The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-04-21; Planning Commission; ; SDP 86-02C - FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES,: ! T I, ••• ii 'e City of Carlsbad Planning Departmen' A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: April 21, 1999 ItemNo.@ Application complete date: September 7, 1998 Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: Michael Shirey SUBJECT: SDP 86-02(C) -FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES -Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the operational restrictions and allow the limited use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability for property generally located in the Aviara Planning Area 2B (Four Seasons Resort Timeshares), south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 19. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4530, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Site Development Plan No. SDP 86-02(C), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The proposal involves an adjustment to the operational restrictions for the timeshare portion of the Four Seasons Aviara Resort. The adjustment would allow the limited use of lockoff units, based upon the availability of additional parking. The availability of parking will be based upon the occupancy rates of the timeshare development and the amount of use of the lockoff units. The expected range of occupancy and lockoff use would result in a parking ratio of 1.90 to 1.39 spaces per unit. Since the parking demand will not exceed the parking supply, staff has no issues with the proposal. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Aviara Four Seasons Resort Club (FSRC) Associates, Limited Partnership, is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the operational restrictions within the existing and future Aviara Four Seasons Resort timeshare development. The amendment would allow the use of lockoff units, based upon the total amount of parking available at any given time. A timeshare lockoff unit is a portion of the master timeshare suite that can be locked off, then accessed and occupied separately from the main unit. While the ownership of the unit would remain with one party, that owner could sublease the lockoff unit to another party. This double use of a suite could increase parking demand, therefore a Site Development Plan Amendment is being processed to memorialize the operational circumstances under which a unit can be locked off and occupied separately. The Four Seasons Resort site is located both east and west of Four Seasons Point, between Aviara Parkway and Batiquitos Drive. To the north, across Aviara Parkway, is the Aldea ~ t.l , ,l ,. .SDP 86-02(C) -FOUR SE,ONS TIMESHARES April 21, 1999 Page2 multifamily development and to the south, across Batiquitos Drive, is the Aviara Golf Club. To the east and west of the resort are the Aviara Golf Course and native open space areas. The timeshares are divided into three villages: north, east and west. The Four Seasons Hotel and many timeshares in the North Village are completed and occupied. The remainder of the site consists of the developing timeshare buildings and vacant, graded pads for future timeshares and the sports center. The resort site is designated for Travel Recreational (T-R) uses in the City's General Plan. The site is zoned Planned Community (P-C) and, according to the Aviara Master Plan, is supposed to be developed in accordance with the Commercial-Tourist Zone (C-T), except as modified by the master plan. One such master plan modification is that timeshares are an allowed use in Aviara Planning Area 2B, rather than being a conditional use as is the case throughout the City. The resort hotel and associated uses were an original part of the development for Planning Area 2 of the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan, approved in 1987. The original plan called for a total of 488 hotel rooms, both in the main hotel building and in nearby conference suites, and 72 hotel villa suites. In 1990, Four Seasons was designated as the hotel operator and the development plan was revised to meet their operational needs. This plan entailed a total of 450 hotel rooms, both in the main hotel building and in nearby Garden Wing and villa buildings, and 39 hotel villa suites. In the mid-1990's, Four Seasons made the decision to pursue timeshare units within the Aviara resort and, in 1995, the Master Plan was once again amended. This amendment deleted the Garden Wing and villa buildings, provided a total of 330 hotel rooms in the main building, and added 240 timeshare units in three villages around the hotel site (including an expansion into an adjacent, undeveloped multifamily site -Planning Area 9). Parking for the timeshares was provided separately from the rest of the resort, at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit. This Master Plan Amendment also split the resort into two planning areas -Planning Area 2A covers the main hotel and Planning Area 2B covers the three timeshare villages. Shortly after construction of the timeshares began, it came to staffs attention via sales brochures that the lockoff units were being marketed in the Aviara Resort. Staff immediately contacted the developer and expressed its concern regarding the adequacy of parking. After reviewing timeshare occupancy and lockoff use data from other timeshare developments, and reviewing the physical development of the Aviara timeshare development, staff and the developer reached an agreement regarding the use of lockoff units. The agreement involved both physical improve- ments and operational restrictions. With regard to physical improvements, the developer processed a Substantial Conformance Exhibit that added 40 parking spaces (20 in the North Village and 20 in the East Village). The operational restrictions were tied to statistics from the industry on the average occupancies of timeshare units, including lockoffs. As shown in Attachment 8 -"Four Seasons Resort Club Memorandum", dated August 4, 1998, the typical maximum occupancy rate for timeshare developments is 80 to 95 percent. According to that same document, the typical lockoff use ratio is 20 to 35 percent. Therefore, by comparing the amount of parking to the level of timeshare and lockoff occupancy, a maximum occupancy limit can be set. This occupancy range is discussed in Section C below and is shown in Attachment 8 -"Four Seasons Resort Club Memorandum". The resulting parking ratio should lie between 1.90 and 1.39 spaces per unit, well above the City 1 1 ,l ,. ~ .SDP 86-02(C) -FOUR SE.IONS TIMESHARES April 21, 1999 Page 3 requirement of 1.2 spaces per unit. To memorialize this restriction, the developer agreed to process this Site Development Plan Amendment. The Four Seasons Timeshare project is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. Local Coastal Program; C. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments); D. P-C -Planned Community Ordinance (Chapter 21.38 of the Zoning Ordinance); E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The Four Seasons Timeshares project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the timeshare lockoff proposal are the Land Use, Circulation, Public Safety and Open Space and Conservation Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. TABLE 1 -GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Land Use Site is designated for Travel Proposed lockoff units are Recreation uses. a timeshare use, which is a Yes travel recreational use. Circulation Require new development to All street improvements construct all roadways needed to will be completed prior to Yes serve the development prior to needs. development. Public Safety Design all structures in accordance All buildings will meet with the seismic design standards of UBC and State seismic Yes the UBC and State building requirements. requirements. All necessary water mains, Provision of emergency water fire hydrants and systems and all-weather access roads. appurtenances must be Yes installed prior to occupancy and all-weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. 1 ' l ... • I ,J • SDP 86-02(C) -FOUR SE,ONS TIMESHARES April 21, 1999 Page4 Open Space Minimize environmental impacts to Proposal maintains the and sensitive resources of the City. existing surrounding native Yes Conservation open space. B. Local Coastal Program The Four Seasons Timeshare project site lies within the Mello I segment of the City's Local Coastal Zone and is subject to the corresponding land use policies and implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances for those portions of the Mello I segment within Aviara are contained in the Aviara Master Plan. This section addresses only conformance with the Land Use Plan since implementing ordinance conformance is addressed in section C below. The policies of the Mello I segment emphasize topics such as preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access and prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The land uses allowed through the LCP segments are the same as those allowed by the A viara Master Plan. The proposed timeshare lockoff units are consistent with the LCP since the allowed uses for Planning Area 2 include timeshares. No enlargement of the original site plan is proposed with this project, therefore all surrounding and intervening steep slopes with native vegetation will remain preserved. The current erosion control standards of the Engineering Department will be maintained throughout construction of the timeshare building pads and streets to deter erosion and potential lagoon sedimentation. No agricultural lands exist on or near the project site, therefore no impacts to such will occur. The project site is located 0.21 miles from the Pacific Ocean, therefore no oceanic shoreline access requirements exist on site. There is a master plan trail that traverses the Four Seasons Resort site, mostly via a sidewalk, that allows visitors to the Coastal Zone to walk between Aviara Parkway and the North Shore Trail along Batiquitos Lagoon. Since the physical development scheme and limits of development are not changing, this proposal will not affect this master plan trail. No significant visual resources exist on or near the project site. Given the above, the Four Seasons Timeshare project is consistent with the Mello I land use plan. C. Aviara Master Plan According to the Aviara Master Plan, all development in Planning Area 2B is to follow the requirements of the C-T, Commercial Tourist Zone, except as modified in the master plan. Timeshare units are an allowed use pursuant to the use allocations in Planning Area 2B, and the lockoff units are classified as a timeshare use, therefore no adjustments to the allowed uses is necessary to accommodate the lockoff units. With regard to development standards, the proposed operational restrictions would limit the occupancy of the main timeshare units and their lockoff units such that the required parking ratio of 1.2 spaces per units is not exceeded. Since either the total occupancy or the proportion of lockoff units in use could affect the total parking need, the developer has prepared an operating range of occupancy and lockoff use that maintains the minimum of 1.2 spaces per occupied unit. This range extends from 95 percent timeshare occupancy with 35 percent of the lockouts in use, to 80 percent occupancy with 15 percent of the lockouts in use. The resulting parking ratio would range from 1.39 spaces per unit to 1.9 spaces per unit, which far exceeds the minimum 1.2 spaces per unit. l ' 1 , SDP 86-02(C) -FOUR SE,ONS TIMESHARES April 21, 1999 Page 5 - No alterations to the exterior of the timeshare units are necessary to accommodate the lockoff units. As mentioned above, the Planning Director did approve a Substantial Conformance Exhibit to add 40 parking spaces to the timeshare development, raising the total number of spaces to 415. These spaces were added in non-essential landscaped areas and did not adversely impact the required percentage of landscaping, traffic or pedestrian circulation. These parking spaces are shown on Exhibits "A" -"D", dated April 21, 1999 and their construction and continued existence are part of this Site Development Plan Amendment. Given the above, the Four Seasons Timeshare proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Aviara Master Plan. D. Planned Community Zone The underlying zoning of the proposed Four Seasons Timeshare project is P-C, Planned Community. In accordance with that designation, the Aviara Master Plan was created to implement that zoning. No specific development standards or design criteria exist in the P-C zone, however all applicable standards and criteria are contained within, or referenced by, the master plan documents. As discussed in Section C above, the planning area is to be developed in accordance with the C-T Zone, except as modified in the master plan. The lockoff units are still timeshare units and no adjustments to the zoning of the property are necessary since they are an allowed use in the master plan. Conformance with the master plan requirements also indicates conformance with the Planned Community Zone. E. Growth Management Ordinance Since the resort is a commercial use, and the timeshares are considered commercial units, the facilities impacts based upon population do not apply. Since the other facilities impacts are based upon square footage of commercial uses, and the timeshare buildings are not expanding, the facilities impact assessment remains the same as originally analyzed with SDP 86-02(B). Table 2 below repeats the previous facilities impact assessment for the entire Four Seasons Resort, including the hotel, timeshares, and future sports center. TABLE 2 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard Impacts/Standard Compliance City Administration Not applicable Yes Library Not applicable Yes Waste Water Treatment 646.1 EDU Yes Parks Not applicable Yes Drainage PLDAD Yes Circulation 4,826ADT Yes Fire Fire Stations #2 and #4 Yes Open Space 16.47 acres Yes Schools Not applicable Yes Water 142,142 GPD Yes •) . SDP 86-02(C) -FOUR SE,ONS TIMESHARES April 21, 1999 Page 6 F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan Local Facilities Management Zone 19 covers the entire Aviara Master Plan area, including Planning Area 2. No special development standards, such as roadway construction or other infrastructure requirements, apply to this Site Development Plan Amendment. The LFMP does require that all facilities needed to serve the development be in place concurrent with, or prior to, need. The Four Seasons Timeshares project, as conditioned, will be served with all utilities and improvements prior to occupancy of any unit. The project is also conditioned to pay the required public facilities fee prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Zone 19 LFMP. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed adjustments to the resort use restrictions that allow the use of lockoff timeshare units were reviewed with respect to their potential environmental impacts, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Title 19 -the Environmental Protection Ordinance. The project site has undergone three previous environmental reviews. One is the certified Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality. Another source in the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Aviara Master Plan (EIR 83-02(A) for CT 85-35/MP 177), which analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 dwelling unit master plan with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial site. The third previous environmental review on the project site was the Conditional Negative Declaration for Aviara Planning Area 9 development (CT 90-10), which reviewed the impacts of grading for and constructing of 86 multifamily townhomes in the areas now designated for the east and west timeshare villages. The current proposal for timeshare lockoff units still conforms to the parameters established through the previous environmental reviews and all adjustments to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance have already been implemented or are incorporated into the project. The project is conditioned such that the parking demand will not exceed the originally anticipated demand. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary. A Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was issued and duly noticed on March 12, 1999 and no comments were received. After circulating the Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, the City received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report, which recorded an unanticipated intersection "level of service" (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to § 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a "Subsequent" environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a "Subsequent EIR" if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. I •I • SDP 86-02(C) -FOUR SE,ONS TIMESHARES April 21, 1999 Page 7 A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection "short-term improvements", thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4530 2. Location Map 3. Disclosure Statement 4. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated March 12, 1999 5. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, dated March 1, 1999 6. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 7. Background Data Sheet 8. Four Seasons Resort Club Memorandum with attachments, dated August 4, 1998 9. Exhibits "A" -"D", dated April 21, 1998 MG:mh I ! '• ,l ' • FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES SOP 86-02(C) • J . .. ,) . -e . City of Carlsbad ■ f461,i,ii,t·I •l4Wi ,; , ,f§,i I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following informa~ion must be disclosed: 1. APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Aviara FSRC Associates Limited Partnership ------------------7100 Four Seasons Point Carlsbad, CA 92009 2. OWNER List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Aviara FSRC Associates Limited_P_a_r_t_n_e_r_s_h_i_p __________ _ 7100 Four Seasons Point Carls~ad, CA 92009 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addressei; of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. N/A 4. If any person identified pursu~nt to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. N/A 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (6:19) 438-0894 } .. ., . 5. Have you ha le than $250 worth of business lacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve ( 1 2) months? □ Yes I!] No . 'If yes,'please indicate person(s): __________ _ Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnershipr joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county,. city .. mur.iicipality,..,-.district. or .other political. subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Aviara FSRC Associates Limited Partnership~ a California limited partnership · By: D. L. Clemens Vice President Disclosure Statement 10/96 Inc. Page 2 of 2 f ,. ,) • -- City of Carlsbad ■AF•;• 0 • h~ I •J§ ·E •Ii;, 14 h I PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: Project Location: Four Seasons Timeshares -SOP 86-02(C) Aviara Planning Area 2, l.ocated south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego Project Description: A Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the use restrictions and allow the limited use of lockoff units within the timeshares based upon the amount of parking availability. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of publication. DATED: March 12, 1999 CASE NO: SOP 86-02(C) CASE NAME: FOUR SEASONS TIMESHARES PUBLISH DATE: March 12, 1999 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 86-02(C) DATE: March 1, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: Four Seasons Timeshares APPLICANT: A viara FSRC Associates, Ltd. Partnership ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7100 Four Seasons Point, Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 931-1190 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: ___ A,._pn-=·1 ..... 2 ..... 0 ..... , 1 ___ 9 __ 9=-8 __________ _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reguest for a Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the use restrictions and allow the use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability for the Four Seasons Resort Aviara timeshares. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Land Use and Planning D Population and Housing D Geological Problems □water IX] Air Quality IX] Transportation/Circulation D Biological Resources D Public Services D Utilities & Service Systems D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics OHazards ONoise D Cultural Resources D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in earlier EIR's and a Negative Declarations pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR's and a Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has bee prepared. Date Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 ' ' ' • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A 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 adversely significant, 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 significant. • Based on an "BIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 ·'' • • - If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 '. - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. II. III. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): #1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pg 10) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pg 10) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-1 -4- 26; #3, pg 10) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #3, pg 10) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18: #2, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #3, pg 10) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #3, pg 10) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pg 10) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 -4-26; #3, pg 10) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4- 150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) g) Subsidence of the land? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) 5 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No SignUicant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Expansive soils? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-□ □ □ ~ 150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1, pgs 5.1-□ □ □ ~ 1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #4, pg 9) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or □ □ □ the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 9) b) Exposure of people or property to water related □ □ □ hazards such as flooding? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 9) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of □ □ □ surface water quality ( e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 9) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any □ □ □ water body? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 9) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of □ □ □ water movements? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 9) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either □ □ □ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pg 9) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? □ □ □ (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 9) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -□ □ □ ~ 5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 9) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of □ □ □ ~ groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pg 9) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ~ □ □ □ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ~ □ □ □ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or □ □ □ ~ cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3- 12; #2, pgs 4-110-4-118; #3, pg 10) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-□ □ □ 12; #2, pgs 4-110-4-118; #3, pg 10) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? □ □ □ 6 Rev. 03/28/96 • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Hazards to safety from design features ( e.g. sharp □ □ □ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7- 22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pg 11) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby □ □ □ uses? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pg 11) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? □ □ □ (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pg 11) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? □ □ □ (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pg 11) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting □ □ □ alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4- 63 -4-80; #3, pg 11) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1, pgs □ □ □ 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pg 11) VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their □ □ □ habitats (including ·but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1, pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3, pg 10) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? □ □ □ (#1, pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3, pg 10) c) Locally designated natural communities ( e.g. oak □ □ □ forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1, pgs 5.4-1 -5.4- 24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3, pg 10) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal □ □ □ pool)? (#1, pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4- 149; #3, pg 10) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1, pgs □ □ □ 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3, pg 10) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict w·ith adopted energy conservation plans? □ □ □ ~ (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and □ □ □ ~ inefficient manner? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known □ □ □ mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94-4-109; #3, pg 9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 7 Rev. 03/28/96 t ' --Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of □ □ □ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) b) Possible interference with an emergency response □ □ □ plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential □ □ □ health hazards? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential □ □ □ health hazards? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, □ □ □ grass, or trees? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs 5.9-1 -□ □ □ [g] 5.9-15; #2, pgs 4-81 -4-84; #3, pg 10) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs □ □ □ [g] 5.9-1 -5.9-15; #2, pgs 4-81 -4-84; #3, pg 10) XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1, pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.4-6; #2, □ □ □ [g] pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) b) Police protection? (#1, pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.4-6; #2, □ □ □ [g] pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) c) Schools? (#1, pgs 5.12.7-1 -5.12.7-5; #2, pgs 4-94 □ □ □ [g] -4-109; #3, pg 10) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? □ □ □ [g] (#1, pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs 5.12.5-1 -□ □ □ [g] 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5; □ □ □ [g] #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) b) Communications systems? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -□ □ □ [g] 5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution □ □ □ [g] facilities? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7; #2, pgs 4- 94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7; □ □ □ #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) 8 Rev. 03/28/96 'I --'. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-□ □ □ [X] 7; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) f) Solid waste disposal? (#1, pgs 5.12.4-1 -5.12.4-3; □ □ □ [X] #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 □ □ □ [X] -5.12.3-7; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 10) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1, □ □ □ [X] pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5; #2, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #3, pg 10) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? □ □ □ [X] (#1, pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5; #2, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #3, pg 10) c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs 5.10.3-1 -5.10.3-2; □ □ □ #2, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #3, pg 10) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 -□ □ □ [X] 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg 10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 -□ □ □ [X] 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg 10) c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10; □ □ □ [X] #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg 10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change □ □ □ [X] which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg 10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the □ □ □ potential impact area? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg 10) xv. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional □ □ □ parks or other recreational facilities? {#1, pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg 10) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1, pgs □ □ □ 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg 10) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the □ □ □ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 9 Rev. 03/28/96 ' ' I I I I• -• Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually □ □ □ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which □ 0 □ will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis that have been conducted for the project site. Source #1 is the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), which reviewed the potential impacts of bujldout of the City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83- 02(A) for CT 85-35/MP 177) which analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 dwelling unit master plan (now known as Aviara) with its associated 19 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial center. Source #3 is the Conditional Negative Declaration for Aviara Planning Area 9 development (CT 90-10), which reviewed the impacts of grading for and constructing of 86 multifamily townhomes in the areas now designated for the east and west timeshare villages. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project involves the adjustment of use restrictions for the Four Seasons Resort A viara timeshares, allowing the use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability. Through normal business and special operational restrictions, the total amount of parking demand will not exceed that required and provided with the original timeshare development. The physical development of the project site will remain unchanged, as will the impacts to facilities. No adverse impacts should occur due to this Site Development Plan Amendment. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 • I I -• To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked ''Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's 11 Rev. 03/28/96 I 'I I I I I I I' '. • • Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) n/a ATTACH MITIGATION ~ONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) n/a APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HA VE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 12 Rev. 03/28/96 'I I I I I I I '' • CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: SDP 86-02(C -Four Seasons Timeshares LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: -=-T---=-R=-------- ZONING: ~P-~C'--------------------------- DEVELOPER'S NAME: AviaraFSRC Associates, Ltd. Partnership ADDRESS: 7100 Four Seasons Point, Carlsbad, CA 92009 PHONE NO.: (760)931-1190 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: see Background Data Sheet QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): =n/-=-a ______ _ ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: n/a ~------------------ A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = =n/-=a _____ _ Library: Demand in Square Footage= =n/-a _____ _ Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 646.1 Park: Demand in Acreage = n/a Drainage: Identify Drainage Basin = PLDAD (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = 4 826 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = #2 and#4 Open Space: Acreage Provided = 16.47 Schools: n/a (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDU 646.1 (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 142 142 I I I f' CASE NO: • BACKGROUND DATA SHEET - SDP 86-02(C) CASE NAME: Four Seasons Timeshares APPLICANT: Aviara FSRC Assoc., Ltd. Partnership REQUEST AND LOCATION: Site Development Plan Amendment to adjust the use restrictions and allow the use of lockoff units based upon the amount of parking availability, for property generally located in the Four Seasons Resort, south of Aviara Parkway and north of Batiquitos Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: see attached APN: see attached Acres: 78.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: n/a GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: T-R -Travel Recreational Density Allowed: """n/=a _____ _ Density Proposed: --=n/~a _____________ _ Existing Zone: P-C -Planned Community Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Proposed Zone: """P"""-C,.__ _______ _ Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site P-C T-R Developing timeshares North P-C RM Single-family residential South P-C T-R Vacant sports center site East P-C OS Golf course and native open space West P-C OS Golf course and native open space PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): __ n/"-'a~-------------- Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: ----=-M=ar==ch=2=5'--'1""'9""'9....;:;8 _____________ _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT D Negative Declaration, issued ______________________ _ D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ______________ _ C8:J Other, Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated I I I I I l I 4 r r i ) • --BACKGROUND DATA SHEET -continued CASE NO: SDP 86-02C CASE NAME: Four Seasons Timeshares LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6 to 9 of Carlsbad tract No. CT 85-35, Phase I, Unit A, APN: according to Map No. 12406, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 29, 1989; AND Lots 1 and 6 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 1, according to Map No. 13335, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 13, 1996; AND Lots 4 to 34 of Carlsbad Tract No. 95-02, Unit 2 according to Map No. 13398, ALL in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. 215-592-06 to -09; 215-750-01, -06; 215-810-01 to -13; and 215-811-01 to -18. t ( I l I ( I I I ' I -~·. ~ FOUR SEASONS RESORT CLUB -~ VACATION OWNERSHIP MEMORANDUM DATE: To: cc: FROM: SUBJECT: Introduction 04 August 1998 Michael Grim Planning Department City of Carlsbad, California Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Stephen Smith, Hillman Properties Larry Clemens, Hillman Properties Chris Neils, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton Tony Sharp, Four Seasons Tom Delaney @ Four Seasons Resort Club Aviara Amendment to Site Development Plan 86-02(8): Additional Parking Pursuant to the request of City staff, and as background information regarding the SOP amendment currently being processed, this memorandum summarizes the steps taken to resolve an operational problem concerning parking availability at the Four Seasons Resort Club Aviara. The issue related to the vehicular parking needs resulting from implementation of the lockoff feature, which allows the lockoff portion of a timeshare unit to be separately occupied from the master suite. The City's concern was that the designed ratio of 1.55 parking spaces per Resort Club unit could be diluted beyond an acceptable limit if lockoff usage was too high. Recapitulation In a memorandum dated 17 November 1997 and supplemented on 4 December 1997, Aviara FSRC Associates ("FSRC") presented data substantiating the adequacy of the parking supply that was designed for the Resort Club. The information submitted to the City demonstrated that the expected operating characteristics of the Resort Club will be such that only in very rare cases would the designed parking supply not provide at least 1.2 spaces per occupied key. The term "occupied key" was used to describe any of the three possible occupancy conditions: a full villa unit, a stand-alone master suite, or a stand-alone lockoff. This conclusion derived from the expectation that occupancy for the resort as a whole will range from 75% to 95% and that the lockoff ratio (i.e., ttie percentage of occupied keys that are assigned to stand-alone lockoffs) will be less than 35%. These projected occupancy characteristics are consistent with timeshare industry averages as measured in a survey presented in the November memorandum. Since then, our parking demand projections have been validated: Exhibit T represents the project's parking demand in cars per occupied key and is taken from actual occupancy and parking data during the Resort Club's first 7 months of operation. It is clear that the supply is adequate even before additional steps are taken. 7100 FOUR SEASONS POINT, CAHLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009, U.S.A. TEL: (760) 603-3780 FAX: (760) 603-3788 WORLD WIDE WEB: www.fourseosonK.com DE~'INING TIIE AHT OF Sf:RVICE AT 40 HOTELS IN 19 COUNTRIES. I ( t .) 1 l I i ' J • ) "' Additional Protection (already implemented) Irrespective of the sufficiency of the parking supply as designed, FSRC resolved to take two additional steps to ensure that the parking is in compliance with even the most conservative interpretation of the City standards. 1. FSRC and the project operators agreed to restrict the occupancy of the Resort Club units so there never will be less than 1.2 parking spaces available per occupied key. When the vacation ownership staff has received a number of reservations for any given week such that the parking supply of 1.2 spaces per occupied key is "exhausted," no more reservations will be accepted. This protection has already been put into place. By way of enforcing this condition, the governing documents of the resort club have been modified so that interval owners are aware of and subject to this restriction. The Amended and Restated Declaration of Annexation for the project was approved by the DRE; this document was recorded and has been in force and for all sales made since early December. The amendment is enhanced by a provision that any future changes to the restriction would require the City of Carlsbad's approval. 2. FSRC has committed to the addition of 40 parking spaces -20 in the North Village and 20 in the East Village. The Landscape Architect and Civil Engineer have selected locations for these spaces as represented on the enclosed conceptual landscaping plans (Exhibit R). Final locations will be subject to review by the City of Carlsbad. This addition represents an increase of over 10% to the project's overall parking supply while reducing what would· otherwise be common area landscaping by approximately 6,000 square feet or about 1 % of the total landscaping (excluding slopes). These remedies were satisfactory to City staff as evidenced by the executed letter agreement dated 2 April 1998 (Exhibit S). Their cumulative effect is to remove the possibility of having occupancy scenarios that are not accommodated by at least 1.2 parking spaces per occupied key. Conclusion The relationship between the Resort Club's expected operating range and the enhanced parking supply is illustrated on the enclosed Exhibit Q, which demonstrates that there are very few occupancy scenarios that fall below the 1.2 threshold. In any event, the point is moot because the dark line representing problematic occupancy scenarios is now a fixed boundary by virtue of implementation of the amended governing documents. The combination of additional parking and restricted lockoff usage ensures that the chances of incurring this operational problem have been downgraded from unlikely to impossible. The foregoing information is provided as background. The Amendment to SOP 86-02(8) is being processed with respect to the actual locations of the additional parking spaces. _ ~ -u 0 ~ ::, (0 ~ < (D -< ~ () 0 ul u m i () ::r 0 =+ O> ~ ~ G 0 0 0 01-Jan-98 oa-Jan-98 15-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 j ,. 29-Jan-98 05-Feb-98 12-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 26-Feb-98 05-Mar-98 12-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 26-Mar-98 02-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 16-Apr-98 23-Apr-98 30-Apr-98 07-May-98 14-May-98 21-May-98 28-May-98 04-Jun-98 11-Jun-98 18-Jun-98 25-Jun-98 02-Jul-98 09-Jul-98 16-Jul-98 23-Jul-98 30-Jul-98 9 I\) 0 - 0 .J::,,. 0 9 0) 0 0 (X) 0 ...t.. 0 0 - ...t.. j\J 0 )> $3. C .,, 0 C "-i m o CJ) -m CD 0@ 0) a ~ m -c ~ . . m (J) fu-0 JJ ~ 0 CD C O (J) 0) C 0 '< '"Q. ;:la I CD () c... C. - CA C -CD rr '< '< )> ....L. < c.o -· c.o ~ oo m "' ( ' IJif J I I) I • ' ' J { . . .: l•.\·,., ~ !' •• .. .J., .. r '• • -.. '. . . . . •• . . . . .: ' ·:"•·• I· .. AVIARA. , • I '. ·. . . . " . • I • • . ' . · . : · : ~r.' Martfn·O~nyak · . . · ··. . : . •I• • . ·. . . Comml.fnity Development Dire"~tor City-of Carlsb~d-. : . 2075 Las P~lmas Drive · · Carlsbad; California, 92009 .. . .. .. R~: Timeshare/Lackoff Issue$ ,• ., . ·. •. . Dear Marty:. . . . . . . . .. . - ' • • • • • : • • • ' • • • ' f • • " • .. .~ . ,. .. · · .. . This 'letter fs a follow-UP. ·to l'l'ly most· recertt' letter to. yo~ on this'·subj~~ dated Febru~ry, · . • · 20, · 1998, and our subs~q4ent conversations. · · : · . :.: · · ·. · : · · : · · , -· . . ! "· '-. . ' . . . ', . . . . , . . . \, .. , . . . : . . . ·. . .. . . - . · · . By way'of background, ·1 ·r~fet'to.th~ operational problem ·of!Qinalfy raised by.th~·a_ctian _ letters-frptn_ -~he City. The operational problem. was_ that the-irJlple~ntat;on 9f the: . · ·. . . :lockofffif3ature raised lhe,possibjlity of gre~ter vehicular.·park.ing needs. Frorrf an •· . . . operatic;,~I standpdfnt, the City agreed with the'solotion proposed byAviara FSRC .. ·· · i'\s~ociates ("FSRC'i, which ,irfcl~ded th~ combination ·of; (a) a conimitm~t by'FS~C. to · build up tp_ 40 additional parkiAQ spa:OOs \Yhel'I, as and if required by-t11e·city! and(~} an • · operational· limitation which pr,eclQdes the use of IQckoff factlfties.in:greater than ·a · . · ·defined maximum. oumbet of timeshare dwef(ilig units (the "Operatioriaf: Limitation~)-•. . That maximum number~s determined in s,uch a fashion so as to· assure that the · · . requfred number of pal'ldng sp_aces in the tima$hare· project would alwa~s equal _or · .. . exceed the maximum n·t:1rnber "eede~ under ar,plicab.fe City standards .. That . · . · Operational Umjtation wa$·built into an ~dditionaJ n,odifica~on 10 th~_Cbvenants; · · Com;fitfons and Restrictions ("CC&R's'~ for the· tirnesha~ _project, and. in adaltion. wa.s · · : .. refe~ticed in an· amendn:a~nt tot.he Public Report. ,Amon·g· other t~frigs1 the provision ~n . the-CC&R's ~ri~ins ,a referen~ which,. by•its te,:ms, precludes~ am~pdment.witho~ . specific consent. pf tti8' City. · · · '· · , . . . ,• N~~ithst~ndjng th~ operatfonar ~ol~on, City st~ff has ·:c;c;mctud~d that it is ne~s~ry to ·. process an. amendment to the ·site Developmeqt Plan, a$ to the .location· of the up to 40 . add,itional parking spaces. The SiJe Development Plan {SOP) is SbP--SS:OZ(B), as · .established by Planr-,ing ~d.rrirrii$Sk>n Resoltlticn· .. No, 3807;· ihc;orporated fnto and .. · , . .. approved:{W,itfl other item·s) tiy City Council Resolution No. 95-28~. · , . ·. · ·. · ·. , • : · . · .. · ·· • . . . . . . . . .. . ,. . . ,. . . : . \ . . : ' . ' . . \ . . . . .. . ·. · . · 2011 PMOtMR AfflllOltT RM>. SUI rt 206 CARLS~. tAUFOJtNIA ~2009 : (760) Sl3FI 190 fax: (760) 931 :7950 . • • • • • \ \ • • I • • • 00 I' ... .. . . . ., ' , .. ® 1' t., ·_,l ' • • -__, • ' t .t. t . . '. '• .. · . ·. ·.:·•·. •, ., . r .~ • . ~ ~ ., . ~~. Martin Orer1Yak a . . :• · · April 14, 1998 · . .,_ ·. · . ' . . '' . . ·. . . . . . : . ,•,. . . .. . . .. . . ' . .. .. . . . .. . : · . ·Page 2·. , ,. .. ' . I,• • . : -. . · .. ·:. I ,• • • I .. . . -' . '• . '.. . . . ' .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . · ... ,. FSRc··~~s agr~ed to pro~ss suq~ an amendment t~ the SOP. together.with ~ ~ : ': . . .. . . · comP,ahion.' amendmenf tp Caa$tal. Df;!velopment Pe!'mlt No.-6:.87-8.80-A,11 {the "CDPj.-· , : . this letter i$ ·submit~ to .confirm our ·c..iodffrs~ndi.ng -~nd· $QT~~ent ae to the. ·s~brnifu.ll . ... . a-~d proeessing .ofthQ$e amen~rrien.ts, as.fotroWs: ·· · •.... . ·. • •• • • • • • • I • 9 • " . 1. · ·Application for ~n~ Amendments to the SOP qnd COP win be-submittEl9d. promptly_ : . . . . following thtS tetter. They wiJl:be processed by'the City in the ordi~ary cou~e. as·· . _'. , . . expe~itiOU$ly 8$ p~S$!~1e; .. . ~ ... . 2·. ·. · .. City staff has pra~ouGfy· rev{ewe.d and iss.ued building permits for an aggr,egate · . ·. · tot~1 t>f 36 timeshare units wilfiin th~ North V,l(ag~. To dat~, Certificates·~{ . •, · -· .: . Occupancy ~ave·b~n issued fQr 2.2 of those t;m~bare unit$.within the Nort.h . · · • . · \ , Village._ WnEm consttucti~n i$ completed as to t~ese. sqbjecf units, the f~c;t tnat· . . . . · ., either or both 9f th~ SOP amendment ~nd CDP. amendment have not yet . · · · · · . . ._ . complet~ci' pro~inJ;J° an~ final approval, 'st1aJI ri~t b~ grounp~ for. City to re.fut?e . . · : · · . . · issuance-of Cerfificat~$ of Occupancy. · : : · · · · · · ;,-." ~s~P l~d~ 10 ~~it ~ppfi~s for liiiildill!i M~i;· ~ an ~~n~i~2 .. ·: tirrieshare dwellfng ,unitS within the Nottti Village, bri,ngir,g the tcitt1f. of tim~share ·. . . · u~its in the.North VUlage to is p~rmitted. to·a(J(tition·. and·subsequent'td·j~at,: ·.~ .. . : FSRC ,int~n~s t<? submit' applications for the bt,tildi.ng p~rrnits fQr the W~t Vill~ge.· ... . which has-~ petmitted tc:>tal of78 timeshare ·unlts. Our.unc(erstal'.lding fs'.tfiat. . ·· -. . ' . ' . :-FS.RC·m~y_continue to.s~bmit'applicati~ns for,building -p~rrriits for timeshare: . . : : dweHfng units .. Until the 11;1nning.aggregate tot~l of ~weili.ng unlts' witt)io the: . · . . · .. · tiJl18Share p,roject for-which building permits ha\l.e bee_n ~ed reaches :I 56 (th~ ·. ·· aggregate number of timeshare units permttte'd fortt,e Nq{th aociWestV,llag_ea), . and so l~mg ~s FSRC.i$ not in default ur.cer thj$ (etter agr~ment..or. u.nder trye · . . . Op~rational Utnitation ~f~re·nced on·P.age 1 at;ove; tf)e fact that either or both of .. ·,: :. the_SDP ,rpendm~nt and-COP·amendment have)iot yet c:;ompJe~ed-p.ra:eessirig. · . ._ . ' . ~-_finil ~ppro~aJ ,s)iall not be groupds for City to either (Q reff:ISe to .;~~Uf! . . . . : I • : •• •••• . building permits for ~l'lY or all of sti~ addition~I timesnare ,unit&i or (iQ ·retuse to. · . •. · ·.:_ .. : .. :·• .. _i:ss~.e :-~~ficat~·o~~;~a~y ror a~y.~cjr aHof.~~h-.a~dflio~~I tim~~-~~~-un!~··:;· . '_.:: ·. . . · .. · 4,. . The fact. thS, City has is$'u~ •or $Ubsequently hereto issue~ ·building p-~J11)its Qr · :' · . · · ·certificates·of.qi:cupancy for any dweJfing µnits withfn th~ FSRC timeshare. . · . . . . . proj~ shaU not be deemed to constitute ~oy Waiver by Cl1Y of any of its· . . .. enforcement.right&. · In ·piirticu~r.. an4 wfthout Jimitatipn: ·c.a) no s.utm approval or. · i$$Uance by City shall in any. way litnit or 'be deemed to limit Uie:fun power of. City· ·. tQ t~ke enfor~rnehtaction against FSRC and any subsequent owner with· . . .. · . . . · : · . . · -~_spect to any·viola1ion ~f the Qp,eratfonal Limitation-ref~t~~·~n page. 1 . · . . .. ·_.. · f • • .• a f I ,, •I • 10 to : 0 " o : 0 \ . ' , ..... . . . ' , ' ' . ' . ' ..... . .. .. ' : • ·'. f ' . •, .... ' l ' • . . ,• - • .. !' l '-\ II · ., -• . ·, ·~/tr~-·:-. M;. Martin, Oreny~k •. . : .· j• · •. . .· ·: April 14~ 1998 . · .. · .. \ . . . .. • ·' .. '" ·. • Page 3 . . ! . . aboye, and {b) no ~uch approval and issuari(;e_by.City ~hal! obfig.ate qity to;·.· process any application for t:,uitdir,g permits or Certificates of OQCup;:incy for any dweiJlng_ lmi~s within the FSRC -timeshare proj_ect above the aggre9ate limit · . e~ta?lished 'in paragraph 3 above. ~ · . . ,,. . \ . . . . . . . : · Pfease confirm_ your underst~nding by counter-signing·and returning one copy oft~is· · letter. · · . · Sincereiy, I • . . ' . ,,, . . . . .' .. .. . . . . . . AVIARA FSRC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP . .. , . .. . ' . ' . . .. . '3}1: s .. D. L. Clemens . . . Vice President/General Manager , . . . c~~rr::=·~ J~~~ :~ ... t~~~> Community Development l;)irectot. cc: , . Christopher 'Neifs Stephen Smith · Tom Oelaney . ; • • I \ . I '• ,, ' , ' • I • \ "' . . . ' Four Seasons Resort Club Parking Analysis Parking ratios as a function of occupancy and lockoff usage (includes added parking) Number of Units Number of Lockoffs Spaces Provided Lockoff Ratio ·,, Notes: I II I 240 206 4111 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 50% 55% 3.43 3.11 3.28 2.99 3.15 2.87 3.03 2.76 2.92 2.66 2.82 2.56 2.72 2.48 2.63 2.39 2.55 2.32 2.47 2.25 2.40 2.18 2.33 2.12 2.26 2.06 2.20 2.00 2.14 1.95 2.08 1.89 2.03 1.85 1.98 1.80 1.93 1.76 1.89 1.72 1.84 1.68 Ratio of parkina soaces to keys under various occupancy scenarios Resort Club Occupancy 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2.85 2.63 2.45 2.28 2.14 2.01 2.74 2.53 2.35 2.19 2.05 1.93 2.63 2.43 2.25 2.10 1.97 1.86 2.53 2.33 2.17 2.02 1.90· 1.78 2.44 2.25 2.09 1.95 1.83 l.72 2.35 2.17 2.01 1.88 1.76 1.66 2.27 2.10 1.95 1.82 1.70 1.60 2.19 2.03 1.88 1.76 1.65 1.55 2.12 1.96 l.82 1.70 1.59 1.50 2.06 1.90 1.76 1.65 1.54 1.45 2.00 1.84 1.71 1.60 1.50 1.41 1.94 1.79 1.66 1.55 1.45 1.37 1.88 l.74 1.61 1.51 1.41 1.33 1.83 1.69 1.57 1.47 1.37 1.29 1.78 1.65 1.53 1.43 1.34 1.26 I 1.74 1.60 1.49 1.39 1.30 1.23 1.69 1.56 1.45 1.35 1.27 1.19 1.65 1.52 1.41 1.32 1.24 1.16 1.61 1.49 1.38 1.29 1.21 1.14 1.57 1.45 1.35 1.26 I 1.18 1.11 1.54 1.42 1.32 1.23 1.15 1.08 EXPECTED OPERATING RANGE I I II I I I 90% I 95% 100% 1.90 1.80 1.71 1.82 1.73 1.64 1.75 1.66 1.58 1.69 l.60 1.52 1.62 1.54 1.46 1.57 1.48 1.41 1.51 1.43 1.36 1.46 1.39 1.32 1.42 1.34 1.27 1.37 1.30 1.24 1.33 1.26 1.20 1.29 1.22 1.16 1.26 1.19 1.13 1.22 1.16 1.10 1.19 1.13 1.07 1.16 1.10 1.04 1.13 1.07 1.02 1.10 1.04 0.99 1.07 1.02 0.97 1.05 0.99 0.94 1.02 0.97 0.92 l) Table reflects the ratio of parking spaces provided per key (under the most conservative definition; I.e., master+ lockoff) for various occupancy see 2) Values below the heavy line represent occupancy scenarios that would result in less than 1.2 spaces per key. 3) Village ratios: North Village= 145/148=0.98; East Village= 145/154=0.94; West Village= 121/144=0.84; Project Overall= 0.92 spaces per key, 4) "Lockoff Ratio" is defined as the percentage of lockoff units that are occupied separately from the master suite. 5) Sample calculation@ 60% Occupancy & 45% Lockoff Ratio: Parking space ratio= 411 spaces/((240*.6)+(206*.6*.45)) = 2.06 ® FSRCA Parking.xis Ratios @ 411 with Range 7 /16/98 - -