Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-18; Planning Commission; ; SDP 96-01|CT 96-01|PUD 96-01|CUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORTI " City of CARLSBAD Planning DepartmeSr A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: September 18, 1996 Application complete date: June 21, 1996 Project Planner: Don Neu Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-01/CUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT - Request for a recommendation of approval of a Site Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Planned Unit Development and a Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking on 12.20 acres located on the west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 13. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3986, 3987, 3988 and 3989, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of SDP 96-01, CT 96-01, PUD 96-01 and CUP 96-11, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. H. INTRODUCTION These applications propose developing Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan which has been pregraded in conformance with the previous Master Tentative Map approved for CT 92-07 Unit III. The project proposal includes 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants. The proposed land uses are included in the list of permitted uses for Planning Area 3. The conditional use permit for the project is being requested pursuant to Section 21.44.050 (a)(5) to allow the provision of common parking facilities resulting in an 11 percent parking reduction from the sum of the various uses computed separately. This section of the zoning ordinance contains provisions for a maximum parking reduction of 15%. An analysis of the hourly parking demand for all the uses proposed for the site has been prepared. Parking in excess of the peak hour parking demand is being provided onsite. Therefore, staff is supporting the proposed 11 percent parking reduction. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable plans, ordinances, standards and policies. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan requires that the City Council make the final decision to approve or disapprove the Site Development Plan. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a site development plan, tentative tract map, nonresidential planned unit development and a conditional SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-OTWUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL &^MESHARE RESORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 2 use permit for the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort project. The project proposes 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking. The project site is located on the west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road within the 12.20 acre Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Planning Area 3 overlooks the Flower Fields. The hotel and timeshare portions of the project share a common lobby which is located in Building B at the terminus of the main entrance drive. The proposed 90 unit hotel is in Building A which is 40 feet high and contains 3 stories. Two typical hotel room floor plans are proposed. Maximum room size for one plan totals 435 square feet and the second totals 405 square feet. The 161 timeshare units are located in Buildings B, C and D. The timeshare buildings also contain 3 stories and are 40 feet high with architectural features which measure up to 55 feet in height. The architectural features do not exceed 3 percent of the roof area from which they protrude as limited by the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Six timeshare floor plans are proposed with sizes ranging from 830 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The project design includes outdoor recreational amenities such as a pool and spa in addition to a grassy play area. An area for a second outdoor pool is noted on the plans in the triangular area formed by the perimeter of the timeshare buildings. Indoor recreational amenities include a clubhouse/gym, activity centers and a multi-purpose room . The 3 restaurants for the project are located in Building E at the southeast corner of the site. Two of the restaurant spaces total 6,000 square feet each. The third is a 1,568 square foot hotel food and beverage outlet located adjacent to the hotel building intended to primarily provide food services to guests of the hotel and timeshare units. Building E is a one and two story structure. A partial second story of Building E contains hotel public areas which includes a meeting room as well as a hotel administration area. Building height ranges from 20 feet to 35 feet with an elevator tower that reaches a height of 40 feet. In conformance with the requirements of the specific plan the design of the proposed buildings is compatible with a Mediterranean architectural character. Building materials include stucco walls, clay tile roofs, textured split face masonry block, metal railings and trellis, clear window glass and a translucent roof covering at selected locations. Buildings have been oriented to take advantage of views overlooking the flower fields and the Pacific Ocean. The primary building entrance is oriented toward Armada Drive. The project includes surface and underground parking. Seventy-three percent of the proposed parking is located in the underground parking structure. The proposed 11 percent parking reduction equates to a total of 57 parking spaces. A parking analysis was prepared by a Traffic Engineer to determine if a parking reduction is appropriate. The study analyzes the hourly parking demand of all the uses proposed on site and concludes that the peak hour parking demand is lower than the number of parking spaces proposed. The parking analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated April 12, 1996, is attached to this report. The proposed parking reduction will be covered further in the analysis section of this report for the Conditional Use Permit for common parking facilities. SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-0 WUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TfMESHARE RESORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 2 use permit for the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort project. The project proposes 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking. The project site is located on the west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road within the 12.20 acre Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Planning Area 3 overlooks the Flower Fields. The hotel and timeshare portions of the project share a common lobby which is located in Building B at the terminus of the main entrance drive. The proposed 90 unit hotel is in Building A which is 40 feet high and contains 3 stories. Two typical hotel room floor plans are proposed. One plan totals 435 square feet and the second totals 405 square feet. The 161 timeshare units are located in Buildings B, C and D. The timeshare buildings also contain 3 stories and are 40 feet high with architectural features which measure up to 55 feet in height. The architectural features do not exceed 3 percent of the roof area from which they protrude as limited by the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Six timeshare floor plans are proposed with sizes ranging from 830 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The project design includes outdoor recreational amenities such as a pool and spa in addition to a grassy play area. An area for a second outdoor pool is noted on the plans in the triangular area formed by the perimeter of the timeshare buildings. Indoor recreational amenities include a clubhouse/gym, activity centers and a multi-purpose room. The 3 restaurants for the project are located in Building E at the southeast corner of the site. Two of the restaurant spaces total 6,000 square feet each. The third is a 1,568 square foot hotel food and beverage outlet located adjacent to the hotel building intended to primarily provide food services to guests of the hotel and timeshare units. Building E is a one and two story structure. A partial second story of Building E contains hotel public areas which includes a meeting room as well as a hotel administration area. Building height ranges from 20 feet to 35 feet with an elevator tower that reaches a height of 40 feet. In conformance with the requirements of the specific plan the design of the proposed buildings is compatible with a Mediterranean architectural character. Building materials include stucco walls, clay tile roofs, textured split face masonry block, metal railings and trellis, clear window glass and a translucent roof covering at selected locations. Buildings have been oriented to take advantage of views overlooking the flower fields and the Pacific Ocean. The primary building entrance is oriented toward Armada Drive. The project includes surface and underground parking. Seventy-three percent of the proposed parking is located in the underground parking structure. The proposed 11 percent parking reduction equates to a total of 57 parking spaces. A parking analysis was prepared by a Traffic Engineer to determine if a parking reduction is appropriate. The study analyzes the hourly parking demand of all the uses proposed on site and concludes that the peak hour parking demand is lower than the number of parking spaces proposed. The parking analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated April 12, 1996, is attached to this report. The proposed parking reduction will be covered further in the analysis section of this report for the Conditional Use Permit for common parking facilities. SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96- SEPTEMBER18, 1996 PAGES UP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL &T?MESHARE RESORT General Plan, Zoning & Existing Land Use for the Site And Adjacent Property The following table lists the general plan, zoning and existing land use for the site and adjacent properties: Site North South East West GENERAL PLAN T-R/C (Travel/Rec. Com./ Community Commercial) O/PI (Office/Planned Industrial) OS (Open Space) O/PI & T-R OS (Open Space) ZONING C-T-Q/C-2-Q (Com. Tourist/General Corn- Qualified Dev. Overlay Zone) O-Q/P-M-Q (Office/Planned Ind. - Qualified Dev. Overlay Zone) O-S (Open Space) O-Q/P-M-Q & C-T-Q O-S (Open Space) EXISTING LAND USE Vacant development pad Vacant development pad Flower Fields (Ag.) Vacant development pad & Ag. Flower Fields (Ag.) Site Description The project site is a vacant pad which was recently graded. The construction of utility and drainage systems to be located within the Armada Drive right-of-way should begin this summer. No sensitive native vegetation exists on the property as a result of the previous grading and prior agricultural use of the site. Prior Actions On January 9, 1996, the City Council approved the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment (SP 207(A)) and related applications. The project site is designated as Planning Area 3 (Community Hotel & Retail) in the Specific Plan. The plan allows for the development of hotels, timeshare units, restaurants, retail, offices and personal service uses. A maximum of 280 rooms are permitted in Planning Area 3. Applicable Regulations The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed within the following section of this staff report: A. Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207(A)); B. C. Travel Recreation Commercial/Community Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation (T-R/C); Commercial-Tourist and General Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C- T-Q/C-2-Q); SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-0 SEPTEMBERS, 1996 PAGE 4 P 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL &TOIESHARE RESORT.TOE D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020 - Site Development Plan findings required by the Qualified Development Overlay Zone; E. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); F. Non-residential Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); G. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.44, Section 21.44.050(a)(5) - Common Parking Facilities; H. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport; I. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Plan; and J. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13). IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will cover the project's compliance with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which they are presented. A. CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan establishes the permitted uses for the site as well as the development standards and design guidelines. The project's plans comply with the requirements of the specific plan. The proposed uses for the site are in conformance with the list of permitted uses for Planning Area 3 as described in the section of this report on prior actions. The development standards of the specific plan have also been complied with as demonstrated in the following table: STANDARD Building Height Building Coverage REQUIRED 45 ft. max./3 stories 55 ft. max./3% of roof surface for architectural features 50% if less than 75% of parking is within a parking structure PROPOSED 45 ft. max./3 stories 55 ft. max./3% & less of roof surface area with architectural features 27.3% SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-0 SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGES P 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TfMESHARE RESORT;TOII STANDARD Parking Standards Signage Service/Loading Areas Trash Enclosures Open Space Transition Areas Building Setbacks Landscape Setbacks REQUIRED 519 spaces for sum of all uses; 447 spaces at peak hourly demand per parking analysis. See CUP Section for Common Parking Facilities Sign Program required to be approved with the SDP Architecturally detailed & screened 6 ft. high masonry wall with gates. Color and/or materials similar to the project 6 ft. high perimeter wall (promenade wall) Front or side yard on Armada Drive - 30 ft. Rear or side yard from Flower Fields - 25 ft. Front or Side yard on Armada Drive - 30 ft. Rear or side yard from Flower Fields -10 ft. PROPOSED 462 spaces with a proposed 1 1% parking reduction (57 spaces) Sign Program proposed is in conformance with SP 207(A) Located in the parking structure or screened with landscaping 6 ft. high masonry wall with gates. Color & finish similar to the project. 6 ft. high promenade wall along agricultural boundary. 30 ft. & greater 25 ft. & greater 30 ft. & greater 10ft. & greater The proposed resolution of approval contains the required findings to allow for building height over 35 feet. Design Guidelines The specific plan also contains design guidelines applicable to the project site. The guidelines address building orientation, architectural character, building materials, roofs and access. The project design complies with the design guidelines of the specific plan. B. & C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the site were adopted concurrently with the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan to achieve consistency. The Travel-Recreation/Community Commercial (T-R/C) General Plan Land Use Designation provides for the proposed use. The specific plan implements the General Plan on the project site and includes required circulation improvements and provisions for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Zoning for the site is C-T-Q/C-2-Q. The zoning designation also permits the uses subject to approval of a site development plan. The specific plan was established with the requirement that each site require approval of a site development plan and the zoning reflects this criteria. OWJSDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-0 WUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TlMESHARE RESORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 6 D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE O-OVERLAY ZONE The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q-Overlay) which is part of the zoning designation for the property requires that a site development plan be approved for the proposed use prior to the issuance of any building permit. Four findings are required by the Q-Overlay Zone. The required findings with justification for each are contained in the Planning Commission resolution for the project. This section summarizes the necessary findings and support for each. The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings as the project design complies with the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan as demonstrated in Section "A" of this report. Varying building setbacks, in addition to required landscape setbacks, have been incorporated into the project design. Several pedestrian connections to the promenade walkway which runs along the western and southern edges of the site have been provided to encourage pedestrian usage. The site is also adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use as all applicable code requirements have been met, building coverage is 27.3% while 50% is permitted, 38% of the total site area will be landscaped, and 11% of the surface parking lot area will be landscaped. All features necessary to adjust the use to existing and permitted future uses will be provided. The promenade wall and required building setbacks will provide a buffer with the adjacent agricultural area. Varying building setbacks have been provided to reduce the amount of building mass along the perimeter setback areas. Adequate vehicle circulation has been provided, in addition to loading spaces and a shuttle bus parking space. The project is proposed to be developed in phases and staff has conditioned the future phase building areas to be landscaped as required by the Landscape Manual since the site has been identified as being highly visible to the public therefore warranting immediate treatment (Landscape Manual Section E.3-1.2-2.lc.). The planned street system is adequate to handle all traffic generated by the use. The project will generate 3,600 average daily trips (ADT) which corresponds to the maximum ADT projected in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR for this planning area. The required circulation improvements identified for the Carlsbad Ranch will therefore still be adequate to accommodate the vehicle trips generated by this project. E. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a tentative tract map to be filed in accordance with Title 20 for the division of property into five or more lots. The applicant is requesting approval of an 8 lot subdivision on this 12.20 acre site in addition to the creation of 161 timeshare units that would be contained in buildings on lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The use proposed for each of the 8 lots is as follows: Lot 1 Restaurants and Hotel Public Areas including a meeting room and administration area Lot 2 Hotel Lot 3 Hotel/timeshare lobby and timeshare units Lot 4 Timeshare units Lot 5 Timeshare Units SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-OWUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL &^MESHARE RESORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE? Lot 6 Timeshare units Lot 7 Timeshare units Lot 8 Recreation area The map will be recorded in one phase, however, construction is planned to occur in up to a maximum of 4 phases. Lots 3 through 8 will be merged following construction and prior to occupancy of the last phase. The final result will be three separate lots with one containing the restaurants, the second the hotel and the third the timeshare portion of the project. The project as conditioned will provide all necessary improvements and all findings required by Title 20 can be made and are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for CT 96-01. A non-residential planned unit development permit is proposed concurrently with this tentative map to create the timeshare units for ownership purposes and the 8 lots several of which do not have public street frontage. The non-residential planned unit development is discussed in the following section of this report. F. NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 21.47 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE The applicant is requesting approval of a non-residential planned development permit to create 8 lots and 161 timeshare units. The Non-residential Planned Development Ordinance requires all new development to conform to the requirements and development standards of the underlying zone or applicable specific or master plan except for lot area and the requirements of Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance). No minimum lot area or width requirements exist therefore the primary consideration in reviewing the proposed permit is whether the required findings can be made. By processing a Non-residential Planned Unit Development Permit, the proposed lots may be created without fronting on a public street and with a lot depth of less than 90 feet. Staff has reviewed the project and made the applicable findings to grant the Non-residential Planned Development Permit which are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for PUD 96- 01. Chapter VI. B. 3. of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan lists the subsequent approvals necessary to implement the specific plan for Planning Area 3. This section states that approval of a Site Development Plan is required and that timeshare projects must comply with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.010(10) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, yet a Conditional Use Permit is not required to be issued. The requirements of the timeshare section of the code have been placed in the Planning Commission Resolution for SDP 96-01. G. COMMON PARKING FACILITIES (CMC SECTION 21.44.050(a)(5» The project is proposing an 11% (57 space) parking reduction pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit as provided in section 21.44.050(a)(5) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This code section provides that when a common parking facility is to occupy a site of 5,000 square feet or more, then the parking requirements as specified in the code for each of two or more participating buildings or uses may be reduced not more than 15% upon approval of WHSDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-OWUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL &TTOESHARE RESORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGES development plans in the manner prescribed for a conditional use permit. The proposed common (shared) parking program allows for the staggered parking needs of the various uses considering the peak parking demands of the uses to be conducted on the project site. A parking analysis, dated April 12, 1996, was prepared for the project by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. The parking analysis is attached to this staff report. The study concludes that the types of uses planned for the site should not be evaluated as entirely separate uses since shared parking between facilities is expected to occur and this shared parking should be accounted for in planning for the project. The two quality restaurant sites planned for Building E would serve timeshare and hotel guests as well as general customers, thereby reducing the parking demand. The hotel food and beverage outlet also in Building E would primarily serve breakfast for hotel/timeshare guests, and would have limited attraction from general customers because of limited operating hours and visibility. The limited amount of hotel public area would primarily be used by hotel/timshare guests. Outside use of the hotel public area generally occurs during early morning and afternoon hours when the restaurant and hotel guest parking demand is at a minimum. The parking analysis includes a table which shows parking occupancy for each use by hour which accounts for both shared parking and hours of operation. The table shows that the peak parking demand is in the late evening at 9:00 p.m. and is for 447 spaces. The greatest demand occurs in the late evening when the Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet would be closed, and the Hotel Public Area activities would be ended. Therefore, the proposed 462 spaces for the project should be more than adequate to meet the peak parking demand of 447 spaces considering shared parking and the hours of operation for the proposed uses. The required findings for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the 11% parking reduction are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for CUP 96-11. H. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT The project is located within the Airport Influence Area for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The project site is located within the 60 CNEL noise contour for Palomar Airport. The site is approximately 7,000 feet west of the airport. The airport land use plan identifies the use as being conditionally compatible. The indoor community noise level must be attenuated to 45 decibels CNEL and the outdoor noise level is acceptable for associated outdoor activities according to the airport land use plan. An acoustical study is required to be submitted concurrent with the building plans for the project to demonstrate how the required interior noise level is achieved. In addition, an avigation easement for noise is required to be recorded with the County Recorder as a condition of approval of the project. Both of these requirements are listed in the Airport Land Use Plan as well as the Program EIR for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project is compatible with the Airport Land Use Plan with imposition of these two conditions. I. MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN As designed, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program. The project site has been graded pursuant to previous approvals. SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96- SEPTEMBER18, 1996 PAGE 9 (WluP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL &^!MESHARE RESORT No steep slopes or native vegetation exist onsite. The project will not have drainage impacts on coastal resources as the project includes National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System facilities to separate oil and other contaminants from site runoff. The project will require the approval of a coastal development permit. J.GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE rLFMP - ZONE 13) The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13 in the northwest quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: FACILITY City Administration Library Wastewater Treatment Capacity Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Distribution System IMPACTS N/A N/A N/A $.40/sq. ft. Canyon de las Encinas Watershed 3,600 ADT Station 4 N/A Payment of non-residential school fee at bldg. permit issuance 330.81 EDU 330.81 EDU COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed use was analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01) certified for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and related applications on January 9, 1996, by the City Council. Mitigation required for the grading plan and final map which permitted grading of the project area has been applied. Mitigation measures incorporated into this project include designated carpool and vanpool parking areas, adequate on-site circulation to reduce vehicle queuing, bicycle parking facilities, showers for bicycling employees' use, pedestrian connections to the site, review of the project plans by the Police Department for security measures which could be implemented, use of reclaimed water for landscape watering and the provision of trash enclosures designed with an area to accommodate recyclables. As a result, the environmental analysis for the project included an Initial Study (Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II) focusing on any changes from approved plans and the project contemplated in the EIR to what is proposed with this project. No additional significant adverse impacts were identified in the initial study for this project, therefore, no further environmental SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-0WUP 96-11 - CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TWlESHARE RESORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 10 review is required. A Notice of Prior Compliance was prepared for the project and published in the North County Times newspaper. A Notice of Determination will be filed upon the final action being taken on the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3986 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3987 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3988 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3989 5. Location Map 6. Background Data Sheet 7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 8. Disclosure Form 9. Prior Environmental Compliance 10. Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II 11. Parking Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated April 12,1996 12. Exhibits "A" - "V", dated September 18,1996. DN:bk AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-01/CUP 96-11 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SDP 96-Q1/CT 96-01/PUD 96-01/CUP 96-11 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts. Inc. REQUEST AND LOCATION: 161 timeshare units. 90 hotel units and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent parking reduction on 12.20 acres located on the west side of Armada Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 13215. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on June 30, 1995. APN: 211-022-12 Acres: 12.20 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 8 lots/161 timeshare ownership units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: T-R/C (Travel/Recreation Commercial/Community Commercial) Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A Existing Zone: C-T-O/C-2-O Proposed Zone: C-T-Q/C-2-O Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site C-T-Q/C-2-Q Vacant pad North O-Q/P-M-Q Vacant pad South O-S Flower Fields East O-Q/P-M-Q & C-T-Q Vacant pad & Ag. West O-S Flower Fields PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 330.81 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: January 22. 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued • Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ Other, Prior Compliance with EIR 94-01 certified January 9. 1996 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: CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL & TIMESHARE RESORT - SDP 96- 01 /CT 96-01 /PUD 96-01 /CUP 96-1 1 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 13 GENERAL PLAN: T-R/C ZONING: C-T-O/C-2-0 DEVELOPER'S NAME: GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS. INC. ADDRESS: 5050 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200, Carlsbad. CA 92008 PHONE NO.: 431-8500 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 211-022-12 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC.. SO. FT.. DU): 12.20 AC.. 409.568 sq. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ft. A. B. C. D. E. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A Demand in Square Footage = N/A Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = N/A $.40/sa. ft. N/A Canyon de las Encinas Watershed F. G. H. I. J. K. L. (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4 Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDUs Identify Sub Basin = (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 3.600 N/A Non-res. School fee 330.81 N/A 72.778.2 The project is not proposing any dwelling units thereby not impacting the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. tiv 01 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF 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 COMMOTES. (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Grana Pacific Resorts, Inc. ^050 Avenida Encinas, Ste. 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 2. Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Carltas Company 5600 Avenida Encinas, Ste. 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the name: addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partn< interest in the partnership. Timothy J. Stripe David S. Brown 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 5050 Avenida Encinasf Suite 200 Carlsbad. CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the name addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or bene of the trust. (Over: ;isdosura Statement Page 2 Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Be Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No _x_ N yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: 'Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county C.TV municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit/ (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.; Signature/bf/Owiptf/date Company Print or type name of owner Signature of ajjplicant/date S* .-i/T.Q-fh.--., . 5-fy..y Ls- r'/U.^ Prim of type nam'c of applicant igr^rure o£ applicar.t/cate < ?rir.~ cr type rj^re of apciicanr Citv of Carl Rl«*t»ftio DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ON ^ACTION CM rs,e »4^r a? THS C.TV CCWNOU a* ANV A^»^JINTIO ao»sc. COMMISSION OP is following information moat be disclosed: List ih« names and addresses of all persons having a financial intarast in tti« applicaton. Grand Pacific Resorts 5050 Avenida Encinaa.__guite 200 <Carlsbad, C& 92008 Ust the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the Brooertv involved. Carlsbad Sanch Coiroanv L.P a fal i • 5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92QQS CB Ranch Enterprises ~ a California corporation . ^600 Avenida Enemas, Suite 106, Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. If any parson id«nttfl«d purauint to (1) or (2) above is • corporation or pinrwshlp, list th« namw ar addraaMS of all individual^ owning more than 10% of *» aharts In thf corpo/atlon or. ownina any garwersh interaat in ine partnersnip. Cairltas Cortpany, a California lijnited partnership •. 5^600 Avenida fincinas. Suite'100, Carlsbad, CA 92008 , Canrtflrt FaJtnargRlgi , a UAlHornia general partnership 3COD A^fcUilJd EiiLd.iidb', SuiLb 100, Carlsbad, CA 92DDB Myung Hee Lea, 14241 £ast fires tone, Suite 300, La Mirad&, CA 90638 *. If any person Identified pomiant to (1) or (2) above i* a non-profR organization or a trust, Hat the names ar addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or u trustee or benofioa of the trust. FRMOOOI3 8/90 2075 l_aa Palmaa Drtv« • C«i-l«D»d. C«li*ornt» 92OO9-*859 - (819) JUh.dl.i9Sb 3:31PK cloaura Statement Page 2 Hava you hac: mere man S2SQ worn of ausinass transacted with any member at City star? 5c»r-s Cammissicns. CammiCtaes and Ccunci! within the past cv<elve Yes No _*^ If yes. please indicate aersan(s) Hrm. r«c«i««r. tynaiett*. Wi* ma irty «tn«f eauniy. city uia eounty. eny mumcia«iny. aiitnct « om«f p«iiueii icarg «j uiy 4tn«r ; Attach additional pagss as nscassary.) OWNER: CB Ranch Snterprises r a Calif o~ By: OWNER: Carlsbad Ranch Coipany L.P., a California limited partnership By: Carltas Company, a California limited partnership, General Partner By,- Carltas Management, a California corporation, General Partner C. calkins -dent Date: FRMOOai3 E/90 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 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: Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort Project Location: West side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road Project Description: A Site Development Plan, Tentative Map, Nonresidential Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units, and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking on 12.20 acres. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: JUNE 10, 1996 SDP 96-01/CT96-01/PUD 96-01/CUP 96-11 CARLSBAD RANCH HOTEL AND TIMESHARE RESORT PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 10, 1996 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 96-01/CT 96-01/PUD 96-01/CUP 96-11 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort 2. APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts. Inc. • 3. 4. 5. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: 5050 Avenida Encinas. Suite 100. Carlsbad. CA 92008 f6191 431-8500 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 22. 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTON: A Site Development Plan . Tentative Map. Nonresidential Planned Unit Development. and Conditional Use Permit for a project proposing 161 timeshare units. 90 hotel units, and 3 restaurants with common parking facilities providing for an 11 percent reduction in total required parking on 12.20 acres located on the west side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. 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. | | Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems [gj Water M Air Quality [X] Transportation/Circulation | | Biological Resources | | Energy & Mineral Resources M Hazards Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Noise | | Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. | | I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An 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 (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. £. /??£ Planner Signature Date Planning Director' signature Date 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 "EIA-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. 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. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7- 18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (l;pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (1; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated n D D D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1; pg. 7-1 through 7-4) 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; pg. 7-8 and 7- 9) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9) D D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A) b) Seismic ground shaking? (1; Appendix A) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1; Appendix A) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1; Appendix A) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1; Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7) g) Subsidence of the land? (1; Appendix A) h) Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1; Appendix A) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1; Appendix A) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) 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; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1; pg. 5.2-1 through 5.2-8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-1, 5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1; Appendix A) d) Create objectionable odors? (1; Appendix A) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg. 5.5-25 and 5.5-26) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1; Appendix A) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg. 5.7-16) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Q D D El D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D D D D D D No Impact m m H m m IEI n m. D n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats n n n E Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4- 13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (l;pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) Potentially Significant Impact D D D n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D No Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1; Appendix A) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1; Appendix A) 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; Appendix A) D D D D D IX, HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency .evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-1 through 5.9-4) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9) D D D n n n n D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through 5.8-7) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through 5.8-7) D D D n XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1; pg. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2) b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4) c) Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1; pg. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16) e) Other governmental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16) D n n n nn n nnn n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 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; Appendix A) b) Communications systems? (1; Appendix A) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7) e) Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) f) Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 and 5.9-22) Dnn D n nnn nn nnn nnnn n XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pg. 5.11-1 through 5.11-7) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg. 5.11-1 through 5.11-7) c) Create light or glare? (1; Appendix A) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) c) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3- 1 through 5.3-8) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) D n n n n n n n nn m m n D n n nn n XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2 through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2 through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16) D 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 D n n 8 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D D D 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 scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort is proposed for a 12.20 acre site located on the west side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project includes 161 timeshare units, 90 hotel units and three restaurants. Planning Area 3 is located in the southern portion of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan overlooking the flower fields. The project includes surface and underground parking. The project proposes an 11 percent reduction in parking based on the provision of common parking facilities. This equates to a total of 57 parking spaces. A parking analysis was prepared by a Traffic Engineer to justify the requested parking reduction. The study analyzes the hourly parking demand of all the uses proposed on site and concludes that the peak hour parking demand is lower than the number of parking spaces proposed. Two 6,000 square foot restaurant spaces are proposed with the third restaurant space being a 1,568 square foot hotel food and beverage outlet. In conformance with the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, the design of the proposed building will be compatible with a Mediterranean architectural character. The majority of the proposed structures contain three stories and are oriented to take advantage of views over the flower fields and out to the Pacific Ocean. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project was evaluated in the "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-01)." EIR 94-01 evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; improvements to the I-5/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of a 24.2 acre parcel immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the specific plan site. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan is a planning document which will guide the development of a 447.40 acre area through the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation programs. The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan include office, research and development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course, agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND Carlsbad. The 24.2 acre parcel adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation of the Specific Plan golf course. EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources, Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Waste/Pesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual Aesthetics/Grading, and Water Quality. The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 and analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental impact. EIR 94-01 was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and Monitoring Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to the Carlsbad Ranch Hotel and Timeshare Resort project proposed for Planning Area 3 of the Carlsbad Ranch have been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this environmental impact assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section for each item checked as having a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated": V. AIR QUALITY a) Air Quality No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation of the air quality mitigation measures will lessen long-term operation air quality impacts to a level less than significant. It was concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the development anticipated under the proposed specific plan amendment together with the development of other related projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the region's air quality. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this cumulative impact. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a) Increased Vehicle Trips A series of circulation system improvements are required as part of the development of the Carlsbad Ranch property. With the implementation of the improvements identified in EIR 94-01 all of the analyzed intersections and street segments are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. It was determined that the Carlsbad Ranch project in conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result in a significant cumulative impact to the 1-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding consideration was adopted for this cumulative impact. IX. HAZARDS d) Exposure to existing sources of potential health hazards Evidence of surface staining and possible pesticide contamination was observed at several locations on the project site. Although no significant levels of soil contamination from pesticides or herbicides were detected during soil testing in 1989 and 1995, the potential for undetected contamination does exist due to the fact that the project site has been historically used for agricultural production. Exposure of persons to unremediated soils is a potential impact. Implementation of mitigation measures listed in EIR 94-01 will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. The mitigation measures require soil monitoring and remediation of any affected soils during site development. These mitigation measures will be implemented during the mass grading for Tentative Map 94-09. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 X. NOISE b) Exposure of people severe noise levels The project site is located within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The Airport Land Use Plan's Noise/Land Use Compatibility Implementation Directives require that all transient lodging buildings, within the CNEL 60-70 contours be subjected to an acoustical study to determine that interior levels do not exceed CNEL 45. This requirement is also a mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which is a condition of approval of the project in addition to the granting of an avigation easement for noise. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES b) Police protection The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area which will attract visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention services. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact. This demand for police protection will be reduced through implementation of a mitigation measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into the proposed developments, been submitted to the Carlsbad Police Department for review and approval. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS f) Solid waste disposal The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which has been applied to the project will reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure requires the submittal of a solid waste management plan to address the project's needs for recycling facilities and diversion programs/measures which can be implemented. g) Local or regional water supplies The project will require the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts of buildout of the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. The mitigation includes utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping on the project site. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Paleontological resources Areas of the Carlsbad Ranch contain geologic formations with a high potential for yielding significant paleontological resources. Mitigation measures requiring a 12 Rev. 03/28/96 paleontological monitor are required for the project and will be implemented during the mass grading for Tentative Map 94-09 and 92-07. b) Archaeological resources Surface collection and data recovery programs for archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project have been completed. An archaeologist will monitor all mass grading for Tentative Map 94-09 and 92-07 which creates this development area. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 14 Rev. 03/28/96 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. Date Signature SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161) 1. "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Carlsbad, November 1995." 15 Rev. 03/28/96 URBAN SYSTEM&SSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING <S TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT April 12, 1996 Mr. Don Neu, Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Community Planning 2075 Los Palmas Drive Phone: 438-1161 Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Fax: 438-0894 Dear Don: As requested by Tim Stripe of Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc., Urban Systems Associates, Inc., is providing for your approval our recommendations of the parking requirements for the Hotel/Time- Share/Restaurant development on Lot 20 in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan 207 (A) area. The types of uses planned should not be evaluated as entirely separate uses since shared parking between facilities is expected to occur, and this shared parking should be accounted for in planning for a successful project. Two quality restaurants are planned for Building E, noted on the site plan as Restaurants 1 and 2, and would serve time share and hotel guests as well as general customers, thereby reducing the parking demand. The Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet also in Building E would primarily serve breakfast for hotel guests, and would have limited attraction from general customers because of limited operating hours and it's low visibility. Parking for this type of restricted restaurant should not need to be calculated as a typical restaurant since time share/hotel guests and nearby business park pedestrians would be the primary customers, also limiting the parking demand. The limited amount of Hotel Public Area in Building E would also be used primarily by time share/hotel guests. Outside activities are generally considered to occur during early morning and afternoon hours when the restaurant and hotel guest parking demand is at a minimum, with activities ending at approximately 5:00 P.M. Provided below is a tabulation of parking for these uses taking into account only a minimal shared parking effect between uses: 004686F 1 5FMZ13/18E 4540 KEARNY VELA ROAD, SUITE 106 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1573 • (619) 560-4911 • FAX (619) 560-9734 Mr. Don Neu April 12, 1996 'rban Systems Associates, Inc. USE Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet Hotel Public Areas Hotel Time Share Resort AMOUNT First 4,000 S.F. Remainder 2,000 S.F. First 4,000 S.F. Remainder 2,000 S.F. 1,568 S.F. 4,000 S.F. 90 rooms 161 units PARKING RATE 1:1 00 S.F. 1:50 S.F. 1:1 00 S.F. 1:50 S.F. 1:200 S.F. 1 1:200 S.F. 2 1 .2 per room 1 .2 per unit PARKING SPACES 40 40 40 40 8 20 108 194 NOTES: TOTAL 490 SPACES One half of parking rate for restaurants is used since customers are primarily from time share/hotel guests and walk-ins from nearby business park. One-half of parking rate for meeting rooms is used since primary users would be hotel guests. Outside groups would meet during mid-morning and afternoon times when hotel parking demand is at a minimum. A maximum total of 490 parking spaces are tabulated with the assumption that all operations would be continuous throughout the day and evening hours, without considering actual hours of operation of the different types of uses. However, accounting for both shared parking and hours of operation, the attached table shows parking occupancy for each use by hour. This tabulation assumes full parking rates as required by City Ordinance for the Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet and the Hotel Public Areas. The occupancy percentages of the Food and Beverage Outlet and the Hotel Public Area have been estimated to account for the probable hours of operation. As shown in this table, the peak parking demand is in the late evening at 9:00 p.m. and is only 447 spaces. The greatest demand occurs in the late evening when the Hotel Food and Beverage Outlet would be closed, and the Hotel Public Area activities would be ended. 004686F 5FM213/18E Mr. Don Neu Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 12, 1996 _ Therefore, the parking to be provided, 462 spaces should be more than adequate to meet the peak demand of only 447 spaces, when both shared parking and the hours of operation of the uses are considered. Please give me a call if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Sam P. Kab, II Senior Traffic Engineer Attachment cc: Tim Stripe, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. John Mattox, JPM Design Management 004686F 3 5FMZ13/18E ATTACHMENT PARKING OCCUPANCY BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR HOUR 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am 10:00 am 11:00 am Noon 1:00 pm 2:00 pm 3:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:00 pm 8:00 pm &>M pm. 10:00 pm 11:00 pm Midnight 160 Spaces Quality Restaurant* % __• 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 60 60 50 70 90 100 100 ' tafc / 90 70 50 # _„. 3 8 16 32 48 80 112 96 96 80 112 144 160 160 ,,'/1& i 144 112 80 302 Spaces Time Share /Hotel" % 100 85 65 55 45 35 30 30 35 35 45 60 70 75 90 /&', 100 100 100 # 302 257 196 166 136 106 91 91 106 106 136 181 211 227 272 I $87 , 302 302 302 17 Spaces Food& Beverage Outlet** % 10 50 75 100 75 50 ' 60 40 30 20 10 10 10 10 10 I __ , — — — # 2 9 13 17 13 9 10 7 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 —— • — — 40 Spaces Public Area** % 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 — — — —— — — # —20 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 — — — — — — — Total 519 Total 304 289 257 239 221 203 221 250 247 245 258 335 357 389 434 , 44? 446 414 382 NOTE: ULI Estimates (Hours of operation provided by Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc.) 5/86 QPWIN02 SHARED.WB1 CAffLSBAD RANCH ffESOffT -UffBAM SYSTEMS —