under Environmental Review as part of this project's Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. Special Events: for the first time in La Costa's history, there will be master plan guidance for city and Police Department staff for the review of Special Event Permit requests. These guidelines are accompanied by mitigation measures from this project's environmental review and are designed to further promote compatibility between the Resort and adjacent residences. They restrict aspects of site and public street access, parking and control. Developed in coordination with Police and Fire staff, these regulations are proposed in direct response to public input that identified historical and/or on-going problems with special events at the La Costa Resort. 5. Shared Parking Analysis: The Code (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 21.38.060(2)(C)) allows the master plan process to propose a reduction in required parking of overall master plan uses if it can be shown that multiple uses onsite will not generate multiple vehicle trips to the site; rather, once onsite, a guest will also use other onsite uses. Those other uses will not be generating many new guests that need to access the site and park a vehicle. All uses are assessed for parking with typical code requirements, then based on shared parking, a reduction is proposed based on assumptions of use at the Resort. The assessment is contained in the Walker Parking Assessment (appendix item to master plan) and the summary analysis below is based on the most intensive scenario in the assessment, which is a combination of a special event function in the ballroom at maximum capacity, and 85% resort occupancy rate. -. UnitdLand Use It is important to note that the actual areas of parking reduction will not occur within the parking spaces required by the CDUs; nor by the 320 parking spaces required by the Ballroom. The 50% reduction is possible given the shared use dynamics between the golf courses, Spa and other recreational and Resort uses. GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04MP 03-02MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SuP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 Page 9 Two other factors are involved with parking: (1) an optional parking structure of up to 138 spaces is proposed for PA 5, just west of the Ballroom on an existing surface parking lot. This structure is also addressed in the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and will be discussed in the Environmental Review section of this report; and; (2) part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed Phased Interim Parking whereby at least 200 spaces in excess of the 1,238 minimum spaces required by the shared parking analysis will be provided for each phase of CDU development, except the final phase. This is also discussed and depicted in the master plan on pages 2.44 -2.50A. C. Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and tentative tract map CT 03- 01, and has concluded that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). All major subdivision design criteria have been complied with, including the provision of public access, required street frontage and the design of the project so that commercial dwelling units may be subdivided for sale onsite, in combination with the non-residential planned unit development permit. -. D. Non-Residential Planned Development Ordinance This permit is required in conjunction with CT 03-01 for resort villa development of up to 197 commercial dwelling units. Each villa could then be sold individually. The architecture will be consistent with the ECR Corridor Standards in that required theme of Old CalifomidHispanic will be implemented. The buildings will be compliant with 35-foot height limit, with architectural towers to 45 feet as allowed by code. Most buildings will be three stories, however various streetscape perspectives, including the El Camino Real frontage, will view the structures as two stories since the first floor will be submerged into the existing grade and sloping contours. The Old California style will be represented in typical form featuring white, thick plaster walls and heavily textured barrel-style roofs. Architectural towers that do not accommodate any usable floor area define entrances and provide relief, in addition to staircases, which emphasize the pedestrian scale and use of the buildings. Wood windows and exposed wood framing, in addition to arched wall openings leading to exterior decks and buildings clustered to form courtyards hrther implement the required design theme of Old CalifomiaMspanic. E. Floodplain Management Ordinance A portion of PA 6 is affected by the 100-year Flood Line and is therefore located within a designated Flood Hazard Zone on the City’s Zoning Map. As such, any proposed development in that location must process a Special Use Permit (SUP 03-06). PA 6 proposes a Golf Center and driving range, which involves a structure of approximately 8,600 square feet. The structure will not be located on or within the flood inundation area and therefore is not subject to any hydrologic analysis. Exhibit SUP 03-06” ”PPPPP” depicts the improvements proposed for PA 6. There is some grading that does involve the outer fringe of the hazard area and requires special GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SuP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 STANDARD City Administration Librarv and requires special conditioning by the Engineering Department to assess post-grading flood impacts from a 1 00-year event. Other conditions relate to flood protection measures, compliance with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) procedures and building and grading pad elevation certificates. The existing driving range at the Resort is mostly located within the flood hazard area already, however the improvements proposed for PA 6 are consistent with the requirements of the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the zoning ordinance). The Special Use Permit complies with all applicable regulations. IMPACTS COMPLIANCE N/A Yes N/A Yes F. Scenic Preservation/El Camino Real Corridor Standards Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water The Corridor Standards and Landscape Manual regulate development for frontage property along El Camino Real, therefore a SUP for Scenic Preservation is required. As noted earlier, this project is compliant with all regulations and through the master plan process is proposing to add Date Palms to the allowed trees ofLondon Plane Tree, Sycamores and Eucalyptus species. Stations No. 2 and 5 Yes N/A Yes A Non-residential fee payment Yes 409 EDU Yes 89,980 GDP Yes Regarding the primary development standards applicable: The required design theme of Old California/Hispanic is proposed, and the proposed land use of visitor-serving commercial is also consistent with anticipated land uses for the site. The Corridor Standards set a maximum building height of 35 feet, minimum setback from ECR of 30 feet, and maximum grade cut of 10 feet; all of which are satisfied or exceeded by the proposed master plan. -. G. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 in the southeast quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with adopted performance standards, are summarized below. c GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE I 1 Waste Water Treatment I 409 EDU I Yes The existing plan for Local Facilities Management Zone 6 can accommodate the public services and facilities required by the proposed master plan. The Zone Plan is adequate to account for the anticipated 409 equivalent dwelling units and 4,199 ADT trip generation since road and other GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 Pane 11 service capacities will not be exceeded. The proposed project is in conformance with the City’s Growth Management Program and the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an initial study for the project and concluded that no potentially significant impacts would result with the implementation of the master plan if corresponding mitigation measures were established. The mitigation measures address Traffic Impacts due to Short Term Construction as well as Special Events; and Parking Adequacy. Traffic Impacts - Short Term Construction: the required mitigation is the filing of a Traffic Control Plan with city staff prior to building permit issuance. While a standard construction requirement, this mitigation measure requires that the Plan specifically addresses service delivery, trash collection, construction traffic routing, provision of required parking and services for resort and ballroom visitors, and explore access alternatives that avoid Arena1 Road as a primary access. __ Traffic Impacts - Special Events: the required mitigation includes the filing of a Special Events Permit with staff. While this also is a standard requirement for special events, the master plan will implement these mitigation measures, which are designed to protect adjacent residences from adverse traffic and parking impacts during events. The mitigation measures address potential street closures, residential access, special event parking passes and the use of offsite locations for public parking in combination with shuttle buses to the site. Parking Adequacy: Three components comprise this mitigation measure, which is designed to provide a level of monitoring and security in considering the shared parking analysis and corresponding 50% reduction in spaces required. The first component is the requirement to maintain, through the phased development of the commercial villas, at least 200 parking spaces in excess of the minimum required for each phase of villa development, per the Walker Parking Assessment. Master plan exhibits depict potential parking areas where these excess 200 spaces may be located; most are in direct proximity to the villas. The second component addresses the optional parking structure in PA 5 and how it may be triggered for construction. The third component involves a Planning Director determination of parking adequacy prior to any building permit issuance for Phase 5, the final phase of villas development. Therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on May 26, 2004 for a 30-day public review period. A summary of the public comment is provided as attachment 14. GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/Mp 03-02MP 149(S)/ CT 03-01PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN August 4,2004 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697 - Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Commission Resolution No. 5698 - GPA 03-08 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5699 - ZC 03-04 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5700 - MP 03-02 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5701 - MP 149s Planning Commission Resolution No. 5702 - CT 03-01 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5703 - PUD 03-06 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5704 - SUP 03-06 (Floodplain) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5705 - SUP 03-03 (ECR Corridor) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Summary of Public Comment Letters and Responses to Environmental Review La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan (previously distributed) Full Size Exhibits “MP 03-02” “A”-“Q”, dated August 4, 2004 Full Size Exhibits “CT 03-01” “R’-“R”’, dated August 4,2004 Full Size Exhibits “PUD 03-06” “SS”-“00000”, dated August 4,2004 Full Size Exhibits “SUP 03-06“ “PPPPP” - “SSSSS”, dated August 4,2004 Full Size Exhibits “SUP 03-03” “TTTTT”, dated August 4,2004 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03- O6/Sl.JP 03-03 CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT REQUEST AND LOCATION: MASTER PLAN FOR LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: APN: various Acres: 392 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: up to 191 commercial dwelling units on 10 lots over 15 acres; and 31 lots over the 377-acre balance for existing, resort uses. See Planning, Commission Resolution No. 5697 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: TR Proposed except for Golf Courses will be Open Space Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A -. Existing Zone: R-1/C-2hRPRD-M Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Proposed Zone: P-C: Planned Community Site North South East West Zoning Planned Community R- 1 Open Space Planned Community ECR Corridor Overlay General Plan Current Land Use OS/TR Resort/Golf/related uses lUM Single family Open Space San Marcos Creek RLM/RMH Singlemulti-famil y Prime Arterial El Camino Real PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: CUSDEncinitas Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Leucadia County Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 409 EDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared May 26,2004 0 Other, Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated /33 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN: GPA 03-08/ZC 03- 04MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-03/SUP 03-06 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL PLAN: TR/OS proposed ZONING: PC proposed to replace existing R-l/RD-M/RP and C-2 DEVELOPER’S NAME: KSL Development ADDRESS: 2100 Costa del Mar Road PHONE NO.: 760.929.6361 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: various QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 392 acre master plan ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Summer 2006 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Demand in Square Footage = Demand in Square Footage = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools : Served by Fire Station No. = N/A N/A N/A N/A 113 4,199 2and5 N/A Fee Pavment Sewer: Demands in EDU 409 Identify Sub Basin = N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 89,980 The project is N/A units N/A the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. wry ot Larlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT . AppllCaRt'S sratmcnl or disclosure of ccmrn ownership mrcresrs on a11 appltcurons lvhrch UIU rquw I discretionary action on the pan of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Cornminee i The following infonnarion MUST be disclosed at the time of application submtnal. Your project cannot be reviewed until ths information is completed. Please print. e. Fr'otr: Person is defined a~ "Any individual, fins co-pakrrthip, joint vennuc. association. social club. hcemal organization. corporanoa cstatc, rrust, receiver, synchcatc. m tfiis and by other counry. civ and counv. cry rnuniciphry, disaicr or other political subdivision or any other pup or combinadon acein_e as a unit." Agents may sign this documcnc however, thq legal MIDC and aury of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. 2. APPLlCANT (Not the apphnt's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of &persons haling a financial interest M +e application. If the applicanr hcludcs a garnoration or uannershb. include the names, title, addresses of all indiwduals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE (MA) IS THE SPACE BELOW If a pubiicIv-owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be anachcd if necessary.) INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE T" 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- _. Person GW-Vl 5 4.4- Corppart DGVG-W~~ Address 2 1 dGLc k Address hhdI?kl7% OWNER (Not the owner*s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, pamership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a cornoration or DamCrShiD, 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 publiclv- gwned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) xtie V.P. Lad be \o ~fchn t Title w-qb;s" A((Mm bmw s -,a CorpPart w a*. Title c5 AVW\OA lww&A 3 Person Title t.I/A Address - Address k R€h\d*, 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlabad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 505-PROFIT ORGAPiIZATlOI\' OR TRVST If any person identified punuanr 10 (1 ) or (1) above IS a nonutofir oroanizat~on or a OUI;:. ::,:. names and addresses of A!!?' person serving a5 a~ Qficer or director of the non-prkli-1: organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Eon Profiflrusr qk Eon PTOF~LTKUS~ Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more &an 5250 worth of business aansacted with any member of Cln. suff. Committees andor Council wirhrn the pasr twel~e (12) months? No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. Signature of ownerfdate Signature of applicanrhtc \ Signature of owncr/appiicant's agent if applicablddste Print or typc name of ownerlappiicant's agent _. Page 2 of 2 Attachment 14 Summary of Public Comment Letters and Responses to Environmental Review The following four letters were received during the public comment period for this project: (1) Jeff DiercWAlbertsons, dated July 22, 2004; (2) Tim Murray, dated July 22, 2004; (3) Larry Tucker/GTP, dated July 23, 2004, and; (4) Anita Lorber, dated July 26, 2004. The letters are attached to this attachment: Letters (1) and (3) support the project; letter (2) makes comments about maintenance in the intervening open space areas within the single family neighborhood north of Arenal Road within Planning Area 7, and; letter (4) opposes the project for the reasons stated. The following three letters were received during the environmental review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration: (1) Flanigan, dated June 22, 2004; (2) Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union of San Diego, and: (3) North County Open Space Coalition. The responses below address the three environmental review letters received. Flanigan Letter: Traffic lmoacts - Short Term Construction: The MND provides an appropriate mitigation measure to reduce any short-term construction. impacts that may occur. Applicant would be supportive of a construction route coming off of El Camino Real between Arenal and Costa Del Mar, as suggested by the commentator, if allowed by the City. Traffic lmoacts - Special Events: Applicant has agreed to numerous mitigation measures, as set forth in the MND, that will address commenters concerns about special events, including controls that will prevent hotel and special event guests from parking on the surrounding residential streets. -. Parkina Adeauacv: As described in the response to other comments below, the parking needs assessment prepared by Walker Parking Consultants dated February 6, 2004, shows that there will be sufficient parking for all of the proposed uses in the Master Plan. In fact, as a mitigation condition set forth in the MND, applicant has agreed to provide 200 additional parking spaces in excess of the requirements set forth in the Parking Study for Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the development. In addition, the mitigation measure provides that prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 5, the Planning Director will make a determination of parking adequacy. The special event mitigation measures in the MND also address parking and require implementation of a parking pass system to ensure that parking is adequately provided and will not occur on the neighboring public streets. Aesthetics: The two and three story resort villa buildings are consistent with the existing architecture and buildings on the Resort campus. The clubhouse is three and four levels and there are three story buildings in the golf rooms, tennis rooms and courtyard rooms. The Project as proposed is designed to blend into the existing campus and to stay within the existing scale of the campus Resort. In addition, any buildings proposed adjacent to neighboring residential communities along Arenal Lane and Costa Del Mar have been reduced to a combination of two and three story elements to improve aesthetics. All full three- story buildings are internal to the campus and are only visible to the users of the Resort. The renovations proposed will significantly improve the overall aesthetic nature of the Resort, which will be well designed and incorporated with the proposed infill development of the commercial dwelling units. Air Quality: As stated in the MND and supporting analysis, the Project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan and therefore is adequately addressed in the MND. As to the proposed wall along Arenal Road, the applicant does not believe that locating a wall in this location would be a good design feature and does not believe it is needed. Hvdroloav and Water Quality: these potential impacts. These impacts have been studied and the MND adequately analyzes Land Use and Planninq: Issues related to any CCRs is a private issue between the parties and is not an environmental impact that needs to be assessed in the MND. Noise: residential project greater than 5 units; this is not a residential project. Public Services: Police and fire have confirmed that adequate services will be available to service the Project, as set forth in the MND. The MND adequately analyzes potential noise impacts, and the City's Noise Policy applies to TransDortationflraffic: The traffic analysis prepared by Rick Engineering Company dated November 2, 2003, upon which the MND is based, establishes that streets and intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS levels in accordance with City standards. Applicant is sensitive to the concerns of neighboring residents regarding traffic and noise, and has been continuously working with the neighbors to address their concerns as best as possible. With respect to emergency service access, the mitigation measures for the special events specifically provides for unrestricted access for emergency service vehicles during special events. In addition, the Project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the fire and police departments. Finally, with respect to staging for tour buses, the applicant has already instructed all bus companies servicing the Resort to only enter on Costa Del Mar Road. From an operational management standpoint, applicant uses extra space in the parking lot at the corner of El Camino Real and Costa.Del Mar Road as a staging/holding area for buses. This holding area is not in any parking spaces, but in other areas immediately adjacent thereto. In addition, the relocation of over 500 parking spaces (including employee parking) to this parking lot along Costa Del Mar from internal areas of the campus has significantly reduced traffic impacts to neighboring communities along Arena1 and Estrella del Mar. -. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union of San Diego Letter: Parkina Analvsis: The commentator raises several points regarding the overall adequacy of the Parking Study. The following addresses those concerns, although perhaps not in the order they were presented, since many are repetitive. Commenter appears to have reviewed an outdated study. The most recent study, as referenced in the MND, was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants dated February 6, 2004. Therefore, the comment letter is not based on accurate information. Shared parking concepts are common for operations such as those at the Resort. As described in detail in the proposed Master Plan, existing and proposed land uses were divided into daytime and nighttime categories, depending on when they are expected to generate the peak number of vehicles. The study also included in its calculations, specifically for employees, the provision of .2 spaces per hotel rooms and villa keys. This rate is what is included in the City's code for hotel rooms as well as what is commonly used by well recognized groups such as ITE and ULI for employee parking. Accordingly, the parking study does take into account and adequately provide for employee parking. The proposed shared parking analysis is fully supportable given the nature of the Resort's operations. However, because the Applicant is aware that parking is a concern to various parties, they agreed (as set forth in the MND mitigation measures) to provide an additional 200 parking spaces in excess of the requirements set forth in the Parking Study for Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the development. In addition, the mitigation measure provides that prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 5, the Planning Director will make a determination of parking adequacy. The special event mitigation measures in the MND also address parking, and require implementation of a parking pass system to ensure that parking is adequately provided and will not occur on the neighboring public streets, including by employees. Parking will be adequate for the proposed uses in the Master Plan. The commentator selectively refers to only portions of the detailed analysis in the Parking Study by stating that only 123 on site spaces will be provided for employees. That is not accurate. The 123 spaces refer only to employee parking for the hotel and villa units, as specifically explained on pages 15 and 16 of the 138 Parking Study. The 123 spaces were calculated by applying the .2 rate for hotel and villa units during the nighttime category (7pm) on Saturday, based on a design day figure of 709 hotel rooms and villa keys available at 85% occupancy. The analysis also addresses other hours of operations, occupancy rates and other factors to come up with required parking. Moreover, the study separately calculates employee parking required for other uses, such as spa, golf course and ballroom that is not included in that calculation. Looking at just one aspect of the study in a piecemeal fashion results in inaccurate conclusions. The commentator suggests that the percentage of occupancy used for a typical design day is not accurate because the assumed percentage of transient vacationers is too high. However, assuming a greater percentage of transient vacationers is actually a more conservative approach, since transienvdestination guests generate more needs for parking than the group/business travelers. Accordingly, the analysis in the Parking Study provides a worse case scenario. In addition, the study also separately takes into account parking to accommodate local business users of the restaurants and other amenities. For example, the study assumes that 25% of restaurant users will be drive-in usage by non-hotel guests and includes parking for those users. For the golf course, it assumes that 35% of the users will be non-hotel guests. This analysis is based on careful analysis by the parking consultant based on the existing and predicted future Resort operations as well as industry approved captive rates for this type of Resort. The Parking Study analysis, although it notes an estimated number of employees, does not calculate required employee parking based on the actual number of employees. As noted above, a rate of .2 per hotel room and villa key is used, as well as additional calculations for spa, golf course and tennis employees. Moreover, the number of employees will not necessarily incrementally increase with an increased occupancy rate - housekeeping is still primarily performed during the day when guest occupancy rates are low, so extra parking is available for the employees during that time period. Again, the concept of shared parking is to take advantage of the fact that certain parking needs are generated at different times and therefore parking can be shared with adequate parking provided at all times. -. Longer, extended stays of owners of the proposed villas would only serve to improve the parking and traffic analysis, since longer stays by owners generates less traffic and parking demand than that of transient guests. The applicant is well aware of the need to provide adequate parking for employees, as well as ensuring that the employees do not park along the residential streets. In fact, applicant currently has a formal policy that it enforces for all employees which requires that employees park in the parking lot located at El Camino Real and Costa Del Mar. Although the location for employee parking may change as operations continue to change, the applicant will continue to take measures to ensure that from an operational standpoint, the employees have sufficient parking available. MND Process: The commentator also suggests that the City failed to follow the correct process regarding the MND. To the contrary, the procedure followed by the City for public review and approval is what is required by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. The MND was prepared by the City after the Project Description was finally agreed upon. As set forth in the MND, the Project is as follows: "lnfill redevelopment of the La Costa Resort campus to construct up to 197 commercial dwelling units via implementation of a proposed master plan for the property. . . . The project is depicted in the draft Master Plan document and related exhibits, all of which can be reviewed at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. . . ." The MND also lists the Draft Master Plan, La Costa Resort, April 30, 2004, as a document used in the analysis of the Project. Although the applicant has submitted a revised Master Plan document, the revisions made to that document did not change the Project nor did it include any substantive revisions that would require any changes to the MND; the changes were made to improve the graphics and text and correct internal inconsistencies. The City circulated the MND for public comment prior to finalization of the Master Plan and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council because CEQA requires that mitigated negative declarations "be prepared as earlv as feasible in the planning Drocess to enable environmental /39 considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment." 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15004(b) (emphasis added). With private projects, in particular, the CEQA Guidelines state that the lead agency should "encourage the project proponent to incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning at the earliest feasible time." 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15004 (b) (emphasis added). Given that the Project was clearly defined in the draft Master Plan dated April 30, 2004, it was appropriate for the City to proceed with circulation of the MND for public review and comment. The MND analyzes the Project as a whole and analyzes all of the potential impacts that could result from development proposed in the Master Plan. The public has been given the opportunity to comment on the MND and will be given notice and the opportunity to comment on the Master Plan and again on the MND at the public hearings that will be scheduled in the near future. North County Open Space Coalition Letter This comment letter addresses specific procedural points of CEQA and asks for clarification regarding the project description and master plan build out. For the response to this letter, the City hereby incorporates by reference and attachment, the response prepared by the applicant and supported by the City. The response is attached to the copy of the North County Open Space Coalition Letter. 1421 South Manhattan Avenue Fullerton, CA 92831-5221 Phone: (714) 300-6752 Fax: (714) 300-6941 Albertson's Real Estate Department Jeff Dierck - Sr. Real Estate Manager !& Southern California Region "1 I. July 22, 2004 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad c/o Eric Munoz 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92008-7314 Re: La Costa Resort Master Plan Amendment Albertson's #6720 Ladies and Gentlemen: Albertson's owns and operates the supermarket at La Costa Plaza Shopping Center located at the Northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad. We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing in connection with the expansion plans of La Costa Resort and Spa. This letter will serve to advise the Planning Commission that Albertson's, Inc. strongly supports the plans of La Costa Resort to develop up to 197 commercial dwelling units, a golf performance center, and related parking and landscaping improvements in the Resort compound. Since the current ownership acquired the Resort a few years ago, the improvements they have made at the Resort have substantially improved the quality of the Resort facilities and, in turn, the south Carlsbad area. They have re-established the La Costa brand as one of quality. More germane to the charge of the Planning Commission, we see no adverse impacts that will result from the proposed expansion; indeed the improvements will allow La Costa Resort and Spa to better serve the high-end tourist trade in the La Costa area. The staff has analyzed the plans of the Resort and found no impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. We hope a project which brings high-end services and acclaim to the area, not to mention revenue, and at the same time addresses its own impacts will merit your support. gig+ ea1 Estate Manager XC: Larry Tucker April Shute, La Costa Resort Page 1 of 1 Planning Internet Email - CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US From: <Timurray@aol.com> To: <Planning@smtp.ci.carisbad.ca.us> Date: 07/22/2004 1:24 PM Subject: CrrY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Planning . .............................................. FOR SECURIPl REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE ME SUBJECT LINE. .............................................. Below, please find the information that was submitted: To Eric Munoz and the Planning Commission Staff. I would like to go on record as being in support of the proposed zone change within the La Costa Resort master plan revisions to take the undeveloped lands commonly known as the "green belts" (located within the La Costa Valley unit #1 development) from R1 to Open Space. Further I would urge the Planning Commission staff to include a specific schedule of maintenance for these areas-. and it be added to the conditions of approval of the master plan changes requested by the resort owners. For many years these areas were maintained, watered and mowed regularly by the ownership of the resort. I suggest that this should be undertaken again by the current ownership for the benefit of the community and safety of the surrounding homes. The current level of up keep is casual at best. As this portion of Carlsbad continues to grow and reach towards build out, it is imperative that these areas be properly maintained for the safety and enjoyment of this old community. I regret that I will not be able to attend the scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on August 4, 2004. This issue is currently on that agenda. As a resident of this area and one that borders the property mentioned above, I strongly urge the staff to consider my suggestions above. Please contact me should you need clarification of my views. Thank you. Timothy Murray 7050 Estrella De Mar Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92009 USA Tim urray@aol .com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) 67.119.239.157 t42 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\bhode.000\L }OOOO 1.. . 07/23/2004 GUP GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER July 23, 2004 .. I >- Planning Commission City of Carlsbad c/o Eric Munoz 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92008-73 14 Re: La Costa Resort Master Plan XmeiidmenL Ladies and Gentlemen, Grant Tucker Properties was the developer of, and currently owns the shops at, La Costa -. Plaza Shopping Center, located at the Northeast comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad. We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing in connection with the expansion plans of La Costa Resort and Spa. Grant Tucker Properties strongly supports the plans of La Costa Resort to develq up LCI 197 commercial dwelling units, a golf performance center and related parhng and landscaping improvements in the Resort compound. Since the current ownership acquired the Resort a few years ago, the improvements they have made at the Resort have substantially improved the quality of the Resort facilities and in turn the south Carlsbad area. They have re-established the La Costa brand as one of quality. More germane to the charge of the Planning Commission, we see no adverse impacts that will result from the proposed expansion; indeed the improvements will allow La Costa Resort and Spa to better serve the high end tourist trade in the La Costa area. The staff has analyzed the plans of the Resort and found no impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of .. .“P, ,,- . ,.-*.7C..zs l.,“+ GfiL U’IC b . We hope a project which brings high end services and acclaim to the area, not to mention revenue, and at the same time addresses its own impacts will merit your support. Very truly yours, - cc: Jeff Dierck. Albertson’s April Shute, La Costa Resort One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658 (949) 251 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax 143 ANITA LORBER Jdy26,2004 cky of Carlsbad I Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenw j Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 Dear sir or Ma& I I L Re: Case name: La Costa Resort and Spa Case Filer GPA 03-0S/ZC 03.04/MP 149(S)CT 03/01/PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-06/SuP 03.03 Regarding the above case and the ublic hearing of Vkdnesday August 4,2004 I would likc ro voice The increased traffic congestion, addhional noise and pollution that is part and parcel to a project of this size and nam, will bring negatiw environmehTal impact on the entire commurliv La Costa &SOIT is an exclwive devdopmnt, and pakt of its exclusiviry has always been its serene SUIMuI1hg. I own properties at 2005 Costa Del hdar Rd, Wbh, Ca, By allovhg the development of up to 197 Commercial Dwelling Units the quite enjoynent of my properry and those of my neighbors would be negatively impaired by this project,, Propedy values of the existing condominiums and in fact, of the entire communitywould decrease. For the reasons stated above I very much oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone change, Sincercb my opposition regarding this deve P opmnt project. , I Anita Lorber Cc: Eric Msmoz 823 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE TEL: (310)275.1568 i I i 1 ./BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 1 I FAX: (310)275- 18 12 DATE: TO: RE: FROM: June 22,2004 Michael Holzmiller Eric Munoz Case Name - La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan FlaniganEstrella De Mar Road / ,,,A- /, . --.::- 2 ~ The following letter is a list of concerns/comments re: The La Costa Resort arid‘Spa Master Plan. I have owned a residence on Estrella De Mar Road since 1979. I have lived through many changes in this area, which will now include the transformation of the La Costa Country Club with a small hotel into a very large Hotel and Spa with transient occupants in modified timeshare apartment buildings, also known as Commercial Dwelling Units. I have reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. I will address this Notice by Item. Traffic Impacts - Short Term Construction Traffic without construction is a problem on Estrella De Mar Road and Arenal Road. During our meeting, staff informed us there would be signs posted on ESDMR for ‘No Construction Traffic’. It was also requested that there be signs for ‘No Parking’ of hotel construction, crews, employees, and guests on the residential end of ESDMR ( public area ) and Arenal Road. The intersection of ESDMR and Arenal is not conducive to semitrucWconstruction traffic. A suggestion was made to construct a temporary trucldconstruction road that would come off El Camino Real between Arenal and Costa Del Mar, with a slowing lane on ECR. It is imperative that the completion of the planned closure of the ESDMR access at Alga be completed prior to the initiation of the Hotel construction. The bypass traffic on Estrella to avoid the AlgaECR stop light already has traffic lined up onto ESDMR waiting to access ECR at the light at the firehouse on Arenal. The signal lights are presently set to accommodate the thru traffic on ECR. A few employees of the hotel have taken to parking on Arenal and on the curve of ESDMR onto Arenal, which adds to the congestion and accumulated exhaust pollutants. This Item is listed in the Notice as ‘short term construction’. The KSL project has been described to residents by KSL as a five year project. That is not ‘short term’ to single family housing residents. -. Traffic ImDacts - Special Events The latest event organizers have attempted to be more sensitive to the residents of this small neighborhood. There have been improvements. The procedures listed in the Notice are interesting and, if implemented, will help the residents. Estrella De Mar Road and Arenal Road are not engineered to support parking on both sides of the street. The streets should not used as a parking lot for hotel business. The public street in a residential zone area should not be available to the employees, guests, and transients that are conducting business/pleasure at a hotel. The hotel has red curbs so their street parking areas are our residential streets. Bob Johnson has a file with photographs fi-om Special Events depicting the scenes. The pictures do show what our street could become, everyday, if businesses are allowed to use our street for additional, convenient parking for guests, transients ,and staff. Parkinn Adequacy This is an area of projected problems. The lots ( PA1,2,3 ) are presently used as parking. These lots are to be built upon in the master plan. KSL has designated other areas for parking. However, as the hotel is designated as a shared parking facility, the numbers for parking can still put our residential streets at high risk for business vehicles. I am aware that KSL states they are putting more spaces than code dictates. I am not sure if the additional spaces needed for parking mobile homes, RV’S, buses, and other oversize vehicles are in their space count. The Planning Department did not offer any solutions to our attempt to stop nonresidential vehicles from parking on the residential streets. We are not willing to surrender our neighborhood to business use. Every business is required to have adequate off street parking in order to conduct business. It need not be a special event tournament to cause problems. We have had parking concerns with just some of the routine Convention Center meetings. We have been told by KSL that tents will no longer be used on the grass areadparking lots. If the Hotel is allowed to have inadequate inconvenient, on-site parking, our residential street will fiequently look as the streets did during the tournaments/Special Events, when parking was allowed. -. Aesthetics Less than signzjkant impact -The expansion fi-om a small Country Club to a Major Resort is aesthetically offensive to the people who live near the grounds of the major construction. A three story apartment building, no matter how well designed, is still a three story, high density building in a long established single family dwelling neighborhood. Air Quality The increase in guests, transients, and employees along with the increase in convention businesdtrflic will contribute to the already high fumes/pollutants on El Camino Real, Arenal Road, and ESDMR. This also increases the acceleration and deceleration noise on El Camino Real at Arenal. The consideration of relocating the block wall, that KSL was to build on the Arenal perimeter of their campus, to the El Camino Real corridor, north of Arenal, should be pursued. Hydrology and Water Quality There have been at least two episodes of ankle deep water on Estrella DeMar Road and Arenal in the past 23 years. Hopefully, the establishment of the Golf Center will not return our neighborhood to flooding during the flash rainstorms. Land Use and Planning As already rioted, this is a residential area whose character will be affected by three story apartment structures. There are also some questions being raised by some residents re: the change of the development and zoning, and the C,C & R'S . Some residents are addressing this issue with KSL. Noise There will be an increase in traffic noise on the north end of the new development and on El Camino Real. KSL is expanding its facilities so larger conventions can be accommodated. . . . . .Larger conventions.. . .more rooms.. .more guests.. .more employees.. .more traffic.. .more garbage.. .more linens.. .more pollutants.. .and therefore, more noise. Public Services Police and fire protection is a service that the HoteVConvention Center will be utilizing. There is a potential need for traffic control and safety. TransaortatiodTraffic Statistics can be used in many ways. Living on Estrella De Mar Road and observing changing traffic patterns agd trips, just since the Convention Center opened, is an objective assessment of the probable trouble ahead. Traffic counters that are placed for limited times and not during certain hotel activities do give some numbers, but the true test is in living it. So far as emergency service access, KSL has stated that they will have emergency services on site for events, but how does that assure emergency service access to the residents of the Arena1 and Estrella area residences. In addition, Tour buses have no place to park, wait, and run motors. They are taking residential parking; are pollutants; and are contributing to the traffic and congestion. Many residents, especially within 1000 feet of the north end of the hotel project, are very concerned re: the construction traffic, parking, noise, dirt, varmints, and collateral damage to their property. There is also concern re: changes to the character of the neighborhood post completion of the project. If there is inadequate, friendly parking on the Hotel premises, our neighborhood will be converted to a parking lot for an expanded business. This residential area was established over thirty years ago, prior to the multiple expansions of the hotel. This residential area needs protection from the encroachment of a business on its residential status. Thank You Flanigan Post Office Box 130443 Carlsbad, California 920 13 UNION LOCAL 30 Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union of §an Diego .. Office of the Secretary-Treasurer ., JEF L. EATCHEL .. ,.1 .. +# Affiliated with.. . American Federation of Labor State Federation of Labor State Culinary Alliance San Diego Central Labor Council Union Label 8 Service Trades Council By electronic and US mail Eric Munoz Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 RE: La Costa Spa and Resort Master Plan and MND Dear Mr. Munoz: On behalf of our members who work at La Costa Resort and Spa, I would like to submit the following comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the City for the La Costa Master Plan. Our members are stakeholders in the Resort, as their future is clearly tied to its economic success. At the same time, our members will have to work in and live with physical changes to the environment created by any development. For that reason, we look closely at the content and process of the MND and Master Plan. Our biggest concern is with the proposed changes to parking, since parking lots will be eliminated for Villa constructions, and is an issue that directly impacts workers, as well as proposed mitigation measures for traffic/transportation. We also have some con,fusion about the MND process as relates to the Master Pian. 1) The analysis and mitigation measures for parking is flawed. There needs to be a new studv an appropriate adaptation of related mitipation measures. The MND identifies parking and traffic/ transportation impacts as “potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.” The MND includes a proposed measure to deal with impacts to these areas. However, these measures do not adequately consider employee impacts., and cannot do so because the information supplied by the developer to the City is terribly flawed. The Master Plan refers extensively to the study provided by KSL Development Corporation “Parking Needs Assessment” for the Resort, dated “9 May 2003” from Walker Parking Consultants. A) The Parking Studv Rationalizes Cutting Parking Requirements in Half and Fails to Accuratelv Assess Current and Proiect Future Use Need as Required bv CEOA. Mitigation measures therefore cannot have contemplated wtential significant impacts. New analvsis is necessafy. The study justifies cutting in half the number of parking spaces that would normally be required under City code. The study states that “current and proposal land 3737 Camino del Rio So., #300 San Diego, CA 92108 619/516-3737 0 FAX 619/516-1383 Izt8 Together, We Will Make a Difference 5 2 uses would require a total of 3,378 parking spaces under City code-assuming no adjustment for shared use.” Under a hypothesis that “shared-use of on-site parking,” the study rationalizes cutting the 3,378 to “an alternate requirement of 1,337.” Asserting this as a new norm for the Resort, they then postulate a seemingly generous “1,571 spaces will be sufficient to meet this requirement,” with “roughly 123 on-site spaces” for employees (page 13). B) In its “shared use” theorv, the Walker studv makes assumptions about typical resort hotels that do not match industry analyst descriptions of KSL Resort operated properties. The City needs to reanalyze the specifics of the property in new CEOA analysis. The study theorizes that the Resort should be entitled to build Yi the normal required parking spaces under City code because “the shared use of on-site parking will reduce the actual need on a typical design day.” “major reductions can also be made to the number of spaces required because much of the patron demand for auxiliary and recreation land uses (such as the spa, golf course, tennis courts, clubhouse, retail, restaurants, etc.) will already be parked on site for the primary land use4.e. the hotel and villas.” (page 7) The study envisions a typical design day in which “roughly 91 % of the resort guests will be ‘transient’ vactioners while 9% of the guests are group and business travelers” (page 10). If KSL Resorts ran its properties like traditional high end hotel and resort, this would be a reasonable modeling. However, Carlsbad locals will know that the property generates a good deal of business through its Club membership program, as well as local dinner events. An investment analyst firm, Fitch Ratings, has quantified the KSL Recreation operations model as systematically creating a local business niche, with a very different use percentage from Walker’s 91% hotel guests. found at standard hotels. While most hotels generate approximately 85-95 % of business from rooms and food and beverage (F&B) operations, the portfolio generates approximately 66% from these departments. [My emphasis.] This diversity in income allows the properties to not only attract leisure and corporate travelers but also the local population who dine at the restaurants, shop at the retail outlets, frequent the spas, fitness centers and clubs, and play the golf courses.” (Fitch Ratings, Structured Finance Report, KSL 2003-1, page 2) The City needs to take another look at the “shared use” theory and the specifics of use for this property in new analysis. The data thus far provided to the City is not reliable. Most of the “adjustments” are made because of “captive” use according to the study: -. In a 2003 analysis, Fitch states that “the properties have a diverse revenue stream not C) The Walker parking study does not satisfy CEOA’s requirement for analysis that is both accurate in the present and future oriented. The study looks only at “current conditions” to calculate the number of resort staff present on “non-event” days, ignoring future employment conditions. On page 13 of the study, it determines “roughly 324 resort staff members are present,’’ and concludes that “0.2 staff spaces per occupied hotel room and occupied villa key will be sufficient to support regular hotel operations at the peak design period.” CEQA requires that analysis be both accurate for the present and also forward looking at future conditions. New analysis is required. D) The study fails to provide an “apples to apples” comparison with west occuuancv to workers and must be corrected in a new CEOA analysis. Walker generates its projected number of necessary rooms for guests by calculating an 85% occupancy rate. (page 14) With the chart on page 9, the study makes clear that occupancy rates in 2002 were quite low, an average of 33% for the year. Thus the 85% is presumably a forecast of future, healthy occupancy rates. But the study does not project a necessary parallel rise in employees with the imagined 3 52% increase in occupancy rates, and bases its employee parking formulas only on the rough number of 324 current employees on-site during regular operations. E) The study does not reveal that staffing levels in the past have been much higher. La Costa workers have been members of our union since the 1960s. The current bargaining unit of La Costa workers who we represent is about 400, which is half of what it was when the hotel had normal occupancy rates. Two other unions also represent the Spa and Golf course employees. The number of employees in their potential bargaining units have similarly shifted. We estimate that past employment rates of non-manangement, non-security personal have been as high as 1,900. It is of course true that on non-peak days, not all of these workers would have been on site in a day at the same time. But it is also true the math for “0.2 staff spaces per occupied hotel room” that allocates 123 on-site spaces for hotelhilla staff parking” doesn’t make any sense with high occupancy rates. Again, new CEQA analysis must correct this data and mitigate potential impacts. F) The studv imores the fact that the number of emdoyees should rise when the number of hotel rooms increases, and must be corrected in a new study compliant with CEOA. Another piece of the future that the study ignores is that the MND, if passed, will add another 197 potential hotel rooms, which, if KSL adheres to industry quality standards, will result in a corresponding increase of employees. This probable increase is not reported or analyzed; so its impacts cannot yet be mitigated. With the new employees, and assuming that the completed renovations trigger a long term return to high occupancy, 1,571 spaces will not adequately serve everyone who will need to park on-site. G) There is a lack of detail in the Master Plan and the parking study about use restrictions that distinguish “CDU’s,” which could impact both parking and traffic analysis and mitigation. More specifics in a new analysis must be provided. The Master Plan makes a reference to vague restrictions of use by owner/investors, but the projected occupancy rates by ownerhvestors are unclear. I was orally told that overhvestor residency would be short term, like two weeks year. However, SEC filings disclose a similar KSL venture, “Casitas” at La Quinta Resort, show that a number of KSL executives own Casitas. It is hard to imagine their use is limited to 2 weeks a year, particularly since KSL has had its headquarters in La Quinta. (KSL recently sold the property with 4 others for $2.2 billion.) More extended stays by owner/investors could have an impact on parking and traffic, since they are likely to behave more like residents than guests in the community in terms of their consumption patterns. Additional disclosure and impact analysis is necessary. reduction of TOT if ownedinvestors are “home” for extended periods of time. KSL provided financial analysis of the difference between the resort with and without the Villas. But it did not disclose the difference between the Villas as “normal” TOT generating rooms, and ownerhnvestor occupied rooms. Furthermore, outside of CEQA issues, the City must have an interest in the possible H) Mitigation for traffic includes Special Permits for residents but does not address emplovees. We are concerned about a scenario where workers are left out of parking and traffic planning. Beyond the legal requirements of mitigation impacts under CEQA, unless workers are taken into consideration in the mitigation measures, employees and residents may unnecessarily put at odds. It is our experience at other resort properties, especially the Hotel del Coronado (which is also operated by KSL Resorts), that parking can become an irksome problem for residents if a hotel does not provide adequate on-site parking for its employees. Workers have to park somewhere, and if our employer does not provide adequate spaces, we inevitably end up parking on public streets. 4 2) Process Issues. We believe the needed analysis described above is best conducted in concert with the Master Plan and a Master Plan EIR. The MND project review process is very confusing for members of the public. We believe that transparency in public review is critical for the long-term success of development projects. We noticed that the MND is not listed on the State CEQA Clearing House website, though may other Carlsbad projects are listed, including a negative declaration for another resodtimeshare project. A) It is unclear that the MND is not also serving as CEOA review for the Master - Plan. MND Page one, “Project Description” reads: “Processing of a Master Plan and related entitlements to guide the implementation of infill redevelopment within the Resort property to develop up to 197 commercial dwelling units, related parking and a Golf Performance Center, plus guidelines for approvals of future Special Events Permits onsite.” The phase “Processing of a Master Plan” suggests that the MND covers the Master Plan. The development projects described in the Master Plan seem to be identical to what the MND is evaluating. But, it is our understanding that the Master Plan itself has not been noticed and circulated to the public for comment; it is clearly stamped as a “draft” document. This is extremely confusing to any member of the public looking at the documents. B) The MND piecemeals development approvals prior to completing the Master Planning Process. The Draft Master Plan itself makes clear that one of its purposes is to prevent piecemeal development, protecting the City’s long-term interests by putting the Resort into a planned community status. This is a commendable goal for the City and the Resort. However, an MND review of content described in the Draft Master Plan, separate from full public review of the Master Plan and a Master EIR, in fact results in a piecemealed approval process. briefly in the document with references to reliance on the Draft Master Plan document and related exhibits.” This leads one to understand that the project triggering the MND is’ in some undefined way distinct from the new Master Plan, which is still in draft phase, but still tied to it. It is unclear what public benefit there conducting an MND for project entitlements for La Costa now when the City intends to have the public review a full Master Plan for the Resort. -. The cover letter to the MND tells the public that “the proposed project” is “described C) Anv development connected to the Master Plan warrants full public awareness, noticinp and discussion. As mentioned above, the Draft Master Plan last submitted on April 30, 2004 shows the intent to bring the Resort into contemporary planning standards. It is common in my experience with older Southern California resorts desiring expansion that a City compels the operators to go through a Master Plan process. For instance, the Coronado Plaming Commission and City Council took a full year of public discussion for the Hotel del Coronado Master Plan, before any CEQA review was conducted. The final plan and subsequent CEQA analysis had the benefit of full public vetting. That transparent process does not seem to be what is occurring here, with a confusing, piecemealed process. D) A Master Plan warrants a Master EIR. Since a Master Plan document takes a project into the future, the CEQA document for such a project needs to do the same. This avoids the potential for confusion in the future, when projected impacts may be manifest. In summary, we object to the MND because of the deeply flawed parking analysis that lead to necessarily incomplete mitigation measures. The “shared use” theory for parking should be rejected, as the City has not received accurate current information and reasonable future projections. Mitigation measures for parking and related traffic/transportation issues should consider impacts to and from employees in a more informed fashion. We also believe this new analysis is best conducted in the context of a regular Master Plan review and EIR. 5 Please let us know if we can be of aid in this process, as we have long-standing ties to the Resort. In addition to representing members who work at the Resort, the Union’s Secretary Treasurer, Jef Eatchel, was once a cook at La Costa before going to work for Local 30 and then being elected to office; and our President and Lead Union Representative, Nancy Browning, has worked on the property for over 15 years. We care very much about the hotel and its future. Thank you for your consideration. Molly R v odes, Ph.D. Research Analyst 619-5 16-3737 ~324 June 30,2004 Eric Munoz Senior Planner City of Cdsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa Resort and Spa commercial dwelling units and proposed master plan Dear Mr. Munoz: . Thank you for the opportunity to- comment on the La Costa Resort and Spa Mitigated -. Negative Declaration (MND). The following comments are essentially process related. We hope you can-provide us with some clarification regarding the following: 3 The project is described as “processing of a master plan and related entitlements” to guide infill development of 197 commercial dwelling units (CDUs). It is unclear after having read the MND and Master Plan (incorporated by reference) if the current public comment period is on the MND or the Master Plan, or both. Please clarify. 9 If the current public notice and associated comment period applies to both the construction of 197 commercial dwelling units as well as the Master Plan, the project should be re-noticed in order to clarify. Additionally, the public comment period should be extended to a minimum of 45 days in order to account for the length of time-required to review to the Master Plan document (and associated , expanded scope) adequately. pn- r *%I L.L/UQ, 3iil ?lieit: be ~zt yib!i.~ ZZC~~CZ ;S GZ$ f~r CIS consriictioii ~l public notice and comment on the Master Plan? If so, when is that anticipated to occur? 9 The current Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include the date, time, and place of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project. CEQA emphasizes the importance of giving the public the proper opportunity to comment on the conclusions of a proposed mitigated neg dec. Is a hearing anticipated? Master Plans can be incredibly helpfid tools for comprehensively planning a particular area over the long-term. They are particularly efficient because they help decision- makers avoid unnecessary premature speculation about future proposed projects within an area, and they provide insight into the cumulative impacts associated with the long- term build out of the area. Additionally, master planning may obviate the need for later redundant review of subsequent discretionary activities or projects that follow a previously approved course of action. In order to provide the benefits described above, one would expect the preparation of plans and their analysis to follow the order outlined below: 9 A Master Plan for an area such as the La Costa Resort and Spa is drafted. 9 The Master Plan is reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) via an Environmental Impact Report (EJR) or Negative Declaration. > Proposed projects within the La Costa resort that come forward tier off of the Master Plan and original environmental analysis (via EJRs or Neg Decs). This sequence may allow later projects and ERs or Neg Decs to be excused by the tiering concept from repeating the analysis of broad environmental issues examined in the Master Plan environmenta1 analysis. This streamlines the process for the applicant/developer but also makes sense from a planning point of view - focusing first on a large land area and later on smaller areas within the large area. Where a decision- making body anticipates making a number of decisions with respect to a discrete land area such as-the La Costa Resort, moving in this order from general to specific also allows one “to focus on issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided on or not yet ripe” (CEQA guidelines, Sect. 15385, subd. (b).) In short, the public notice on the La Costa Resort and Spa commercial dwelling units is very unclear about whether or not it includes analysis of the Master Plan, and in either case, does not proceed in the logical order described in this letter. Therefore, we request that you please consider re-noticing the proposed project for the purpose of achieving the following: (I) clarify the “project description” (i.e. the commercial dwelling units, the master plan, or both); (2) provide information about any upcoming hearings; and (3) offer the appropriate amount of time for public comment if indeed the analysis includes the draft Master Plan. In addition to the procedural concerns detailed above we also offer the following general lXcT!-T&S rP,,n?Z.bifig +E 91: t;rDCZ 9f:k M?*skr Ph?. ’?I? be a separate CEQA process for the Master Plan or at least a time extension on this Mitigated Negative Declaration if it is mean to include the Master Plan. We will provide additional detail regarding the following issues during one of those public comment opportunities. In general, they are: assli;;ri:,t,g th P Because the Master Plan and proposed project includes golf course related development such as the performance center, we request that the standards set by the Carlsbad Municipal golf course be integrated as a model for the La Costa golf course in the Master Plan. In the case of the municipal golf course the Coastal Commission permit required the course to be “state of the art” from an environmental point of view. This is achieved through the development of carehlly crafted and detailed run-off plans, pest and turf management plans, 3 3 landscaping plans, and restoration plans, in consultation with a technical advisory committee made up of experts whose interest focuses on minimizing impacts to the environment caused by chemical use. The Master Plan lists the Golf Course, connected trails and canyons as open space. The landscaping palette should include a predominance of native plants when possible and complete avoidance of invasives, To our knowledge there has been no biological survey associated with the Master Plan or the proposed Performance Center to be permitted under the MND. The MND states there are no biological impacts, but determination has been made. Given the Resort's proximity to the lagoon and the existence of ponds on the property, as well as the San Marcos Creek, we are concerned that potential biological impacts must be adequately studied and Performance Center. are unclear how this y the pxb!is'prfor to &e, iSSE2P f -".y S.~i!dir~g gemits fGr the In conclusion, the public's position in the CEQA process has always been considered by lawmakers and the judicial system as "privileged" because of ''a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and [I notions of democratic decision-making." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd-District Agricultural Association (1 986)). On behalf of the North County Open Space Coalition, a collection of over a dozen conservation organizations dedicated to effective regional habitat conservation planning in North County, we request that you consider making the clarifications discussed above in order to ensure more informed public participation. Thd you very much for your consideration. Please contact Allison Rolfe at 61 9-758- 7768 with any questions or comments. Thank you. Sincerely , Andy Mauro Buena Vista Audubon Society Carolyn Martus Cali 51rria Native ,P!art Fwiety, &gcL C!$qter Allison Rolfe San Diego BayKeeper Doug Gibson San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy Marco Gonzalez Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter "(this letter represents the position of the above-signed organizations only) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory Ilp attorneys at law am 501 West Broadway 9th Floor San Diego California 92101-3577 telephone. 619 233 1155 facsimile. 619 233 1158 www.allenmatkins.com to. Kari Prevost, Esq. writer. Susan J. Heydenrych t. 61 9 233 1155 file number. K6018-003/SD602814.01 e. sheydenrych@allenmatkins.com date. July 02 2004 subject. Response to Comments re La Costa MND. On May 21, 2004, the City of Carlsbad ("City") circulated a mitigated negative -. declaration (WIND") for the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan (the "Project"), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 8 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations 3 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). The City utilized a MND because the City found that, with implementation of the mitigation measures included in the MND, the Project would have no significant effect on the environment. The MND defines the Project as a development constructed in accordance with a master plan: "Infill redevelopment of the La Costa Resort campus to construct up to 197 commercial dwelling units via implementation of a proposed master plan for the property. . . . The project is depicted in the draft Master Plan document and related exhibits, all of which can be reviewed at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department . . . .I1 Under CEQA, "'Project' means the whole of an action . . . .I1 14 Cal. Code Regs. 9 15378(a). Accordingly, the MND defines the Project to include both the development and the master plan under which the construction will be implemented. Because the MND expressly defines the Project to include the "whole of the action," the MND has complied with the requirements of CEQA. Thus, it would be inappropriate for the City to re-notice the MND simply to repeat what has already been clearly stated -- that the Project encompasses the construction of dwelling units pursuant to a master plan. CEQA requires that a "project" encompass the "whole of the action," but, where two or more projects are involved, CEQA authorizes an agency to utilize the concept of tiering. "'Tiering' or 'tier' means the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report." Cal. Pub. Res. Code 8 21068.5. [11:47 am] DRAFT 13-b Kari Prevost, Esq. July 2,2004 Page 2 Tiering is used to cover general matters, reserving detailed study of issues specific to "later approvals" for subsequent environmental impact analyses. Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under CEQA (2002) 0 11.3. See, for example, Rio Vista Farm.Bureau Ctr. v. County of Solano, 5 Cal. App. 4th 35 1, 37 1 (1992) (finding tiering appropriate for a plan which does not define any specific development projects, "makes no commitment to future facilities other than furnishing siting criteria" and "does not even determine that future facilities will ever be built"). Thus, tiering is only appropriate where there are two or more "projects." Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, 48 Cal. App. 4th 182,200 (1996)("Some of the difficulty in applying the tiering concept appears to result from the fact that an EIR is prepared for a 'project' . . . and that when tiering is used, there appear to be two or more 'projects"'). As discussed above, however, the La Costa development involves only one Project -- the construction of dwelling units pursuant to the Master Plan. It is one Project because it does not involve a series of future development projects and approvals. Once the Project is approved, there will be no further "proposed projects" to "tier off" the original MND. All approvals will have been completed and all environmental analysis will have been included in the original MND. -. Under CEQA, where all environmental analysis is necessarily included in one document, the use of "tiering" is not appropriate. See, for example, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, 48 Cal. App. 4th 182 (1996)(finding tiering inappropriate for EIR certified by county in connection with a proposed plan to develop a new resort and residential community). Because all environmental analysis for the Project was necessarily included in the MND and because there will be no future development decisions and approvals to be processed, the Project was properly assessed, in its entirety, in the MND, and the use of "tiering" would not be appropriate. 6028 14.01ISD K6018-003/7-2-04/sjh/sjh [ 1 1 :47 am] DRAFT 1-57 Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2004 EXHIBIT 8 Page 4 5. GPA 03-081ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-011PUD 03-O6/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 - LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA - A request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, a Floodplain Special Use Permit and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit for the approval and implementation of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan to allow for the development of up to 197 Commercial Dwelling Units, a Golf Performance Center and related parking and landscaping within the existing property of the La Costa Resort and Spa. The project site is generally located south of Arena1 Road and east of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Mr. Neu introduced Item 5 and stated Senior Planner Eric Munoz would make the staff presentation assisted by Associate Engineer John Maashoff. Commissioner Montgomery stated he needed to be excused from the item because he lives within the 600 foot noticing radius. Chairperson Whitton opened the Public Hearing on Item 5, and asked the applicant if he would like to continue with the hearing with only five Commissioners present. The applicant stated he would. Senior Planner Eric Munoz stated that the project is located north of La Costa Avenue, east of El Camino Real over the existing resort property. Mr. Munoz discussed the existing zoning designations on the property. He stated that the proposed project includes the establishment of a Master Plan. The Master Plan is intended to place all of the property under one Master Plan. The Master Plan will be used to plan for the resort villa development, control and monitor the other resort uses, and to promote quality of life not only with the Master Plan uses but with the special events held at the resort, and to promote storm water compliance. Mr. Munoz further stated that seven planning areas would be established with the Master Plan. New criteria have been established for special events through the Master Plan. The special events permits will continue to be issued through the Police Department. However, the criteria for those special events will be included in the Master Plan. This is intended to protect the adjacent neighborhood and to also make the obligations very clear to any special events promoter on the site. Mr. Munoz discussed in further details the other proposed changes such as lot line adjustments along with the errata sheet regarding the project. Chairperson Whitton asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions of staff. Commissioner Segall asked if the applicant agrees with all the changes listed in the errata sheet. Mr. Munoz stated that the applicant is in agreement. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on why the fingers of land will be taken out of open space and be given the RLM designation, and what kind of freedom KSL, the current land owner, will have to make decisions on those pieces of land with the new Master Plan. Mr. Munoz stated that the areas are not currently designated as open space. The current zoning designation is R-1 and the current general plan designation is RLM. Through interaction with the residents, city staff discovered that the vacant, undeveloped areas are a big concern of the residents who oppose any further development by the resort. Discussions were also held with KSL who stated their focus of the Master Plan is on the commercial dwelling units with no intention to go into the vacant pieces of land to develop them. A mutual agreement was made so that these pieces of land would be locked into a “no development mode” by proposing the sites be designated as open space. Further discussions between the residents and KSL showed no support from the residents to keep the land as open space although they did not want any development to occur by the developer. Mr. Munoz restated that there is no open space that will be eliminated; however, the proposal is for the land to retain the current RLM general plan designation. Commissioner Baker asked if the land does retain the RLM designation, could the applicant develop it if they were able to create legal, conforming lots. Mr. Munoz stated that it would not be allowed under the proposed Master Plan. A future Master Plan amendment is required to sort out the details that would be proposed with the lot line adjustments. Commissioner Baker asked if the zoning designation is left as RLM, does that leave the door open for potential development on the sites rather than designating it as open space and allowing lot line adjustment where necessary. Mr. Munoz responded that if the property were left with the zoning designation as R-1, that situation could occur. Mr. Munoz stated that because the property will be Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2004 Page 5 under the Master Plan with P-C zoning. It‘s the R-1 zoning just within the planning area where with R-1 -Q zoning would show up. The true zoning for the property is through the Master Plan and the Master Plan requires a future Master Plan amendment. The R-1-Q that is assigned to the property will not enable it to act like an R-1 zone. It is controlled by the Master Plan. Commissioner Baker asked if the Master Plan is approved, who will maintain that property. Mr. Munoz states the current property owner, which is KSL, would be responsible for maintaining the property until the future Master Plan amendment which sorts out all these details and comes forward. Commissioner Baker asked if that amendment will be brought to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Munoz stated that the future amendment is required to have approval from both the Planning Commission and City Council. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Chevis Hosea, 2100 Costa del Mar, the applicant, stated that KSL bought the failed resort to restore it to the reputation it once had. He stated that KSL is hoping to continue to rebuild the resort. He further stated that in regards to the “finger lands,” KSL is in agreement with restoring those pieces of land and returning them to the rightful owners and that KSL does not have any intentions to develop them. The objective of the Master Plan is to have the resort remain competitive and to do that they need to do to expand the resort. He stated part of the way they will do this is to create the proposed villas for third party owners who will be restricted to using the villas to 120 days per year. He further stated that development near the surrounding residences will be left to a minimum and most of the changes will occur to the interior of the resort. No changes to the golf course are proposed. Mr. Hosea concluded his presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Segall asked how the construction ingress and egress during this process will occur and how it will impact the residences. He stated a right in/right out temporary road between Costa del Mar and Arenal Road with a deceleration lane for the construction traffic to enter the facility will be proposed and then the traffic could either exit out that same location or at a traffic light for more safety. Commissioner Segall asked if there was a slide or exhibit depicting what the ingress and egress would be like. Associate Engineer John Maashoff stated that what is currently being considered is a right in off El Camino Real halfway between Costa del Mar and Arenal Road to bring construction traffic, thereby reducing the number of trips on both Arenal Road and Costa del Mar during the construction period of the project. Commissioner Segall also asked what the construction hours would be. Mr. Maashoff stated that the Building Code and Municipal Code govern the construction hours, and there are not additional restrictions identified in the conditions of approval related to construction traffic. Commissioner Segall asked if the current landscaping along the El Camino Real scenic corridor would mature or if more vegetation would be planted. Mr. Hosea directed the Commission’s attention to an exhibit depicting the vegetation along El Camino Real between Arenal Road and Costa del Mar. Commissioner Segall further asked during the construction phasing of the villas if the parking areas would be made of decomposed granite or if the areas would be paved. Mr. Hosea stated that they are requesting an additional 200 spaces during construction of Phases 1 through 4 and those will be made of decomposed granite. Commissioner Segall asked about the traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Mr. Hosea stated that most of the traffic would be entering the resort from La Costa Avenue to El Camino Real. Commissioner Baker asked if there are any plans to clean up the area on the parking lot where the old horse stables are and also along the creek, and what those areas will be used for. Mr. Hosea stated that those are the temporary storage facilities. The buildings will be demolished to build the golf performance center. Commissioner Baker stated that it might be beneficial for the resort to rehabilitate the area along the creek for possibly a trail that could be used by guests or residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Hosea stated that they could definitely look into that. Commissioner Baker also asked about the fingers of land and the maintenance of those areas if they are turned over to the homeowners, how the resort will control the areas, particularly the ones closest to the golf course. Mr. Hosea stated that KSL is retaining ownership of all the parcels that are immediately adjacent to the golf course. KSL is asking that the homeowners work with them in order to maintain that land adjacent to the golf course and that it only be developed with horizontal golf-type of uses and landscaping, and KSL will do the same. Commissioner Dominguez asked since the resort will have to come into compliance with storm water requirements along the creek area, if it would be possible to incorporate some visual esthetics in the area /5- Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2004 Page 6 to make the creek area more beautiful. Mr. Hosea stated that they could only go so far into the creek area because of the streambed. He stated things can be done but it would have to be done outside of the creek bed boundary. Commissioner Heineman asked if there were any timetables in place regarding the settlements or agreements that would finally get rid of the fingers of land. Mr. Hosea stated they are currently talking with about 25 different people and each would have individual agreements. He also stated that with several of the agreements they are within a few days of having the agreements executed. Commissioner Baker asked if there are that many lot line adjustments, will there be any issues with other City processes, the Map Act, or subdivision requirements to make those adjustments go smoothly when those adjustments are ready processed. Mr. Munoz stated he was not sure because the process is still in a concept phase, and staff is unsure of how the resort owners plan to globally deal with the finger areas of land, therefore a future Master Plan amendment is required so all areas can be assessed. Chairperson Whitton said that in reading the associated documents it appears that KSL will be giving the property over to the owners without reimbursement. Mr. Hosea stated that was correct and that KSL is asking the residents to share in the cost of processing the lot fine adjustments. All the transfers will be valued at zero. Chairperson Whitton asked if emergency vehicles will be able to get into all the roads leading to residential areas of the resort during special events such as the golf tournament. Mr. Hosea stated that was correct. Chairperson Whitton also asked if motorhomes and recreational vehicles, possibly brought by some of the golfers, would be allowed on the property. Mr. Hosea stated that would only be a function of a special use permit for broadcasting of events but otherwise those types of vehicles are not allowed on the property. Commissioner Segall asked what the restriction was on the building heights in the resort. Mr. Hosea stated that all of the buildings along the perimeter of the property have two stories along the front and then three stories towards the interior of the property. The height requirement will be consistent with the Master Plan. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any energy saving devices or technologies, such as solar panels to heat the pools, on any of the buildings. Mr. Hosea responded that there are requirements for the interior of the buildings, such as insulation, that they will be putting in; however there will not be any other devices like solar panels. Chairperson Whitton encouraged KSL to look into using energy saving devices at the resort as well as working with the Corp of Engineers to clean up the creek on the site. RECESS Chairperson Whitton called for a 10-minute recess at 7:20 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Chairperson Whitton called the meeting back to order at 733 p.m. with five Commissioners present. Chairperson Whitton opened Public Testimony on Item 5. Fred Jonas, 1923 D Estrella de Mar, Carlsbad, stated that all the current tennis courts are needed to maintain the world class facility and the facility does not need to be downsized. He commented that all the parking, which is currently there, is needed. The construction of the villas will impact the adequacy of the parking. He recommends that the mitigation measure required for Phase 5 be accelerated to Phase 2 and all subsequent phases. Patrick Fearn, 6933 Dusty Rose Place, Carlsbad, gave his support of the project. Kurt Burkhart, 400 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, also stated his support of the project. Helen Ulitsky, 2058 Caracol Court, Carlsbad, also supports the project. Suggests that the remaining parcels be zoned OS. Eloy Cortina, 7136 Estrella de Mar Road, Carlsbad, supports the project. Jamie Morel, 5934 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, representing the Chamber of Commerce, supports the project. Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2004 Page 7 Rick Rosenberg, 2019 Mar Azul Way, Carlsbad, wants assurances to residents to maintain new agreements for finger lands and in parking if the current owner sells the resort. Jeff Etchel, 3737 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, union representative for 400 resort employees, commented that the traffic study is out of date, which could cause unknown impacts that have not been addressed. He also commented that the 120-day stay restriction on the commercial dwelling units is not in writing anywhere. What is going to happen with 120 days per year on 197 units, what is the impact on the lost TOT tax. He is concerned about parking and the shared use theory doesn’t make sense. The study is flawed on how it‘s counted. How many employee spaces are required in that total and what are the phases. The study ignores future employee growth and the need for more parking. Mr. Etchel does not support the project. James Bond, 2041 Caracol Court, Carlsbad, commented on the finger parcels and the lot line adjustments. He asked for clarification on when the adjustments could be made and what the timeline is on the future Master Plan amendment. William Ims, 2023 Caleta Court, Carlsbad, stated that KSL has been a great neighbor and supports the project. Chris Polychron, 169 Saxony Place Suite 201, Encinitas, an attorney with Coast Law representing the Surfrider Foundation and the San Diego Bay Keepers. His clients primary concern is parking on the site. He does not support the project. Peter Ragsdale, 2044 Playa Road, Carlsbad, stated his main concern is the traffic impacts and the flow on Estrella de Mar with the new traffic device that is in place. His other concern is regarding construction traffic and also the cleanup after the trucks leave. Tim Murray, 7050 Estrella de Mar Road, Carlsbad, gave his support on the project. He is also interested in the timeline regarding the lot line adjustments. Commissioner Segall disclosed that he is on the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and was not involved in the decision nor did he know of the contents of the board action. Bart Billings, 2704 Cazadero Drive, Carlsbad, stated his support of the project and would like to see the small mixed-use retail use. John Heffner, 2030 Mar Azul Way, Carlsbad, also supports the project. Chairperson Whitton closed Public Testimony on the item and asked if staff wished to respond to any of the questions raised by the public speakers. Mr. Munoz responded to the issue raised by Rick Rosenberg regarding any future sale of the resort and the current agreements that are in place. Mr. Munoz stated that the Master Plan runs with the land so that any future owners will be bound by the document that is being proposed. He further commented that the lot line adjustments cannot be approved or looked at until the project is approved by both Planning Commission and City Council at which time the mechanism will be approved for a future Master Plan amendment that will assess all the lot line adjustments globally. Mr. Munoz addressed Chris Polychron’s issues regarding parking requirements and stated that the project is within the guidelines established by a Master Plan. Mr. Munoz also addressed the comment about construction traffic. There is a mitigation measure in place directing staff to look at alternatives to allowing construction traffic on Arena1 Road. Mr. Munoz stated that while that cannot be guaranteed, staff would look at the available alternatives at the time a grading permit is processed. Commissioner Segall inquired how staff would handle the various parking issues that may arise both during special events and during regular year-round activities. Mr. Munoz stated that one of the criteria for parking during special events is to issue passes to enter the site which will have to match up to a site plan so that site is not taking in more parking than it can accommodate. The Police Department will continue to issue those permits but will work more interactively with the Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department staff. Mr. Munoz further stated that in terms of the future of parking for the Master Plan, there are triggers in place for a parking structure if parking is determined to be inadequate or if the developer is Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2004 Page 8 seeing a need to construct it. The final phase of the project cannot receive a building permit unless there is a determination of parking adequacy by the Planning Director. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Munoz to elaborate on parking during special events, specifically the off-site requirements. Mr. Munoz stated that within the special event criteria established, the site might have to rely on off-site parking, such as the parking at LEGOLAND or nearby facilities, to shuttle event attendees into the site. Those off site locations will have parking attendants and security. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be enough information to know if there is a parking problem to move the traffic mitigation measure from Phase 5 to Phase 2 as it was suggested by public speaker, Fred Jonas. Mr. Munoz stated that it could be anticipated that there could be parking problems which are so bad that a building permit could not be issued with Phase 2 if that measure is in place. Moving that requirement up could have advantages or not. Commissioner Baker asked if the parking structure was moved to Phase 2 but there wasn't really a need for it; however later on a parking problem developed, would the site lose the opportunity to build the structure later on. Mr. Munoz stated that the parking structure has its own mitigation measure to trigger the need for it: either the developer or the City could determine that the structure is needed in a particular phase. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked the applicant to respond to some of the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Hosea stated that the developer is agreeable on the restrictions placed on the land uses as it is proposed and asked the Commission to not place any restrictions that might inhibit the resort to operate competitively. He also commented that any future owners of the land would be held the restrictions and agreements that are being proposed tonight. Mr. Hosea further commented he feels that the parking study proves the shared parking analysis. He feels that if the Commission determines that the parking structure be built now, it would be onerous. The 138-space parking structure, which will be built if it is determined there is a parking inadequacy on the site, will have less than 200 parking spaces. The mitigation measures call for an additional 200 parking spaces during the construction of Phases 1 through 4. Commissioner Baker asked the applicant to respond to the comment pertaining to employee parking raised by the union representative. Mr. Hosea responded that they have provided for employee parking. He stated the site does provide for enough parking spaces for the projected number of employees at full build out of the resort. He feels that in order to grow the resort there has to be provisions for employee parking as the number of employees will grow with the resort. He stated that he feels this has been accomplished through this Master Plan. Commissioner Dominguez asked for clarification regarding the parking analysis. He stated that according to the parking analysis, Phases 1 through 5 meet the parking requirements 100%. Phases 6 and 7 have the mitigation measure of shared parking. Commissioner Dominguez stated there is only a 50% reduction in the overall parking requirement. Mr. Munoz stated that was correct and he discussed how the shared use parking was established. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5697 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5698, 5699, 5700, 5701, 5702, 5703, 5704 and 5705 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-08, Zone Change ZC 03-04, Master Plan MP 03-02, Master Plan Amendment MP 149(S), Carlsbad Tract CT 03-01, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development PUD 03-06, Floodplain Special Use Permit SUP 03-06 and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit SUP 03-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet as presented by staff. Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2004 Page 9 DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated that he supports the project and feels that it is a big improvement, not only to the property but for the community as well. He stated that he is a little disappointed about the lack of the commercial center at the front of the site but he does understand the developer’s need to create a different plan due to the parking issues. He feels comfortable with the parking mitigation measures that will be in place. Commissioner Dominguez also supports the project and is also pleased with the creation of a Master Plan on the site. He feels that it will be a great protection for the residents of La Costa and will also provide guidance to the City particularly with the Police Department. Commissioner Heineman is in favor of the project. He stated that the outreach between the City and the Developer with the community has been outstanding and the results show in the testimony. He feels that the planning by both the city staff and the developer on such a complex project is laudable. Commissioner Baker gave her support for the project. She feels that the developer has been very generous with the residents on the lot line adjustments but she hopes that the residents are aware they will be expected to share some of the costs associated with the adjustments. She also commended the developer and staff for working with the neighbors by turning a difficult situation into a positive. Chairperson Whitton concurs with his fellow commissioners. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: Montgomery Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Segall Chairperson Whitton closed the Public Hearing on Item 5. Page 1 of 1 Marilyn Strong - LaCostaResortMasterPlan AGENDA ITEM # la. From: CMMFLAN I@aol.com> To : <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 09/15/2004 1254 PM Subject: LaCostaResortMasterPlan City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk To the Mayor and all Council Members In addition to the numerous letters to the Planning and city, this a summary of some items of concern. PARKING-on-site off-site We have been told numerous times that there is adequate on site parking for Hotel business. We have observed many convention groups and employees using our residential streets, when all the lots ( including the grass lots that are to become buildings in the Plan) are filled. A few employees and convention attendees currently use Arenal and Estrella, even with empty lots, for whatever reason they chose not to park on the hotel grounds. We need help from the city to stop the expanded, red curbed Hotel from turning our residential streets into the off site parking for their business. Construction equipment and workers need places to park so our street will not be the construction parking for the 5 projected years of expansion. If the hotel is allowed to have inadequate, inconvenient on-site parking then our residential street will frequently look as the streets did during tournaments when parking was allowed on both sides of our narrow winding road. This is a safety issue for the residents and the pedestrians. NOISE There will be an increase in traffic noise/dirt along the ElCaminoReal corridor between Arenal and Alga. We have the hotel expansion on one end and the enormous development up Alga and on ElFuerte on the other end. KSL is expanding its facilities so it can accommodate larger conventions ... so..larger conventions ... more rooms ... more guests ... more employees ... more traffic ... more garbage and linen trucks ... more pollutants ... and therefore more noise. I am the only residence that borders ElCaminoReal and Estrella. I have owned this home since 1979. I have asked that the wall at the firehouse be extended up ElCaminoReal at the cyclone fence line to try to salvage some quality of life here. This older established neighborhood is being surrounded and invaded by the fast, growing development in this area. The once small Country Club and Spa is now a massive hotel development with all the troubles and the niceties it can bring. However, we live here and have to co-exist with the changes. Hopefully some more attention can be given to the above items and others that have been mentioned by myself and other residents of the neighborhood in previous letters to Planning to save the aesthetics of our neighborhood that has existed for over thirty years. Please have someone investigate a method whereby our streets can be used for residential use only. The streets here,with multiple blind driveways and no sidewalks, are not designed for parking on both sides. We have succeeded in no parking during major evevnts but the main concern now is the everyday use for business,employees and transients. Thank You Flanigan 7243 Estrella De Mar Road file://C:\Documents%2Oand%2OSettingshstro .000\Loca1%2OSettings\Temp\GW) 0000 1 .HTM 09/15/2004 AGENDAITEM# Id September 14,2004 a Mayor city Conndt City Manager City Attorney City Clerk ANITA LOWER Cityof Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008- 1989 Dear Sir or Madarn Re: Case name: La Costa Resort and Spa Case File: GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149 (S)/c" 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03- 06/SUP 03-03 Regarding the above case and the public hearing of Tuesday September 21, 2004 I would like to voice my opposition regarding this development project. The increased traffic congestion, additional noise and pollution that is part and parcel to a project of this size and nature, will bring negative environmental impact on the entire community La Costa Resort is an exclusive development, and part of its exclusivity has always been its serene surrounding. I own properties at 2005 Costa Del Mar Rd, Carlsbad, Ca. By allowing the development of up to 197 Commercial Dwelling Units the quite enjoyment of my property and those of my neighbors would be negatively impaired by this project.. Property values of the existing condominium and in fact, of the entire communitywould decrease. For the reasons stated above I very much oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone change. Sincerely Anita Lorber Cc: Eric Munoz 823 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 TEL: (310)275-1568 FAX: (310)275-1812 The Honorable Bud Lewis Mayor, City of Carlsbad Carlsbad City Hall Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis: .,' . The Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau reiterates its support for the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan that will be before council tomorrow night. For the reasons stated in the attached comments, we believe that this project provides both economic vitality and enhanced resort destination value for Carlsbad. We ask for your support and that of your Council Member colleagues. Thank you very much. Sincerely i- 'J Patrick Fearn, Chairman Carlsbad Convention & Visitors Bureau Kurt Burkhart, ExecuL $e D -rector Carlsbad Conventim & . Visitors Bureau cc: Council Members CVB Board of Directors Ms. April Shute Carlsbad Convention ei Visitors Bureau 400 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 FAX (760) 434.6056 0 www.visitcarlsbad.com info.@visitcarlsbad.com (760) 434.6093 I Remarks by Patrick Fearn Chairman, Carlsbad Convention & Visitors Bureau Before the Carlsbad Planning Commission August 18,2004 Good evening, Chairman and members of the Carlsbad; Planning Commission. My name is Patrick Fearn and my address is 6933 Dusty Rose Place, Carlsbad 92009. I am here tonight in my capacity as Chairman of the Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau to support the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan Cup Amendment Application that is before you tonight. Speaking on behalf of the CVB Board of Directors, I can say that, without reservation, we have followed with great interest, KSL’s diligent undertaking to return this resort back to being a truly world-class destination. We further believe that, as it relates to the Villas Project, these completed units will increase the TOT, increase jobs, increase property taxes and enhance property values. In March 2004, the CVB Board of Directors unanimously approved a resolution of support for the KSL - La Costa Resort and Spa, and I would like to read that resolution at this time. “Whereas, the KSL Recreation Corporation has acquired. La Costa Resort and Spa and has undertaken a comprehensive renovation of the Resort and has formally requested that the City of Carlsbad amend its current‘Master Plan CUP calling for a street vacation, the construction of a state af the art golf performance center and the development of 197 Villas which will expand the Resort’s hotel room count, and Whereas, the all new La Costa Resort and Spa will have a positive effect on the City of Carlsbad and San Diego County through the generation of increased bed taxes, retail sales taxes and property taxes as well as an increase in employment opportunities, and Whereas, the numerous improvements at the Resort including a spectacular world-class spa, major conference center and ballroom, all new refurbished hotel rooms and beautifully landscaped grounds will return the Resort to being a truly world class destination resort, and Whereas, KSL and the Resort are investing a great deal into the physical enhancement of the world renowned La Costa brand while investing many resources to insure a positive partnership with the City of Carlsbad in order to maintain the areas quality of life and economic stability, ai:d now, Therefore be it resolved, that the Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau wholeheartedly requests that the City of Carlsbad support the request by the KSL Development Corporation and La Costa Resort and Spa to amend its Master Plan CUP as requested.” This concludes my remarks, and I will ask the Executive Director of the Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau to share his thoughts about this project with you at this time. Thank you very much. . 2 , Remarks by Kurt Burkhart Executive Director Carlsbad Convention & Visitors Bureau Before the Carlsbad Planning Commission August 18,2004 Mr. Chairman and members of the Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, my name is Kurt Burkhart and my address is 400 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad 92008. Tonight I am here in my capacity as the Executive Director of the Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau, a not-for-profit destinatil’on marketing organization. Our mission is to successfully promote Carlsbad as a preferred year-round leisure travel destination, with the primary emphasis on increasing travel spending within the City, generating additional tax revenues and expanding travel and tourism-related employment within the City of Carlsbad. I concur with the comments just given by the bureau’s Board Chairman, Patrick Fearn. The Carlsbad Convention and Visitors Bureau would like to be counted on tonight for its support of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan CUP Amendment Application that is now before the Commission. The bureau believes that the amended components of the initial application that allow for additional improvements such as the Villas Project of 197 privately owned one, two and three bedroom commercial dwelling units will add to the room inventory in Carlsbad. As you know, these units will bring with them immediate economic impact through the collection of the much coveted Transient Occupancy Tax. Also, the proposed Golf Learning Academy would be a tremendous amenity and would go far to complement the stature that La Costa has achieved in its long history with the Professional Golf Association and the Accenture World Championship Match Play. No doubt, a Golf Learning Academy would provide added employment opportunities, and that’s good for the City of Carlsbad, for the Resort and its membership, and for the visitor services industry. Each of these - the Villas and the Golf Learning Academy -will help to enhance overall property value and increase property taxes. We believe that this is a win- win for everyone. Furthermore, it is our understanding that KSL has gone the extra mile to work through any issues with the adjacent neighborhoods that could impact the quality of life for those residents, especially with respect to traffic, parking and special events. We also understand that KSL is currently working diligently with area neighbors and city planners to establish programs that would mitigate future residential development in open space areas adjacent to existing homes:. And, speaking as a Carlsbad resident, I must say that I am most impressed with KSL’s sensitivity toward assuring that the delicate balance between development and open space is protected, maintained and preserved. In closing, let me say that it is my belief that the absolute best thing that’s happened in Carlsbad these last three and one-half years since taking over the Carlsbad CVB as Executive Director has been KSL‘s purchase of the La Costa Resort and Spa. With a landmark deal that was completed on November 15, 2001, also came a plan to undergo a complete and total metamorphic restoration. As evidenced by their application that’s before you tonight, there’s still a lot of work yet to be completed. The name, La Costa, is synonymous with Carlsbad, and in the competitive world of destination marketing, having this institutional icon in our hometown helps immensely in the overall attractive value of our destination. The Carlsbad CVB is truly pleased with KSL’s efforts to return the La Costa Resort and Spa to its place of world prominence, and I believe members of this Commission can take a lot of pride in knowing that you helped to make that happen. I happen to believe that KSL and the management of La Costa Resort and Spa are totally committed to being a good community partner and neighbor, and so far they have delivered on the promises made. Therefore, the Carlsbad CVB would like to go on record by joining others who have asked the Carlsbad Planning Commission to approve the issues that KSL has before you tonight. Thank you. SeP.21. 2004 12:38PM Creative Nail Design (I, CREATIVE NAIL 13ESICN" No.6268 P. I September 21,2004 To: Cadsbad City Council Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the city counsel meeting due to business commitments. The purpose of this letter is to communicate my unconditional support behind the KSL Corporation and their proposed master plan for the La Costa Resort. As homeowners in close proximity to both La Costa and the Arizona Bilbnore hotels, both KSL properties, my wife and I are uniquely qualifmd to pmvide insight into KSL and their business practices. In short, we have found that KSL has from the outset demonstrated great sensitivity in dealing with our neighbors and us. They have been responsive and true to their word on every kvel. We believe the plans as proposed have all parties best interests at heart and will result in the much needed revitalization of the resort as well as our immediate neighborhood. Thank you for your consideratian, John Heffner 2030 Mar Azul Way La Costa, CA 92009 john L Heflner President '. I1 25 hrihua Way, Vista. CA 92081 Tcl 760.599 2900 exr 277 Fax 7fi0 599,4008 j&ri hcff~nt-&~ail.cr~rn September 21 , 2004 Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis: La Costa Resort & Spa is one of Carlsbad’s long -standing and historical landmarks. To enhance the overall revitalization of the Resort, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce supports the following amendments to the Master Plan: 1. Development of 197 privately- owned one, two, and three bedroom commercial dwelling units 2. A proposed Golf Learning Academy 3. Additional parking facilities The Master Plan combined with the above amendments will enrich the local economy with increased bed taxes, increased employment opportunities, increased property taxes, and enhanced property values. In their plan, KSL strives to provide a functional and economically viable balance between land use and exceptional resort services. Along with economic factors, KSL has endeavored to ensure the community’s quality of life. Working with adjacent neighborhoods, especially pertaining to traffic and parking, and preserving a harmonious balance between existing and future environment, KSL and the management of La Costa Resort & Spa are committed to being a good community partner and neighbor. Therefore, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, in an effort to make Carlsbad a better place to live, work and play, urges you to support the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan amendments. PresidenVCEO Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce ACCREDITED 5934 Priestly Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 931-8400 Fax: (760) 931-91 53 E-mail: chamber@carlsbad.org Web: www.carlsbad.org - SEPTEMBER 3,2004 TO: CITY MANAGER CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: Senior Planner Munoz LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN - PUBLIC COMMENT PACKAGE GPA 03-0WZC 03-04MP 03-02MP 149-(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-03 and 03-06 The attached letters and info items were submitted as part of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan project prior to, or during, the August 18, 2004 Planning Commission hearing. These letters were inadvertently omitted from the City Council Agenda Bill prepared for this project; so please consider this public comment package as a supplement to the final Agenda Bill. It is anticipated that the City Council hearing will take place in September 2004. I can be reached at extension 4608 with any questions. ERIC MUNOZ Senior Planner .- . From: "John Heffner" <John.Heffner@cnail.com> To: <Emuno @ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 8/10/04 11 :31 AM Subject: La Costa Project Dear Mr. Munoz, I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Commission ensure that the finger parcels adjacent to the La Costa Master Plan remain RLM under the general plan and R-1 under the existing zoning. I am in a rather interesting predicament in that the existing La Costa lot line goes directly through my backyard swimming pool as a result of lot line neglect over the years by previous owners of La Costa. KSL is interested in conveying the land in question to homeowners to alleviate like issues under R-1 zoning. After thoroughly investigating options to that end, we have collectively agreed that this is the most prudent solution that works in the best interests of all parties. This designation would enable us to adjust the lot lines and avoid lengthy and costly future adjustments with the city. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, John Heffner 2030 Mar Azul Way (760) 804-9567 This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. lug,17 04 08:49a GERHARD/LARSON I., Aur-17-04 06:lSam From-PRINT, IN& 760-436-7945 76~34- 1828 T-373 P.04/05 F-305 Lors 44 through 119 inclusive and lots 121 hugh 133 inclusive, of La Costa Valky Unit No.1 according to Map 5434, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Calihmia, July 29,1961, a Document No. 136843. City of Carbbad 1635 Fatsday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-73 14 p1snn;ne-t Dear Sin: This letter is in respnse to tht annQuncmmt you sbnt to us with regads to the public hearing of ttrc above mentioned MSC name and fiIelte’ pvbk hearing. Our devclapment is mspondsng to this proposal kcwst we are directly and indirectly aff~ted by ouch pmposal. The dmcription of such pmposal as dencribcd by the proposal -A portion of Section 26 zmd Secrion 35, both in Township 12 South. Ran@ 4 West Sa Bemardino Maidiau, h be City of CarIsbad, Counry of San Diego in the State of California, is also described by the San Diego County Recorder’ s Office as lots 121 through 129 of La Costa Valley Unit No.1. Thcrel’ort, our interca in the disapprovaI of this proposal. Our development has been prmecud by cmdiuons, covenants, and rrtruidons aince 1964, in order LO protect our inwcst. Cumntly, such proposal of General pL;ro Amendment, Zanc Change, Master Plan, Master PIan Amendment, Tentative Track Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, a Flwdpfaia Special Use Permit and El Cpnrino Real Corridor Spacial Usc Pumii for the approval and irnpluncntation of the La COPU Resort iutd Spa Ma&er Plan to allow for the dtveiopmenr of up to I97 Conunerrcial Dwelling Unirs, a Golf pecformance Center and related parking and landscaping within the ekisting property of the La Costa RCMII~ and Spa, are in direct violation of our CCBtR’s, In May 2004, wt conumankjtc?d to Ja Costa Resort snd Spa and the City of carlsbad of our disapproval of the project and our conccms of the impacts chat such project may cause our development and future intcmit - Once more, we wouM like to inch& in &is haring our previous concern6 which m atill the sam? cmms in as far as we can determino day. ThereFore, we would like to incorporate now the document we provided tbe City of Csalsbad in May, 2004, because this document provides mom specific information regarding our conccm~. We psc also awm that such pmject will carry dirsct aud indkt iznpactG arrd cKm that at lhis time we are not eble to det*rarinc with rhe information we cunently have. ‘It is because of this Rug ,17 04 Q8:49a GERMflRD/LflRSON . hug-19-44 06:IOam From-BRINTIIP8C tr a6Ca Valley Unit No. 1 Architectural CommiW 436-7945 P-373 8.00/05 F-005 WS&I that we would like to request rhe Cipd c Earlski ehrt the Mirligaoed Negative not h approved mid that in lieu of'rbe Mitigat.& Ncptiwa Declmdonr. 8 Enrim Impact Repoas &e .squestd. We feel that the analysis need to be conducted by competent pmfeacionals in the diffctcrt areas of concern in ordcr U) achieve a dew of forecasting that put& out its kt efforts to lsndeprtand the impacts of rht project Using BCcuratc and pdasiond informstion frum individuals thax arc free of conflict of interest in the project. We also feel that public opinion and ~ccucase data from profes8iond agencies should be wed LO assess tbe project's effects. Ultimately, we feel that an cnvironrmntal impacc repent Will be able to pmvide such hformatisn. We urge the City of Carlsbad to disapprove the Mitigated Nqptivc Ikclaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plpn, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Ram Map, Non- Raaidcntial Planned Unit Dcvclopmt, 8 Floodplain SpcciaI Use Pmnit and El Camjno Real Conidor Specid U8e Penbit for Lhc approval and implementation dthe La Cosa Reson and Spa Masrer Plan to allow for the development of up to 197 Coaunercial Dwelling Units, a &If Perfonnanc~ Center and relatbd parking und landscaping within the existing pmpmy of thu La Costa Resort and Spa and request mat the project produce m Bnvimnmental lmpacr Repon for cbe benefit Of OUT COrmnUY@ and OW City. I MayraDell 2057 Playa Road CarJsbad,CA 92009 Bttt Msnn 2032 Playa Road carlsbsd,cA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PL-G DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 TO ERIC MUNOZ, Senior Plamer DON RIDEOUT, Principal Planner REGARDING COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ASSESSMENT PART 1 FROM LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1 ARCJiU7'ECTURAL COMMITTEE MAYRA DELL ANDREW GERHARD BERT MA" FOR KSL RECREATl0NA.L CORPORATION LA COSTA RESORT MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL FOR FHASE 1,5A & 5B MAY, 2004 KSL Development Corporation 50-905 Avenida Bermudas LaQuinta, CA 92253 Master Planningkandscape Architecture Forrest K. Haag ASLA, Inc. 1254 North Coast Highway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Chevis Hosea KSL Development Corporation La Costa Resort and Spa 2 100 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 LA COSTA VALLEY UNlT NO. 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 44 through 119 inclusive and lots 121 through 133 inclusive, of La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 according to Map No. 5434, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California, July 29, 1964, and filed as document No. 136843. SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL According to our Declaration and Establishment of Protective Conditions and Restrictions, made this lofh day of November 1964, by Rancho La Costa, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, duly qualified and authorized to transact intrastate business in the State of California With regards to Article VIII and any and all articles pertaining to the approval of plans as presented to the Architectural Committee, By KSL Recreational Corporation Inc., April 2004 Master Plan Proposal for La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan Proposal for lots 121 through 129 of La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 RESPONSE FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS . Li : . LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE MAYRA DELL fl 2057 PLAYA ROAD CAFUSBAD, CA 92009 U 760-438-1 832 ANDREW GERHARD 7008 ESTRELLA DE MAR CARLSBAD, CA 92009 760-438-1 832 BERT MA" 2032 PLAYA ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92009 760-93 1-7999 If you would like to send correspondence to the kchitectural Committee, please address said correspondence to the Architectural Committee at any of the addresses above, but do not address any of the above committee members individually, since they are not representing an individual cause, but rather the interest of the La Costa Valley Unit 1. Thank you! , i In reply to the proposed Master Plans submitted by KSL Recreational Corporation to La Costa Valley Unit No, 1 Architectural Committee, with regards to lots 121 through 129 of La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 , and complying with the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of said development according to records filed with the County Recorder’s Office of San Diego County, July 29, 1964; the following comments, observations and recommendations are the result of Article VIII, and any and all articles that could pertain to the approval of plans, as stated in the above mentioned CC&R’s. Please see exhibit A. The Architectural Committee has the following reply and comments to the proposed Master Plan in the following two areas: I) Comments and recommendations to the Master Plan Summary and Conclusion II) Comments regarding the issues of the Negative Declaration Assessment Part 1 Summary and Conclusion Comments and recommendations to the Proposed Master Plan The proposed plan by KSL Recreational Corporation concerning Lots 12 1 through 129 of La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 , our development, as has been proposed in phase 1, phase 5A and phase 5B of the La Costa Resort Master Plan presents the following problematica. Our CC&R’s calls for the continuation and the preservation of our development. Therefore, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions implemented, have served the development for that purpose. La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 is an established and well-maintained development that has existed without major alterations since 1964. Said Master Plan, is proposing major changes in a portion of this development that inevitably will cause drastic changes in the areas that wi€€ be discussed next. 1 ZONING CHANGES The cwrent land consists of lots 12 1 through 123 currently zoned as RD-M (Residential Dwelling Multiple), as per the covenants, conditions and restrictions provided in Amendment No.2 of uur CC&R’s. The land area of proposed plan is the site for phase 1, 5A & 53. Currently, at this location there are six “Executive Homes” and three empty lots. Altogether, they comprise the 91 homes that structure La Costa Valley Unit No. 1, as described in Mp 5434. The proposed Master Plan Use Allocation: The plan is proposing to build 75 Commercial Dwelling Units in the area, where the original Model Homes (Executive Homes) of La Costa Valley Unit No. 4 -were built in 1964. These homes are single resident homes and they are the blue print for the rest of the homes that constitutes this dievefopment. The rest of the aevelopment is zoned R-€, wit& the exqtim of the area where the nine homes me at, whkh later, W~S to RD-M. The 75 Commercial Dwdiing Units proposed, in iieu of the nine lots, is massive and will change dramatidly the nature and character of the La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 development, The occurrence and irnplj,catims ofa commercial zoning wili forever alter the rest of our homes andpossib€y our red estate values. TFhe- comffl-ereid- zoning €-1 will-not be- approved by ow comfniffee in anRD-M zone according to ow CC&R’s (Please see exhibit B). EXGLUSI-QN QE LQTS 121 THROUGH 129 FROM THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT We strongly oppose the exclusion of lots 121 through 129 as it is proposed in the Master Plan. This action will cause substantid loss to our development. This development was not intended to become subdivided fiom the rest of the property, at any time. The separation of such land -will create future cumulative direct and indirect consequences that at this time will be difficult to assess. Therefore, we do not approve of the exclusion of the nine lots according to our CC&R’s. 2 The intent of creating commercial’ dwelling units, whether called Time Shares, Commercial Villas, or Commercial Dwelling Units, ultimately will have the same adverse effect in our community. Commercial housing is not to the benefit of our development. The La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 is protected by the CC&Fs fiom turning the development into a commercial enterprise of this kind. As defined by the laws of commercial real estate and the def~tion of commercial dwelling units, this proposition is unacceptable to La Costa Valley Unit No. 1. Amendment No. 2 allows the approval of plans for certain hotel use, but does not include a commercial plan. Our committee will not be able to approve this plan as proposed because it is in direct violation of our CC&R’s. PRIVATIZATION OF ESTRELLA DE MAR AND PALOMAR COURT The privatization of the portion of Estrella de Mar, between Arenal and Palomar Court, and Palomar Court itself, is not approved by our committee because it will take away the character of our development, it will constitute firher separation of our development, it will change the aesthetics of our development; but most importantly, it is fimdamentally contradictory to the plan of our development; and this action is in violation of our CC&R’s. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS Our CC&R’s do not allow for three story buildings. The maximum allowable height for a second floor is 30 feet high. Your proposal contains buildings as high as 35feet and as having three stories. Therefore, given the third‘story and the height conditions, this proposal cannot be approved. Moreover, the massive nature of the proposed project will have an adverse effect on the rest of the development in many different aspects. c DENSITY OF THE PROJECT The proposed plan calls for the edification of 75 condominiums instead of nine homes (currently in existence there are six homes and three empty lots). The density of the project is of major concern to us. The proposed development is too massive and does not conform to the standards and definitions of the CC&Rs and respective amendments. We feel that such massive development will have serious impacts in terms of aesthetics, utilities, hydrology, noise, traffic, parking, transportation, loss of habitat, and many other direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. One of the main attractions of La Casta Valley Unit No. 1 is its architecture and space. The CC&R’s were created to protect and preserve the unique definition of this development. The proposed density of this plan directly contradicts this unique feature. Therefore, the committee will not be able to approve this aspect of the proposal. COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT We oppose the commercial subterranean mall-like parking lot; as the Master Plan calls for, because of the fact that no portion of our development is of commercial and subterranean nature. We anticipate that the employment and building of a commercial parking lot will create negative impacts in many areas: noise, aesthetics, traffic, geology, and other consequential and cumulative effects. Therefore, our committee does not approve the commercial parking lot. FORMAL AMMENDMENTS As the Master Plan modification does not meet the criteria of Administrative Amendment as provided in the chapter, it shall require a Formal Amendment to the Master Plan. These amendments shall be processed pursuant to section 21.38.120 (PC Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. And shall be reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council concerning our CC&R’s, direct and indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, CEQA guidelines, update of master plan studies and/or provide additional studies when necessary in order to comply with CEQA and mitigate the environmental impacts. 4 All non-administrative and administrative amendments require formal approval concerning lots 121 through 129 because all changes create impacts in land use and the environment of our development. Summary and Conclusion We find that the alterations in zone changes, the exclusion of lots 12 1 through 129 from the rest of the development, the time share, commercial villas, or commercial dwelling units, the privatization of EstreUa de Mar and Palornar Court, the height of the buildings, the density of the project, the commercial parking lot- the subterranean parking structure, and the formal amendments, are not acceptable proposal changes to lots 12 1 through 129, of La Costa Valley Unit No. 1. Consequently, we are not able to approve your plan as stated. We believe the proposed plan will bring drastic direct impacts, such as, traffic congestions, parking problems, noise pollution. In addition, other adverse and less adverse indirect and cumulative effects and changes, that will create difficulties and serious losses to our development in the fbture. We are particularly concerned with the fact that we have been receiving confusing information fkom the La Costa Resort personnel. We have attended two meetings in which the administrative personnel have presented information to the homeowners as if the homeowners were potential clients of the resort andor potential buyers. Instead of understanding that the homeowners of La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 are adjacent neighbors to the resort, the same owners of the development in which changes have been proposed, and whose interests and responsibilities are to make sure that the development continues to be protected. We would like to believe that we could all work together in a harmonious way. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the plans. We hope and wish to continue to communicate with you in order to arrive at a mutual agreement that will produce positive outcomes for all parties concerned. II) Comments regarding the issues for the Negative Declaration Assessment Part 1 Concerning the Negative Declaration Assessment Part 1 , as presented by KSL Recreational Corporation to the City of Carlsbad, we, the Architectural Committee representing the La Costa Valley Unit No. 1, have the following concerns and oppositions: Studies done for the areas of the Negative Declaration Assessment Part 1 were provided by the City of Carlsbad and by KSL Recreational Corporation. Mr. Eric Munoz, Sr. Planner provided a traffic Analysis and a Hydrology Study and Mr. Doug Yavenian, fiom KSL, provided a Needs Assessment for Parking. Mi. Forrest Haag, provided the Master Plan for the project. The following areas of impact according to the CEQA guidelines will be explained according to observation and with the information provided. We understand that actual studies will be needed to assess the impact formally. AESTHETlCS Potentially Significant Impact The project will substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not hited to, trees, and historic buildings. We believe that the project will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This area has maintained its character overtime by the constant effort of homeowners and previous owners of La Costa Resort, who have strived to apply best materials and aesthetics to buildings and landscapes. We are a community well established since 1964, with CC&R’s that were created for the protection of the development. The plan, as it has been proposed, is in direct violation of that protection. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project will create a new source of substantial light or glare whxh would adversely affect nighttime views in the area. Current practices create adverse lighting during special events. In addition, an increase in litter is expected. In the past, there has been evidence of litter after an event. With an increase in events and population, we believe litter could become an actual significant impact. Consequently, the project will substantially 6 degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES We agree with this impact. AIR QUALITY We do not have sufficient information at this time to be able to comment in this area. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. We believe the project has substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project has the potential to have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game of US Fish and Wildlife Service. The implementation of the proposed project may interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. With recent construction taking place in the last three years, we have felt great lost in the area’s natural habitat. Because the project is so close to the Batiquitos Lagune, we feel that is very important to us to obtain studies in this area in order to insure the preservation of the surrounding areas. 7 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES We agree with this impact. GEOLOGY/SOILS Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated We believe that the location of the site can be on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. We believe that this impact should be further investigated and substantiated with actual information and studies. E€AzARDs/HAzARDous MATERIALS We agree with this impact. HM)ROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact We believe the project has the potential to violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement. It can also substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (eg, the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. The project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream-San Marcos Creek-, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or situation on-or off-site. It is possible that the project can create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Hydrology study presented for the justification of this negative declaration 8 was done for the ballroom, which has less impact and significance than the rest of the proposed project and constitutes only one part of the development. Therefore, we feel that a significant study needs to be done in order to address the entire project. This area is of great direct, indirect, and cumulative impact for our area. LAND USE AND PLANNlNG Potentially Significant Impact This project will physically divide an established community and it will conflict with any and all land use plans, policies, or regulations of our development (agency), La Costa Valley Unit No. 1, with jurisdiction over the project, or part thereof, (lots 12lthrouth 129) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and the protection of such community. It will also conflict with our natural community conservation planis described in our CC&R's. It calls for zoning changes that will conflict with an established community. MINERAL RESOURCES We agree with this impact. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact There is great potential to have exposure of persons to generation or increase of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The project has the potential to have substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels before the project. It also has the potential to have substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels before the project. The project's recreational activities and levels of noise need to be studied in order to analyze direct and indirect impacts. The proposed parking structure has the potential to create vibrations that can be of cumulative nature. 9 At the site of the proposed plan and surrounding areas, the terrain, consist of rolling hills. This can possibly be the cause of OUT adverse experience with noise. This noise travels in different patterns and frequencies in this area creating vibrations and sound in least expected sites. Further concrete and actual studies are needed to assess noise in the area. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact This project will induce substantial growth in the area directly and indirectly that will without doubt create cumulative impacts for the local community. We feel that studies and data on the effects and impacts that such growth will cause must be produced in order to substantiate the project. PUBLIC SERVICES We agree with this impact. RECREATION We agree with this impact. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact The traffic evaluation and analysis for La Costa Resort and Spa seem highly speculative in that comparative studies used to make that assumption, date from July 19,2001, Villages of La Costa Traffic Analysis; and April 25, 1997, study conducted for traffic for the Lucky Store. Current conditions for the proposed development show that the proposed intersections operate at LOS C or better with or without the addition of the proposed project traffic. Then there is an increase of 30% at peak hours. We feel that this LOS is already high if we take into account the fact that it 10 ! could easily change from one direction to another if all variables are not taken into consideration. For instance, the comparative traffic analysis uses “All Suites Hotel”, based in Georgia and in Florida, to justify these data. It would seem logical to utilize data fiom “The Four Seasons Hotel & Spa” located here in Carlsbad, since both hotels are very similar and are closely related in their business. This traffic analysis is not taking into consideration new traffic not yet accounted for coming fi-om new developments under construction coming from Carlsbad, San Marcos, Vista, and Rancho Santa Fe. Therefore, we find this analysis to be highly speculative and perhaps inaccurate in nature. We also feel that current studies, current data and actual overall projections need to play a higher role in the assessment of this impact. This project has the potential to cause substantial increase in traffic compared to the existing traffic, traffic load, and capacity of the street system. In fact, our understanding is that a widening of Arenal Road has been proposed. It also has the potential to change traffic pattems and traffic levels that ultimately will result in many complications. Concerning traffic, the traffic assessment produced for La Costa Resort and Spa to justify traffic is adequate, if the study is not altered with speculative data. Mixed data employed and the assumption that guests to the hotel will be arriving by air and by bus does not seem to be adequate or sufficient justification for this impact. We are aware that during special events, the La Costa Resort does not have enough parking to accommodate its guests. The resort has admitted that it needs to come up with a plan for parking. In the past, guests to the resort have parked on the greenbelts, in fi-ont of our homes, and even on street comers, due to the lack of parking. The proposed plan is massive and encompasses numerous and different activities. We find this impact very significant, and we do not fmd that the supportive data explains a solution to hs problem. Additionally, we feel that Arenal Road and Estrella de Mar will become very active. The negation of traffic and parkmg must be supported with actual studies in order to prevent significant irreversible impacts. 11 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project may require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The project may require new or expanded entitlements and resources. Concerning the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, needs to make a determination in writing that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. There is no supporting data or commitments in writing defining this great demand. Therefore, this becomes a potential significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNWICANCE Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated More data is required from similar projects. Data substantiated fiom objective sources could perhaps substantiate the cumulative effects that similar projects have encountered in order to better understand other future impacts of this project. Summary and Conclusion The master plan is in direct opposition to our covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Information given to the Architectural Committee is sufficient to understand at this point in the project that there are areas of the proposed development that need to be modified for further approval. The additional commercialization of the development is in direct opposition to the character and the protection of our development. Therefore, our committee does not approve this. The studies produced to justifl the Negative declaration Assessment Part 1 are left to speculation. Past studies, outdated materials, and or inapplicable data are use for negation of impacts. Under such circumstances, room for error and futwre adverse consequences can be expected. We also believe that 12 when the resort sells its property, as it has been customary for KSL, we will be facing other owners of the resort, who will inherit the problems of this development, without having the obligation to assist us in the difficulty. We are not yet so sure, how the La Costa Greens, a recent development, situated east of our development, will affect us. Said development is not yet built in order to assess the impact. However, we are sure that we will have significant impacts because of that. We feel that the La Costa Greens is a comparative and similar development to the proposed Master Plan at the La Costa Resort, to the west of our development. The La Costa Greens proposed the edification of 187 condominiums, which is very comparable to 197 condominiums proposed by La Costa Resort. A massive EIR was requested of the La Costa Greens; yet, only a Negative Declaration is requested from the La Costa Resort. We feel that due to the proximity of the Batiquitos Lagune, and at the extensive density of the proposed development, more scrutiny is needed and should be required by the City of Carlsbad in order to better identify the environmental impacts. Concisely, the development is invasive, extensive, and very dense for the proposed area. Its main characteristics without any doubt will cause great changes that seem to be adverse to the nature of the La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 as protected by the covenants, conditions and restrictions as created, July 29, 1964, and subsequent amendments. Concerning the environmental impacts and their negative declaration, the report is not substantiated by studies that have the potential to identify specific areas of concern. Instead, speculative data is used to justify the proposals. Therefore, we find this plan unacceptable and adversely advantageous to our development. We would like to thank all personnel involved in the submittal of this report and look forward to fmdmg a solution to the proposed plan that can be agreeable to all parties concerned. 13 .. . EXHIBIT A -_ EXHIBIT B From: To: <Emuno@ ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 8/17/04 1 1 :25AM Subject: "Eloy 8 Joyce Cortina" <eljoy@ adelphia.net> Re: La Costa Resort Master Plan Dear Eric, This is a follow-up letter regarding our conversation yesterday on the lot adjacent to my home at 71 36 Estrella de Mar. This, currently undeveloped, finger parcel abutting our property is owned by KSI. Based our conversation and KSL's representations, made in the attached letters, we understand that La Costa will maintain title and control of their various finger parcels while negotiating their proposed improvements with the City of Carlsbad. However, KSL and the City have both agreed to allow for full conveyance of these finger parcels to homeowners such as us once an agreement on the details of the exchange is reached. In other words, for purposes of the City, a finger parcel subject to an agreement between KSL and a homeowner such as us will be removed from KSL Master Plan and the attendant requirements and be rezoned R-1 . If we have correctly understood the nature of KSL's proposal and its agreement with the City then we are in favor of both. If our understanding does not comport with that of the City please let us know. We very much enjoy this community and are very interested in all parties expeditiously reaching a fair result. Sincerely, Joyce and Eloy Cortina 71 36 Estrella de Mar Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92009 cc: csholderQci.carlsbad.ca.us>, cdrideout @ci.carlsbad.ca.us> August 9,2004 Eric Munoz, Engineer Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 9 Dear Mr. Munoz: I am a resident of La Costa, and my home borders the unused greenspace area owned by La Costa Resort. For years, this vacant and unused area has been allowed to deteriorate and it has been a concern to me for security purposes. A few months ago, my property was unlawfully entered by two individuals in search of property to steel. Fortunately their attempts were unsuccessfbl, however I feel their intrusion might not have occurred if it were not for the vacant area behind our home. The La Costa Resort has offered to adjust our lot line, which will give us and our neighbor control over that small vacant parcel behind our home. This will eliminate uncontrolled access and provide greater security to our neighborhood. I hope the City of Carlsbad will cooperate with the Resort in accomplishing this action before any change to zoning i:,made to the vacant greenspace area. .- . August 13,2004 S. Chevis Hosea KSL La Costa 11 1, LLC La Costa Resort & Spa 2100 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Mr. Hosea, Yesterday we received, as we have a few times of late, some correspondence delivered personally from the La Costa Resort & Spa to our mailbox. White we certainly appreciate all the up dates regards to KSL’s proposed Master Plan for its redevelopment, some of the issues that concern our particular property are vague at best and do not explain or provide specific information that would be of interest to us. For instance, we have never received any legal explanations, expressly addressed to us, how our property happens to encroach on the property owned by the Resort & Spa. We’ve owned this property for a over three years, obviously had a title insurance company review the available documents when we purchased the home, but never heard about a problem until KSL took over the ownership of La Costa. How long has our property lines been in dispute? This house is over forty years old. Why has this only come to light now? Furthermore, who authenticated these fairly recent findings and how were they verified? Perhaps you can understand that suddenly we receive communications addressed to “Dear Neighbors” telling us that we are on your land but receive nothing to back up your claims. While we are grateful that you appear willing to grant us the property in question, don’t you feel it’s 2019 MAR AZUL WAY CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 PHONE/FAX 760.476.0041 justified to make sure we don’t already have a legal claim to this property? In fact, I would expect that the City of Carlsbad owes us an explanation as well as to how this happened. Also, with regards to receiving a copy of the letter to you from Kari M. Prevost, it would be helpful if I were able to comprehend all the various code letters contained in it. For me, without knowledge of all the different codes and what they encompass, this was convoluted and somewhat useless. I was hopeful that some further detail could have been enclosed since I am not all that familiar with the many different zoning requirements, etc. As an example, if the Resort decides that the “event” parking conditions for them are just too taxing the way they recently handled the Acura Classic, will you be able to use the greenbelts again for parking at the request of the City? If the City believes that some condos might be built in these current open spaces, do they then have the right to approve this no matter who wants to develop this land with the new R-1-Q code? Lastly, a major concern is about the future after the Master Plan has been accomplished. I believe KSL has in the past redeveloped these kind of properties and then sold them. What assurances do we, as homeowners, have that the greenbelts and potential parking problems that exist for the Resort today will not impact on our property and its value tomorrow? Thank you for reading this and I look forward to hearing from you. cc: Eric Munoz . Jim Waples Doug Y avanian Eric Munoz City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14 Dear Mr. Nunoz, Thanks again for the meeting on July 8h. I believe all of us there greatly appreciated our discussions with you and the others concerning how the upcoming special event at the La Costa Resort is going to be handled this month. Also, as you probably know, we had another meeting at La Costa last Tuesday and that too was informative. The only major concern expressed at that meeting was about the property line problems that several of us face as a result of finding out that several of our properties are encroaching on land supposedly owned by La Costa. Others and I have never been specifically contacted with regards to their claim either in writing or verbally. Furthermore, we have never been given an explanation with regards to how this actually developed in the first place. I understand and was assured from Tuesday’s meeting that La Costa has no plans to take away a portion of my existing property. I may even have the option of purchasing more land in the greenbelt behind our home, but I was nevertheless surprised to have heard the results of La Costa’s recent land survey in such a casual manner and it was only offered in the first place because of a question from one of our neighbors. 3131 TORREYSON PLACE LOS ANGELES. CA 90046 PHONE 323,851.8772 From: cTimurrayQaol.com> To: <Planning Qci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: -815104 12:23PM Subject: Attn: Eric Munoz Mr. Munoz and the Carlsbad City Planning Staff, Recently I emailed you to show my support for the proposed zone change within the La Costa Resort Master Plan revisions currently under consideration by the staff. As I mentioned in our telephone conversations, La Costa Resort (KSL Development) has subsequently offered to agree to lot line adjustments that would affect the proposed undeveloped areas being considered for zoning change. These adjustments would benefit many of my neighbors that currently face decades old encroachment issues. KSL’s plan to deed these parcels to adjacent individual homeowners and partner with us to pursue these lot line adjustments, would resolve our concerns to limit development in these green belt areas. While I have no encroachment issues, as a home owner I am in support of KSL’s efforts on this front. , I would like to request that the Planning Commission eliminate the green belt, finger parcels from the La Costa Master Plan currently under consideration. As the city would certainly deny lot line adjustments that traverse zones, I make this request provided that the property remains RLM under the General Plan and R-1 under the current zoning. This would then allow us (adjacent homeowners to this property) to collectively, on an individual basis, process these lot line adjustments. In addition, this will also eliminate our private property issues from the planning Commission hearing process currently being undertaken by La CostaIKSL. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Tim Murray 7050 Estrella De Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Timurraya aol.com Page 1 of 1 From: To: <Emuno@ci.carls bad.ca. us> Date: 08/10/2004 11:31 AM Subject: La Costa Project "John Heffner" <John. Heff ner@cnail .com > r ". I I _"I ~ -"_*"- --- -___-*_- __-_ ...--- "-.."."-- l_~~,.-.-----""..---"_n_-- Dear Mr. Munoz, I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Commission ensure that the finger parcels adjacent to the La Costa Master Plan remain RLM under the general plan and R-1 under the existing zoning. I am in a rather interesting predicament in that the existing La Costa lot line goes directly through my backyard swimming pool as a result of lot line neglect over the years by previous owners of La Costa. KSL is interested in conveying the land in question to homeowners to alleviate like issues under R-1 zoning. After thoroughly investigating options to that end, we have collectively agreed that this is the most prudent solution that works in the best interests of all parties. This designation would enable us to adjust the lot lines and avoid lengthy and costly future adjustments with the city. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, John Heffner 2030 Mar Azul Way (760) 804-9567 This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settin~s\bhode.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW )OOOOl.. . 08/10/2004 Mr. Munoz and the Carlsbad City Planning Staff, As a resident adjacent to the La Costa Master Plan area, we would like to request that the Planning Commission eliminate the finger parcels from the La Costa Master Plan area under consideration - providing that they remain RLM under the General Plan and R-I under the existing zoning. We also request the Planning Commission approve the lot line adjustments that would affect the proposed undeveloped areas we understand are being considered for zoning change. These adjustments would benefit us and many of our neighbors that currently face decades old encroachment issues. The La Costa Resort (KSL Development) plan to deed these parcels to adjacent individual homeowners and partner with us to pursue these lot line adjustments, would resolve our encroachment issues and concerns to limit development in these green belt areas. Your action on these issues would then allow us (adjacent homeowners to this property) to collectively, on an individual basis, process these lot line adjustments. In addition, this will also eliminate our private property issues from the planning Commission hearing process currently being undertaken by La Costa/KS L. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Sincerely Kenneth D. & Mary A. Rolfes 2042 Mar Azul Way Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-476-3698 Page 1 of 1 From: "Marcia Vanderwoude" <mvanderwoude@msn.com> To: <sholder@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <drideout@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <emuno@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 08/07/2004 8:17 AM As a resident adjacent to the La Costa Master Plan area, we would like to request that the planning commission eliminate the finger parcels from the La Costa Master Plan area under consideration -providing that they remain RLM under the General Plan and R-1 under the existing zoning. Collectively and on an individual homeowner basis, we intend to process lot line adjustments with KSL La Costa Corporatio to address the existing encroachments in these greenbelt areas to allow KSL to convey portions of these areas to the adjacent residents. This would eliminate our private property issues from the Planning Commission hear process for La Costa while resolving our concerns to limit development in these greenbelt space areas adjacent to the Golf Course. It is our understanding that KSL would be willing to restrict uses and development to those defined currently in the Open Space land use. Sincerely, Marcia L Vander Woude 7148 Estrella de Mar. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\bhode.OOO~oca~%2OSettin~s\Temp\GW 00002.. . 08/09/2004 0%/18/2004 14:ll FAX ALLEN MATKINS SD Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP akmzFYs dl ldiu Allen Matkins facsimile 001 561 West Broadway 9th Floor San Diego California 92101-3577 telephone. 619 233 3255 facslrnile. 619 233 1158 www.allenmatkins.com to. Chairperson Frank Whitton & Members of Planning Commission f. 760.602.8559 to. Chevis Hosea f. 760.929.6310 to. Michael Holzmiller f. 760.602.8559 to. Jane Mobaldi f. 760.434.8367 to. Eric Munoz f. 760.602.8559 to. Matt Peterson f. 619.234.4786 cc: writer. Kari M. Prevost t. 619 235 1548 file number. K6018-003/SD605580.01 e. kprevost@allenmatkins.com total pages including cover sheet. 3 - date. August 18 2004 comments Please see attached. original win be sent via. mail messenger fededcwritr nat be sent, Nofc: The information contained in this fiicsirnilc documcnt is confldcntlal and 1s intended only for the use of the individual named above. If the readet Of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that my dlsscmlnation. distribution or Copying of this comrnunkatlon Is strlctly prohibitad. If you have roceked this wmmunication in error, please immediately notify US by tdephme and return the anginal document ro us at the abovc addrQss vh U.S. Mal!. We wlll reimhrse you for the postage. Thank YOU, O'a/lS/2004 14: 11 FAX Allen Matkins ALLEN K4TKINS SD Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP altornrys at Inw lzl002 501 West Broadway 9th noor Sari Diego California 92101-3577 telephone. 619 233 1155 facslmlle. 619 233 1158 mmr.allenrnatkins.cwn t. 619 235 1548 Wmer, Knrl M. Prevost Iils nnntbsr. K601&005iSqB05579.0i 0. kprevouQPdlcnmntkIm.com August 18,2004 VIA FACSIMU, E Chairperson Frank 13. Whitton and Members of the Planfiirlg Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re; August 18,2004 Commission Hearing; Agenda Item 5: La Costa Spa & Dear Chahperson Whitton and Members of the Planning Commission: We represent the applicant, KSL Resort Corporation, on the above-referenced matter, and arc submitting this letter to briefly respond to the lcttcr you received earlier today from Matt Peterson, Esq., counsel for one of the adjacent residents to the Rcsort. KSL has been working extensively over the past few months with various residents who live adjacent to an area owned by the Resort located north of Arend Road (commonIy referred to as the "finger parcels") to uy to resolve some long-standing encroachment issues onto the KSL propcrty. KSL has hired an enginccr and other professionals that are working with these residents to agree upon lot line acljustmcnts that would give property to thcse residents for free. We find it somewhat incredulous that any resident would now try to use the Master Plan process to try to leverage KSL to immcdiately finalize their proposed agreement. The potential conveyance of land to these neighbors as a benefit to them is a private issue between the Resort and KSL, and is unrelated to the devclopmcnt proposed in the Maqter PIan. No development is proposed for the finger parcels in the Mater Plan. However, in order to address the residents' concerns that nothing be included in the Master Plan that would somehow prohibit the lot line adjustments from occurring if and when agreements arc finalized., KSL has worked closely with the City staff to include provisions in the Master Plan that (1) would not allow KSL to dcvclop the finger parcels without a noticed hearing before this Commission and (2) if and when agreements are Finalized with thc adjacent residents, requires KSL to process an amendment to remove any arcas to be conveyed to the residents from the Master Plan and to process any other related zoning changes or other actions requircd to effectuate the lot line adjustments. KSL has also committed to designate any portion of the .- . I Sm Diego Century City Los Ahgclcr Orange County Snn Fraricixco 0'8/18/2004 14: 11 FAX ALLEN K4TKINS SD @003 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP arrortrcys df low Chairperson Frank H. Whitton and Members of the Planning Comrnission August 18,2004 Pagc 2 finger parceIs that will rcmain in its ownership after thc land transfers have becn completed to open space. KSL has done as much as possible to cooperate with these residents on this issue and has not proposed anything that would in any way prevent the processing of the lot line adjusrmcnts if and when final agrccments with the residents arc reached. We appreciate YOUT mention to this matter and look forward to the hearing this evening. Fp& ariM. evost cc: Michael J. Holzmiller Jane Mobaldi, Esq. Eric Munoz Chcvis Hosea Msltthew Peterson, Esq. 08-1 8-2004 10:28AM FROM- T-986 P.001 F-199 EDWARD F Wlll7TLBR MARSHALA. KMJI WTTIEWA PET@RSON LARRY N, MURNANE CCrRIsTOPClPR J. CONNOLLY orcot.aei PAUL A. PETl:HSON NAME PETERSON &PRICE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORhTlON LAWYERS Union Bank ofCaliromii Building 530 8. STPEW, SUVE 1700 SAN DIWO, CALIFORNIA 92101-4454 Telcphoiic (613) 234-0361 FU (G19) 234-4786 August 18,2004 TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL PHONE nop@petenonpric c . corn FAX -- File No. 6761.ODI To: Chairperson Frank Whitton & (760) 602-4600 (760) 602-8559 Members of Planning Commission From: Matthew A. Peterson, Esq. Total number of pagcs including this cover: G comments: AT'I?ACHED IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER TO YOU OF TODAY'S DATE FOR TONIGHT'S HEARD\TG RE: LA COSTA RESORT & SPA - GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/Mp 03-0W 149(S)/CT 03-01PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUp 03-03. THE 0RIGNA.L WILL BE DELNERED BY MESSENGER. CC: Michael Hokmiller, Planning Director (760) 602-4600 (760) 602-8559 Ron Ball, civ Arrorney (760) 434-2820 (760) 720-94.6 1 Eric Munoz, Senior Planner (7GO) 602-4608 (760) 602-8559 Richard T. Debl, Attorney At Law (714) 564-0800 (714) 564-0700 Kari Prwost, Esq. (619) 233-1 155 (619) 233-1158 Allen Markins Gamble & Mallow LLP Attorneys at Law Melanie Shaughnessy Edward F. Whircler, Esq. (760) 845-4585 (760) 438-3071 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: Thc pagcs comprising This facsimile transmission contain conlidenlid and privileged information fiom Peterson &, Price, APC. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity mKd above the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, Be aware that my disclosure, copying, dimibution, or other use of thc contcnts of this tmnsmission is prohibited. lf you have received This uansmission in error, please notify thc scndcr by tclcphone immedisely so we may arrange TO nrricve the transmission at no cost to you. IF You DID NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES M THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL US WHEN POSSIBLE. (GI 3) 234-0361 Scndcn-' Lnitials: niww 08-1 8-2004 10: 28AM FROM- T-986 P.002/006 F-lSQ USWARD F. WHITTIER MARSHAL A. SCARR MATTHEW A. PETERSON lARRY N. MURNANE CHRISTOPmR 1. CONNOUY WCTORTA E. ADAMS ERlC 1. FROSSER €LOIS6 R. FENSTEIN OF COUNSU PAUL A. PETERS6N PETERSON & PRICE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS Union Bank of California Building 530 "B" Saeet, Suite 1700 San Dicgo, California 92 IO1 -4454 Telephone (61 9) 234-0361 Fax (619) 234-4766 www. petersonprice. corn _I File No. 6761,001 VIA FACSIMILE August 18,2004 Chairperson Frank H. Whitton and Members of the Planning Commission City Of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Wednesday, August 18,2004 La Costa Resort & Spa GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/n 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 Dear Chairperson Whitton and Members of the Planning Commission: We represent Michael and Melanie Shaughnessy with regard to the above referenced matter, They reside at 2017 Caracol Ct, We have been in negotiations with EL La Costa concerning one of the "fingers" located north of Arena1 Road and contiguous to our clients' property. The area in question is the subject of a commitment by KSL to transfer by boundary line adjustment a portion of their land to our clients (see attached Exhibit B - Boundary Adjustment Plat Map). This land is an area where our clients, at their cost, currently have planted and 08-1 8-2004 10 : 29AM FROM- Chairperson Frank H, Whitton and Members of the Planning Commission City Of Carlsbad August 18,2004 Page 2 maintained large mature trees, replaced a failed drainage system, replaced a broken irrigation system and installed a retaining wall to support upper adjacent slope from slipping, Our clients want to retain their investment and continue to maintain the trees, the open space, and the drainage and irrigation systems in place. The boundary line adjustment will achieve these goals. Based upon the assurances and the commitments made by KSL to enter into a Transfer Agreement and to transfer the property to our clients by a boundary line adjustment, our clients are not opposing KSL’s Master Plan at this time. However, in the event that KSL does not execute the revised Transfer Agreement (on or before the public notice goes out for the City Council hearing on this matter), our clients will be opposing the Master Plan on a variety of grounds. In conclusion, we would respectfully request that the Planning Commission ask KSL to acknowledge into the record their intention to execute the Transfer Agreement and prepare and record a boundary line adjustment concerning the property as shown in the attached Exhibit B, We would also request that the Planning Commission acknowledge and recommend approval of the Master Plan ”Errata Sheet” which is entitled Changes from August 4m Submittal Cupyas it relates to those items which will 08-1 8-2004 10 :29AM FROM- 1-988 P.004/006 F-199 Chairperson Frank H. Whitton and Members of the Planning Commission City Of Carlsbad August 18, 2004 Page 3 provide the mechanism within the Master Plan for the boundary line adjustments and the transfers to occur. Thank you for your courtesy, Sincerely, PETERSON & PRICE A Professional Corporation Matthew A. Peterson cc: Michael 3. Holzmiller, Planning Director Ron Ball, City Attorney Eric Munoz, Senior Planner Richard T. Deihl, Attorney At Law, Law Offices of Richard T. Deilil Kari Prevost, Bq., Allen Matkins Gamble & Mallory LLP, Attorneys at Law Michael ad Melanie Shaughnessy Edward F, Whittler, Esq. 08-1 8-2004 10 : 29AM FROM- ADJUSTMENT PMT - CITY OF CARLSBAO APPLICANT: PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: KSL 1A COSTA RESORT COW. MDS CONSULTING .- . I:\51362\MAPPINC\1U-LO~9-1 8/16/0 AP.N. 2 15-1 20-25 EXHIBIT ”B” 2100 COSTA DEL MAR RD. CARLSBAD. CA 92009 (760) 438-91 11 LO7 79 Of LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT No. 1 PER MAP No. 5434, FILED JULY 29, 1964. 78900 AVENUE 47, SUE 208 uyoD Mlees - wNcmm LA QUINTA, CA 92253 RCE me ClR DWG, # LU 04- (760) 771-4013 W. 12/31/Mo5 SCALE 1” = 100’ SHEET 1 Of 2 SHEm PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: 08-16-2004 10:2QAM FROM- T-986 P.006/006 F-199 4PPUCANT (SL LA COSTA RESORT CORP. !IO0 COSTA OEL MAR RD. XRLSBAD, CA 92009 1760) 438-91 I1 b. EXHIBIT "By' ADJUSTMENT PLAT - CITY OF CARLSBAD k~,51362\~PFiNG\U-CoT79-2 6/16/0 PRE?AREO By: APPROVED BY: A.P.N. MDS CONSULTING 21 5-1 20-25 78900 AVENUE 47, SUITE 208 LA QUINA, CA 92253 (760) 771-4013 W, 12/51/2005 uyM) nVBBS - ~~ L~ RE 25888 ~~ WPI DWG. # LIA 04- LOT 79 OF L4 COSTA VALLEY UNIT No. 1 PER MAP Elo. 5434, flLED JULY 29, 1964. I N I-, SCALE 1"=40' SHED 2 OF 2 SHEETS 80 -- /-- AM Nod 5434 AREA = 0.314 ACRES MIS J. BERGH '.LS 6588 EXP. 12/31/05, I ri AREA TO BE ADDED TO LOT 76 Andrew and Helen Ul-itsky 2058 Caracol Court, Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-929-0525 August 18, 2004 Mr. Eric Munoz Planning Commission City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA Dear Mr. Eric Munoz: We are pleased to be residents in this wonderful neighborhood adjoining the La Costa Resort. La Costa's construction, to date, is aesthetically pleasing and is a marked improvement over previous conditions. We are writing to state our support of the Planning Commission's position regarding the La Costa Resort and Spa's Master Plan. Our support, however, is contingent on two primary concerns related to this project, namely parking / traffic, and the "Greenbelts". 1. PARKING AND TRAFFIC: Without a doubt the high density construction proposed by La Costa will have a negative impact on this small community of residential homes in the form of increased traffic and parking. While La Costa has made an exemplary effort to correct already-existing problems, we hope they continue to respond to resident concerns and problems in the future. 2. For a period of many years, the residents have watched as previously lush Greenbelts have deteriorated to dry and barren wasteland. years of ownership of La Costa Resort, KSL focused primarily on major renovation and construction. While this is commendable, the "Greenbelts" are in the heart of our neighborhood and are surrounded by the majority of residents. As residents we are deeply concerned that the "GREENBELTS" be secured from future development and be maintained properly. Because of the need for lot line adjustments, KSL will transfer some portions of the "Greenbelt" to private owners. We also understand that KSL will retain certain portions of the "Greenbelt" that will not be transferred. by both of these issues: lot line adjustment, and the remaining portions of the Green belt. THE "GREENBELTS" (includes Parcel 30): During its initial As residents, we are directly impacted a) Lot Line Adjusfmenfs - During the transfer process, KSL will maintain title to these Greenbelts (finger parcels) as Rl-Q, and the City of .- . 0 Page2 August 18,2004 ,- . Carlsbad will maintain control over the final resolution. Once contracts are executed with individual owners, these small and individual parcels should be transferred as R-I properties with restrictions against future construction of structures and some consideration for appropriate property maintenance. This process would insure that the Greenbelts, even if some portions are privately owned, would be saved from future construction and be maintained as open space. b) Remaining Portions of the "'Greenbelts" (Parcel 30). Any remaining portions of the "Greenbelt" should be converted as the City Planner outlined to Open Space (OS) zoning. There is at least one large portion of Parcel 30 at the end of Arena1 Lane that KSL will continue to own. Our property abuts this land. Any construction by KSL would drastically affect the golf course view of more than nine homes and, in effect, their property value. "OS" zoning status would prevent KSL or any future owner from placing structures or plantings that could obstruct views without additional City approval. KSL should be required to maintain these remaining portions of the "Green belt ". As stated earlier, we are in favor of the City's position regarding the Master Plan. If, however, agreements for our lot line adjustment and "Open Space" rezoning of remaining "Greenbelt" portions are not completed by the scheduled date of the City Council Meeting, we reserve the right to address our concerns directly to the City Council. We sincerely hope that KSL, the City of Carlsbad, and its residents can find continuing acceptable compromise solutions. Sincerely, Andrew U lits ky c/ Helen Hawran Ulitsky, PhD CC: Carlsbad Planning Commission ACLJRA Dear Acura Enthusiast, Welcome to the 2004 Acura Classic. Acura is proud to be part of this premier event and a 14-year sponsor of this Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) Tour event. This year, we are pleased to announce that the Acura Classic has been upgraded to WTA Tier I status, making it one of only ten tournaments in the world in this prestigious category. .’ We are excited about the opportunity to hold this event at the beautiful La Costa Resort and Spa, which continues a long tradition of hosting world-class women’s tennis tournaments. The Acura brand has always stood for performance, precision and a dedication to quality, attributes which we believe are clearly reflected in the high-caliber competition that has become a hallmark of the tournaments at La Costa. Many people have devoted time, energy and enthusiasm to the Acura Classic, and we would like to offer our special thanks to them. Whether you are a player, tour official, volunteer or spectator, thank you for being part of such a tremendous effort. And while you’re here, be sure to experience the full line of high-performance, luxury Acura automobiles that will be on display in the Acura Gallery and throughout the tournament area. We hope you will thoroughly enjoy this year’s tournament, featuring the top ranked women’s tennis players in the world. Sincerely, Richard Colliver Executive Vice President LA COSTA RFlORT AND (PA"' APRIL SHUTE Vice President And General Manager KSL Recreation Corporation Welcome to La Costa Resort and Spa and the 2004 Acura Classic. We are proud to be hosting the world's best tennis players and this prestigious event for the 14th consecutive-year. Congratulations to Promotion Sports, Acura and the WTA Tour for their on-going commitment to this event. The elevation of is pleased to be your host. Long-time tournament attendees will appreciate the facelift they have seen La Costa Resort and Spa undergo over the past two years and we certainly hope that first-timers will enjoy their time at La Costa as well. We are nearing completion of a major renovation that has resulted in a brand new spa, re-designed guestrooms, more. A second restaurant is now underway and will debut this fall. We look forward to showcasing all of the resort's improvements and providing you with a great experience while you are with us. We also look forward to sharing in an exciting week of tennis and wish all the best to the tournament's players, organizers and the fans. Sincerely, April Shute Vice President and General Manager Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, California 92009 Telephone: 760-438-91 11 www.lacosta.com Fax: 760-438-5866 THE CLUE AT LA COSTA ! I ! ! Monthly Dues: $183 ! I ! F&B Minimum: $200/quarter -1 The Signature Sport Membershlp at The Club at La Costa Benefits include: > Use of Athletic Club with a variety of classes > Tennis Privileges on 19 Courts-4 clay & 15 hard courts > 3 Swimming pools with new family pool 9 Discounted green fees (4 times/month @ $125) > New Member Locker Rooms with steam room 9 Preferred Pricing on Spa Services (M-Th 25%/F-Su 15%) 9 Annual Member Events Calendar > Preferred pricing at other KSL Resorts > 90% Refundable Membership Deposit (refunded on a 5:l ratio) Preferred Pricing on Food and Beverage and Retail (15% off) 800 854 5000 lacosta corn 2100 Casta Del Mar Road Carisbad, California 92009 .- . La Costa Resort and Spa Carisbad. Ca. A Women's camp designed especially for YOU Our Mission is to unleash each player's potential and reach for their individual goals through the sport of a lifetime. Welcome to the Zone Dates: September 13& - 17* Monday - Friday Ladies Adult Camp 850 AM to 1:30 PM Fee: 4 Days $200.00 Member 5 Days !§250.00 Member Drop-In $60.00 Member $240.00 Non-Mem ber %300.00 Non-Member $70.00 Non-Member Space is Limited to 24 players, Call : 760-929-6387, Sign up for 5 days and receive a eee gift! Your Drilling Coaches include Lynn Lewis, Andy Fanner, Slup Redondo, and Geny Spyratos Payment is required in 111 when signing up. Please make checks payable to WCTA and mail to: 1836 Tennis PI., Encinitas, CA 92024 La Costa Resort and Sua Junior Academy Program Monday, Wednesday, Thursday JR Workouts 3:30 to 6:OO Daily Drop in Fee Member: $40.00 . Daily Drop in Fee Non Member: $45.00 Must sign up for JR Workouts for €he month or the drop in fee will be charged! Hotel Guests Drop in fee per dass $35.00 Check the monthly calendar for holidays and special events for Juniors! MONTHLY DISCOUNTS: To get the discount, fees must be paid in full on or before the first workout of the month. Parents must sign a waiver form with rules to get the discount rates. Students must schedule your day(s) of the week with the office, and let the office know in advance if you need to alter your day@). Prepaid discounts are non transferable, missed workouts are not carried over to the next month. Fees will be prorated for spring and winter breaks. Discount for 1 time a week: 1 workout per week (4 - 5 workouts per month). Member: $150.00 per month. Non Member: $175.00 per month. - Oiscount for 2 times a week: 2 month minimdm to oet the discounted rates. 2 workouts per week (8 - 10 workouts per month). Member: $250.00 per month. Non Member: $300.00 per month. ~~~ 1836 Tennis Place Encinitas, CA 92024 760-753-5530 playwcta@adelphia.net .- . .- . La Costa Rcsort and Spa Racketeers Program Racketeers program: aaes 7 to 9 Our Mission is to unleash each player's potential allowing them to reach their individual goals through the sport of a lifetime. Start your Children ages 7 to 9 in learning the fundamentals while having fun in our great tennis program. Similar to the Racket Rascals program the students are separated into levels and move through the program in a stepping stone manner. The Racketeers have a 4 step program; this program is designed to reward the players at each step. Approximately every 8 weeks each student will be "tested" on their skills; movement, listening, point play, and scoring. After passing their test players will receive a reward patch for that level and move to the next level. At the completion of each level, the players will also receive a tennis product. If a student is unable to pass a test they will remain at the same level until ready to test again. As the players move from group to group they will attain more skills and the class times will become longer for stamina. This program is set in 4 stages. The last two stages will be moving them towards the 2 M hour classes and competition; at this point they will finish the rewards program. Each participant will receive patches, stickers, academy tee shirt, after testing at each stage while they move up in our stepping stone program. Teach your child the sport of a lifetime! Your child will have 8 - 10 classes a month in their amroDriate coordinated aroup. This program is designed to build a solid foundation allowing players to move into our Junior Academy program. Like the racket rascals sessions these players will progress with positive reinforcement. 1836 Tennis Place Encinitas, CA 92024 760-753-5530 playwcta@adeIphia.net . Racket Rascals Program Racket Rascals: ages 4 to 6 112 Our Mission is to unleash each player's potential allowing them to reach their individual goals through the sport of a lifetime. Start your Children ages 4-6 1h in learning the fundamentals while having fun in our great tennis program. The Racket Rascals is a 6 step program; the program is designed to reward the player as they learn the appropriate skills for each level. At the end of each class they will receive a sticker for their tennis racket cover. Approximately every 6 to 8 weeks each student will be "tested" on their skills; movement, listening, racket control, After passing their test the kids receive a reward patch for that level and move to the next level. At the completion of each level, the kids will also receive a tennis product. If a student is unable to pass a test they will remain at the same level until ready to test again. As the players move from group to group they attain more skills and the class times will become longer as their stamina increases. When a child finishes the program they will move into the Racketeers program. Each participant will receive patches, stickers, a racket, Scooby-Doo tee shirt, visor, back pack, activity book, wrist bands, shoe laces and more, after testing at each level while they move through our stepping stone program. Teach your child the sport of a lifetime! Your child will have 8 - 10 classes a month in their aDDroDriate animal coordinated arouD. 1. : 1836 Tennis Place Encinitas, CA 92024 760-753-5530 playwctaQadelphia.net f r I El I I L I I U in (D W A monster sale Doral Resort & Spa, La Quinta and PGA Westto change owners in a $1.4 billion deal, passing from KSL to CNL THE Doral Resort & Spa, whose Blue Monster course has been a PGA Tour stop since 1962, will change owners shortly -*--%&f-fbe-FobM Championship is played March 47 at the Miami fadity. h a $1.4billion deal scheduled to close in mid-April, Doral and five other properties, including the La Quinta Resort &Club and PGA West in California, will pass horn KSL Recreation Corporation to CNL Hospitality Properties Inc. The contract was signed Feb. 12. “We are very excited to add such distinguished hotels to OUT portfolio,” Thomas J. p Hutchinson III, CEO of CNL 4 Hospitality Properties Inc., said on the QJL website. Michael S. Shannon, president and CEO of KSL, said he had CBTS hands these properties will continue to perform we~? 2 t “every confidence that in In addition to the 692- room Doral Resort with its five golf courses and the nine La Qkta and PGA West courses near Palm Springs, the deal includes the Grand Wailea Resort &Spa on Maui, the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa in Phoenix, the Claremont Resort &Spa in Berkeley, Calif., and the Lake Lanier Islands Resort near Atlanta. KSL will continue to own the La Costa Resort &Spa in Carlsbad, Calif., site of this week‘s WGC- Accenture Match Play Championship. Golf resort properties, as with all airline travel destina- tions, suffered in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. “It was not so much that the time was nght, but that the timing was right,” said one source familiar with the deal hom the KSL side, speaking on the con- &on of anon+V. \ Dord Hod and cc was started by Doris and Alfred I w-1 (they combined their ! naales to form Doral) in 1959, the spa was added in 1987. ’GL purchased the property in ,195 and invested nearly $30 mdion in upgrades, including ’ .vdesigns and restorations of I dl five courses. Raymond Floyd , oughened the Blue Monster, hich has a $275 green fee, d Greg Norman redesigned e %e into the Great White I! ourse, which carries a $180 been fee. 1 CNL Hospitality Properties, part of CNL Financial Group, was formed in 1998 and owns an interest in a portfolio of 130 hotels with more than 29,000 rooms in 37 states and Canada. -Ron Sirak t / ME>> * 6 February 27,2004 odtworkl La Costa Resort and SpaLa Costa Resort and SpaGPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03 Location MapLocation MapLACOSTAAVEEL CAMINO REALCOSTADELMARRDALGA RDALICANTERDFUERTESTELSITEALGA RDE L C A M IN O R E A L(FUTURERD)DOVE LNSITE LACOSTAAVEEL CAMINO REALCOSTADELMARRDALGA RDALICANTERDFUERTESTELP-CR-1R-1RD-MC-2R-PP-CP-CEXISTING ZONINGALGA RDE L C A M IN O R E A L(FUTURERD)DOVE LNSITEP-C LACOSTAAVEEL CAMINO REALCOSTADELMARRDALGA RDALICANTERDFUERTESTELP-CR-1R-1P-CP-CPROPOSED ZONING –ZC 03-04ALGA RDE L C A M IN O R E A L(FUTURERD)DOVE LNSITEP-C La Costa Master Plan GoalsMP 03-02La Costa Master Plan GoalsMP 03-02•All property under one Master Plan•Plan for resort villa development•Control/monitor other resort uses•Promote quality of life–Master Plan uses–Special events–Stormwater compliance LACOSTAAVEEL CAMINO REALCOSTADELMARRDALGA RDALICANTERDFUERTESTELOSRH/ORMHT-RRLMOST-ROSRLMEXISTING GENERAL PLANALGA RDE L C A M IN O R E A L(FUTURERD)DOVE LNSITEOS LACOSTAAVEEL CAMINO REALCOSTADELMARRDALGA RDALICANTERDFUERTESTELOST-ROST-ROSRLMRLMRLMPROPOSED GENERAL PLAN –GPA 03-08ALGA RDE L C A M IN O R E A L(FUTURERD)DOVE LNSITEOS Planning AreasPlanning Areas•P.A. 1-4: resort villas•P.A. 5: ballroom (no more CUP)•P.A. 6:golf center (SUP 03-06)•P.A. 7: other/existing uses Resort Villas –CT 03-01/PUD 03-06Resort Villas –CT 03-01/PUD 03-06•Emerging resort trend•Shared use parking•Spanish architectural theme•Phase 5 building permit; based on determination of parking adequacy (by Planning Director) Special EventsSpecial Events•New criteria for permit•Still issued by Police Department•Part of Master Plan•Protects adjacent neighborhood Intervening “Finger” Lands North of Arenal RoadIntervening “Finger” Lands North of Arenal Road•Summary of new proposal:–These areas to be part of Master Plan, under current single ownership of KSL–Will retain RLM General Plan–Will have P.A. zoning district designation of R-1-Q–Future interactive process: residents/KSL/City–Future Master Plan amendment prior to finalization of lot line changes P.A. 7 Existing UsesP.A. 7 Existing Uses•Resort•Clubhouse•Spa•Resort administration•Ancillary retail•Golf courses•Tennis facilities (19 courts: 15 hard, 4 clay surface) P.A. 7 Future RequestsP.A. 7 Future Requests•Uses in P.A. 7 not proposed for change•Future requests require determination of substantial conformance by Planning Director•If determination not made; Master Plan amendment required Planning Commission ActionPlanning Commission Action•August 18, 2004•Recommended approval to City Council•Vote: 5-0 (1 absent; 1 abstained)