Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-27; City Council; 16128; Shopping Center Policies ContinuedCITY ibF CAF+LSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# /h/ /dE( TITLE- . MTG. 3/27/01 DEPT. PLN SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES GPA 00-04 (continued) DEPT. HD. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Open the public hearing for the limited purpose of accepting travel-time maps and ADOPT Resolution 2001-46, APPROVING a Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment 00-04, based on the findings contained therein. ITEM EXPLANATION: At a duly noticed public hearing held on February 6, 2001, the City Council received public testimony on the proposed General Plan Amendment establishing shopping center policies as more fully explained in attached Agenda Bill 16,060. The Council received the staff report and the public testimony bearing on this proposed General Plan Amendment. After the conclusion of the public testimony, at which time the Mayor closed the public hearing, indicated its intent to deliberate at a future meeting. Since that time, staff has updated the travel-time maps which will assist the Council in these deliberations. It is recommended that the public hearing be reopened for the limited purpose of receiving these travel-time maps and any public testimony related to them. After this new evidence has been received, it is appropriate to again close the public hearing and begin Council deliberations on the proposed General Plan Amendment establishing shopping center policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Planning Director has found that this proposed amendment will not have a significant impact to the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment is explained on Agenda Bill 16,060 and has not changed. EXHIBIT: 1. Agenda Bill 16,060 entitled “Shopping Center Policies GPA 00-04”. CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENQA BILL I AB# Jt7,060 TITLE: DEPT. HD. MTG. +&-\a -0) SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES s CITY ATTY. ’ GPA 00-04 DEPT. PLN & CITY MGR* RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution dC)ol -q L , APPROVING a Negative Declaration and GPA 00-04, based upon the findings contained therein. ITEM EXPLANATION: This action is a proposed amendment to the General Plan’s Land Use Element. It would replace the existing “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial land use designations with a new “Local Shopping Center” designation, together with amended goals, guidelines, and policies, including criteria that can be used to identify new locations for future local shopping centers. Through these changes the amendment would establish a new policy framework for local shopping centers. This amendment would be the first of three related actions to come before the City Council on this subject. Later actions will include a) an amendment to the Zone Code to create a new zone to implement the new ‘Local Shopping Center” land use designation, and b) a land use analysis to indicate locations for future local shopping centers, based upon the location criteria contained in the new policy framework. From the land use analysis, staff will make recommendations for site-specific changes to general plan and zoning designations on individual properties. Only the new policy framework is the subject of this Agenda Bill. At its public hearing on December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission voted (7-O) to recommend approval of staffs general plan amendment, with changes in two areas. 1) Existing Objective B.1 of the general plan (page 30 of Exhibit W) calls for limiting the number of new shopping center designations so as to provide only basic service. Staffs original amendment was intended to clarify how this limitation would be achieved. The amended language called for limiting ” . ..the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which provides for basic commercial service to all areas of the City without creating undue overlaps in trade areas”... One of the possible effects of this approach would have been to limit the degree of competition between shopping centers. The Planning Commission unanimously felt that the proposed language was too constraining. Rather, it felt that a degree of diversity in types of, and competition between, shopping centers would be desirable. Therefore, the Commission modified the staff language by adding the phrase: “. . . while providing desirable diversity without over-commercialization.. .” to the proposed language. Under this language residential areas may be within the trade areas of more than one shopping center. Subsequent to the Commission’s action on this recommendation, staff determined that Implementing Policy C.2.4 needed to be amended to be consistent with the Commission’s recommendation for Objective B.l (see Policy C.2.4, page 32 of Exhibit “W” for the modified wording). 2) Among other policies that address where to locate shopping centers, the original staff recommendation contained a policy that would have prohibited new sites for local shopping centers from being located along El Camino Real. The Planning Commission felt that this prohibition would overly limit possible locations for new shopping centers and would work against the “diversity” clause of Objective 6.1 as the Commission had re-drafted it (see above). Therefore, it unanimously decided to delete this location policy and replace it with the following: “New sites for local shopping centers located along El Camino Real shall be designed to preserve the scenic quality of this designated scenic corridor.” (Policy C.2.6, page 32 of Exhibit “W”.) PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ! i+(J bO A copy of the proposed general plan amendment (as modified by Planning Commission) accompanies Exhibit 2, the Council Resolution, and is designated as Exhibit “W”. A number of letters and other correspondence were received on the proposed amendment. These communications accompany the attached staff report to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL: The Planning Director has found that this proposed amendment will not have a significant impact to the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration. FISCAL IMPACT: Under the proposed general plan amendment fewer new local shopping centers might be built than under the existing policy framework. In addition, the new framework would reduce (or even eliminate) community commercial centers, the tenants of which (value department stores, volume specialty stores, chain apparel stores) often sell high volumes of retail goods subject to sales taxes. Instead, it calls for centers focusing on neighborhood convenience goods and services, including grocery stores and other tenants that may offer a significant number of services and goods not subject to sales tax. Therefore, the proposed policy framework could result in the City receiving less sales tax revenue than it might under the current policy framework. However, the change may not be significant. Although the current policy allows for development of community commercial centers (with high sales tax potential), the City has not historically permitted the development of these types of centers, and, instead, has built neighborhood shopping centers on these sites. Therefore, the potential sales tax stream from community commercial might not be realized even if the current policies were retained. The Finance Department has undertaken an informal evaluation and believes that the general plan amendment will not significantly affect the City’s ability to meet future expenditure needs. The future fiscal health of the city is dependent on a variety of factors in addition to land use decisions. Those factors include the economic make-up and diversity of its tax base and the stability of the allocation of its revenues. Various threats to city revenues have arisen over the years, usually based on redistributions of taxes or tax cuts (i.e., the property tax reallocations in the early 90’s, the threat to change sales taxes to a per capita basis and the recent reductions in the vehicle license fees). To the extent that there are no wholesale changes in the allocation formulas or tax rates for these revenues, the City should remain in a fiscally sound position. However, should the State choose to change the allocation formulas or tax rates on any of our key revenue sources, the long-term fiscal health of the city could be threatened. Protection of the existing revenue streams is critical to the City’s long-term fiscal health. However, since this land use decision is not expected to significantly affect future revenue streams; the decision can be made on the merits of the land use effects of the policy alternatives without also factoring in fiscal effects. Ill PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1610 bo EXHIBITS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. City Council Resolution No. &O I- 4b Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4879 and 4880 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 6, 2000 3a. Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study (1996) (distributed previously) 3b. Handouts from Workshop 2 (public notice, typical tenants list, survey report, graphics) 3c. “Commercial Policies - Staff Proposal”, from Workshop 3 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 6, 2000 Correspondence from Interested Parties. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE “NEIGHBORHOOD” AND ‘COMMUNITY” COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND CREATE A “LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER” LAND USE DESIGNATION, TOGETHER WITH REVISED GOALS, GUIDELINES, AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES. CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES CASE NO.: GPA 00-04 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on December 6, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a General Plan Amendment, and unanimously recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 27th day of March , 2001, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said General Plan Amendment and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to GPA 00-04; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council adopts Resolution No. 2001-46 amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan as reflected in Exhibit “w” attached, td eliminate the “Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” land use designations and to establish the “Local Shopping Center” land use designation, and directing the Planning Director to process the appropriate amendments to those affected policies and action plans or otherwise as necessary to implement this General Plan Amendment, and further directing him to process the necessary changes to the General plan and zoning maps and to return them through the Planning Commission to the City Council for approval, and incorporating the findings of the Planning Commission, as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4879 and 4880 on file with the City Clerk, and made a part hereof by reference, as the findings of the City Council. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th dayof March 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Finnila, Nygaard, and Hall. NOES: Council Members Lewis and Kulchin. ABSENT: None. 1 ATTEST: (SEAL) -2- Land Use Element estimate. The City determined the maximum number of future dwelling units which could be constructed in the four quadrants along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The maximum number of future dwelling units which may be constructed or approved in each quadrant after November 4, 1986 is as follows: Northwest Quadrant 5,844; Northeast Quadrant 6,166; Southwest Quadrant 10,667; Southwest Quadrant 10,801. (Map 1: Maximum Future Dwelling Units by Quadrant). When the Growth Management Program was ratified by Carlsbad citizens through an initiative, the voters mandated that the City not approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdivision map or other discretionary approval which could result in future residential development above the limit in any quadrant. This mandate will remain in effect unless changed by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate. C. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS The land use classifications described herein and shown graphically on the Land Use Map (Map 2: General Plan Land Use Map) represent existing and expected land uses in the City at some future period of time, at total build out of the City. The purpose of the Land Use Map is to serve as a diagram to graphically display the type, arrangement and relation of land uses planned in the City. It is not intended to be used to legally define or measure parcels of land. Table 1: Quantitative Breakdown of Land Use Map is a quantitative breakdown of the Land Use Map in approximate gross acres. Charts 1 and 2 provide a more visual representation of the number of acres designated for each land use category. The following are the land use classifications represented on the Land Use Map: RESIDENTIAL Low Density (RL) (O-l .5 dwelling units per acre) Low-Medium Density (RLM) (O-4 dwelling units per acre) Medium Density (RM) (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Medium-High Density (RMH) (8-l 5 dwelling units per acre) High Density (RH) (15-23 dwelling units per acre) COMMERCIAL Local Shopping Cen ter (L) Regional Commercial (R) Tourist/Recreation Commercial (TR) The Village (V) Office. and Related Commercial (0) PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI) GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES (G) PUBLIC UTILITIES (U) SCHOOLS Elementary Junior High I,. ‘4 High School Continuation Private OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY PARKS (OS) TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (TC) UNPLANNED AREAS (UA) COMBINATION DISTRICT Page 7 Dr+ 11/6/00 d Land Use Element ability to achieve residential densities higher than allowed by the underlying land use designation. Therefore, it is necessary to consider development of housing projects containing lower-income affordable housing units at densities that may exceed the ranges and growth management control points indicated above. The density which may be approved for those projects which include affordable housing shall be determined on an individual project proposal basis, and may be independent of the residential land use designation of the site, subject to the criteria listed under Residential, Implementing Policies and Programs, C.3. 2. COMMERCIAL Commercial development within Carlsbad can be defined by six five principal ‘A City which categories-- provides for the development of compatible, local sho;Ping conveniently located commercial center, regional ten ters.. . ” commercial, travel/recreation L Village, and office and related commercialk In general, retail development in Carlsbad should occur in discrete shopping centers, as opposed to more generalized retail districts or linear strip commercial patterns along streets. This general plan uses the following definition of a shopping ten tee Definition - “Shopping Center” (after Urban Land Ins tit&e, 1947, as amended): . . . a group of architecturally unified commercial establish- ments, numbering at /east three, built on a site that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as an operating unit related to its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that it serves. The unit provides onsite parking in definite relationship to the types and total size of the stores An exception to the genera/ rule that retail development should occur in discrete shopping centers is the Village area of the City. As is described in more detail below, this area reflects the “downtown” heart of old Carlsbad, much of which is today contained within” a formal redevelopment district. Retail development within the Village should continue the historical pattern of individual establishments within a commercial district. In prior versions of this Genera/ Plan, the City recognized two types of local shopping centers: neighborhood and community. In 2000, however, these two categories were merged into a single category called “local shopping ten ter”, The typical characteristics of local and regional shopping centers are shown in the following Table 3: Guidelines for Shopping Cen ters. Both types are described in more detail in the following sections. Page11 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element Table 3: GUIDELINES FOR TYPICAL SHOPPING CENTERS Regional Shopping Cenfer Typical :enter Possible Option, Depending on Site and Special Approvals Local, plus goods and services provided by community-serving tenants Community-serving tenants, such as value department store, chain apparel store, volume specialty store, home improvement center, multiplex cinema Apparel, specialty retail, restaurant, specialty automotive, sporting goods Regional Full-line department stores (2 or more), factory outlet center, ‘power center of several high-volume specialty stores. Full range of specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment Anchor Tenants (examples) Supermarket, drug store Site Size (acres) Gross Lease Area 8-20 60,000 - 150,000 (sq. ft.) To 30 30-100 up to 400,000 (sq. ft.) 300,000 to 1.5 million (sq. ft.) 10 - 20 minutes 20 - 30 minutes Primary Trade Area Drive Time, at Build-out Primary Trade Area 5 - 10 minutes 1.5 miles. 3 - 5 miles 40,000 - 150,000 people 8- 12 miles 750,000 + people Radius Primary Trade Area Pooulation 7 0,000 - 40,000 people Page 12 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element tenant are the main identifiers of a shopping center type. An anchor tenant may be an individual tenant or a group of like uses that function as an anchor tenant. For example, a combination of gourmet food shop, delicatessen meat market, and green grocery might function in lieu of a supermarket. A food service cluster, several restaurants, and a cinema complex may function as other anchor tenants. Tenant composition and the characteristics of the leading tenant/s define a commercial center type. Although building area, site size, trade area size, etc. are influential, they are not the primary factors in determining a center type. Notwithstanding the last statement, the concept of a shopping center’s trade area is important for other reasons such as the economic viability of the center, the amount of competition it will experience, and, consequently, determining the optimal spatial distribution of shopping centers within a community. The trade area is the geographic area that provides the majority of steady customers necessary to support a shopping center. The boundaries of a trade area are determined by a number of variables, including the type of center, the size of the anchor tenant, the site’s accessibility, geographic barriers, the location of competing facilities and, very importantly, driving time and distance (See Table 3, Guidelines for Typical Shopping Centers). Consetyuen t/y, trade areas can vary widely in shape, size, and configuration. In general, the closer potential customers are to a site the more likely they are to patronize it. The number of persons residing within the trade area (and their related purchasing power) must be of a sufficient size for the center to be economically viable. When the trade areas of centers overlap then competition may exist between the centers and the purchasing power of the residents will be shared between the centers. The desired number and location of shopping ten ters, especially local shopping centers, depends upon a number of factors (detailed rater) that relate to “fitting” together the trade areas of potential sites and making policy decisions about the amount of gaps and overlaps that should exist between the trade areas. Page 13 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element a. Local Shopping Center (L): The local shopping center designation allows shopping centers that include elements of the traditional neighbor- hood center and, under some circumstances, elements of the traditional community shopping ten ter. Each local shopping center must contain the anchor tenants and secondary tenants that service the dairy needs and convenience of local neighborhoods. These tenants include retail businesses, small offices, and a variety of services. The most common anchor tenant is a super- market, although a large drugstore or combination of supermarket and drugstore may also serve. Secondary tenants can include small offices (for banks, insurance, real estate and other services); personal grooming providers (like beauty parlors, barbershops, and nail salons), Laundromats, cleaners, small retail stores, sit-down and fast food restaurants, and gas stations, among others. Typical characteristics of sites for these centers are given in Page 14 Draft 1 I /6/00 Land Use Element Table 3: Guidelines for Shopping Cen ters. While all sites with the designation Local Shopping Center must provide neighborhood goods and services, they may be authorized also to have anchor tenants that are more traditionally described as community- serving in nature. These community commercial tenants typically offer either a larger range of goods and services and/or a higher degree of specialization of goods and services. Often the floor area is greater than is that of stores that offer neighborhood goods and services and their trade area is larger in size and includes a larger population. These tenants may include value department stores (ex: Target, K-mart), warehou$e/club stores (ex; Home Depot, Cos tco), chain apparel stores (ex: Ross, Marshall’s), a variety of large-volume specialty-goods stores (ex: S tap/es, Comp USA, Good Guys) and multiplex cinemas. When these types of anchor tenants are included in the shopping center, additional types of secondary tenants may also be included, such as restaurants and specialty retail goods. Some local shopping centers may also include quasi-public or public facilities, such as a city library or U.S. post office A e. L. Local shopping center uses are generally located within a convenient walking and/or bicycling distance from intended customers and should be linked with surrounding neighborhoods bY pedestrian and/or bicycle access. Landscaped buffers should be provided around the project site between neighborhood commercial uses and other uses to ensure compatibility. All buildings should be low-rise and should include architectural/design features to be compatible with the neighborhood. Permitted uses and building intensities should be compatible with surrounding land uses. eb. Regional Commercial (R): Regional commercial centers provide shopping goods, general merchandise, automobile sales, apparel, furniture, and home furnishing in full depth and variety. Two or more department stores are typically the major anchors of a regional shopping center, while other stores supplement and complement the various department store lines. New forms of regional centers may include such developments as outlet centers with an aggregation of factory outlet stores where there are no specific anchor tenants although such centers are regional and enjoy a strong tourist trade. Regional centers draw customers from outside the City and generate interregional traffic. For this reason, such centers are customarily located on a site that is easily visible as well as accessible from interchange points between highways and freeways> c: m u Y Local shopping centers ae-e#kx may be . adjunct to regional centers to also serve the daily convenience needs of customers utilizing the larger shopping center. A group of convenience stores, service facilities, business and professional offces are also often associated with a regional center. Some of these may be incorporated in the center itself, or arranged at the periphery in the immediate area. Page 15 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element d.c Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR): This category addresses commercial uses that provide for visitor attractions and commercial uses that serve the travel and recreational needs of tourists, residents, as well as employees of business and industrial centers. Often such sites are located near major transportation corridors or recreational and resort areas such as spas, hotels, beaches or lagoons. Typically these areas are developed along major roadways and are accessible to interregional traffic. Tourist-oriented uses such as motels and hotels should be coordinated with compatible accessory uses, should protect the surrounding properties, should ensure safe traffic circulation and should promote economically viable tourist- oriented areas of the City. e;d. Village (V): The Village addresses land uses located in the heart of “old” Carlsbad in the area commonly referred to as the “downtown”. Permitted land uses may include retail stores, offices, financial institutions, restaurants and tourist-serving facilities. Residential uses can be intermixed throughout the area. The Village is designated as a redevelopment area and is regulated by the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Village Design Guidelines Manual. 4&e. Office and Related Commercial (0): This classification designates areas that are compatible with and environmentally suited for office and professional uses, as well as related commercial uses. This designation is especially appropriate for medical office use. Office and related commercial land use can be used as buffers between retail commercial areas and residential uses. 3. PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI) Planned Industrial land uses include those areas currently used for, proposed as, or adjacent to industrial development, including manufacturing, warehousing, storage, research and development, and utility use. Agricultural and outdoor recreation uses on lots of one acre or more are considered to be a proper interim use for industrially designated areas. 4. GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES 63 This classification of land use designates areas currently being used for major governmental facilities by agencies such as the city, county, state, or federal government. Facilities within this category may include uses such as civic buildings, libraries, maintenance yards, police and fire stations and airports (McClellan-Palomar Airport). Smaller facilities, such as branch libraries, may be found in other land use designations, such as commercial, and are not shown on the land use map. The largest facility within this classification is the McClellan-Palomar Airport located at the center of the City. The airport, owned and operated by San Diego County, serves as a major general aviation facility for northern San Diego County. More detailed discussions related to the airport may be found under Special Planning Considerations, as well as in the Noise, Circulation, and Public Safety Elements. 5. PUBLIC UTILITIES (U) I Page16 Draft 11/6/00 I 9 Land Use Element transportation corridors and the proposed Carlsbad Trail System. c.12 Require new master planned developments and residential specific plans of over 100 acres to provide usable acres to be designated for community facilities such as daycare, worship, youth and senior citizen activities. The exact amount of land will be determined by a future amendment to the Planned Community Zone. C.13 Introduce programs to revitalize all residential areas which are deteriorating or have a high potential of becoming deteriorated. C.14 Ensure that all hillside development is designed to preserve the visual quality of the preexisting topography. C. 15 Consider residential development, which houses employees of businesses located in the PM zone, when it can be designed to be a compatible use as an integral part of an industrial park. COMMERCIAL A. GOALS A.1 A City that achieves a healthy and diverse economic base by creating a climate for economic growth and stability to attract quality commercial development to serve the employment, shopping, recreation, and service needs of Carlsbad residents. A.2 A City that provides for the development of compatible, conveniently located w local shopping centers. A.3 A City that promotes economic development strategies, for commercial, industrial, office and tourist-oriented land uses. A.4 A City that promotes, recreational and tourist-oriented land uses which serve visitors, employees of the industrial and business centers, as well as residents of the city. B. OBJECTIVES B.l To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which provides for basic commercial service to all areas of the City without creating undue overlaps in trade areas, while providing desirable diversity without over-commerciali- zation, D k w .4 “I ttx CiQ ad to twc which afe consisten; with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community. B.2 To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services. ‘Adequately served” means no residential area is outside the primary trade area of the nearest local shopping center B.3 To establish and maintain commercial development standards to address landscaping, parking, signs, and site and building design, to ensure that all existing and future commercial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS Page 30 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element c.1 Applications for the re- designation of land to shopping center uses shall be accompanied by a conceptual development plan of the site and a market study that demonstrates the economic viability of using the /and in the way being regues ted. Such studies shall give due consideration to existing and future sites that may compete within shared trade areas C.42 Utilize the following guidelines in A -n-&&m I ,& such ttmc 2s p:mms fof . . . A nnm e To determine the appropriate spatial distribution of new sites for local shopping centers and to assign associated zoning. In some instances it may not be possible to implement all of these guidelines fully and, therefore, some degree of flexibility in their application may be required. ?7. l?eqke+ New master plans and residential specific plans and other large development proposals shall evaluate whether there is a need to include a local shopping center within the development, consistent with these guidelines. -@+Ew% , 42. Locatg local shopping centers so that, wherever possible, ti is they are centrally located within iis ee&ee their primary trade areas. 3. As a convention, the primary trade areas of existing and proposed local shopping centers may be defined in terms of the time patrons typically experience traveling to the center. The range of travel times for local shopping centers is given in Tab/e 3: Page 31 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element Guidelines for Typical Shopping Cen ters. Any city-wide analysis used to establish the spatial distribution of centers should consider a typical travel time, the current or built-out condition of the City and whether the travel being modeled occurs “on peak” or ‘off- peak” travel hours, together with other factors that may be appropriate. 4. Looking towards build-out, local shopping centers should be located such that gaps will not occur between adjoining trade areas, thus providing for a basic level of local service to all areas of the City (See Objective B.2.). In addition, trade areas of centers may overlap so as to provide both a degree of competition between, and diversity in, shopping opportunities, but only to the degree that such overlaps do not result in over-commercialization of the City (See Objective B.1). The term “over-commercialization” is not intended to be a quantified term, but may be qualitatively determined from time to time. 5. Generally, local shopping enters should not be located directly within the residential neighborhoods they serve, but, rather, on the peripheries of the neighborhoods, along or near major streets or future extensions of major streets. 6. New sites for local shopping centers located along El Camino Real shall be designed so as to preserve the scenic quality of this designa ted scenic corridor. 7. The population within the trade area at build-out should be of a size that the ten ter would be economically viable, considering other existing and future centers. 8. Consider intersection spacing and other circulation criteria to assure safe, and functional access to the ten ter. Good locations will be readily accessed from principal travel routes and have several en trances. (Sites located along primary arterials may have difficulty meeting this guideline.) &&e Build, and operate local shopping centers in such a way as to complement but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. This shall be accomplished by: 2. Lii 3 7. Controlling lights, signage, and hours of operation to avoid adversely impacting surrounding uses. 4 2. Requiring adequate landscaped buffers between commercial and residential uses. & 3. Providing bicycle and pedestrian links between proposed w local commercial centers and surrounding residential uses. Page 32 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element c.34 Comprehensively design all commercial centers to address common ingress and egress, adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. Each center should be easily accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles to nearby residential development. C.45 Ensure that commercial architecture emphasizes establishing community identity while presenting tasteful, dignified and visually appealing designs compatible with their surroundings. C.6 When “Community” tenants (see Table 3, earlier) are included in a local shopping center, they must be fully integrated into the overall function and design of the center, including the architecture, internal circulation and landscaping. The inclusion of such tenants should complement, not supplant the principal function of the center, which is to provide local goods and services. 7. No community “anchor” tenant may be built as a stand-alone building. It must share (or appear to share) walls and its building facade with other tenants in the center. 2. Neither community ‘anchor” tenants nor secondary tenants may feature corporate architecture or logos (excluding signs). C.§.7 Ensure that all commercial development provides a variety of courtyards and pedestrian ways, bicycle trails, landscaped parking lots, and the use of harmonious architecture in the construction of buildings. C.6.8 Permit the phasing of commercial projects to allow initial development and expansion in response to demographic and economic changes. Site designs should illustrate the ultimate development of the property and/or demonstrate their ability to coordinate and integrate with surrounding development. C.9. Outdoor storage of goods and products in shopping centers is not allowed. Temporary exceptions may be allowed for display and sale of traditional, seasonal items such as Christmas trees, pumpkins, and similar merchandise. In these exceptions, both adequate parking and safe in ternal circulation (vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle) is to be main fain ed. C.?. 70. Encourage commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities, as long as they protect the residential character of the community and the opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in a safe, attractive and convenient manner) the continued use of the beach, local transportation, and parking facilities. C.&l I. Orient travel/recreation commercial areas along the l-5 corridor, in the Village, or near resort/recreation areas. C.9-72. Revise Section 21.29.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (Commercial Tourist Zone, Permitted Uses and Structures) to more accurately reflect the intent of the Travel/Recreation Commercial general plan designation to serve the traveling public, visitors to the city, as well as employees of business and industrial centers. C.%-73. Review parking requirements for commercial areas on a periodic basis Page 33 Draft 11/6/00 Land Use Element to ensure adequate parking and to address identified parking problems. c.11 CE C.12 Shix the f3fidence of a CGi74. Strip commercial development (defined as retail development outside of a shopping center) shall be discouraged in a// areas of the City other than the Village. a& scm C.75. Amend Municipal Code Title 27 (zoning regulations) to create a new zoning district appropriate for the Local Shopping Center land use class. The new zone should establish allowed land uses, development standards, together with design guidelines to assure that shopping centers meet the objectives and policies set out herein. Create a new “planned shopping center” permit that will apply to all new shopping centers and major remodels of existing shopping centers, with the City Council as the decision maker. VILLAGE A. GOALS A.1 A City which preserves, enhances, and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation, civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale. A.2 A City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including off ices, restaurants, and specialty retail shops. Page 34 Draft II/6100 ,7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4879 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO ESTABLISH A NEW POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS, TO APPLY CITYWIDE. CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES CASE NO.: GPA 00-04 WHEREAS, The Planning Director, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned Citywide); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of December, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated August 23, 2000, and “PII” dated August 15, 2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES (GPA 00-04), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and lB 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 ; r L ; ; ; ; ; ; r L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 !O !l !2 !3 !4 !5 !6 !7 !8 B. C. D. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of December 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairp&on CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: /7 ,-’ PC RESO NO. 4879 -2- /9 City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Location: The project is applicable citywide. Project Description: An amendment to the Local Coastal Program and the General Plan Land Use Element that would modify policies guiding retail development in the City. The proposed changes include: l Requiring retail development to generally occur in discrete shopping centers instead of as strip commercial; l Eliminating the Neighborhood and Community Commercial land use designations and adding a new designation, “Local Shopping Center,” and; . Revising the guidelines that describe the typical characteristics of shopping centers The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760)602-4609. DATED: AUGUST 23,200O CASE NO: GPA OO-04AXPA 00-06 CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 23,200O MOTEL J. ZR~LZMKLER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Case No: GPAOO-04, LCPA 00-06 Date: August 15,200O BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Case Name: Shopping Center Policies Applicant: Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, for City of Carlsbad Address & Phone Number of Applicant: Planning Department, City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14 (760) 602.4609 Date EIA Form Part I Submitted: N/A - City Project Project Description: An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element text and the Local Coastal Program that would establish a new policy framework for the location and development of local shopping centers. Among other things, retail development generally would be required to occur in discrete shopping centers instead of in generalized retail districts or linear strip commercial patterns. The project proposes no development. Additional, separate amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary to fully implement the project. Please see the “Discussion of Environmental Evaluation” section for additional information. 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 following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Population and Housing 0 Geological Problems c] Water 1 Air Quality Mitigation Incorporated” as- indicated by the checklist on the 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Energy / Mineral Resources q Aesthetics 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Noise 0 Recreation q Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03l28196 621 (To be completed by the Lead Agency) lxl El cl El cl 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have 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. A(n) environmental impact report or negative declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier document, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. -3~ a-G Planner’s Signature Date B/r&d Rev. 03/28/96 a2 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. l 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. Note: See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section for explanations of the “No Impact ” answers checked herein. “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 &I 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 23 l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier 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, if any, appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. If applicable, particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts that would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 24 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a> b) c) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major irkastructure)? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or 4 b) c> 4 4 0 g) h) i) expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4 b) c> 4 e) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? q q q q q q q q q q q q cl q q q q q q q q q cl q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Ix1 (XI EII lxl Ix1 (XI Ix) Ix1 lxl lxl Ix) Ix) (XI Ix] 5 Rev. 03/28/96 095 Potentially Potentially Less Than h’n Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated q q lzl q q lxl q cl lxl q . . q l.xl q q lxl q q Ix] q q lxl q q la Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). is) h) 0 Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements 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? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 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? d) Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result 4 b) cl 4 e> VIII. a> in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q cl [XI (XI Ix1 Ix1 El El lxl lxl El El Ix1 lxl El lxl lxl Ix1 lxl Ix) (XI IXI lxl lxl Ix1 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Potentially Significant impact Potentially Synifkant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q Less Than Syrmificant Impact SO Imprlcr 26 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 4 b) cl 4 4 A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 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? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 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? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q cl El q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q NO Impact q lxl q 1xI q 1xI 0’ IXI q lzl q 1xI q lxl q IZJ q lxl q Ix1 7 Rev. 03/28/96 - 27 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. a) b) cl d) e) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) b) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. a) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. b) cl 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? 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, anti the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant Significant lmpacr Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q q q DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description q q cl q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q lxl IXJ lxl IXI El Ix1 Ix1 lxl An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element text only and Local Coastal Program that would establish a new policy framework for the location and development of local shopping centers. Briefly, the amendment would: l Require retail development outside of the downtown Village area to occur generally in discrete, well-planned shopping centers instead of generalized retail districts or linear strip commercial patterns; l Eliminate Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial as types of General Plan land use designations and replace them with a new type of land use designation, Local Shopping Center. The primary purpose of the new designation is to allow 8 Rev. 03/28/96 Jf shopping centers that provide neighborhood and, under special circumstances. community-wide goods and services; l Revise and update the General Plan guidelines that provide the typical characteristics of different types of shopping center development in the City. In general, the revised guidelines distinguish local centers from regional centers, noting their usual differences in building and site size, types of tenants, and area and population served; l Establish a policy that all areas of the City will have “coverage” by a local-.shopping center and at the same time reduce the propensity for overcommercialization. l Modify the Land Use Element’s goals, objectives, policies, and action programs for commercial development to carry out the new policies. The new policy framework will affect properties in the City’s coastal zones. However, no changes are proposed to the Local Coastal Program text. Furthermore, the project proposes no amendments to the land use maps of either the General Plan or Local Coastal Program. Discussion Of Impacts To Environmental Factors Staff has determined the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and has therefore prepared a negative declaration. No mitigation measures are required. To summarize, the environmental analysis performed by staff resulted in this determination for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. The amendment proposes broad, policy level changes only; it is not associated with any specific development project and does not propose any development; The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical, biological, or human environmental impacts; The amendment does not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, policies, or programs of the General Plan or the Local Coastal Program, and; The amendment does not conflict with or adversely affect any of the 14 environmental factors (i.e., Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this Environmental Impact Assessment Form and expanded on below. The proposed revisions to the shopping center guidelines generally enlarge the characteristics of shopping centers; for example, the current guidelines describe a typical neighborhood shopping center site as 3-10 acres in size, with 30-100,000 square feet of building area, and service population of up to 10,000. The proposed characteristics for the new Local Shopping Center include an 8-20 acre site size, 60,000-150,000 square feet of building area, and a service population of 1 O,OOO-40,000. Under the proposed amendment, new shopping centers may be larger than if built under current General Plan policies. While this may increase environmental impacts, particularly in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, and noise, the amendment may also reduce impacts by causing, in comparison with current policies, commercial development to be more concentrated and better planned. The potential for enhancement or impact to the environment is largely variable and cannot be analyzed until specific sites are considered, various studies are conducted, and, in some cases, actual development is proposed. This review will commence when the proposed project is implemented through amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use maps. For further information, see the section below on the evaluation of activities related to this General Plan Amendment. A listing and discussion of the 14 environmental factors and the relationship of the project to each follows. 9 Rev. 03120196 39 Land Use and Planning - The project is an amendment to the General Plan text to revise land use designations, guidelines, and policies affecting retail commercial development. To ensure consistency, other separate changes to the Local Coastal Program Land Use and Zoning Maps and text and map changes to the Zoning Ordinance (which implements the Local Coastal Program) will be needed. These actions are outside the scope of the current project. As the amendment proposes no development and is not site specific, questions regarding the amendment’s impact to existing land uses, agricultural resources or operations, and the physical arrangement of an established community are inapplicable. The project does not affect any environmental policies or plans, including those of the Local Coastal Program. Population and Housing - Since it does not propose any development or affect residential land uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any population projections, induce substantial growth, or displace any existing housing. Geologic Problems - The project changes regulations that affect development on a citywide basis. It does not relate to any particular development project or site or geologic condition. There are no geologic problems associated with this amendment; such would be analyzed as part of the environmental review of a proposed development project. Water - The amendment affects citywide policies regarding shopping center development. As no potential impacts or changes to standards or policies regarding water-related issues are proposed, the proposal will not impact this category. Air Quality - The proposal, in and of itself, will generate no development or land uses, nor does it impact adopted city standards and policies relating to air quality. Accordingly, it will not impact this concern. Transportation/Circulation - The proposed amendment, in and of itself, will generate no development or land uses, nor does it impact adopted city standards and policies relating to transportation and circulation. It does include a guideline requiring the consideration of sound transportation planning for shopping centers. Biological Resources - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies affecting plant and animal resources are proposed, there will be no impacts to biological resources. Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating to these resources are proposed, energy and mineral resources will not be impacted. Hazards - No site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating to natural and man-made hazards or emergency plans are proposed. Therefore, the amendment will not impact this subject. Noise - The amendment, in and of itself, will not generate development or land uses, and it will not impact adopted city standards and policies relating to noise; accordingly, it will not impact this concern. Public Services - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies regarding public services are proposed, there will be no impacts in this category. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 30 Utilities and Service Systems - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies affecting utilities and service systems are proposed, there will be no impacts to such systems. Aesthetics - As no site-specific project or changes to existing City standards or policies relating to views, aesthetics, or light and glare is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be no impacts in this category. The amendment does propose new policies prohibiting the outdoor storage of goods and products in shopping centers and requiring quality design. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating to these assets is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural resources. Recreational - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies regarding recreational facilities or demand for the same are proposed, there will be no impact to recreational uses, existing or proposed. Evaluation of activities related to this General Plan Amendment Once the city adopts the new policy framework proposed by this project, it intends to commence on two principal actions to implement it. Neither of these actions is part of the subject project. l Create a new zoning district to implement the new Local Shopping Center land use classification. The new zone would establish allowed uses, development regulations, and the processes that will apply to the development of sites subject to it. Creating this new zone will be subject to a separate environmental review. l Conduct detailed studies to determine where the new general plan designation and zone should be applied. City staff anticipates that both will be applied to existing neighborhood and community commercial shopping centers. In addition,, this study may find that some vacant sites currently designated for neighborhood or community commercial may no longer be needed in the future, while other sites may need to be added. A separate environmental review will be conducted for any needed changes to the city’s zoning map or general plan map. Additionally, amendments to the land use and zoning maps of the Local Coastal Program will be necessary to ensure consistency with the City’s general plan map and zoning map. The new policy framework does not affect any Local Coastal Program policies or other text. The environmental impacts of these subsequent activities will be subject to separate environmental review because they cannot be analyzed at this time. To determine the impacts, the subject General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments must first be approved so the policy framework by which the activities will be implemented is established. Furthermore, evaluating impacts also will require knowing that properties will be affected by the project, and this in turn requires studies to be prepared. While the City intends the amendment to primarily apply to sites either developed with existing shopping centers or designated for such development, it may apply to other properties, too. As was stated earlier, how and which properties will be affected is dependent upon preparation of detailed and specific analyses of individual properties, including trade area, traffic, and population studies to help determine appropriate shopping center locations as described by the proposed amendment. All of the properties potentially affected by this project and the environmental impacts associated with the proposed changing of a property’s land use or zoning designation cannot be known until the 11 Rev. 03/28/96 31 analyses are complete. In addition, some or many impacts may not be fully known until development is proposed. The related activities might produce impacts to the following environmental factors as found in the checklist of this document: land use planning, geologic, biological resources, traffic, air quality, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources, public services, and utility and service systems. The City expects in many instances that negative declarations will be the appropriate environmental documents since many of the properties involved will already be developed with or designated for commercial uses. This determination will be made as appropriate. SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the preparation of this environmental impact assessment form. They are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600. 1. Citv of Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 6, 1994, City Council Resolution No. 94-246. 2. Citv of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program approved by City Council on July 16, 1996 (Ordinances NS 364 and 365), and certified by the Coastal Commission on October 9, 1996. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4880 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, DELETING THE “NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL” AND “COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL” LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ADDING A NEW “LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER” DESIGNATION, INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, GUIDELINES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS. CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES CASE NO: GPA 00-04 WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as citywide (“The Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit ‘W “ dated December 6, 2000, attached and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES - GPA 00-04, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of December, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES - GPA 00-04, based on the following findings: 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findinps: 1. That the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan are consistent with the vision, other elements, and parts of elements of the General Plan, in that the general plan sets out goals for: self-contained neighborhoods with a mix of land uses, adequate opportunities for retail shopping consistent with the needs of a diverse population, and functional and safe traffic circulation, and the proposed amendments articulate a policy framework for meeting those goals. 2. That the proposed amendments fulfill a need identified by the City Council with the adoption of the General Plan in 1994, that need being to determine whether or not the city needs additional numbers and kinds of retail commercial sites in the City, in that these amendments provide a policy framework for making that determination. 3. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Local Coastal Program, in that implementation of the amendments will not negatively impact coastal resources (slopes or vegetation) and will not impact public views or public access and will not conflict with any existing Coastal Zone policies. 4. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan, in that any new sites that may be designated for shopping centers that accrue as a result of the new policy framework contained within the amendments will be required to comply with all applicable growth management requirements to provide facilities and services concurrent with development and in proportion to the demand for such facilities and services caused by the development. PC RESO NO. 4880 -2- 3Ll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of December 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: &&&5+.&P- WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperdon CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: , PC RESO NO. 4880 -3- 3 5- The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 3 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 5 0 Application complete date: Not applicable P.C. AGENDA OF: December 6,200O Project Planner: Dennis Turner Project Engineer: none SUBJECT: GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES - Request for approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, deleting “Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” land use designations and creating, in their place, a “Local Shopping Center” designation, together with definitions, guidelines, goals, objectives, policies, and implementing programs, for possible application Citywide. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4879 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4880 .@COMMENDING APROVAL of GPA 00-04 based upon the findings contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION This proposal is the first of three related proposals that, taken together, will form a new vision and policy framework for retail shopping centers throughout the city. Each proposal will require public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The three proposals will include: a. General Plan amendments, which would replace the existing “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial land use designations with a new “Local Shopping Center” designation, together with revised goals, guidelines, and policies, including criteria that can be used in identifying new locations for shopping centers (the subject of this report); b. A Zone Code Amendment, which would create a new zone and discretionary permit to implement the new Local Shopping Center land use designation. This Municipal Code language is still in preparation, but will be brought forward soon. c. A land use analysis, which would recommend new sites for shopping centers, to be based upon the warrants contained in the above general plan amendment. This work is underway (and assumes the warrants contained in the proposed general plan amendment). On its completion the analysis may make recommendations for property-specific changes to existing land use designations. Therefore, it may come forward with one or more additional general plan amendments, as well as amendments to specific plans and master plans. GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Page 2 The action before the Planning Commission at this time is only part “a.” Staff recommends approval of the proposed general plan amendment. It is the outgrowth of several years of research and public discussion, a summarized history of which follows. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Background and History A comprehensive update of the Carlsbad General Plan was adopted by the City Council in the fall of 1994. Among many other amendments, the Council approved a number of changes to the definitions and policies of the Land Use Element having to do with commercial land uses. Several commercial land use designations were deleted or consolidated and several policies and objectives were amended. At that time the Planning Department staff advised the City Council that some additional work probably needed to be done in this area of the General Plan. In particular, staff suggested that the number of neighborhood shopping centers was probably insufficient to meet the ultimate needs of the City, based upon the criteria in the new plan. Staff was unprepared at that time, however, to say how many and where additional sites might be needed. This subject should be taken up at a later time. As the City came out of the last recession it began to receive inquiries about possible new shopping centers and expansions of existing centers. In response to these inquiries, and recalling the situation from the 1994 General Plan update, the City Council asked staff in 1996 to evaluate if the City had enough land designated for shopping centers. In response, the Planning Department prepared a “Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study” (A copy of this study accompanies this report as Attachment 4. Readers may find it helpful to refer to this document for additional detail on the following points.) This study made several findings about the status of commercial development in the city and raised certain new issues. Among these findings/issues were: a. Neighborhood and Community Commercial shopping centers are to be distinguished by a number of factors, including the size of their sites, the size of the populations they serve, and, particularly, by the commercial tenants (stores) they contain, and, correspondingly, the goods and services they provide. Neighborhood shopping centers provide goods and services to meet local daily and convenience shopping needs. Their principal tenants are typically supermarkets and drug stores and they include a range of smaller shops for personal grooming, restaurants, small offices, and other types of convenience goods and services. In contrast, community shopping centers focus on a broader range of goods and services intermediate to those provided by neighborhood centers and regional malls. Principal tenants are often value department stores (ex: Ross, Target), volume specialty stores (ex: Comp USA, Book Star, Toys-R-Us), and home furnishing and improvement stores (ex: Home Depot, Jerome’s Furniture), among others. In recent years a popular incarnation of this type of center is the “big box” or “power” shopping complex. (Please see the 1996 study for greater detail on distinctions between the types of shopping centers.) b. Although the City’s General Plan has made this distinction between the two types of shopping centers for many years, and has designated sites for both types, development approvals on both types of land have been for neighborhood centers only. We have not approved any community commercial centers in Carlsbad (with the Costco site on Palomar 37 GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Pane 3 Airport Road being a technical exception - it’s designated for regional commercial). Instead, we have built neighborhood shopping centers on land designated for community commercial centers. Examples include the Ralph’s center at I-5 and Poinsettia Lane and the Vons center at Aviara Parkway and El Camino Real. - i c. As a consequence, Carlsbad residents who wish to shop at the types of stores typically found in community shopping centers today must leave the city to do so, taking their sales tax dollars with them. d. The study then looked at the build-out condition of the city for community shopping centers. Assuming a 3-mile radius for trade areas (industry norm), it found that if we built centers on all remaining vacant sites that are currently designated for community commercial uses, then most (but not all) areas of Carlsbad would be generally within the trade area of at least one center. It was noted however, that many of these centers would continue to be located outside the City’s boundaries. e. An important policy question then, is: Should Carlsbad continue to make the distinction between the two types of centers and then build both, OR should we continue to follow historical practice and build neighborhood shopping centers on sites designated for community shopping centers . 3 What is our vision of the future? f. A build-out analysis of neighborhood shopping centers was also prepared, based upon a 1.5- mile radius trade area (industry norm). Looking at existing neighborhood centers (both in Carlsbad and in neighboring cities), plus future vacant sites (both in Carlsbad and in neighboring cities), large areas of central and eastern Carlsbad would not be within the typical trade area of any neighborhood shopping center. People within these areas would have to travel extra distances to do local grocery and convenience shopping. These areas could be considered to be “unserved.” The analysis was repeated using a much more highly refined methodology. This time computers were used to model a 5-minute “travel time” (rather than a simple radius) to define shopping center trade areas. The results were essentially similar: large areas of the city would be “un-served” at build-out. g. The second important policy question becomes: Should Carlsbad designate additional neighborhood shopping sites in these “unserved” areas? Related questions are: If so, where and how many? Should vacant community commercial sites be used? The study noted that this second set of questions could not be answered until a decision was made on the first policy question, because the remaining vacant community commercial sites might need to be factored into the answer. Realizing that answering these questions would require an examination of some of the city’s fundamental values about its vision for itself, the City Council asked staff to return at a later date and to take up the matter in a workshop format, so that an extended and public discussion could be held. The City Council took up this issue again in 1999, holding the first of three public workshops. The stated purpose of these workshops was “ . . .to discuss and consider possible changes to the City’s current ‘vision’ and policy framework for future shopping center development” [from the initial public notice]. 3ti’ GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Pane 4 The first workshop (June 28, 1999) reprised the findings of the 1996 study and laid out the issues. Following public input and discussion, the Council asked staff to return with some suggestions on policy alternatives. To assist with this request the City hired a specialized consulting firm, Rea and Parker, who worked with staff in developing seven alternative policy scenarios (or “outcome scenarios”). Then the consultant conducted a sophisticated telephone sample survey of residents to test a range of values held by respondents about their shopping needs, behaviors, and preferences, now and in the future. The results of these value tests were used by the consultant to suggest which of the seven alternative scenarios the City’s residents preferred. The results of the survey were presented to the City Council and the public at the second workshop, held on the nights of August 2 and 9, 1999. Following public input and much discussion the Council indicated interest in outcome scenarios 1, 6, and 7 (see attachment 5). Outcome Scenario 1: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will continue to rely upon community commercial centers in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and Encinitas. The remaining vacant community commercial sites in Carlsbad will be developed as neighborhood commercial centers similar to the type of neighborhood commercial currently in C&bad. No neighborhood commercial is to be built of any significant magnitude within the neighborhoods themselves. Outcome Scenario 6: Utilize certain Planned Industrial property in the airport area for community commercial to serve primarily the daytime worker population. Use existing vacant commercial sites for neighborhood commercial as currently developed. No significant neighborhood commercial in the neighborhoods, relying, once again, on neighboring cities to meet a significant proportion of community commercial needs. Outcome Scenario 7: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will continue to rely upon community commercial sites in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and Encinitas. Remaining community commercial sites on El Camino Real will not be developed. Neighborhood commercial is to be built along planned street extensions, such as Cannon, College, or Poinsettia, instead. There was also considerable discussion about several vacant community commercial sites and how they could be worked into these alternatives. These sites included the proposed Sunny Creek Plaza site, the Green Valley Specific Plan site, and MAG properties, as well as the extreme north end of the City in general. Other important concepts that emerged from the discussion: a) The idea of “gaDs and overlaus” between center trade areas. There should be neither gaps nor overlaps, if possible. It is better to err on the side of less competition (fewer overlaps) in order not to over-commercialize the city. Nevertheless, it is desirable for all areas of the city to be within the trade area of at least one shopping center (minimize gaps). b) There is a preference for larger neighborhood shoDpinn centers, incorporatinp superior desinn. “Larger” refers both to the physical size of the site, as well as the numbers of tenants in the center. The Vons center at El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway was identified as being a good model. Outcome scenarios 1 and 7 also imply “fewer sites.” GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Page 5 c) An outcome scenario based upon the idea of fewer and larger shopping centers suggests that the trade areas of such centers would be larger in extent than the trade areas of centers in a scenario based on smaller and fewer centers. Where the 1996 study had modeled trade areas using a 5- minute travel time, something larger than this might be more appropriate under the emerging outcome scenario. d) Both local residents and developers and owners of commercial property agreed that there would be benefit to all if a comprehensive land use analysis could be conducted to establish, once and for all, where future shopping centers would be located. In the end, the Council asked staff to articulate and return with an eighth policy outcome that would blend outcome scenarios 1, 6, and 7, plus the discussion about possibly retaining some type of community commercial development in some instances, plus points a) - d). [Copies of the handouts used at the second workshop accompany this report as Attachment 5. These include the executive summary of the consultant report and both a listing of all seven outcome scenarios (including graphics that illustrate each) and a summary of the consultant’s key findings@om the survey.] The third workshop was held on March 23,200O. Staff presented a proposal for an eighth outcome scenario, as directed. Attachment 6 is a copy of the one page summary of staffs proposal to Council. Following public input and discussion the Council directed staff to prepare implementing documents and studies in keeping with the staff proposal, to be accomplished through three tasks: Task 1. Draft an amendment to the general plan to incorporate policy changes in keeping with staffs synthesized outcome scenario; Task 2. Create a new zone to implement the new general plan land use designation called for in the general plan amendment; and Task 3. Work on a land use analysis to show what additional shopping center sites might be needed under the new policy framework and based upon the criteria suggested by staff at the workshop. A principal component in this work would be preparing an updated traffic model to be used in calculating travel-times from all areas of the City to existing and a range of future shopping center sites. Then staff should return with site-specific recommendations for changes in land use designations. Since the third workshop staff members have been working on all three tasks. The subject of this report and Planning Commission hearing is to consider staffs response to task 1, the General Plan policy framework. Summary of Project Description In summary, the proposed General Plan amendment deletes the existing “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial land use classes and replaces them with a new hybrid “Local Shopping Center” land use class. This new land use designation is for use with all retail shopping centers that are not “Regional” shopping centers or “Travel-Recreation” commercial centers. It requires that local shopping centers shall emphasize the types of stores that provide +@ GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Page 6 for neighborhood shopping needs and services. However, it also allows centers to include the types of tenants that traditionally may be found in community commercial centers, but only under certain design circumstances. The amendment also changes a number of implementing policies including the criteria that describe where and how new shopping center sites should be designated. If the amendment is approved by the City Council, staff proposes that the new land use designation would be applied to all existing neighborhood shopping centers (on sites designated both for neighborhood and community commercial uses). On completion of the vacant sites analysis, the designation would then be applied to whatever additional vacant lands are identified as being needed for local shopping centers. Any remaining vacant sites with neighborhood or community commercial designations would be redesignated to another use. IV. ANALYSIS The proposed amendment adds, deletes and modifies text to the Land Use Element in several places. Following is a point-by-point discussion of these changes. Page numbers refer to Exhibit ‘W”, attached to Resolution 4880. Descriptions and Definitions a. Page 7. At the beginning of the Land Use element is a list of all the land use categories used in the General Plan. The amendment adds the new “Local Shopping Center” land use and deletes the old “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial designations. b. Page 11. Adds language stipulating that retail development should occur only in discrete shopping centers; provides a definition of shopping centers (from the Urban Land Institute); discusses the exception to this rule for the Village area; explains that the general plan no longer distinguishes between traditional “neighborhood” and “community” commercial classes; and introduces Table 3 (see next point). Language is deleted that assumes a continuing distinction between neighborhood and community commercial. c. Page 12. Deletes the table entitled “Guidelines for Commercial Centers” and replaces it with a new and functionally equivalent “Table 3: Guidelines for Typical Shopping Centers.” The principal change has to do with the elimination of “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial land use classes and the introduction of the new “Local Shopping Center” class and how the new class includes important characteristics of both earlier classes. The word “guidelines” here is important. This table does not establish zoning regulations or absolute rules for shopping centers, but, rather a list of characteristics that are typical, and, therefore, descriptive of different types of shopping centers. The table includes characteristics such as: anchor and secondary tenants, site size, gross lease area, typical drive time ranges, and trade area radii and populations. Importantly, the table distinguishes between regional shopping centers and the new local shopping center designation. It further distinguishes between the “local-serving” and “community-serving” functions that are allowed under the new designation. Because the retail industry is in a constant state of evolution, it is likely that, from time to time, proposals may come before the City that may GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,ZOOO Pane 7 vary from these typical characteristics. Then the City will need to exercise its discretionary authority to decide how much variance is appropriate to approve. By clarifying that these characteristics are “guidelines” only, the exercise of that discretionary authority.;is supported. d. Page 14. Adds a discussion about the concept of trade areas and some of the factors that affect the physical dimensions of the primary trade area for a given shopping center. This discussion is important because the concept of trade areas is central to the warrants (see Policy C.2, following) for use in locating shopping centers throughout the community. e. Pages 14-15. Deletes “Neighborhood” and “Community” from the list of commercial land use classes, together with the text that describes and defines them. f. Page 15-16. Adds “Local Shopping Center” to the list of commercial land use types and describes the typical characteristics of such centers, including references back to Table 3. Establishes that local shopping centers must provide local-serving goods and services and may, in addition, provide community-serving goods and services. Goals and Imnlementing Policies and Programs g. Page 31. Modifies Commercial Objective B.l. The current objective states the City’s intent is to limit new commercial land use designations so that only basic levels of services are offered. The modification does not change this basic objective, but introduces the idea of gaps and overlaps between trade areas as the means of achieving the objective. The new language says that basic commercial service should be supplied “. . .without creating undue overlaps in trade areas.” h. Page 31. Objective B.2. This existing objective is to ensure that all residential areas are “adequately served” by local shopping centers. The added language clarifies what is meant by “adequately served”: “ . ..no residential area is outside the primary trade area of the nearest local shopping center.” i. Pages 3 l-32, New Policy C.l. This added language replaces old C. 1.5 (being deleted). Both deal with what must be submitted to the City when new commercial sites are proposed. The old language calls for a “statistical analysis . . .at the time of application for zoning.” The new language calls for submitting a conceptual development plan and a market study at the time that a general plan change is proposed. The new language correctly asserts that it is the general plan designation that is key to a change in land use classification. The new language also elevates this requirement to it’s own separate policy and places it more prominently in the list of policies. j. Pages 32 -33. Renumbers, modifies and exnands Policy C.2. (Old C.l). This policy sets out eight guidelines to be used “to determine the appropriate spatial distribution of new sites for local shopping centers and to assign associated zoning. Six of the guidelines are new. It is through this section, in particular, that the principles and “outcome scenarios” from the second workshop are implemented. The amendment: GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Page 8 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7. 8. 9. Deletes old guideline 1 that says that there should be one acre of neighborhood shopping center land for each 1,000 persons in the City. This guideline would be inconsistent with the new guidelines, so it is deleted. Deletes old guideline 3 that calls for locating neighborhood shopping centers approximately one mile apart. This guideline would be inconsistent with the new policy framework and guidelines (gaps and overlaps), so it is deleted. Deletes old guideline 5. This was discussed previously under point “i.” Deletes old guideline 6. This guideline calls for regularly reviewing and evaluating “excessive, undeveloped commercial zoning.” The new guidelines provide a means to accomplish this. The hope is to determine with some certainty what sites will be needed through build-out of the general plan. Also, see point “n”, following. Modifies guideline 1 (old 2). Requires new master plans and specific plans to evaluate the need for including a local shopping center. The deleted language required these plans to include neighborhood shopping centers at intersections of major roads. The new language means that some master plans and specific plans may not need to provide shopping centers, but, if sites are included, they will have been included as part of a Citywide needs determination. Modifies guideline 2 (old 4) by substituting “local shopping centers” for “neighborhood commercial development.” Also changes “service area” to “trade area.” Adds new guideline 3. Introduces travel time as a conventional means of defining the physical dimensions of a center’s trade area and suggests how travel times and other factors can be utilized in any citywide analysis of the spatial distribution of centers. This guideline implements certain principles that came out of the second and third workshops and that were used in the 1996 study. Adds new guideline 4. This guideline brings into the general plan the principle from the workshops that there should be minimal gaps and overlaps of center trade areas. It establishes an important concept by which Objective B.l (minimizing commercial) and Objective B.2 (adequate service) are implemented. Adds new guideline 5. This guideline stipulates that local shopping centers should not be located directly within the neighborhoods, but, rather, on the peripheries, along major streets or their future extensions. This guideline comes directly from outcome scenarios 1 and 7. 10. Adds new guideline 6. This guideline stipulates that new sites for local shopping centers should not be located along El Camino Real. This guideline comes directly from outcome scenario 7 and is the principal distinction between outcome scenario 1 and outcome scenario 7. 11. Adds new guideline 7. This guideline calls for evaluating whether the population within a trade area boundary is adequate to support a proposed center. It comes from 1 43 GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Page 9 the staff recommendations from workshop 3, and is intended to assure that any analysis of trade areas also includes this basic economic principle. 12. Adds new guideline 8. This guideline calls for a consideration of intersection-spacing and other circulation criteria to be included in any siting decisions. It comes from the staff recommendations from workshop 3, and is intended to assure that potential shopping center sites can meet the city’s adopted standards for safe and functional intersections and general circulation. k. Page 33. Modifies Policy C.3. Deletes two references to “neighborhood commercial” center and replaces them with “local shopping center”. Also deletes two guidelines having to do with spacing of shopping centers, which policies would be inconsistent with the new guidelines being established in new Policy C.2. 1. Page 33-34. Adds Policy C.6, which describes how a local shopping center can incorporate tenants traditionally found in community shopping centers. Calls for integrating such tenants into the design (architecture, parking, landscaping, etc) of the center; requires that such tenants shall not supplant the principle function of the center to provide local-serving goods and services; precludes featuring corporate logos and architecture in design. m. Page 34. Deletes old Policy C.11, which called for the submittal of a site development plan and “statistical study” for new shopping centers. The functional equivalent of these requirements are now embodied in new policy C. 1 and revised policy C.2. n. Pages 34-35. Deletes old Policy C.12. This policy calls for a review of all vacant sites designated for regional, community, or neighborhood commercial two years after approval of the 1994 General Plan update and, thereafter, every 5 years, “to determine whether the designation remains appropriate”. If not found to be appropriate, the policy calls for the land to be formally designated “Unplanned Area”. It would then require another general plan amendment to change it to another class. Master plans and specific plans would be exempt from this requirement. Staff recommends deleting this policy. In 1994 and earlier, sites were designated for shopping centers as part of individual project proposals. The City had not done a comprehensive needs analysis, as is currently being undertaken. When these individual proposals were approved, sometimes they were not built and the land would remain vacant. The city was concerned that: 1) lacking a comprehensive approach, a vacant site would serve to “chill” interest by other parties in another nearby site, due to concerns about competition from the first site, and 2) too many sites might lead to over commercialization of the City. The situation was complicated by fact that, although the City recognized both neighborhood and community shopping centers, we were building neighborhood centers on sites designated by community shopping centers. By requiring a review every few years, the policy was intended to remove designations that were not going forward. Staff believes this concern will not be warranted now. The current effort would eliminate the confusion about neighborhood and community shopping centers, and provide a I/f GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Pane 10 sophisticated and comprehensive evaluation of our needs for local shopping centers through build-out of the City, using tools not used previously. Once the site analysis is completed and an inventory of sites is agreed upon there should not be a need for a mandatory review every few years. By fixing, once and for all, where future shopping centers will be located, both residents and developers will not have to be concerned that the land use decisions they make will be impacted by subsequent general plan amendments. o. Page 35. Modities Policy C.14 by clarifying the City’s position with regard to strip commercial. Provides a definition of what is meant by stip commercial (retail development not in a discrete center) and states that strip commercial should not occur anywhere in the City, with the exception of the Village. p. Page 35. Adds new Policy C.15, calling for amending the Municipal Code to create a new zoning district for use with the new “Local Shopping Center” land use designation. The new zone should include both guidelines for development of local shopping centers and a new “planned shopping center” permit that would apply to new shopping centers and major remodels of existing shopping centers. Until the new zone is created, the policy calls for all new shopping centers and major remodels of existing shopping centers to be referred to the City Council for approval. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this General Plan Amendment (GPA 00-04) to amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Element will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 23, 2000. The environmental analysis (EIA Part II) concluded that this general plan amendment will not result in any physical, biological, or human environmental impacts and that the amended General Plan text and policies are no different from the existing text and policies with regard to environmental protection. Therefore, no significant environmental effects are anticipated to occur. Six letters, two facsimiles, and one postcard were received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration, from the following parties (listed in order of receiving their communication): Thomas P. Flanagan (for Calavera Hills Homeowners) James M. Hicks Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC) Bonnie Hill James and Marilyn Hope Warren and Doris Jenks Richard Reck Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC) (supplement to earlier letter) James M. Hicks (second letter) Several of the letters expressed general concerns about potential noise and traffic impacts associated with building shopping centers as well as development generally. However, none of 4 5- GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES December 6,200O Page 11 the communications objected to the preparation of the Negative Declaration. Several letters from Calavera Hills residents referenced the letter from Mr. Tom Flanagan and said his detailed comments reflected their own. Mr. Flanagan specifically stated that he sees no need for an Environmental Impact Report. All of the communications spoke to the policy changes contained in the proposed general plan amendment. Therefore, staff believes that these letters should be read as letters of comment on the policy proposal, rather than comments on the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. The communications accompany this report as Attachment 3. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4879 (Neg Dee) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4880 (GPA with Exhibit “W”) Communications (9) Received During Public Review of Draft Negative Declaration Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study (1996) (drafi) (Distributed previously) 5. Handouts from Workshop 2 (Public Notice, Tenants, Survey Report, graphics) 6. “Commercial Policies - Staff Proposal,” from Workshop 3 DT:cs:mh Attachment 3.b c. , _*.. _. HANDOUTS FROM WORKSHOP 2 l Agenda for meeting August 9,200O l Typical Characteristics of Shopping Centers l Table 2: Major/Anchor Tenants l Commercial Development Survey Report (Executive Summary) w/ graphics SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SHOPPING CENTER POLICY SCENARIOS SESSION 2 OF 2: 6:00 P.M., Monday, August 9,1999 City Council Chambers 1200 Carisbad Village Dr, Carlsbad CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. A PINK FORM should be filed with the City Clerk. When you are called, please come forward and state vour name and address. In keeping with the Brown Act, no Council action can occur on items presented during Public Comment. WORKSHOP ON SHOPPING CENTER POLICY SCENARIOS 1. Welcome and Introduw - Mayor Lewis 2. Introduction and Restatement of the Alternative Vision Scenarios - Wayne (Facilitator) 3. Public Comment (all participants to state affiliation and representation) 4. City Council Discussion 5. . . City Council Selects/Formulates a Vtsron 6. City Council Gives Direction to Staff 7. Closj.no and Thanks - Mayor Lewis H:\Commercial\Workshop Agenda - Final Typical Characteristics of Shopping Centers Center Type Acres Typical Anchor Tenants Population Needed to support (1,000 people) Gross Lease Area (1,000 sq. Ft.) Dept. store 300 - 1 million Community 10-30 Discount dept store; big 40 - 150 100-300 box; specialty Neighborhood 8-12 Supermarket; drugstore 6 -12 30 - 100 [no man’s land] [3 - 7 [May be too small for new supermarket center] Convenience l-2 7111; Circle K; AM/PM 3-5 10-30 Exam&s of Site Sizes of Centers in the Carisbad Area Name/Location Acres G.P. Des+. hilt) Vons (Tamarack at Adams) 4.8 Neighborhood Plaza Paseo Real (Vons) (El Camino Real at Aviara Parkway) 15.8 Community Poinsettia Plaza (Ralph’s) 18.5 Community La Costa Plaza (in transition) 8.5 Community Plaza de la Costa Real (Vans) 16.3 (incl. slopes) Community Carlsbad Plaza (Vans, Good Guys) 15.5 Community Carlsbad Plaza South (general commercial) 11.7 Community fvacant, planned, proposed) Poinsettia Lane at Pasco del None 5.1 Ranch0 Santa Fe at Camino be 10s Caches 7.6 University Commons (San Marcos. Questhaven at Rcho Sta Fe) 10.0 (approx) Ranch0 San Elijo (San Marcos, on Questhaven) 13.0 Caiavera Hills (Village E-l, on Carlsbad Village Dr.) 9.0 Sunny Creek (El Camino Real at College) 18.6 Robertson Ranch (Tamarack at El Camino Real) MAG Properties (Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. at La Costa Ave.) 15 .O (approx) 54.0 (net) Green Valley (Carlsbad) Green Valley (Fncinitas) 18.3 56.0 (+12.2 mixed use) Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Community Community Res. Medium Community Community Regional 49 Shopping Center Major/Anchor Tenants (Examples found in the San Diego Area) Traditional 4 Regional ShoDDin!? Centers Less Traditional * Depanment Stores J.C. Penney Macy’s Montgomery/Focus Nieman-Marcus Nordstrom Robinson/May Sears Communitv ShoDDiw Centers DiscounUOff-PricelVariety Building/Gardefiurniture SpecialtyAt& Box Clothes Time Home Base Bookstar Fedco Home Depot Circuit City K-Mart Nursery Land Computer City Marshall’s Jeromes’ Furniture Warehouse Good Guys Price-Costco Levitz Warehouse offke Depot Ross Oshman’s SportMart Super Thrifty Pacific Theater multi-plex Target Petco Wal-Mart Pier 1 Imports Staples Neiphborhood SbODDinE Center Supermarket Specialty Market Convenience Market Albertsons Lucky Ralph’s Vons Keils Boney’s Marketplace Smart & Final Trader Joe’s 7/l 1 AM/PM (Arco) Circle K “mom and pop” local 5-o COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY REPORT Prepared for Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Cnrlsbad, CA 92009 Prepared by Rerr & Parker Research P.O. Box 421079 Son Diego, CA 92142 July 1999 3-l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION - . In the Spring of 1996, the Carlsbad City Council asked City staff to investigate the need for future shopping center development in the City. In particular, the task was to look at the needs for additional “neighborhood” and “community” shopping centers. A “neighborhood” shopping center typicall!- has. as its lead tenant, a grocery store, plus local support services (banks, restaurants. etc.). A “commumn~” shopping center is larger, and typically has a discount department store (Target, Marshall’s. Wal-Man) or “big box” specialty store (Toys R Us, Good Guys) as the anchor tenant. It may also have a grocer], store. The staff report was issued in October, 1996 (Neighborhood and Communi~* Commercial Laud Use Study) and, among other things, found: . 1. The current combined neighborhood and community commercial service is satisfactory when both Carlsbad & surrounding communities are taken into account. Some neighborhoods. however, will need additional neighborhood shopping centers in the future, as the CIQ continues to grow. Where, how big, and how many are issues to resolve. 2. Carlsbad residents often travel outside the City to shop, especially for discount department store and specialty shopping items provided in most community shopping centers. This results in longer trips (miles and time) for such shopping. 3. Although the City has set aside land for community shopping centers in its general plan. historically, most of these sites have been developed with neighborhood shopping centers. For the future, a policy issue becomes, “Should community commercial sites be built in Carlsbad or are such sites better located in adjoining cities?” The City of Carlsbad is currently faced with several shopping center proposals and is expected to decide whether or not these proposals are acceptable under the General Plan and the City’s current vision of shopping center development. The City believes that the issues raised in the 1996 report should now be refined and resolved in order to decide upon these commercial proposals in the manner most beneficial to the residents of Carlsbad and consistent with their values and preferred lifestyles. In effect, Carlsbad now needs to review its vision for shopping center development and decide if changes are needed for the future. To this end, Rea & Parker Research was retained by the City of Carlsbad. Working with City staff, several alternative shopping center “visions” were developed, together with the values and characteristics which define them. Rea and Parker Research was then asked to prepare and implement a 600 person (minimum) scientific sample survey of City of Carlsbad residents to find out which values and characteristics were preferred. The alternative visions were articulated as seven Commercial Outcome Scenarios. These are described in the following text and attached schematic diagrams. Outcome Scenario 1: Community commercial development should.not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will continue to rely upon community commercial centers in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and Encinitas. The remaining vacant community commercial sites in Carlsbad will be developed as neighborhood commercial centers similar to the type of neighborhood commercial currently in Carlsbad. No neighborhood commercial is to be built of any significant magnitude within the neighborhoods themselves. Outcome Scenario 2: Build community commercial shopping centers on the remammg vacant sites (demand permitting) and create new neighborhood shopping sites within new neighborhood developments in Carlsbad, off the main streets. Sites would be centrally located within the new developments and reachable mostly by automobile from within the developments themselves. which will continue to be low-medium density and single-family in nature. - . . Outcome Scenario 3: Build community commercial shopping centers on the remaining vacant sites (demand permitting) and create new neighborhood shopping sites within new neighborhood developments in Carlsbad, off the main streets, as with Scenario 2. In addition, utilize aspects of the “Ahwanee Principles” to alter the form of new developments so that “all things needed to meet daily needs of residents are located within walking bicycling] distance of one another.” This implies more dense residential development patterns, in contrast to Scenario 2. Outcome Scenario 4: This is a mixed approach utilizing some vacant commercial sites (for instance. those along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road) for community commercial and some for neighborhood commercial, as currently developed. Within new neighborhood developments. provide the remaining necessary neighborhood commercial centers, still.relying upon neighboring cities to meet a significant proportion of community commercial needs. Outcome Scenario 5: Build community commercial on existing vacant sites, but no new neighborhood commercial in the new developments of any magnitude (in contrast to Outcome Scenario 2). Rely on community commercial and &&g neighborhood commercial to fulfill neighborhood retail needs. Outcome Scenario 6: Utilize certain Planned Industrial property in the airport area for community commercial to serve primarily the daytime worker population. Use existing vacant commercial sites for neighborhood commercial as currently developed. No significant neighborhood commercial in the neighborhoods, relying, once again, on neighboring cities to meet a significant propottion of community commercial needs. Outcome Scenario 7: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will continue to rely upon community commercial sites in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista. and Encinitas. Remaining community commercial sites on El Camino Real. will not be developed. Neighborhood commercial is to be built along planned street extensions, such as Cannon, College. or Poinsettia. instead. METHODOLOGY: A scientific sample survey of 605 residents of Carlsbad, California, was conducted during the period of May 29, 1999 through June 4, 1999. For purposes of this analysis, Carlsbad was divided into 4 Quadrants as follows: ;: ggggs;. North of Palomar Airport Road and East of El Camino Real SOUTHWEST:’ North of Palomar Airport Road and West of El Camino Real :: SOUTHEAST: South of Palomar Airport Road and West of El Camino Real South of Palomar Airport Road and East of El Camino Real Each quadrant was sampled in sufficient size to generate margins of error as follows: .Quadrant Northeast 2 5-3 Each quadrant was sampled in sufficient size to generate margins of error as follows: Northeast 125 28.6% - - Northwest 225 +6.5% Southwest 125 +8.5% Southeast Citywide 605 +zk .9% CURRENT SHOPPING PATT’ERNS Carlsbad residents buy their groceries and gasoline largely within the City (80.8% and 77.8%. respectively). Large discount store and large specialty store purchases are made in relatively equal proportions among Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Oceanside. Encinitas is the primary destination for home improvement and computers/electronics purchases (48.9% and 43.7%, respectively). Residents find their shopping needs well met, with 91.7% of respondents rating grocery shopping opportunities adequate--92.2% rating large discount stores adequate--91.4% home improvement adequate--87.6% computers/ electronics adequate--and 87.1% large specialty stores adequate. Gasoline was rated the lowest at 77.7% adequate, being strongly influenced by the Southeast Quadrant which rated gasoline purchasing only 52.0% adequate. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT VALUES A series of questions was designed to ascertain values among Carlsbad residents which might underlie their preferences for particular types of retail and commercial development in the City. Residents indicated that their dominant value associated with curtailed retail development is that traffic congestion should be reduced (40.1%). Next in order was the preservation of open space along El Camino Real (29.6%). Regarding values which can be associated with a heightened level of retail development in the City, the first choice was the provision of more neighborhood commercial options (27.5%), followed by the reduction of energy consumption due to shorter trips (20.2%). Last in priority is the provision of more community commercial options (14.2%). Values favoring increased levels of commercial development were then paired against values favoring decreased commercial development. When matched in these trade-offs, the values underlying a less intensive development policy were selected by Carlsbad residents to a much greater degree than were ‘. those which would lead to more development. The reduction of trafftc congestion prevailed in 87.5% of these matched pair trade-offs. The preservation of open space along .El Camino Real prevailed 79.5% of the time, and the minimization of visual and noise pollution prevailed at a 79.3% rate. 3 Conversely, energy reduction resulting from closer retail options was the number one pro-developmen: value, prevailing in matched pairs against development reducing values only 23.5% of the trme. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCES There is a strong preference for continuing the existing policy of locating neighborhood commercial development on the main boulevards as opposed to locating it within the neighborhoods themselves. Further, 85.1% of the City residents prefer to continue to develop residential communities at low- medium densities. Over 50% of Carlsbad residents understand that population growth is likely to cause them to have to wait in longer checkout lines and park farther Tom their store entrances. On the other hand, fewer residents of Carlsbad (slightly more than l/3) are willing to endure longer drive times in the face of projected population growth. There is also a notable desire to be able to walk to shopping and to use transit. Residents expressed a willingness to provide retail services to the City’s industrial area, would prefer more large supermarkets over more small gourmet-type grocery suppliers, and would prefer that gasoline stations revert to service bays instead of mini-markets. The open-ended question asking respondents to indicate anything else they would like to see, in the way of retail development in Carlsbad provided 3 noteworthy findings: 1) 48.2% of all respondents said that there is nothing else needed; 2) community commercial type stores (home improvement, large discount stores) received negligible support--3.9% and 3.7%, respectively; and 3) no single use received as much as 10% support, with groceries strongest at 9.8%. CONCLUSIONS ‘The survey was designed to help identify those Outcome Scenarios for Carlsbad which are consistent with the underlying values and important issues to residents of the City. It is very clear that any Outcome Scenario which involves community commercial development within Carlsbad is not acceptable to the City’s residents. Therefore, Outcome Scenarios 2, 3,4, and 5 lack sufficient support for further consideration in terms of development policy. There is some indication that residents like the idea of walking and using transit on occasion, which is a part of Outcome Scenario 3; however, these desires are clearly rendered unrealistic by the expressed desire for a continuation of low/medium density housing development in Carlsbad. Outcome Scenario 6 also has a community commercial component, but City residents seem to be willing to entertain this possibility in the current industrially zoned portion of Carlsbad. Outcome Scenarios 1 and 7 have the strongest support from the residents, The values associated with these Scenarios are strongly expressed throughout the study. There are relatively few differences between these two Scenarios, with both discouraging community commercial and supporting continued neighborhood commercial development necessary to maintain the cutrent satisfactory level of retail services as the City grows. The difference between them lies solely in where these neighborhood 4 commercial sites should be located. Outcome Scenario 1 would have some of them along El Camtno Real, while Outcome Scenario 7 would have none of them located there. Outcome Scenano 7 IS supported by the strongly expressed interest in preserving open space along El Camino Real. On the other hand, Outcome Scenario 1 has substantial endorsement in that the City’s residents want a continuation of the placement of these developments along main boulevards, which would include El Camino Real. The resolution between Outcome Scenario 1 and Outcome Scenario 7 lies in the issues of traffic congestion and drive time. Traffic congestion is the primary value or issue which concerns Carlsbad residents in terms of their retail opportunities (87.5%), and 63.0% of the population has no interest in increasing their drive times, as the City grows. Whichever Scenario better meets the objectives of reducing traffic congestion and not increasing drive times is likely to be the Scenario that receives the most widespread support. One additional possibility merits consideration--the possibility of enacting none of the Scenarios and stopping all further commercial development in Carlsbad entirely. The survey results lend some credibility to this possibility. Almost 50% of the respondents indicate that nothing further in the way of commercial/retail development is required in the City. However, in the end, it is still Scenario 1 and Scenario 7 which prevail, with the option for the Scenario 6 alternative in the industrial area. Scenarios 1 and 7 prevail because over 50% of the population wants more shopping options, especially groceries. They prevail because residents do not want to drive longer times or to endure more congestion. They prevail because the enormous satisfaction demonstrated regarding the current retail situation can only be maintained in the face of projected growth by providing a similar level of service to new residents. In the final analysis, Scenario 1 and Scenario 7 meet the stated values, objectives, desires, and needs of Carlsbad residents better than any other Scenario 5 5-d General 7 Commercial Outcome Scenarios principles are illustrated - not a map of Carlsbad Outcome Scenario 1 -- --------------we ---------we ----m--w -- Outcome Scenario 2 u C Existing Community CommerciaI cl N Existing Neighborhood Commercial 0 C New Community Commercial 0 ll New Neighborhood Commercial 57 Outcome Scenario 3 Outcome Scenario 4 q C Existing Community Commercial q N Existing Neighborhood Commercial 0 C New Community Commercial 0 II New Neighborhood Commercial 23 Outcome Scenario cl C ------------------------------------- Outcome Scenario 6 c I / q C 1 C ] Existing Community Commercial 1 N ) Existing Neighborhood Commercial c-l C New Community Commercial n II New Neighborhood Commercial - w Outcome Scenario 7 cl C 0 C El N 0 n Existing Community Commercial New Community Commercial Existing Neighborhood Commercial New Neighborhood Commercial b0 Attachment 3.c COMMERCIAL POLICIES - STAFF PROPOSAL A. General Plan. Create a new general plan “Shopping Center” (SC) designation and delete “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial designations. Characteristics of the new designation: 1. Uses Must include local services. Mav include Community Commercial tenants, if design guidelines are met . 2. Design Fully integrated center design theme - no stand-alone “big boxes”. 3. Site General lot: Council policy framework scenarios 1, 6,&7 Travel time: 7 minutes max. (up from 5 min.) Site size: 8-l 5 ac. (up from 3-10 ac.) Gr. lease area: 30K -1OOK sq.ft. (no prev. standard) Location: at/near major intersections (no change) Overlaps: minimal overlaps; no coverage gaps, if poss. Intersection Prime 2,600 ft spacing: Major 1,200 ft Secondary 600 ft Collector 300 ft. Population: 5-10 K (up from 3-10 K) but yield to site-specific market studies B. Zoning 1. Create new “Commercial - Shopping Center” zone for use with “SC” GP designation a. Synthesize uses from old C-l and C-2 zones b. Require a “Planned Commercial Development” permit [NEW] for all new shopping centers. City Council could be decision maker. c. Develop PCD regulations and design guidelines. 2. Retain old C-l and C-2 zones for use with existing general commercial and older shopping centers that don’t meet new site/design guidelines. C. Vacant Lands- Trade Area Analysis Council to direct staff to prepare an analysis of all remaining vacant lands for suitability as shopping center sites, using above criteria - Policy scenarios 1, 6, &7 from Workshop 2 (August 1999) - (7 min travel, 8 acres, build-out population within 7-min travel area) - Intersection spacing constraints. D. Reserve option to re-designate some “Community Commercial” sites to “Regional Commercial” [ex: Green Valley]. t!/ PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O EXHIBIT 4 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING: 5. GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES - Request for approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, deleting “Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” land use designations and creating, in their place, a “Local Shopping Center’ designation, together with definitions, guidelines, goals, objectives, policies, and implementing programs, for possible application Citywide. Principal Planner Dennis Turner announced that the letter received earlier today from Mr. William Neece, dated December 6, 2000 would be part of the public testimony. Mr. Turner presented agenda item #5 as follows: This item is a recommendation to the City Council regarding a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan dealing with certain definitions in the commercial land section, e.g. definitions, polices, guidelines and other matters dealing with the general policy framework of shopping centers. Mr. Turner stated part of the overall program is a general plan amendment to change the policy framework regarding shopping centers. A new land use class is being proposed and various goals, polices and guidelines will be looked at that will govern the new land use class for shopping centers. The policy framework will direct in large part how the remaining two components of this overall program are handled. This part must be approved by the City Council first, before the other two parts can be completed. The second part of the overall program that is not before the Planning Commission tonight is the creation of a new zoning district that would be used to implement the new land use class that is being created in the General Plan. The third component is the site-specific changes that may be made to individual properties in the City with regard to whether they should or should not become shopping center properties. Staff is engaged in a study that will lead to staff recommendations on appropriate places for shopping centers to be located, but the input to the studies depends upon the policy framework that will be discussed tonight. Before any changes occur to individual properties for any shopping center proposals there has to be separate hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council before changes can be affected; the aforementioned hearings will be held at a later time. Mr. Turner stated that in 1994 the City Council adopted a new General Plan that included a number of changes to the commercial segment of the Land Use Element, e.g. some land use categories were combined, a few categories were deleted. Staff suggested to the City Council that there was a need for some additional neighborhood shopping centers in the City, but it was not determined at that time how many or where the shopping centers should be located. In 1996 the City Council asked staff to evaluate if the City had enough land designated for shopping centers. Two principal issues resulted from this study. The City recognized three different land use classes for shopping centers, e.g. neighborhood centers, community centers and regional centers. Historically, only neighborhood shopping centers have been built on land designated for neighborhood and community uses. The question has been raised, are both types of land use classes needed? A travel time analysis was done and it was determined that additional sites are needed for neighborhood shopping centers within the City of Carlsbad. In June of 1999, September of 1999 and March of 2000 public workshops were held and seven alternative policies scenarios were developed with regard to having or not having community and/or neighborhood shopping centers and determining location. A sample survey of the residents was conducted, testing values of the residents in order to assist staff to decide if the residents had a preference of one scenario over another. Discussion with the City Council at the third public testimony and the workshop then led to staffs recommendation. Referring to the overhead slide presentation, Mr. Turner reviewed definitions of Neighborhood and Community Commercial shopping centers. They are to be distinguished by a number of factors, including the size of their sites, the size of the populations they serve, and particularly, by the commercial tenants (stores) they contain, and correspondingly, the goods and services they provide. Neighborhood shopping centers provide goods and services to meet local daily and convenience shopping needs, have a trade area of 5-10 minutes travel time or 1 % mile radius, site size 6 to 12 acres and serve 6,000 to 12,000 people. Their principal tenants are typically supermarkets and drug stores and they include a range of smaller shops for personal grooming, restaurants, small offices, and other types of convenience goods and services. In contrast, community shopping centers focus on a broader range of goods and services intermediate to those provided by neighborhood centers and regional malls. Principal tenants are often value department stores, e.g. Ross, Target, volume specialty stores, e.g. Comp USA, Book Star, Toys-R- Us, and home furnishing and improvement stores, e.g. Home Depot, Jerome’s Furniture. Community PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 13 shopping centers typically have a trade area of 10 to 20 minutes travel time or 3 to 5 miles radius, 10 to 30 acres and serve 40,000 to 50,000 people. In recent years a popular incarnation of this type of center is the “big box” or “power” shopping complex. Mr. Turner reported further on the third workshop. Following public input from a sample survey from 605 residents and much discussion at the third workshop, the City Council indicated interest in outcome scenarios I,6 and 7: Outcome Scenario 1: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will continue to rely upon community commercial centers in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and Encinitas. The remaining vacant community commercial sites in Carlsbad will be developed as neighborhood commercial centers similar to the type of neighborhood commercial currently in Carlsbad. No neighborhood commercial is to be built of any significant magnitude within the neighborhoods themselves. Outcome Scenario 6: Utilize certain Planned Industrial property in the airport area for community commercial to serve primarily the daytime worker population. Use existing vacant commercial sites for neighborhood commercial as currently developed. No significant neighborhood commercial in the neighborhoods, relying, once again, on neighboring cities to meet a significant proportion of community commercial needs. Outcome Scenario 7: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will continue to rely upon community commercial sites in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and Encinitas. Remaining community commercial sites on El Camino Real will not be developed. Neighborhood commercial is to be built along planned street extensions, such as Cannon, College, or Poinsettia, instead. There was also considerable discussion about several vacant community commercial sites and how they could be worked into these alternatives. These sites included the proposed Sunny Creek Plaza site, the Green Valley Specific Plan site and MAG properties, as well as the extreme north end of the City in general. Other important concepts that emerged from the discussion during the third workshop: a) The idea of “gaps and overlaps” b) There is a preference for larger neighborhood shopping centers, incorporating superior design c) Merge neighborhood and community commercial land use classes into a new hybrid “Local Shopping Center” land use class The staff recommendation is derived from all this earlier discussion. In summary, the proposed General Plan amendment deletes the existing “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial land use classes and replaces them with a new hybrid “Local Shopping Center” land use class. This new land use designation is for use with all retail shopping centers that are not “Regional” shopping centers or “Travel-Recreation” commercial centers. It requires that local shopping centers shall emphasize the types of stores that provide for neighborhood shopping needs and services. However, it also allows centers to include the types of tenants that traditionally may be found in community commercial centers, but only under certain circumstances. The amendment also changes a number of implementing policies including the criteria that describe where and how new shopping center sites should be designated. The new local shopping center must focus on local goods and services, may have community tenants, no big box architecture design, must be integrated into the center design, no corporate logos, no outdoor storage of goods and these requirements would apply to all existing and future local shopping centers that are not regional centers. Mr. Turner stated that the policy framework dealing with guidelines and definitions were outlined in table 3 of the policy section. He mentioned that a modification to objective B-2 was being proposed, retaining the language indicating that all areas of the City should be adequately served (no gaps in coverage) for neighborhood service. Staff is proposing that language indicating location criteria, in the old general plan, be deleted, e.g. delete old criteria (1 neighborhood grocery store every mile). Implement policy scenarios 1, 6 and 7, placing centers on the edges of neighborhoods (main roads), no new sites along El Camino Real, use travel times to define trade area spacing, e.g. using 7 minute off-peak travel time to define trade area, evaluate trade area population and evaluate intersection spacing constraints. d3 PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 14 In addition, staff proposes to require a market feasibility study for the creation of any new sites to be designated for local shopping centers and retain existing requirements for good neighbor design, lights and landscaping, establishing pedestrian and bike links, parking and internal circulation and architecture and general design. A new policy formalizes the idea that there shall be no “strip commercial” outside of the Village. Additional changes included the deletion of old Policy C.12 and the addition of proposed Policy C.15, which calls for creating a new zone to implement the new land use class, together with a new shopping center permit, with the City Council as decision-maker. Mr. Turner discussed the errata sheet dated December 6, 2000 in detail, informing the Planning Commission that the City Attorney has advised staff that one of the provisions of proposed Policy C.15 cannot be implemented as drafted. The policy called for referring existing permits associated with shopping centers to the City Council until the new zone and shopping center permit can be adopted. This change would require an amendment to the Municipal Code. Mr. Turner declared that staff is considering drafting such an amendment and will probably come back before the Planning Commission with a zone code amendment for this particular requirement. In conclusion, Mr. Turner mentioned that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the policy framework. Chairperson Compas asked if there were questions of staff. Commissioner Trigas requested clarification on the various scenarios and questioned if the participants taking part in the survey were aware of the actual definition of a community commercial site. Mr. Turner stated that the survey participants did not have the seven scenarios laid-out, nor were they given definitions of neighborhood and community commercial. Rather the poll addressed values associated with the seven policy scenarios. Referring to the gap issues, Commissioner Trigas asked if the neighboring cities were considered within the timeframe, therefore the gap would include Oceanside, Encinitas, etc. Mr. Turner replied, yes, an area of 3 miles radius around the city, including the sister cities, was taken into consideration. Economic development is based on tax revenues that are generated. In addition, Carlsbad revenue forecasts and future expenditures were looked at and it was determined that some sales tax dollars may be missed if stores are outside of the city, but Carlsbad’s revenue situation is such that all future needs can be met without this being a driving issue for land use purposes. Staff was advised by the Director of Administrative Services, Jim Elliott, not to let finances make land use decisions, but to make the land use decisions on good planning principles. Referring to scenario 7, Commissioner Trigas asked if El Camino Real would be the only major road within a certain radius. Mr. Turner replied that there are a number of existing and future roads that will serve the area, e.g. College Avenue will extend easterly and northerly and connect into Oceanside; Cannon Road will extend easterly. Would these roads be appropriate for shopping centers? Other warrants would have to be considered to make this determination, e.g. would there be a population base that would be able to provide the trade area to make the shopping centers work. Builders and commercial brokers have said El Camino Real is perhaps the best location for the shopping centers in terms of the health of the center, but this does not mean that the centers have to established on El Camino Real. Commissioner Nielsen requested the amount of miles one could drive connected to the 7-minute travel time. Mr. Turner responded that it depends upon the traffic circumstances, e.g. speed of travel. The distance will shrink during on-peak times with heavy traffic; the area one can travel during off-peak times with free flowing conditions will be greater. Staffs model assumes off-peak conditions. Commissioner Nielsen asked the square-footage of the Von’s center featured in the overhead slide presentation and questioned if it was considered a “big box” 14 PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 15 Mr. Turner replied that the Von’s, depicted in the overhead slide presentation, was a large volume of space, approximately 60,000-square feet. He commented that the community’s concern related to the “big box” was related to poor architectural design associated with large buildings, including the lack of amenities and tilt-up concrete types of construction. The feedback received regarding the store in question has been positive and indicates that the community is pleased with the Von’s architecture design. Commissioner Nielsen asked if the new shopping center being built at El Camino Real and College is considered as being on El Camino Real and therefore one of the centers that would be banned. Mr. Turner replied, no, because the center already has its community commercial designation. He noted that the policy framework called for no additional centers to be built on El Camino Real. Commissioner Nielsen asked if there were any current sites on El Camino Real that are zoned appropriately that would be excluded. Mr. Turner responded no. Referring to Cl on page 31 on the draft regarding conceptual development, Commissioner Segall asked for a definition of a conceptual development plan and information regarding the market study. Discussing the aspects of a conceptual development plan in detail, Mr. Turner stated that a land use change without information regarding what would be done with the site was called a naked general plan application; these proposals are difficult to support. The idea of a conceptual development would be to provide sufficient additional information with the general plan change, hence staff would have a good sense of what the developer intends to do with the site. Regarding the market study, Mr. Turner noted that he’s never seen a market study provided by the developer that shows the project cannot work. Nevertheless, if it is developer-proposed general plan change (as opposed to a City’s comprehensive designation), staff would like to have the full market study to look at the feasibility of the site. In essence, staff is asking for a copy of the full market studies that are conducted, not a summary of the market study. Referring to page 32, item #5, Commissioner Segall asked for a definition of major streets versus a primary arterial. Mr. Turner stated that El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road are primary arterial streets. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne stated that arterial streets are not the local serving or neighborhood streets. All of the major streets seen on the General Plan are arterial, from a secondary to. a prime. The problem with a prime arterial is that prime arterials have intersection spacing of approximately a half of a mile, which creates problems in gaining access to these kinds of centers from more than one access point. Examples of an intersection between a collector and a secondary or collector and a major arterial are Aviara Parkway, College. Mr. Turner displayed a slide outlining the various types of streets and intersection requirements. Mr. Wayne discussed this in detail noting that a major arterial intersection spacing would be 1200 feet, 300-foot intersection spacing on collector streets, 600-foot intersection spacing on secondary arterial. Commissioner Segall expressed concern regarding the exclusion of shopping centers on El Camino Real. Chairperson Compas asked if the placement of centers on El Camino Real was being prohibited because of scenic corridor considerations. Mr. Turner stated that suggestions from City Council prompted staff to add scenario #7, which includes the prohibition of shopping centers along El Camino Real. It was ascertained from the survey that preserving the character of the northern segment of El Camino Real was important. El Camino Real currently has a set of design guidelines that speak to how development occurs along El Camino Real. PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 16 Referring to page 32, Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding the lighting and hours of operation. Mr. Turner stated that items that are inconsistent with new policy framework were eliminated while other general existing policies, like lighting and hours of operation, were retained. Mr. Wayne interjected that this was a general plan not a code. When staff returns with a code items such as lighting and hours of operation will be dealt with at that time. He noted that it was an inappropriate place to enter hours of operation. The broad policy documents gives more or less a vision and from that ordinances are created. Mr. Turner mentioned that staff is proposing that under the new zone, a permit will be created that will be more rigorous than the current Site Development Plan process. It is a process that will work harder to assure these things can be done, allow additional conditions to be placed on projects, and the City Council will be its decision maker. This is still in the draft stage. Referring to page 33, #2C, Commissioner Segall asked for a clarification. Mr. Turner stated that input from citizens, including the survey, indicated that big corporate architecture was not desirable. As there were no additional questions of staff, Chairperson Compas opened public testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Lois Martyns, 7304 Lantana Terrance, Carlsbad, CA, President of the Sea Cliff Homeowners Association, stated that their HOA represents 300 residential units and they support the staff report and urge the Planning Commission to accept the staff report as presented. Joan Flanagan, 2988 Ridgefield Avenue, Carlsbad, CA, supports the plan, but would like the Planning Commission to reconsider some of the intersection guidelines. Referring to a commercial site called E-l, she mentioned that the egress and ingress for this site is on Glasgow Street, a local street rather than a major street. For safety and the well-being of pedestrians, she requested that the egress and ingress of this project be on a local street rather than a major street, which would be beneficial to the safety of the children. Tom Flanagan, 2988 Ridgefield Avenue, Carlsbad, CA, stated that he submitted a letter that details his perspective and suggested that the Planning Commission incorporate some of the ideas put forth in the letter into this project. He stated that the community voted for scenarios 1 and 6 and noted that he is in favor of a shopping center area along El Camino Real. He voiced his opposition to strip malls and suggested that a depth dimension be added to the criteria. Mr. Flanagan mentioned that scenario 7 was created by the City Council and the citizens in the area are opposed to scenario 7. Bernice Hill, 2984 Ridgefield Avenue, Carlsbad, CA, stated that she submitted a letter on December 5, 2000, which elaborated on many of the issues. She voiced opposition to more shopping centers being established within a one and a half mile radius in the neighborhoods to shorten driving distance to any service trade areas. She believed the establishment of more shopping centers would destroy Carlsbad’s quiet village character. Bob Seamans, 2921 Lancaster Road, Carlsbad, CA, referring to the travel time feature, mentioned that most people did not leave their home to travel to a shopping center and then return home on a 100% basis, therefore a flaw exists in the travel time computation. Referring to the E-l operation he noted that certain events at the park cause an overflow of parking along Tamarack, into the cape and on both sides of the street where there is no provision for parking. He believed that a commercial enterprise adjacent to E-l would cause a tremendous traffic hazard. Commissioner Segall stated that E-l was in a residential community and mentioned that a shopping center would not be established in a residential community. Mr. Turner stated that E-l fronts on Carlsbad Village Drive, which is one of the circulation element roadways. The site has been designated for community commercial for many years, although there PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 17 currently exists a proposal to amend the Calavera Hills Master Plan to convert the site’s planned use to residential. Clarifying the placement of any proposed shopping* centers, Commissioner Trigas stated that it is her understanding that local shopping centers should not be located directly within the residential neighborhoods they serve, but on the peripheries of the neighborhood and stated that both criteria had to be considered, e.g. has to be on a major road but on the periphery of the neighborhood. Mr. Turner concurred. Mr. Seamans mentioned, regarding the E-l property, there is a median on Carlsbad Village Drive, which gives access from only one direction. Marilyn Hope, 4558 Cape Cod Circle, Carlsbad, CA, on the board of a homeowners association of 230 units, stated that the homeowners in her association feel that with the establishment of the Sunny Creek shopping center there are adequate shopping centers in the area. Doris Jenks, 4548 Cape Cod Circle, Carlsbad, CA concurred with Tom Flanagan, shopping centers should be on approximately 16 acres and should have easy access, in and out. She suggested a shopping center be established on El Camino Real or near the new planned College Boulevard and route 78. She believed competition was needed for Von’s. Warren Jenks, 4548 Cape Cod Circle, Carlsbad, CA, mentioned that the Von’s shopping center although on El Camino Real, could not be entered via El Camino Real and suggested that a shopping center without egress and ingress on El Camino Real could be built on El Camino Real closer to the area where he resides. Larry Tucker, One Upper Newport Plaza Drive, Newport Beach, CA, stated that he is a shopping center developer and that, if the true purpose of “no further development on El Camino Real” is to protect the scenic nature, a 60-foot setback with bermed landscaped areas would be more attractive than a wall in front of residential units. He noted that there would be a main entry road in and out of the Robinson Ranch because the l,OOO+ residential units will need access to El Camino Real. He commented that the purpose of a super market anchored neighborhood shopping center is to conveniently service the needs of those nearby for basic necessities. Although extraneous, Chairperson Compas asked when would development take place on Mr. Tucker’s shopping center on El Camino Real and La Costa. Mr. Tucker stated that it is an extremely difficult site technically; work is scheduled to commence on December 18,200O. Jim Hicks 5150 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, stated that he represents the Robinson family who own approximately 375 acres on El Camino Real between the Ranch0 Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and Tamarack Avenue. He referred to the letter that he submitted to staff, stating that it outlined his concerns in detail. He commented that Section II, paragraph 5 of the staff report, which deals with the El Camino Real issue, limits options, therefore rendering the land not desirable for a future commercial development. Jeff Rogers, 591 Camino de La Reina, San Diego, CA, spoke on behalf of Craig W. Clark, 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 405, La Jolla, CA and himself. He suggested the following refinements be added to the draft: Flexibility and diversity in the kind of retail that is provided for community serving, e.g. a major tenant for a shopping center could be a super market and/or drug store; many centers have a need for the inclusion of professional offices as secondary tenants, therefore this should be acknowledged in the concept of what goes into a commercial center. He stated shopping centers do service neighborhoods and leaving the lower end in the 6-acre range, under certain circumstances will allow greater flexibility in meeting the travel and time distance goals. Regarding the concepts of gaps and overlaps, he expressed concerns related to not having overlaps. A certain level of competition and a certain level of diversity within convenient distances and travel timeframes to communities is a good thing to have. He believed that having a clustering of shopping centers was not necessarily a bad idea. He suggested that in the future there might be possible rezoning that comes out of implementing these guidelines; and mentioned that any possible consideration of rezoning that results from the application of these guidelines needs to PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 18 be seriously considered with deference given to properties that have been zoned commercial for a long length of time, except when the property owner requests a rezoning. Pete Walsh, 2885 Sanford Lane, Carlsbad, CA., stated that he was opposed to the re-designation and opposed to the concept of no overlapping because it eliminates the possibility of store variety. This would negate selection and competition. Although, he respects the work that Mr. Turner has done, he noted that the re-designation adversely affects his mother’s 5.1-acre property, which is located at the southeast corner of Poinsettia and Interstate 5. He urged the Planning Commission to consider individual, case-by- case, impacts that a citywide amendment of this type would render. Commissioner Baker asked if the possibility of other kinds of uses for shopping centers is being precluded, e.g. small single use stores, stand alone Trader Joe’s. Mr. Turner explained the definitions placed in the guidelines outlining what is a shopping center: a. Needs to be under one ownership b. Needs to have common architecture c. Needs to have parking allocated for all of the uses d. Should have at least three stores or enterprises involved Mr. Turner commented that a single store on a site is not a center. He stated that he believed Mr. Walsh’s site would accommodate three enterprises and therefore would be covered under the definition of a center. He noted that the acreage guideline in the draft is not a requirement, it is a guideline only. Jay Levine, 4927 Loma Court, Carlsbad, CA, urged the Planning Commission to reject any change in the plan that would eliminate the possibility of additional shopping centers along El Camino Real. He stated that the residents in his area deserve an aesthetically pleasing world-class supermarket in the vicinity. As no one else wished to testify, Chairperson Compas closed public testimony. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Heineman stated that the policy has much to recommend it, but he is not comfortable with the “no development” policy on El Camino Real, scenario 7 and stated that he could not vote for the item as long as it was a part of the policy. Commissioner Trigas expressed concern regarding the El Camino Real issue, thus closing the door for development. Commissioner Nielsen concurred and stated that he could not support the agenda item as it is now, e.g. closing off El Camino Real, no “big boxes”. He believed that this policy would tie the hands of future City Councils. Commissioner L’Heureux concurred and questioned if El Camino Real was rural or a scenic corridor or view corridor or freeway. She did not believe in closing off the possibility of using El Camino Real. In addition, she commented that more flexibility of design should be incorporated into the policy. Commissioner Baker noted that it was desirable to reduce the traffic in Carlsbad, but shopping centers were not wanted in neighborhoods. She believed that traffic problems were the result of residents driving a long way to get to shopping centers and mentioned that she was in favor of people being able to walk to shopping centers. She expressed concern regarding closing off El Camino Real and suggested that the agenda item be continued to work out some of the issues. Commissioner Segall voiced concern regarding closing off El Camino Real. Although he did support the concept of preserving the scenic corridor, he acknowledged that other needs in the community were not being met. He stated that he did not support scenario 7. Chairperson Compas agreed with eliminating the community commercial designation; agreed that staff should proceed with the seven-minute travel study, but did not believe El Camino Real should be closed off. Instead of prohibiting a shopping center on El Camino Real, he suggested that 60-foot setbacks, aesthetically pleasing landscaping and the entrance off of a side road would be a viable option. In addition, he believed overlapping trade areas should be allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 19 Mr. Wayne stated that staff will be taking the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council. Because of the Commission’s strong belief that El Camino Real should be included in the potential sites, staff could modify #6, page 32 of the Land Use Element document, thus “New sites located along El Camino Real should be designed so as to preserve the scenic quality of the roadway.” He noted that the overlapping issue could also be handled. Chairperson Compas commented that there are certain circumstances where overlaps may be desirable. Commissioner Segall asked which policy item deals with overlapping. Mr. Turner replied goals Bl and B2. Chairperson Compas suggested that a motion be devised that incorporates the two aforementioned ideas. Commissioner Baker stated that wording should be included that acknowledges the importance of the scenic corridor. Commissioner Nielsen mentioned that guidelines were currently in place regarding the scenic corridor. Regarding overlapping and referring to page 30, Objectives Bl and B2, Mr. Turner stated that existing policy calls for limiting shopping centers, so as not to over-commercialize the City. The proposed addition would link this policy to the idea of trade area overlaps. If trade area overlaps should be allowed, care should be taken not to undo this historical policy, unless that was clearly the Commission’s intent. Noting that site development plans include a tentative map that is very close to being conceptual, Mr. Wayne suggested that the wording regarding overlapping be changed to indicate that over commercialization would not be permitted. He advised the Commission that the policy language should be fairly broad, fairly flexible but providing good guidance. Commissioner Baker asked for direction regarding the procedure to address the diversity issue and overlapping, e.g. supermarket and specialty grocery store. Mr. Wayne stated that it could be done via the minutes and via a motion. Attorney Mobaldi suggested the following language, “without creating undue overlaps in trade areas, while providing desirable diversity.” Commissioner Trigas commented that diversity was desirable, but did not want to rule out competition as an option. Attorney Mobaldi advised Commissioner Trigas that her statement was stronger because it encouraged something and that should be taken into consideration. Mr. Turner said that lots of flexibility and potential for lots of trade-area overlaps could make completing the site-specific study more complex. On the one hand, everyone seems comfortable with Policy 8.2. (basic coverage), meaning that all residential areas would be within the trade area of at least one shopping center. If, in addition, the Commission desires a policy that also allows some areas to be within the trade areas of two or three shopping centers, especially if this creates diversity, while providing basic coverage, staff could work with that, too. Staff would return with recommendations for sites that implement both policies. Mr. Wayne stated that deference to already designed commercial sites, as opposed to creating the new commercial sites has been addressed. Commissioner Trigas asked if language stating that diversity was desired, but over commercialization was not wanted, could be added. Mr. Turner asked for clarification regarding the concern of eliminating “big boxes” and making provisions for other types of designs. PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 20 Commissioner Nielsen noted that technically by virtue of size Von’s is a “big box”, but due to the aesthetically pleasing design of Von’s it is acceptable. He suggested that the design of Von’s be incorporated as a design guideline. Mr. Wayne stated that the new zone would deal with the design and allow for community commercial use as long as it is designed properly in one of the local-serving shopping centers. The primary thrust of the policy framework is local-serving. MOTlON: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4879 recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4880 recommending approval of GPA 00-04; based upon the findings contained therein, including the Errata sheet dated December 6, 2000 and including an amendment to Objective Bl “without creating undue overlaps in trade areas, while providing desirable diversity without over commercialization” and modification on item #6, page 32, “new sites for local shopping centers located along El Camino Real shall be designed so as to preserve the scenic quality of the scenic corridor.” VOTE ON MOTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 7-o-o Compas, Heineman, Trigas, Nielsen, L’Heureux, Baker, Segall None None CORRESPONDENCE By Date of Receipt Party Date Received William Neece 12/6/00 Tom and Joan Flanagan Attachments to Flanagan letter Draft letter Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners) Tom and Joan Flanagan Tom and Joan Flanagan Tom Flanagan Tom Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners) Tom Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners) Warren and Doris Jenks Richard Reck 12/3/00 James and Marilyn Hope Bernice Hill Joan Arcelle Jeff Dierck (Alberstons’) 9/l o/o0 5/12/00 2/14/00 l/31/00 7/21/99 6127199 undated 12/03/00 120/3/00 12/02/00 12/01/00 11/28/00 James M. Hicks Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC) Jeff Dierck (Albertsons’) James M. Hicks Tom and Joan Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners) Richard Reck Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC) Bernice Hill Warren and Doris Jenks James and Marilyn Hope James M. Hicks Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC) Jay E. Levine 11/28/00 11/28/00 11/28/00 10/04/00 9/25/00 g/22/00 9/21/00 9/21/00 9/20/00 9/l 9/00 9/13/00 9/13/00 5/22/00 1436 Willowgreen Court Encinitas, CA 92024 Mr. Dennis Turner Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 163 5 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: GPA 00-04 SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES Dear Dennis: The proposed warrant of not allowing new shopping centers within a seven minute driving time of an existing center would cause several long term, extremely negative effects for Carlsbad. The population of Carlsbad is expected to nearly double over the next 20 years with the addition of 20,000 new dwelling units. The City must plan ahead now to meet the shopping needs of its residents. The elimination of shopping center sites will create monopolies for the existing centers with the resulting lack of competition, higher prices, and lack of variety. Free enterprise would be thwarted and only a few shopping choices remain for consumers. The City does not have a complete or adequate supply of grocery stores to choose from currently. For example Carlsbad does not have a single Henry’s Marketplace or Longs Drug Store. This policy would cause an even greater problem. Additionally someone living next to Ralphs but preferring Vons would have a three mile drive half way across the city. This policy would therefore cause an increase in traffic on surface streets. Furthermore, an older, substandard supermarket would not have the motivation or opportunity to relocate to a modern, full-size store. Without competition it would have a captive market and therefore no reason to maintain or upgrade the store, merchandise, or service. Without competition prices are higher. If the proposed warrant is approved, shopping alternatives will no longer be possible, convenient or sufficient to meet the needs of the residents. The people of Carlsbad will not be adequately served by neighborhood shopping centers now or in the future. The proposed warrant would also be counter to the Goals of the City’s General Plan. It would stop rather than provide for the development of compatible, conveniently located shopping centers. It will cause the shopping needs of residents not to be adequately serviced. Mr. Dennis Turner December 6,200O Page 2 The warrant is also opposed to the policy alternatives favored by the citizens who were surveyed last summer by Rea and Parker. Outcome*Scenarios 1 and 7 received overwhelming support. Scenario 1 called for the development of neighborhood commercial centers similar to the type of neighborhood commercial currently in Carlsbad. Scenario 7 stated neighborhood commercial is to be built along planned street extensions such as Cannon, College, and Poinsettia. Nowhere have residents stated that only one shopping center should be allowed within a seven minute driving time of an existing center. Such a policy would be terrible planning and a major disservice to the existing and future Carlsbad’s residents. Convenient shopping, competitive prices, and variety of shopping choices will not be provided under this policy. Please distribute copies of this letter to the members of the Planning Commission with the request that the warrant described above be deleted from the proposed GPA. Very truly yours, William A. Neece 9 73 /vi/f&- p-w@- RECEIVED THOMAS P. FLANAGAN AND JOAN R. FLANAGAN DEC 0 4 2m Cl-l-Y OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT. The Cape at Cabera Hills Fax: (760) 729-7474 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carl&ad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 729-3874 December 3,200O ._I Julie Backer William Compas Courtney Heineman Ann L’Heureux Robert Nielsen Jeff Segall Seena Trigas Planning Commissioners City of Carlsbad . Via Hand Delivery From Dennis Turner Re: Renort To The Planniw Commjssion Regardiw “Shonninp Center Policies” iDecember 2000) Dear Planning Commissioners: We believe that the City Planning Department, and in particular, Mr. Dennis Turner, have done an excellent job in putting together a solid proposal upon which to start the formal discussion of any proposed revisions to the General Plan to better define and address the future shopping centers in Carlsbad. As you are aware, one of the driving forces in the preparation of the Report was the City Council being heavily in favor of having: (1) Fewer But Larger Local Shopping Centers in Carlsbad (2) No Strip Malls in Carlsbad (3) Reasonable Driving Times To Get To Local Shopping Centers (4) The Serious Possibility That The “No Further Shopping Center Along El Camino Real” Provision Will Create Shopping Problems In The North East Quadrant Because of the importance of these two strong desires by the City Council,, we believe the Report requires a more thorough analysis in these areas to see if in fact the proposed General Plan Amendments achieve those two purposes. The four areas we would like to address are: (1) The Primary Trade Area Radius; (2) The Driving Time Recommendations (3) The Shape Of A Local Shopping Center That Will Not Produce A Strip Mall (4) The Serious Problems That The “No Further Local Shopping Center Along El Camino” Real” Restriction May Create A. PRIMARY TRADEAREARADIUS ’ The Primary Trade Area Radius proposed by the Planning Department is 1.5 miles. This will result in too many Local Shopping Centers in Carlsbad and is totally contradictory to the City Council’s desire of large and fewer Local Shopping Centers. We believe that the Planning Commission and the City Council should be looking at a GeneraJ,Plan Amendment that would use a 2.0 mile to 2.5 mile primary trade area radius for Local ’ Shopping Centers over 10 acres in size and only utilize the 1.5 miles Primary Trade Area for Local Shopping Centers between 8 and 10 acres. Under this scheme, the Primary Trade Area Radius would be more realistic and recognize that Larger Local Shopping Centers truly have larger Primary Trade Areas. This scheme is recognized and further discussed in the Albertson’s letters to the City Planning Department. We think that a more realistic plan for Primary Trade Areas would be as follows: - 8 To 10 Acres 1.5 Mile Primary Trade Area - 10 To 14 Acres 2.0 Mile Primary Trade Area - 14 To 20 Acres 2.5 Mile Primary Trade Area We believe that by following the above scheme, the City of Carlsbad will have Primary Trade Areas that will result in fewer but larger Local Shopping Centers and Local Shopping Centers that are much more scaled to the size of the Local Shopping Center. The Primary Trade Area Radius proposed by the Planning Department is 1.5 miles; regardless of whether or not the Local Shopping Center is 8 acres large or 20 acres large. We do not think that this is realistic We caution the Planning Commission to move very cautiously in this area before a final decision is made. If caution and thorough discussion is not taken, we believe that Carlsbad will be overrun but numerous smaller shopping Centers, when actually all of us (Citizens, The Planning Commission, and The City Council) desire fewer but larger Local Shopping Centers. 2 73- B. DRIVING TIME RECOMMENDATIONS The Driving Time Recommendations contained in the Report of 7.5 minutes appear to be realistic. This is based on the following analysis: - At An Average Drivin? Sueed Of 30 Miles Per Hour = l/2 Mile Per Minute - 1.5 Miles = - 2.0Miles = 3 Minutes 4 Minutes - 2.5 Miles = 5 Minutes - At An Average Driving Sneed Of 25 Miles Per Hour = 4/10 Mile Per Minute . - 1.5 Miles =, 4 Minutes - 2.0 Miles = 5 Minutes - 2.5 Miles = - 6 Minutes - At An Average Driving Sneed Of 20 Miles Per Hour = l/3 Mile Per Minute - 1.5 Miles = 5 Minutes - 2.0 Miles = - 7 Minutes - 2.5 Miles = - 8 Minutes All of the above driving times should make the Planning Commission and the City Council more comfortable that driving speeds of 20 to 30 miles per hour will result in arriving in an adequate driving time span, even if the Local Shopping Center in the city are more generously spaced 2.0 miles to 2.5 miles apart. What the above analysis demonstrates is that you can have larger and fewer Local Shopping Centers (2,0 to 2,5 miles apart) and still be able to get to these Local Shopping Centers in a 4 to 8 minute time period. e Based upon the above analysis, we would support the Planning Department’s Recommendation of utilizing an average driving time of 7.5 minutes (7.0 to 8.0 minutes). This is also consistent with the citizens of Carlsbad and City Council expressions at the three Shopping Center Workshops that the Citizens of Carlsbad do not mind driving a little further to do their local shopping so long as the Local Shopping Center is within a reasonable time distance away. In fact, the general consensus form the Local Shopping Center Workshops was that many residents do their local shopping on the way home from something else and therefore, an extra minute or two of driving time really did really not matter to them. 3 C. THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER THAT WILL NOT PRODUCE A STRIP MALL . The Report does not address what the shape or size of a Local Shopping Center that will not produce a Strip Mall. We hope to add some suggestions in this area and hope that these suggestions also get added to the General Plan Revisions so that we can guarantee that Strip Malls will not occur in Carlsbad. 1 Acre As you can see by the attached charts (See Chart l), a one acre parcel is approximately 208 feet deep and 208 feet wide (See Chart 1). 6 Acre Site If a Local Shopping Center were 6 acres in size (See Chart l), the property would be 416 feet deep and 624 feet wide. Such a small shopping site would be too small for a Local Shopping Center. Such a site would also have serious entrance and egress problems. 9 Acre Site If a Local Shopping Center were 9 acres in size (See Chart 2). The 9 acre property would be 624 feet deep and 624 feet wide. Such a small shopping site would bemarginal to unacceptable for,a Local Shopping Center. ‘ A 9 acre shopping site would also have serious site depth problems and would make it difficult to disburse traffic trying to enter the small 9 acre site. Also, if the 9 acre shopping site is not deep enough, the traffic having difficulty entering the 9 acre site would back up its entering traffic onto the Primary Road adjacent to the Local Shopping Center site and create undesirable traffic flow problems on the main arterial roads in Carlsbad. This is a situation the Planning Commission and the City of Carlsbad should try to avoid. 16 Acre Site If a Local Shopping Center were 16 acres in size (See Chart 3), the property would be 832 feet deep and 832 feet wide. Such a 16 acre shopping site would be approaching ideal for a Local Shopping Center. Such a 16 acre shopping site would also be an adequate site depth to disburse traffic entering the Local Shopping Center site. A 16 acre would avoid the have serious entrance and egress problems of sites around 9 acres or so in size. 4 77 20 Acre Site If a Local Shopping Center were 20 acres in size (See Chart 4), the property would be 832 feet deep and 1040 feet wide. Such a 20 acre shopping site would be ideal for a Local Shopping Center. Such a 20 acre shopping site would also adequate site depth to disburse traffic entering the Local Shopping Center site. A 20 acre would avoid the have serious entrance and egress problems of sites around 9 acres or so in size. Additionally, the entrances to the Local Shopping Center could be well spaced back form the intersecting are which such Local Shopping Centers are typically located. Recommendations Reparding Local Shonain~ Center Site Size And Shape As indicated by the Citizens of Carlsbad arid the City council at the three Public Workshops on Local Shopping Centers, fewer and larger Local Shopping Centers are preferred. Based on the above analysis, the following recommendations regarding the size and shape of a local shopping center are submitted for your serious consideration: 1. Local Shopping Center Sites Between 14 Acres and 20 acres are preferred over Local Shopping Centers between 8 and 14 Acres; 2. Local Shopping Center Sites 850 feet deep are preferred over Local Shopping Centers between 700 and 850 feet deep; 3. Local Shopping Center Sites 1200 feet wide are preferred over Local Shopping Centers between 1000 feet and 1200 feet wide; 4. Local Shopping Center Sites less than 700 feet deep are not permitted; 5. Local Shopping Center Sites less than 1000 feet wide are preferred over Local By following the above recommendations, the Planning Commission and the City of Carlsbad will be able to avoid all Strip Malls in the future. The above recommendations will also encourage fewer and larger Local Shopping Centers in Carlsbad. 5 78 D. THE RECOMMENDATION THAT NO PURTI-IER SHOPPING CENTER BE PERMITTED ALONG EL CAMINO REAL MAY CREATE FUTURE PROBLEMS As the City of Carlsbad, the City Planning Department, and the Carlsbad Planning Commission are aware, the Village E-l site in Calavera Hills is not viable as a commercial or Local Shopping Center site.* In fact, the McMillan company petitioned the City Planning Department earlier this year to have Village E-l rezoned as a residential site because it has serous problems as a Local Shopping Center site (not enough roof tops to support it because it abuts a large habitat area) and because the Village E-l site has serious ingress and egress problems if it were a Local Shopping Center Additional letters from Albertson’s indicate that Village E-l in Calavera Hills is not a desirable Local shopping Center site to Albertson’s.** The City and the City Planning Department are also aware the Sunny Creek Local Shopping Center site may or may not be developed as a Local Shopping Center. In fact, it is quite possible that the Sunny Creek Local Shopping Center site may end up being something else (such as being submitted for rezoning to either residential or off$e use). If the Sunny Creek site were not developed as a Local Shopping Center, then serious Local Shopping Center problems might be created for the Carlsbad residents located in the North East Quadrant. We believe that the addition of the El Camino Restriction should be contingent on the development of Sunny Creek as a local Shopping Center. If Sunny Creek does not develop as a shopping center site, then the General Plan Revisions should permit a a substitute Local shopping Center site along El Camino Real (such as the Local Shopping Center site recently proposed across from the Country Store). We hope that the Planning Commission will recognize the need for this El Camino Real alternate site possibility to cover the potential likelihood that the Sunny Creek site will not be developed as a Local shopping Center site. * Studies by the McMillan company and previously submitted to the City Planning Department this year will be provided to the Planning Commission at the December 6,200O Hearing. ** The Letter from Albertson’s regarding the non viability of Village E-l in Calavera Hills as Local Shopping Center site is attached to this letter. 6 79 E. RECOGNlTION THAT VILLAGE E-l IN CALAVERA HILLS IS NOT A VIABLE LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER SITE. As the City of Carlsbad, the City Planning Department, and the Carlsbad Planning Commission are aware, the Village E-l site in Calavera Hills is not viable as a commercial or Local Shopping Center site. . To assist the Planning Commission and City Council to recognize the various reasons that this site is not commercially viable as a Local Shopping Center, we are including our attached previous letters to the City Council and the City Planning Department on this issue. . 5. The previous letters sent to the City Council or the City Planning Department are as follows: ;. .., - June 27,1999 Letter - January 31,200O Letter - February 14,200O L&er - May 12,200O Letter l F. PRIOR COMMENTS TO THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED “LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER” AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN. -3 To assist the Planning Commission and City Council in having our prior comments to the City Planning Department regarding the proposed “Local Shopping Center” Amendments to the General Plan, we are including our attached previous letter to the City Planning Department on this issue. The previous letter sent to the the City Planning Department is as follows: - September lo,2000 Letter G. CONCLUSION Once again, we compliment the City Planning Department, especially the hard work put in by Dennis Turner, in developing the Proposed General Plan amendments. We also look forward to fully discussing the above issues with the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, December 6,200. Sincerely, 729-3874 729-3874 7 cc: Mr,Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Dennis Turner - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 ; i , i cc: Mr. Brian Milich - McMillan & Company (619) 366-3596 I RECEIVED DEC 0 4 2000 C2J-Y OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT. i ! 1 ! I i ! / , I I i \ 3 ! ~~~,:, & I I L) I :<. ! 83 / I i i , I i T y---l. 1 I I 1 \ .- cALAvE3A HILLS ~0aw0tu~~ .* Hmreownereat-m .* ,. DRAFr DnmirTlw& ** senior- plaar6atjDcpartmcnt . cij,of~ 1635 Faraday Amup.,. CariebadcA- 4 (160) 602as9 .A _.. DcarMr.oennirTUSDUZ , 1 - . u; . . T : . The major pointr you proposed in the General PIan Amczxbadij;ted bdow are stmngiy endorscdbyusandwcbtiievethirttfrcyshouidbtaQphdinthc~~~plan Ameadarcnc.nweiIlcIuclethcGcncxaIco~~(thatwcbditvewcrcdiscussEdafthe workshors) and some specific commeIlts (&at wm fiisamd in the workshap) but are not in the Proposed GaleRLl Plan Amaldmexlt : - .-. 1: GENEIUU. COMMENTS A. Foe Gene+ Plan should be arncnded to repface the uurcq Ne$hb=hood and mmctuai Shopping Canter &sigmions with anew dtslgrratlon tntitlcd ‘Local Shopping Ccntd’. . . i,- ihcal Shopping Centers almId not pemit ar emcoumge Strip Malls. . _’ c.Loc8ls~gccntcrs&ouldbc~~~k - D.~LocalS~g~Ctntus~~mnrrIncllSh~~~arr~~e withthcconccptth8t somewhar~ (12 to 14 8cfes) could teciuce the need c4mditions for add&ml * _ : ; ‘. ::, +f A: ‘. 1):; Moxe-~isnud~! :-“:. .vf :7...?.,;, -‘. . ,. . . . Tliaypof - twiubeusedby&~tof&moII:Local shop@lgckfE~~ls~tfianit~. i. .* ThcGenaaPl8a-~ne#lsto~dir&‘~thtLocalshopping Ccnttrisona&kkxnSized~ Site (12 10 14 Bcfcs) thentheprimarymm 8hW@Zprimary .: pIiznqaadeana(suchat2.5 ~=drivingtime!) I’ F. LocalS~g~~rradeeeabcplvary~y~~sizc,~~~~so longasSm Mallsand~atbtndant~dcptbs(~y7Wfeetorlcssmdtpth 8rc avoi de%)andLocalShoppingCenwof~depth(1000fcaormohe)an CZOWgCd. Note;AsCouncilMcmberMattHallsaidweann~gain%tohaveSaipMallslikt someofthereceatadditio~~~~(ntcbasrhcncwlowdcpth Stip M East comes of Gd.lege andMiiion). - A’ G. bed Shopping Centen should it&de f a xn&mm a Supr hkkt and a Drug Store 4s the Anchor Tenants with ncassaq Sewndq Tenants incMed. Note: However, we do not agree that some of those Scconky Tcnms should in&de the Big Box Stores l&ted cm page 15 of the praposed Getmal Plan AmencInm (such BS Target, K-Man Hame Depot. Seepk Camp USA, Good Guys. Etc.). - 4. nqaEraidiscussionbytbccityCwncjlaudtbe~0fCBilSbad ~~dastmngdtsinnot~haveBigBoxS[~in~~butrathu that it was acceptable to drive to adjacent citks to shop at such Big Box ” stolx?s. . IMkcal -@ng Cutters should not have any s&us cmancc and egtzss problems. 2. SPECXFIC CO- REGARDING SlTE SELSCI’ION OFTHE LOCAL SHOPPING InadditiontorheGtnezalcanmrmtsabovc,~beIievcthattbef~s~c~~ regarding site scicction of the Local s Proposed Local shopping Cenar Qcn i3 ing Centm should sedously be considered for the 1811 Amendment A.SiteSelcctionf~thtLacalShoppingCcntcr~~l~impactstathefo~awing artvadjaccnttothcLocaIShoppingC&cz - Schools - FmStatims -w - CityHabiratArcas(PlanncdandFuture),incWngHabitati3ks - city- :‘chnrchu - PoliceSt8tions . . B . Site S&&cm for tk Local Shqping Cater should in&de traffic impacts (additional AD-n to tht folIoGllg areas *acult to the Local shopping calm 1) .I - schools - . . - Fur Stations - “GC- ,:.: ,:; - City Habitat Ams (PlanncdaadFuaac) - citya - Res.i&ntial Neig&xbods”’ - church&s - Policeseaticms I \ :. C . Site Scktion for the Local Shopping Centtt should indude - TraffichpactsaadSafetyHazardsmSch~ol~~ D.SiMektionfottheknzal S~y,the~AcnsshoppingceaoerSin~~~txtillpmvide ttdequate shopping opporumities for Cadsbad’s La Costa Residents. 89 E.‘lhcPmpsaILocJShopping~ Amcndmmtsshnlxid acctss and cgms locarions when consi&ring small siad (8 tw 10 acres). ‘. .- ‘-. F.TheProposedWShappingCcnter- shouid~Mcdinmsized Lacastroppiprgcar~(12~14aczes)iasizeovas~Iacalstroppingctnters .-. (8tolOicns)b#auatthcCityCamcilandthcCitizsnsotCelsbadtxpnssedastrong desire at the wcxksbps for less (not mwx@ Lad Shwppbg CcnBcr sites in the city. . . .., No~~MeditrmLbcaIShoppingcanns(12tr,14scrtsitcs)woald~~ ( 4 ‘.? benerasessandcgressandcansasrealietlehrgtrprhuytmdcarcn ~o~:~MediMlLbcal~gC4nt#s(12to14acrrsireE)woPldl~lcfs liJEL!ShPlfDWSrripMallc,wouldhmtbtadeqtunssircdepthaofferabeaqaaffic ~~waudwauldofkrabettq$oppingwpri~ Notc:~Medirtm~~~~cenlar(12014rrc~ca)~~ anashouldbt2SmiIes. WethanktkcityofthishdPlauningDepupnent8ndrbeCityCouucilaheadoftimefor . . tztmdmg our suggacd amendmmts toTheGmenlFqallMdufelookforwanltwwo~with youollthePrwpostdLocalshoppi.ngccntErPlanAplar~ 4 . s-y, TllomasP.&agarl JOMRmanagan cc: MaywrBudLcwis C~woma~JulicN~ zg=lfiJigp coMdknapMauHell c.zuaMi*Hatt 1200-village- raifsbaAcA 92008 Michael~~-Planning- EACMUZIWZ-SUliOrPlMW-c?iawraHlllS THOMAS P. FLANAGAN AND JOAN R. FLANAGAN The Cape at. Calavera Hills Fax: (760) 729-7474 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carl&ad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 729-3874 --I +--- P-----P ----__ May 12,200O Mr. Lee Sherwood RECON 1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Via Fax /c” Fax: ( 619 ) 308-9334 Re: Calavera Hills Village E-l Environmental Impact Reuort (EIR) Dear Mr. Sherwood: 1. RESIDENTIAL USE OF VILLAGE E-l IS HIGHLY FAVORED OVER COMMUNITY SERVICES USE After attending the Final Scoping Meeting on the Calavera Hills Project, and after hearing about the new potential uses of the Village E-l Property as a Community Services Site (Churches, Day Care Centers, and the like), we still strongly recommend that Village E-l be re-zoned as a Residential Site. We believe that with the Calavera Hills Park and the day care uses in the public schools nearby and the use of the Calavera Hills community Center as a church / place of worship on the weekends and the number of fixed churches in downtown Carlsbad,, there is not a need for additional community services in the Calavera Hills area. We therefore believe that the residential use of Village E- 1 is highly favored by many residents in the Calavera Hills area. 1 - 2. RESIDENTIAL USE OF VILLAGE E-l IS HIGHLY FAVORED OVER COMMERCIAL USE We would also like to restate our reasons why we believe that the Village E-l Site should be designated as a Residential Site and not as a Commercial Site. We strongly support the rezoning of Village E-l from a commercial designation to a residential designation. The major reasons that we support this rezoning are as follows: A. Village E-1 in not a viable site for a successful commercial center because it does not have the number of housing units to support it, either now or at city build out in 2020. B. Other commercial centers in close proximity to Village E- 1 are coming onstream within the next two years which will be superior to the Village E-l site and will obviate the specific need for the Village E-l site. , Note: Specifically, the large 35 acre commercial site announced by McMillan Commercial at the South Coast Asphalt location at the( southwest corner of College Boulevard and the 78 Freeway) and currently in the Oceanside Application process will open in 2002. This large Oceanside commercial site will: (1) provide adequate shopping opportunities to the Calavera Hills residents; (2) will serve as a more than adequate replacement site for Village E-l ; and (3) will obviate the need for the Village E-l as a commercial site. C. The Village E-l site has severe access limitations that will render it virtually unusable as a commercial location. D. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe safety hazards to the children and families utilizing the Calavera Hills Regional Recreational Park if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT). E. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe traffic congestion and safety problems to the planned Carlsbad City fire Station at the southwest comer of Glasgow and Carlsbad Village Drive if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT). E. If the Village E-l site remains commercial, the 12,000 average vehicles per day (12,000 ADT) will destroy the recreational and residential family neighborhood of Calavera Hills. F. The Homeowners of Calavera Hills do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,000 ADT) while trying to enter our subdivisions and the Calavera Hills Recreational Park. 2 G. The citizens of Carlsbad do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,ooO ADT) while trying to enter the Calavera Hills Recreational Park. H. No other Regional Park in the city is directly adjacent to a commercial shopping center. To make such a choice at the Village E-l site would set a poor precedent. I. The choice of Village E-l as a commercial site next to a Major Regional City Park would also be an example of poor planning because such adjacent sites (recreational and commercial) because such site selections do not compliment one another. Rather, they detract from each other. J. The designation of Village E- 1 as a residential site is a much more appropriate choice and is consistent with the family neighborhood and park environment in Calavera Hills. . K. We truly believe that the large 35 acre commercial property that will be built on the current South Coast Asphalt Plant in Oceanside (just one mile from Village E-l) will make it impossible for Village E-l to ever succeed as a commercial site. .I&. We also have strong fears that since the Village E-l nronertv is not commerciallv viable, that there would &a large number of vacant%ores in Village E- 1 because they-could not stay in business. Empty stores in Village E- 1 would quickly drag down a very attractive residential area of the city and present problems for the adjacent City Regional Park. 3. PETITION TO REZONE VILLAGF E-l FROM COMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL [RM.H) IS RENEWED BY THE HOMEOWNERS OF CALAVERA HILLS We again renew our request that the Calavera Hills Homeowners made to the Carlsbad City Council and the City of Carlsbad Planning Department on July 2, 1999. In that petition letter, it was requested that the Carlsbad Planning Department and the Carlsbad City Council consider: (1) Changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH). The reasons stated in the July 1999 request were considerable and included the following: The location of the Village E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of Village E-l (Village K) makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. 93 The location of Village .E- 1 directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will further compound the lack of available parking for the Calavera Hills Park facilities. At the current time, the overflow parking from the park that occurs almost every night and even more so on the weekends ends up along Glassgow Road adjacent to the Village E-l property and on the future firehouse .: property * Leaving the Village E-l property as a commercial site will only further compound the difficult parking situation at Calavera Hills Park. , The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will create serious child safety and traffic concerns with the park. This makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 next to Calavera Hills Park inappropriate. The location of Village E- 1 directly adjacent to the Future Firehouse at Calavera Hills. Park will create firehouse entrance and egress concerns and firehouse response time safety concerns and may make the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. With the Entrance to the Village E-l site from Glassgow on the west side of Village E- 1, there will be a serious Future Firehouse and Regional City Park traffic conflict with the anticipated 12,000 commercial cars per day (12,000 ADT) using the Glasgow entrance to Village E-l. The location of Village E-l near Hope School and near the New K-8 school facility to be built next year in Village S may make the current commercial zoning for Village E-l inappropriate. Retaining Village E-l as a commercial site will encourage an interruption of the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard as it passes through Calavera Hills. We believe that it would be best for the traffic flow along Future College . Boulevard to remain on College Boulevard as the traff% drives along Future College Boulevard from Oceanside to El Camino Real. Encouraging drivers to get off of Future College Boulevard and enter a highly quiet residential area / high family use city park / natural habitat area / fire station area will be detrimental to those four planned uses this section of Calavera Hills. 4 - When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away. In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property. In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real. In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage and the 78 Freeway. Becausea major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village E-l property is economically viable as a commercial site. i We believe that residential housing (RMH) wotild be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property. As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony). We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 21.38.120 (b) and 21.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request). We thank the city and the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E- 1 property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH). When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away. In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property. In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real. In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage ’ and the 78 Freeway. Because.a major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village EL 1 property is economically viable as a commercial site. 1 We believe that residential housing (RMH) wodld be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property. As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony). We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 21.38.120 (b) and 21.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request). We thank the city and the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E- 1 property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH). 56 4. SPECIFIC VILLAGE E-l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) COMMENTS Listed below are our specific comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that your office is going to prepare for the Village E-l portion of Calavera Hills Phase II Project: A. There needs to be a tall wall along the southern edge of Village E-l and the northern edge of the Cape Subdivision. This tall wall will keep the sound of the new College Boulevard and the southbound College Boulevard headlights out of the Cape Homeowners upstairs bedroom windows. This could be accomplished by utilizing an attractive 3 foot berm along the north south property line between Village E-l and the Cape. with up to a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm. , The desired effect would be to have the residential units located along the southern edge of Village E- 1 in such a way that the second ‘story windows on the residential units on the Village E-l property will not be able to see into the downstairs window of the residential units along the northern border of the Cape. This horizontal separation can be achieved by placing the Village E- 1 residential units and the wall / berm arrangement between E-l and the Cape such that the top of the wall will block out the sight line from the second story of the Village E-l units into the downstairs windows of the adjacent Cape residential units. Perhaps guest parking on the south edge of Village E- 1 or not having the Village E- 1 residential units backing up against the residential units at the Cape could be an appropriate solutions. Note: The actual property line between the Cape and Village E-l is 5 feet north of the current wooden fence at the north side of the Cape. Thus, there is adequate room to build such a 3 foot berm. Note: Such a 3 foot berm with an up to 6 foot wall on top of the berm would give a Nice visual separation between the rear yards of the residential units in the Cape and Village E- 1. B. The open storm drain along the north side of the Cape needs to be removed and replaced with and underground storm drain on the Village E- 1 southern edge of the Village E- 1 site to handle the downhill sheet flow from Village E-l to the Cape. Such an under- ground storm drain could be located just north of the 3 foot berm and the up to 6 foot wall separating the Village E- 1 site and the Cape. C. There needs to be a 6 foot to 9 foot Sound Wall along the new College Boulevard and along the Carlsbad Village Drive side of Village E-l. This could also be accomplished by an attractive 3 foot berm with a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm. D. The Sound Walls should be attractive and fit in with the natural surroundings of the area. 97 E. The City of Carlsbad should consider breaking up the Sound Wall along the new College and the exhisting Carlsbad Village Drive so that the Sound Wall does not run continuously parallel to either College Boulevard of Carlsbad Village Drive.. We don’t want the wall to look like the one the developer put along Palomar Airport Road next to the new Cabrillio Ranch Development. the Sound Walls along the roadways need to have an “S” shaped flow to them or the Sound Walls should move laterally in and out to make the Sound Walls more attractive as they run along the roadway. F. The city strongly needs to consider lowering the vertical height of College Boulevard as it runs along Village E-l and adjacent to the north east comer of the Cape. _. This will help suppress the traffic noise and block the car lights from shining into the second story windows of the residential units in the Cape. a The slightly lowered roadway at this point will make the 6 foot or 8 foot sound wall more effective. . As it stands now, the new College Boulevard runs too close to the north east comer of the Cape. Something drastic needs to be done to mitigate the traffic noise and traffic lights. Surpressing the new College Boulevard down 2 to 4 feet more that presently planned in this area will substantially help with the noise and headlight problems. G. There needs to be sidewalks added along both sides of Glasgow and the street north of Glasgow that is used to get to the new Cliffs Subdivision and the east side of Tamarack north of Carlsbad Village Drive. This area was originally going to be apartments and houses. Now that this is going to be a major habitat link in Calavera Hills does not obviate the need for sidewalk for children and adults as Glasgow and Tamarack run through the habitat area. H. There needs to be parking considerations made along Glasgow to handle the current ovefflow parking from the Calavera Hills Regional Park. This overflow is currently going onto the proposed Fire Station site and all along Glasgow and onto Village E- 1. Large Events and weekend ballgames at the park end up with about 120 extra cars parking on Glasgow and on Village E-l because they can not fit into the 90 plus parking spaces in the Calavera Hills Regional Park parking lot. I. The residential developer for Village E-l should work with the Cape homeowners to properly locate any recreational buildings and facilities (such as a pool and a clubhouse at an appropriate distance from the Cape property line. Locating such a recreational facilities 400 to 500 feet from the north property line of the Cape would be desirable so that the Village E- 1 pool and recreational noise does not carry into the quite Cape neighborhood. J. The elevation and drainage of the Village E- 1 site should match the present adjacent land use and not be built any higher than it is right now. If the elevation of Village E- 1 was raised along the southern edge of Village E- 1, it would permit two story units on Village E-l to look directly down and into the backyards and lower stories of the Cape Homeowners residential units directly adjacent to this Village E-l boundary. K. The Village E- 1 residential units and the Cape residential units should have at least a 100 foot separation between the units and be separated by a tall wall/ berm arrangement so as to retain privacy of both the Cape and Village E-l residential units. This lateral separation between the residential units along the village E-l / Cape boundary could be assisted by the proper height and location of the tall wall / berm system between the adjacent Village E- 1 and Cape residential properties. I . We thank RECON, the City of Carlsbad, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, and the residential developer ahead of time for considering these requests to and we look forward to working with you on the Environmental Impact Report when it is published. Sincerely, -,. 3 Thomas P. Flanagan Joan R. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-3874 729-3874 cc: Mr. Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Jim Ondler - McMillan & Company (619) 366-3112 99 THOMAS P. FLANAGAN AND JOAN R. FLANAGAN The Cape at Calavera Hills Fax: (760) 729-7474 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carl&ad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 729-3874 u* em- rPp--.---p--.----pp February 14,200O Mr. Lee Sherwood RECON 1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Via Fax f-- Fax: ( 619 1308-9334 Re: Calavera Hills Village E-l Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. Sherwood: 1. RESIDENTIAL USE OF VILLAGE E-l IS HIGHLY FAVORED OVER COMMERCIAL USE We strongly support the rezoning of Village E-l from a commercial designation to a residential designation. The major reasons that we support this rezoning are as follows: A. Village E-l in not a viable site for a successful commercial center because it does not have the number of housing units to support it, either now or at city build out in 2020. ,- B. Other commercial centers in close proximity to Village E-l are coming onstream within the next two years which will be superior to the Village E-l site and will obviate the specific need for the Village E-l site. Note: Specifically, the large 35 acre commercial site announced by McMillan Commercial at the South Coast Asphalt location at the( southwest comer of College Boulevard and the 78 Freeway) and currently in the Oceanside Application process will open in 2002. 1 This large Oceanside commercial site will: (1) provide adequate shopping opportunities to the Calavera Hills residents; (2) will serve as a more than adequate replacement site for Village E-l; and (3) will obviate the need for the Village E- 1 as a commercial site. C. The Village E-l site has severe access limitations that will render it virtually unusable as a commercial location. D. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe safety hazards to the children and families utilizing the Calavera Hills Regional Recreational Park if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT). E. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe traffic congestion and safety problems to the planned Carlsbad City fire Station at the southwest corner of Glasgow and Carlsbad Village Drive if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT). E. If the Village E-l site remains commercial, the 12,000 average vehicles per day (12,000 ADT) will destroy the recreational and residential family neighborhood of Calavera Hills. F. The Homeowners of Calavera Hills do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion ( 12,000 ADT) while trying to enter our subdivisions and the Calavera Hills Recreational Park. G. The citizens of Carlsbad do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,ooO ADT) while trying to enter the Calavera Hills Recreational Park. H. No other Regional Park in the city is directly adjacent to a commercial shopping center. To make such a choice at the Village E-l site would set a poor precedent. I. The choice of Village E-l as a commercial site next to a Major Regional City Park would also be an example of poor planning because such adjacent sites (recreational and commercial) because such site selections do not compliment one another. Rather, they detract from each other. J. The designation of Village E- 1 as a residential site is a much more appropriate choice and is consistent with the family neighborhood and park environment in Calavera Hills. K. We truly believe that the large 35 acre commercial property that will be built on the current South Coast Asphalt Plant in Oceanside (just one mile from Village E-l) will make it impossible for Village E- 1 to ever succeed as a commercial site. 2 L. We also have strong fears that since the Village E-l property is not commercially viable, that there would be a large number of vacant stores in Village E-l because they could not stay in business. Empty stores in Village E-l would quickly drag down a very attractive residential area of the city and present problems for the adjacent City Regional Park. 21 PETITION TO REZONE VILLAGF E-l FROM COMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL JRMH) IS RENEWED BY THE HOMEOWNERS OF CALAVERA HILLS We again renew our request that the Calavera Hills Homeowners made to the Carlsbad City Council and the City of Carlsbad Planning Department on July 2,1999. In that petition letter, it was requested that the Carlsbad Planning Department and the Carlsbad City Council consider: , (1) Changing the land use designation foi the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH). The reasons stated in the July 1999 request were considerable and included the following: The location of the Village E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the” City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of Village E-l (Village K) makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. The location of Village .E-1 directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will further compound the lack of available parking for the Calavera Hills Park facilities. At the current time, the overflow parking from the park that occurs almost every night and even more so on the weekends ends up along Glassgow Road adjacent to the Village E-l property and on the future fuehouse e property. Leaving the Village E-l property as a commercial site will only further compound the difficult parking situation at Calavera Hills Park. The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will create serious child safety and traffic concerns with the park. This makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 next to Calavera Hills Park inappropriate. The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the Future Firehouse at Calavera Hills Park will create firehouse entrance and egress concerns and firehouse response time safety concerns and may make the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. With the Entrance to the Village E-l site from Glassgow on the west side of Village E- 1, there will be a serious Future Firehouse and Regional City Park traffic conflict with the anticipated 12,000 commercial cars per day (12,000 ADT) using the Glasgow entrance to Village E- 1. The location of Village E-l near Hope School and near the New K-8 school facility to be built next year in Village S may make the current commercial zoning for Village E-l inappropriate. Retaining Village E-I‘ as a commercial site will encourage an interruption of the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard as it passes through Calavera Hills. We believe that it would be best for the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard to remain on College Boulevard as the traffic drives along Future College Boulevard from Oceanside to El Camino Real. Encouraging drivers to get off of Future College Boulevard and enter a highly quiet residential area / high family use city park / natural habitat area / fire station area will be detrimental to those four planned uses this section of Calavera Hills. When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away. In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property. In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real. In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage and the 78 Freeway. Because a major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village E-l property is economically viable as a commercial site. We believe that residential housing (RMH) would be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property. As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony). 4 103 B. The open storm drain along the north side of the Cape needs to be removed and replaced with and underground storm drain on the Village E- 1 southern edge of the Village E- 1 site to handle the downhill sheet flow from Village E-l to the Cape. Such an under- ground storm drain could be located just north of the 3 foot berm and the up to 6 foot wall separating the Village E- 1 site and the Cape. C. There needs to be a 6 foot to 9 foot Sound Wall along the new College Boulevard and along the Carlsbad Village Drive side of Village E-l. This could also be accomplished by an attractive 3 foot berm with a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm. D. The Sound Walls should be attractive and fit in with the natural surroundings of the area. E. The City of Carlsbad should consider breaking up the Sound Wall along the new College and the exhisting Carlsbad Village Drive so that the Sound Wall does not run continuously parallel to either College Boulevard of Carlsbad Village Drive.. We don’t want the wall to look like the one the developer put along Palomar Airport Road next to the new Cabrillio Ranch Development. the Sound Walls along the roadways need to have an “S” shaped flow to them or the Sound Walls should move laterally in and out to make the Sound Walls more attractive as they run along the roadway. F. The city strongly needs to consider lowering the vertical height of College Boulevard as it runs along Village E-l and adjacent to the north east comer of the Cape. This will help suppress the traffic noise and block the car lights from shining into the second story windows of the residential units in the Cape. The slightly lowered roadway at this point will make the 6 foot or 8 foot sound wall more effective. As it stands now, the new College Boulevard runs too close to the north east comer of the Cape. Something drastic needs to be done to mitigate the traffic noise and traffic lights. Surpressing the new College Boulevard down 2 to 4 feet more that presently planned in this area will substantially help with the noise and headlight problems. G. There needs to be sidewalks added along both sides of Glasgow and the street north of Glasgow that is used to get to the new Cliffs Subdivision and the east side of Tamarack north of Car&bad Village Drive. This area was originally going to be apartments and houses. Now that this is going to be a major habitat link in Calavera Hills does not obviate the need for sidewalk for children and adults as Glasgow and Tamarack run through the habitat area. - H. There needs to be parking considerations made along Glasgow to handle the current overflow parking from the Calavera Hills Regional Park. This overflow is currently going onto the proposed Fire Station site and all along Glasgow and onto Village E-l. Large Events and weekend ballgames at the park end up with about 120 extra cars parking on Glasgow and on Village E-l because they can not fit into the 90 plus parking spaces in the Calavera Hills Regional Park parking lot. I. The residential developer for Village E-l should work with the Cape homeowners to properly locate any recreational buildings and facilities (such as a pool and a clubhouse at an appropriate distance from the Cape property line. Locating such a recreational facilities 400 to 500 feet from the north property line of the Cape would be desirable so that the Village E-l pool and recreational noise does not carry into the quite Cape neighborhood. J. The elevation and drainage of the Village E-l site should match the present adjacent land use and not be built any higher than it is right now. If the elevation of Village E- 1 was raised along the southern edge of Village E- 1, it would permit two story units on Village E-l to look directly down and into the backyards and lower stories of the Cape Homeowners residential units directly adjacent to this Village E- 1 boundary. - K. The Village E-l residential units and the Cape residential units should have at least a 100 foot separation between the units and be separated by a tall wall/ berm arrangement so as to retain privacy of both the Cape and Village E-l residential units. This lateral separation between the residential units along the village E- 1 / Cape boundary could be assisted by the proper height and location of the tall wall / berm system between the adjacent Village E- 1 and Cape residential properties. We thank RECON, the City of Carlsbad, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, and the residential developer ahead of time for considering these requests to and we look forward to working with you on the Environmental Impact Report when it is published. Sincerely, Thomas P. Flanagan Joan R. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-3874 729-3874 7 cc: Mr. Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Ray Patchette - City Manager Fax: 720-946 1 Mayor and City Council Members (5) Fax: 720-946 1 Mr. Jim Ondler - McMillan & Company (619) 366-3112 THE CAPE AT CALAVERA HILLS Homeowners The Cape at Cdavera Hills Il[omeowners Carlshad, California 92008 ---- --- +-- ---- January 31,2000 Mr. Lee Sherwood RECON I 1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Via Fax Fax: ( 619 ) 308-9334 Re: Calavera Hills E-l Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. Sherwood: 1. RESIDENTIAL V. COMMERCIAL USE OF VILLAFGE E-l COMMENTS The Cape at Calavera Hills Homeowners strongly support the rezoning of Village E-l from a commercial designation to a residential designation. The major reasons that we support this rezoning are as follows: A. Village E-l in not a viable site for a successful commercial center because it does not have the number of housing units to support it, either now or at city build out in 2020. B. Other commercial centers in close proximity to Village E-l are coming onstream within the next two years which will be superior to the Village site and will obviate the specific need for the Village E-l site. Note: Specifically, the large 35 acre commercial site announced by McMillan Commercial at the South Coast Asphalt location at the( southwest comer of College Boulevard and the 78 Freeway) and currently in the Oceanside Application process will open in 2002. This large Oceanside commercial site will: (1) provide adequate shopping opportunities to the Calavera Hills residents; (2) will serve as a more than adequate replacement site for Village E-l; and (3) will obviate the need for the Village E-l as a commercial site. 1 C. The Village E-l site has severe access limitations that will render it virtually unusable as a commercial location. D. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe safety hazards to the children and families utilizing the Calavera Hills Regional Recreational Park if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT). E. Entry’ to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E- 1) will present severe traffic congestion and safety problems to the planned Carlsbad City fire Station at the southwest comer of Glasgow and Carlsbad Village Drive if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT). E. If the Village E-l site remains commercial, the 12,000 average vehicles per day (12,000 ADT) will destroy the recreational and residential family neighborhood of Calavera Hills. F. The Homeowners of Calavera Hills do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,000 ADT) while trying to enter our subdivisions and the Calavera Hills Recreational Park. G. No other Regional Park in the city is directly adjacent to a commercial shopping center. To make such a choice at the Village E- 1 site would set a poor precedent. H. The choice of Village E- 1 as a commercial site next to a Major Regional City Park would also be an example of poor planning because such adjacent sites (recreational and commercial) because such site selections do not compliment one another. Rather, they detract from each other. I. The designation of Village E-l as a residential site is a much more appropriate choice and is consistent with the family neighborhood and park environment in Calavera Hills. J. We truly believe that the large 35 acre commercial property that will be built on the current South Coast Asphalt Plant in Oceanside (just one mile from Village E- 1) will make it impossible for Village E- 1 to ever succeed as a commercial site. K. We also have strong fears that since the Village E-l property is not commercially viable, that there would be a large number of vacant stores in Village E-l because they could not stay in business. Empty stores in Village E-l would quickly drag down a very attractive residential area of the city and present problems for the adjacent City Regional Park. 2 2. PETITION TO REZONE VILLAGF E-l FROM COMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL [RMH) IS RENEWED BY THE HOMEOWNERS OF CALAVERA HILLS The Homeowners in Calavera Hills do hereby renew the request that they made to the Carlsbad City Council and the City of Carlsbad Planning Department on July 2, 1999 that they City Council consider: ( 1) Changing the land use designation for the Village E- 1 Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH). The reasons stated in the prior request were considerable and included the following: The location of the Village E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of Village E-l (Village K) makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. The location of Village .E-1 directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will further compound the lack of available parking for the Calavera Hills Park facilities. At the current time, the overflow parking from the park that occurs almost every night and even more so on the weekends ends up along Glassgow Road adjacent to the Village E-l property and on the future firehouse property . Leaving the Village E- 1 property as a commercial site will only further compound the difficult parking situation at Calavera Hills Park. The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will create serious child safety and traffic concerns with the park. This makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 next to Calavera Hills Park inappropriate. The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the Future Firehouse at Calavera Hills Park will create firehouse entrance and egress concerns and firehouse response time safety concerns and may make the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate. With the Entrance to the E-l site from Glassgow on the west side of E-l, There will be a serious Future firehouse, Regional City Park traffic conflict with the anticipated 12,000 commercial cars per day (12,000 ADT) using the Glasgow entrance to E-l. 3 lo9 The location of Village E-l near Hope School and near the New K-8 school facility to be built next year in Village S may make the current commercial zoning for Village E-l inappropriate. Retaining Village E-l as a commercial site will encourage an interruption of the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard as it passes through Calavera Hills. We believe that it would be best for the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard to remain on College Boulevard as the traffic drives along Future College Boulevard from Oceanside to El Camino Real. Encouraging drivers to get off of Future College Boulevard and enter a highly quiet residential area / high family use city park / natural habitat area / fire station area will be detrimental to those four planned uses this section of Calavera Hills. , When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away. In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property. In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real. In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage and the 78 Freeway. Because a major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village E-l property is economically viable as a commercial site. We believe that residential housing (RMH) would be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property. As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony). We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 21.38.120 (b) and 2 1.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request). We thank the city and the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E- 1 property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E- 1 Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH). 4 3. SPECIFIC VILLAGE E-l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - COMMENTS Listed below are the Cape Homeowners comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that your office is going to prepare for the Village E-l portion of Calavera Hills Phase R Project: 1. There needs to be a tall wall along the southern edge of Village E- 1 and the northern edge of the C,ape Subdivision. This will keep the sound of the new College Boulevard and the southbound College Boulevard headlights out of the Cape Homeowners upstairs bedroom windows. This could be accomplished by utilizing an attractive 3 foot berm along the north south property line between Village E-l and the Cape. with up to a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm. The desired effect would be to have the residential units located along the southern edge of Village E-l in such a way that the second story windows on the residential units on the Village E-l property will not be able to see into the downstairs window of the residential units along the northern border of the Cape. This horizontal separation can be achieved by placing the Village e- 1 residential units and the wall /berm arrangement between E-l and the Cape such that the top of the wall will. block out the sight line from the second story of the Village E-l units into the downstairs windows of the adjacent Cape residential units. Perhaps guest parking on the south edge of Village E- 1 or not having the Village E- 1 residential units backing up against the residential units at the Cape could be an appropriate solutions. Note: The actual property line between the Cape and Village E-l is 5 feet north of the current wooden fence at the north side of the Cape. Thus, there is adequate room to build such a 3 foot berm. Note: Such a 3 foot berm with an up to 6 foot wall on top of the berm would give a Nice visual separation between the rear yards of the residential units in the Cape and Village E- 1. 2. The open storm drain along the north side of the Cape needs to be removed and replaced with and underground storm drain on the Village E- 1 southern edge of the Village E- 1 site to handle the downhill sheet flow from Village E-l to the Cape. Such an under- ground storm dram could be located just north of the 3 foot berm and the up to 6 foot wall separating the Village E- 1 site and the Cape. 3. There needs to be a 6 foot to 9 foot Sound Wall along the new College Boulevard and along the Carlsbad Village Drive side of Village E- 1. This could also be accomplished by an attractive 3 foot berm with a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm. 4. The Sound Walls should be attractive and tit in with the natural surroundings of the area. 5 5. The city should consider breaking up the Sound Wall along the new College and the exhisting Carlsbad Village Drive so that the Sound Wall does not run continuously parallel to either College Boulevard of Carlsbad Village Drive.. We don’t want the wall to look like the one the developer put along Palomar Airport Road next to the new Cabrillio Ranch Development. the Sound Walls along the roadways need to have an “S” shaped flow to them or the Sound Walls should move laterally in and out to make the Sound Walls more attractive as they run along the roadway. 6.The city strongly needs to consider lowering the vertical height of College Boulevard as it runs along Village E-l and adjacent to the north east corner of the Cape. 4 This will help suppress the traffic noise and block the car lights from shining into the second story windows of the residential units in the Cape. The slightly lowered roadway at this point will make the 6 foot or 8 foot sound wall more effective. As it stands now, the new College Boulevard runs too close to the north east comer of the Cape. :i Something drastic needs to be done to mitigate the traffic noise and traffic lights. Surpressing the new College Boulevard down 2 to 4 feet more that presently planned in this area will substantially help with the noise and headlight problems. 7. There needs to be sidewalks added along both sides of Glasgow and the east side of Tamarack north of Carlsbad Village Drive. This area was originally going to be apartments and houses. Now that this is going to be a major habitat link in Calavera Hills does not obviate the need for sidewalk for children and adults as Glasgow and Tamarack run through the habitat area. 8. There needs to be parking considerations made along Glasgow to handle the current overflow parking from the Calavera E-Tills Regional Park. This overflow is currently going onto the proposed Fire Station site and all along Glasgow and onto Village E- 1. Large Events and weekend ballgames at the park end up with about 120 extra cars parking on Glasgow and on Village E-l because they can not fit into the 90 plus parking spaces in the Calavera Bills Regional Park parking lot. 6 9. The residential developer for Village E-l should work with the Cape homeowners to properly locate any recreational buildings and facilities (such as a pool and a clubhouse at an appropriate distance from the Cape property line. Locating such a recreational facilities 400 to 500 feet from the north property line of the Cape would be desirable so that the pool and recreational noise does not carry into the quite Cape neighborhood. We thank the city, the city planning department, and the residential developer ahead of time for considering these requests to and we look forward to working with you on the Environmental Impact Report when it is published. Sincerely, I Thomas P. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-3874 cc: Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fax: 602-8559 Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 Ray Patchette - City Manager Fax: 438-0894 Mayor and City Council Members (5) Jim Ondler - McMillan & Company 7 CALAVERA HILLS Homeowners Homeowners at Calavera Hills Carl&ad, California 92008 ----- -+a --- July 21, 1999 VISION FOR N.E. OUADRANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SITES A. LOCAL STORErSHOPPING VS. BIG BOX STORE SHOPPING - NO NEED FOR ANY MORE BIG BOX STORES IN CARLSBAD - THERE ARE PLENTY OF BIG BOX STORES ALONG THE 78 AND l-5 FREEWAYS (HOME DEPOT, 2 PRICE CLUB / COSTCO STORES, PLAZA CAMINO REAL MALL, CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES, HOME BASE, BED BATH & BEYOND, COMP USA, BARNES AND NOBLE, ClRCUIT CITY, GOOD GUYS, OCEANSIDE TARGET+ TARGET GREAT LAND, STAPLES, ALL SPORTS, ETC.) - THERE ARE PLENTY OF BIG BOX STORES ALONG EL CAMINO REAL IN ENCINITAS - SOUTH OF CARLSBAD (TOWN SQUARE SHOPPING MALL, HOME DEPOT, TARGET GREAT LAND, COMP USA, OFFICE DEPO, BED BATH & BEYOND, CIRCUIT CITY, BARNES AND NOBLE, ETC.) B. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LOCAL STORE SHOPPING CENTER - EVENTUALLY, THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR ONE MORE GROCERY STORE / DRUG STORE TYPE SHOPPING CENTER IN THE N.E. QUADRANT C. NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER SITES NEEDED - ONLY ONE MORE SUCH SITE NEEDED - NO NEED FOR TWO SUCH SITES -NO NEED FOR CONVENIENCE SHOPPING (WE ALREADY HAVE THE COUNTRY STORE) - r D. CRITERIA FOR THE ONE ADDITIONAL LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER - LOCATE IT ALGNG A MAJOR ROAD (SUCH AS EL CAMINO REAL) - LOCATE IT IN THE CENTER OF A TRADE AREA (RATHER THAN ON THE EDGE OF A TRADE AREA) - TRAFFIC CRITERIA (SEE BELOW) - DON’T LOCATE IT NEXT TO A CITY PARK OR RECREATIONAL BALLFIELDS OR CHJLD PLAY AREAS - DON’T LOCATE IT NEXT TO A NATURAL HABITAT AREA OR HABITAT LINK AREA , - DON’T LOCATE IT NEXT Tq A FIRE STATION - DON’T LOCATE IT NEAR A SCHOOL - MAKE SURE THE SITE IS COMMERCIALLY VIABLE (ARE THERE ENOUGH ROOFTOPS TO SUPPORT IT?) - DON’T PUT IT AT A LESS THAN FULL INTERSECTION -3 - NO MORE THAN A THREE MILE DRIVE FOR MOST HOMES OWNERS NOTE: A LOT OF OUR CURRENT GROCERY STORE SHOPPING IS BEING DONE AT THE FLOWER FIELDS COSTCO MANY MILES AWAY FROM CALAVERA HILLS - A WELL LAID OUT SHOPPING SITE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A SITE WHOSE TRAVEL DISTANCE THAT IS TWO TO THREE MILES AWAY NOTE: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AT THE SHOPPING SITE SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO NOT CREATE ANY MAJOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES - THE SITE SHOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND NOTE: THIS MAY RULE OUT SITES ALONG EL CAMINO REAL THATARENEXTTORIVERBEDSORTHATAREIN loOYEAR FLOOD PLAINS) - THE SITE SELECTED SHOULD BE EVALUATED BASED UPON POPULATION PATTERNS AT BUILD OUT - THE SITE SELECTED SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES E. TRAFFIC CRITERIA FOR THE LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER - LOCATE IT ALONG A MAJOR ROAD (SUCH AS EL CAMINO REAL) - LOCATE IT ON A MAJOR ROAD (SUCH AS EL CAMINO REAL) SO - THAT THE LARGEST NUMBER OF CARLSBAD RESIDENTS WILL BE SERVED - DON’T CREATE ANY SCHOOL CHILDREN TRAFFIC HAZARDS - DON’T CREATE ANY CITY PARK Xl-E /RECREATION SITE / PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS - DON’T CREATE TRAFFIC VOLUME PROBLEMS - DON’T PUT IT AT A LESS THAN FULL INTERSECTION (SUCH AS A “T” INTERSECTION WHICH DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT THROUGH TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION) - KEEP TRAFFIC WHICH STARTS ON COLLEGE BOULEVARD ON COLLEGE BOULEVARD NOTE: WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE BEST FOR THE TRAFFIC FLOW ALONG FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO REMAIN ON COLLEGE BOULEVARD AS THE TRAFFIC DRIVES ALONG FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD FROM OCEANSIDE TO EL CAMINO REAL - DON’T PUT IT ON A SITE WHICH WILL CREATE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROBLEMS - DON’T PUT IT ON A SITE WHICH WILL HAVE SITE ENTRANCE AND EGRESS PROBLEMS F.. TIMING FOR THE NEW LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER SITE - TAKE YOUR TIME - THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE SHOPPING FOR THE NEXT 2-3 YEARS - CONSIDER ALL ASPECTS OF EACH SITE BEFORE MAKING A SELECTION NOTE: WE THINK EACH SITE SHOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY EVALUATED AND JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS SO THAT ONLY THE BEST SITE IS SELECTED - CONSIDER ALL THE ALTERNATIVES (SUCH AS ADJACENT SITES ALONG THE 78 FREEWAY [STONE QUARRY, ETC.] WHEN COLLEGE BOULEVARD IS OPENED TO THE 78 FREEWAY) - MAKE A GOOD DECISION 3 G. SUMMARY - WHEN THE FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD IS COMPLETED FROM OCEANSIDE TO EL CAMINO REAL, THE RESIDENTS OF CALAVERA HILLS WILL HAVE ADEQUATE SHOPPING FOR GROCERIES, MEDICINE, AND GAS LESS THAT A MILE AND ONE HALF AWAY: - In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real. - In C+rlsbad at other commercial sites along El Camino Real - In Carlsbad at the major cqnrnercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property. - In Oceanside at commercial sites along the 78 Freeway - AS THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARE AWARE, THE AREA SURROUNDING CALAVERAS PARK IS 100% RESIDENTIAL OR NATURAL HABITAT AREA. - AT THE SKATE BOARD PARK HEARINGS ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO, THE CITIZENS IN THE CALAVERA PARK AREA INDICATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEIR DESIRE THAT THIS AREA RETAIN ITS QUIET, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT. - WE HOPE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT KEEP THIS DESIRE IN MIND WHEN DECIDING WHICH NEW COMMERCIAL SITE IS BEST FOR THE N.E. QUADRANT. - WE HOPE YOU MAKE A GOOD REASONED DECISION! CALAVERA HILLS Homeozulzers Homeinvners at Calavera Hills Carlsbad, California 92008 June 27,1999 Mayor Bud Lewis Councilwoman Julie Nygaard Councilwoman Ramona Fin&la Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Councilman Matt Hall Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Via U.S. Mail - Re: E-l Propertv in Calavera Hills Dear Mayor and City Council: After very careful consideration, we the undersigned homeowners in Calavera Hills do hereby request that the Carlsbad City Council, along with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, consider: (1) Adding the Village E- 1 Property in Calavera Hills to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process as a Residential Use Property. or (2) Changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential. The reasons for this request are considerable and include the following: The location of the E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of E-l (Village K) may make the current commercial zoning for E- 1 inappropriate. Because a major portion of the customer drawing area for the E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the E-l’property is economically viable as a commercial site. In the consideration of adding the E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment, we would hope that the following uses be considered for the E-l site: Residential Housing (RMH) Senior Citizen Assisted Living Some Other Appropriate Residential Use We also believe that either residential housing (RMH) or some form of senior citizen assisted living would be highly compatible with the uses of Cal&era Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property. As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about 18 months ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony). We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 2 1.38.120 (b) and 21.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request). We thank the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E- 1 property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E- 1 Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential. Sincerely, e Thomas P. Flanagan Joan R. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Bernice Hill 2984 Ridgefield Avenue Caroline Prescott 4669 Woodstock Street Pam Paterson The Colony Gordon French 29 13 Lancaster Road Ray McNay Mary McNay 2905 Lancaster Road 2905 Lancaster Road Sandi Ray 2959 Cape Cod Circle Sally Hannon The Crest Joan Arcelle 4337 Hartfield Place Robert Seamans 292 1 Lancaster Road Marline Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle Jim Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle Hugh McGrane 4560 Cape Cod Circle Jay Tank 4656 Woodstock Street Terry McGrane 4560 Cape Cod Circle Patricia Harper 2992 Brandon Circle Sandy Stamper 2962 Lancaster Road Julie Richter 2958 Lancaster Road Richard A. Reck 4534 Hartford Place Linda Tank 4656 Woodstock Street Richard L. Harper 2992 Brandon Circle Billie Jo Kelly 2984 Woodbury Court Debra Nelson 2986 Woodbury Court Eulana Bastone 3002 Brandon Circle Thomas Connors 2979 Woodbury Court Judith Dianne Westfall Robertson Curtice Laurie Curtice 2987 Woodbury Court 2989 Woodbury Court 2989 Woodbury Court Beverly Seamans 2921 Lancaster Court Vera M. Theiss Susan Stillwell 2974 Ridgefield Avenue 2976 Ridgefield Avenue Joan Warner 2960 Lexington Circle I Thomas Nash Jill Nash 2978 Ridgefield Avenue 2978 Ridgefield Avenue Janet Gosselin 4554 Cape Cod Circle Doreen Bergeron 4556 Cape Cod Circle Randy Bergeron 4556 Cape Cod Circle Michelle Regan 2957 Cape Cod Circle cc: Ray Patchette - City Manager Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Calavera Hills Development, L. P. (Current E-l Property Owner) Calavera Hills II, LLC (A Subsidiary of McMillan Properties) Calavera Hills Homeowner Warren & Doris Jenks 4548 Cape Cod Circle Carlsbad CA 92008-6549 760-729-2 113 To: City of C&bad Planning Department Re: Local Shopping Center Designation Qualifications We strongly agree with Tom Planagan’s letter bf September 10,200O. We feel that 2.5 miles to a local shopping center is realistic. In a previous home we were 3 miles from two different shopping centers & it was very convenient. We like larger shopping centers of approximately 14 to 20 acres where we can drive in from the main road, park & choose which commercial part of the center we need that day. The property should be large enough to have a green landscape on the street side. -8 Site selection should consider the land use adjacent to the shopping center. It should not create ingress & egress problems. We would like a large shopping center on El Camino Real within the 2.5 - 3 mile range of the Cape of Calavera Hills. We also suggest counting the McMillan Stone Quarry Shopping Center as an area to serve Calavera Hills. We do prefer that no day care center be placed in the E-2 area north of the Cape of Calavera Hills. We definitely prefer residential use only. Thank you for your consideration. Warren B . Jenks & Doris R. Jenks ‘/“1 irss;oEJ e r$ Is/ eulw ~LJeY- /vleM6ef-~ ~.. * J / / ;-,-L( 1 y , > .f ,” -m--&L’ I /r’” - I /-J -- - 3 a -- James & Marilyn Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549 . December 03, 2000 City of Carlsbad ’ Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Attn: Dennis Turner - Senior Planner RE: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan Dear Mr. Turner: We feel the amendment regarding local shopping centers is a good a place as any to start with. With the excellent work you have done with the City Council, _, the Planning staff and the Citizens of Carlsbad workshops held on this subject, a we have high regards for you and know you would like to keep Carlsbad a great place to live. As many citizens have asked that we keep Carlsbad from becoming like nearby cities and as Council member Matt Hall has stated that he would try to keep the strip malls out of Carlsbad. If we could have larger local shopping centers, (ideal depth is 1,000 feet or more) rather than more little ones - it would benefit everyone. We shop on our way home from work, or during the lunch hour - like most working families do. Smaller local shopping centers would only deter great anchor tenants with needed secondary tenants. Driving 3-5 miles on the weekends to the supermarkets is not a problem for anyone that I have talked to. The driving time would be, at the most 10 minutes. But we strongly feel that allowing big box stores as secondary tenants should not be included as listed on page 15 of the Proposed General Plan Amendment (such as K-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Staples, Office Depot, Wal-Mart, Comp USA, Good Guys, Toy R Us, Big Five and etc.) During one of the workshops, the Citizens of Carlsbad and the City of Carlsbad had discussed that there was a strong desire to keep the big box stores out of Carlsbad. The Proposed Local Shopping Center Amendments should encourage medium sized local shopping centers with 12 to 14 acres sites rather small local shopping centers with 8 to 10 acres site as was expressed in the workshops. Medium local shopping centers would serve a little larger primary trade area and would look less like strip malls and the traffic flow would be better. James & Marilyn Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549 We also think the City of Carlsbad has to look into a community park with pool . facilities. We do not have an adequate community park to hold Company Picnics, Family Reunions and other events with pool facilities. This is a great need for us and will serve all of Carlsbad. We need to do something with the parking on Glasgow at Calavera Hills Park before someone gets hurt or even killed. There is absolutely no adequate parking for any large event. The overflow of parking is coming into our community streets and God forbid if we need an ambulance or fire truck - they could not reach us. . We would like to thank the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and the City Council ahead of time for considering our suggestions to the General Plan and we look forward working with you on the Proposed Local Shopping Plan. Sincerely, . Secretarial Services .. (30 yrs. Exec. Secretarid Experience) : .,. December 2; 2~ .‘]:I. _ . .-. . .; .-. _..-‘, - . . TO; ALL PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONEI& . -.‘I’. . : -, : . .I : . . _. I.. RE: N-EM’ C.OM&lERCIAL POLICtiS/I;AND U& DESIGNATIOtis ‘. ,. ‘, : .:. ‘.. -’ ... ’ Case File: GpA 0()-w ’ ’ ~ ..:. ,, . ,: ., .:-, I-z ’ .- .,‘., ,- .. .- _ ,,,.. I .‘. I,’ - * ‘.’ ,.. - I i ‘..<I . . ,. : . Dear Commissioners: :. A’ .- . ., ‘. \.. .; ‘. 1~ I ;. .- -. -. 3 . . .i “:f ._, : ., ,. c : ‘. IC ,._ I ,:.-.,.;., I would like to reiterate that I fully r&end&se. and support .an the specific and general :“:. I‘. : ;- . comments as written in Tom -4. Joan Flanagan’s letter to’ Dermis Turner ‘dated 9/lO/Qq 1’ .‘I’ ’ ‘.. relative to the General Plan ‘Amendment - Land Use Element redefming‘ Shopping. Cent&s. ; ‘-. .’ .:: _, ‘. I f ~. . . . ’ ~ ; ._ _ . . . . i ‘.“ __,. . J strongly feel the propo&d, .-I .5 &e &&j’ && area is && ‘ia- &&&., ‘:A3,&&&& ’ .,.,’ ‘-1:: : : : :. , center every 1.5 miles’ divides and cuts into our quiet neighborhood’ areas disruptin destroying our peaceful ambiance. * %h and %ci.. .“: sLI~ ; Many of us commute full distance to our ‘jobs .“ving ’ ‘..-.;,. I I on ‘the busy freeways ‘every.’ day & look forward to returning’ home ’ into our peaceful . .- .-- :I neighborhoods at the end of a~stressful .day. ‘1 A driving time of 7 .--36 minutes to ‘a’service-,‘ ‘,” r I,..: ;ef, 4 : trade area within a 2.5 miles -radius would still be adequate, j’ ‘tihile ~m&naining ~. a ’ 1’ :i-::: : _ ’ neighborhood balance at the same time.’ ,:,men &e stone Quarry site . &&ple@s e,.:/, i.i ‘. -“. - : development of their Shopping Center, ‘Calavera Hills residents’ will have less’ *than “a mile .) ‘: ; .- jr’ .. to drive for all kinds of services,‘groceries & sundry items which Would eliri$ate~, any ‘need . . . for a shopping center in’ this area. ‘;.,l _’ 1 _:, .‘: .( ,. .., . . ‘i -. :.., : j ., . . ‘_ ,, , :, .I I .;;,.. I.- .: ., ‘.‘ _ :.. .I ‘.. ,. ,, /. ” , . ; -. :. . -, -.;. ‘. .- ‘,., As mentioned in the Flanagan’s letter, ~a-new shopping center site should~co&der~‘the ;- ~‘ - safety :” : ‘;:..- hazard of children walking to and ,f’rom school, areas; emergency response tie ‘of the Fire -. ” ..- :f, Station located next to the Calavera ‘Community Park; protection of our City Habitat areas; “ ’ i. ’ ‘, and, limited parking. facilities at the Calavera ‘Community Park continues to become -a’major “; .” : ,,. problem as &v&pm& expa+,~ .” . . ‘, -,_ : .; I’,. _~. -‘- I, : __ .‘::,; 1,:: ., 1: r,‘-, :‘-1: ,-‘,.’ .:;f ‘. 1 +-.,:,,‘, .: t- ._._ .~% I . ).“,. .’ :-,.I , : -- :: .L _ _’ I want to thank tfie planriidg -~~~artmen~. s,ff for holding.~ese public h~~~~’ and ‘g~~;ing’ i .. _. me the opportunity to express. my feklings and’ comments concerning this subject. .I Your 1 dedication and efforts in keeping Carlsbad. .a friendly and quiet .village that we all enjoy. ‘.. .‘I is genuinely apprec&&. ‘:. . ‘, .- 1 :- ’ :, _ :‘. . . , I. ;’ ._ ; ;.-.. .i. ~ Sincerely, _ . - I,, ._ 1 -, - W: _, .” ,: ..,,. ... ‘j ‘- 1:. .,.I- .~~:;‘~,~-:~.,~-: ‘; ---, .’ ..I!? - .--* Yp- .. *. -, L I.- -1 .‘:.. .:‘ .:: ;; ; ; ‘..::‘ ‘:: - ,. *..; % -A ” -I ‘. . : ._ _ (. ,.. . ...2- / ?@y?y3 ‘. . . ” .. _‘. ‘. .I. _:_ ‘. I ‘, .., . L ..I > - ‘a.., BE&ICE C. HIL; ‘-: ,... ‘- >,,I :, ..,. .:;.‘:‘;,,. .~ ,a,‘..._ :.‘:y,y r.,.> i- 2984 Ridgefield Avenue .‘. .i .. .., .‘. ‘,.‘- ‘I .. “k’ .__ . . 1 ,. .,‘- Carlsbad, CA 92008 I ._ .. ‘: : .I :. . _: .. -., 7 _.~ :. . . ‘. .- . . ‘.-- : Dau*tDe+. &&?%l?e %6&y/ (619) ?20-02& ” ; 2 7 .; I_ ’ _ Joan P. Arcelle 4537 Hartford Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 December 1,200O This letter is in regard to the proposed localcenters. /’ I am a resident of The Cape at Calavera Hills and have great concern for the proposed shopping center being planned for the property on Carlsbad Wage Drive and Glasgow, which is in the middle of our neighborhood. TrafEc and parking is already a problem because of the Calaveras Park on Glasgow, and the shopping center would just add to that. I understand the access and egress will be a problem, because of the con@uration of the streets. Glasgow is a narrow street that allows only enough room for traf3ic in each direction. Because of the increased traflic that the shopping center will attract, a turning lane would be necessary and there is not enough room “r ?. I also fear it will become a hangout for children and young adults as the park already attracts youths from all areas. Lastly but certainly an au-important one is the safety of our children walking to and from school. With the increase in traffic the children will be at a greater risk of injury or worse. Thank you for considering my opinion, a very concerned citizen. Sincerely, 8 -B Gb oan P. Arcelle __ -- -_ .-..-- ___A *-I UJ -e”Y UBERTSOY’S _____ -.-.-_- _._. --- - _. -_ A me- ’ 6565 Knon Avenue Bucna Park, CA 90620-l 158 Phone: (714) 739-7852 Fax: (714) 739-7409 Albenson’s Real Estate Depamnen: Jeff Died - Sr. Real Estate hlanagc: Southem Califomir Region r- ..i November 28,200O / . The Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Commercial Land Use Amendment FAX: 760-602-8559 (w/Original to Follow) To Whom This May Concern: As you may know, Albertson’s has been attempting to secure a site in North Carisbad along El Camino Real for over ten years, without success. We are not interested in the commercial sites in Calavera Hills nor in Sunny Creek, since each of these sites is poorly located in relationship to the population. Our business is a convenience business where we need to be near our customers. This is especially true with dual income and single parent families where time is at a premium. While we had hoped for a site at the southeast comer of Tamarack and El Camino Real, community concern about that site has led us to the conclusion that we should consider an alternate location. However, we do need to be located on El Camino Real in the center of the population we serve, so that our customers, most of whom are on‘El Camino Real at some point in time during each day, can conveniently shop at our store. With all the housing in Calavera Hills, both existing and planned, the housing planned for the Robertson Ranch, the Kelly Ranch, and other planned developments in the northeast quadrant, not to mention all the existing surrounding housing, we believe it is very important for us to be located somewhere between Cannon Road and Tamarack Avenue, on El Camino Real. We have identified a potential alternative site mid-way between Cannon and Tamarack at the comer of El Camino Real and the main entry street planned for the Robertson Ranch. We expect this entry street to ultimately have access to Glasgow in Calavera 11 ..-A _* .“J rUY .~LiiERTso~s- ---._-- --- __---- --____----- zoo; Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad November 28,200O Page Two Hills,” which could remove the need for many customers who live in Calavera Hills to continue on El Camino Real into the very busy Tamarack intersection. We believe this ‘alternative location addresses the concerns of the local community about our proposed Tamarack project. We also want to provide the Planning Commission with assurances that our sales studies show an overwhelming demand for a supermarket in Carlsbad in the general vicinity of the Robertson Ranch. We are also working on a site in Oceanside at College and Marron (as a relocation for our existing Oceanside store). We believe that the Robertson Ranch and the new Oceanside sites will both be excellent locations for us. They are not mutually exclusive; we b&eve that we need both sites in order to. adequately serve the trade areas which we are trying to service. While some citizens may believe that both sites are not “needed” our sales studies show the opposite. We have no incentive to incur the considerable expense to process and build two locations, if only one is actually necessary. We believe the people of northeast Cadsbad desenre to have the convenient service of a modem supermarket available to them without having to drive the extra distance on city streets to our other proposed store in Oceanside, or to the Vons at Marron and El Camino Real, which is already highly congested. Based upon the above, we respectfully request that the City Planning Commission delete from its recommendation to the City Council a prohibition of a new neighborhood shopping center site on El Camino Real. While some residents might feel that such deletion is appropriate, we hope the planning professionals at the City will be mindful of the long term interests of those who have yet to move into the City. ’ JD:pm/PianningCornmissionCarisbad.doc -Nov-28-00 04cSlP . P-01 JAMES M. HICKS LAND SALES TO: Mr. Dennis Turner DATE: November 242000 FAX # (760) 602-8559 PHONE # PAGES WITH COVER SHEET: 5 Oear Dennis: The attached material is being sent to your attention on behalf of ‘the Rabertson family, As you know, they have been actively involved over the past 17 years in attempting to locate a neighborhood shopping center on their El Camino Real frontage. We thought we would provide the Commissioners with some history on commercial interest in the area as well as some back-up information on what is planned and what has been developed along El Camlno Real throughout the entire city limits. I am not familiar with the procedure, but I was hoping a copy of this letter could be provided to the Commissioners prior to the meeting of December 6, 2000 which I will be attending and where I plan to speak before the Commissioners. A copy has been provlded to Gary Wayne. Your cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Jim Hicks 5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 438-201 f (760) 438-4048 FAX 100 WEST LIBERTY ST. SUITE 820 RENO, NV 89501 (775) 329-4000 (775) 3298526 FAX Jhicks@naiweb.com 131 .Nov-28-00 04:52P b -I P-02 Mr. Bill Compas Khair crr~ 01; CAKLWALI Planning Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village IIrive Carl&id. CA 02008 Kc: Cast File GPA 00-04 Dear Mr. (Jompaa: November 28, X00 Early in 1983 I was approached by Mr. Jim GaLlBe who at the time, was ihe head of the Kcal Estate IXvision of Safcway Stores, According to Jim, they felt they nccdcd to relocate to the east along Tamarack Avenue because the existing location would nut allow them to expand. At the time they felt the SEC of El CIamino Real and Tamarack Avenue would be an excellem location fi)r* their new store. On June 27, 1984 the Kobcrtson family submitted a rcqucst for a prc-anncxational zone change and gcncraf plan amendment belbre the (Yarlsbad Planning Commission to change the Toning and the gcncral plan to accommodate a commercial use. The planning staff suppvrted the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request. UnfortunRtcly, the planning commission approval WBS ovcrturncd by the City Ckxmcil on August 21, 1 OH4 and the proposed new Safcway store was ncvcr builr. Al a public hearing on March 3, I987 the Grlsbacl City Council approved the “Carlsbad County Islands Annexation”. The clity zoning that was placed on the Robertson property at the time was I,C, which was dcscribcd as a “holding zone”. In 1989 the Robertson family entered into an agreement Lo lease a portion of the their land at the SllC of El Clamino Real and Tamarack Avcnuc (approx. 19 acres) lo a commercial developer. A site plan was prepared which included a major market {Ralphs) and a drug atore (Payless), The approval of the site plan would also require a zone change and gcricral plan amendment. During the application process, a pcrition was prcparcd, acknowlcdycd by several residents of the CXy ofCar]sbdd and presented to the City Clerk asking the City “to reject the above proposal, and any similar commercial development proposed in the future for the above property”. ..(SEC: El C:amino Real & Tamarack Avenue). . ..and that the City ol‘ Carlsbad retain the current zoning of 1.X Limited Gntrol Zone.. ,. . ..” The concerns cxprcsscd by some ol’the residents as well as the market conditions at the time required Ihe developer to withdraw its application in 199 1, In November of 1995, the Robertson family entered into an agreement with GrantTuckcr Properties lo lease approximately X acres of their property at the SEC of El Gmino Kcal and Tamarack Avcnuc with Albertsons Market as the major tenant, tkcause of the previous concerns expressed by some of the neiyhbors, lhe size oi’ the mnter was greatly reduced. However, anticipating lhat a reduction of the proposed centtr from I9 acres to 8 - Nov-28-00 04:62P a. a P-03 acres was insufficient to placate the ncighbors regarding the land USC, an altcrnatc site for the ncighborhood shopping wntw has now heen locared w the SEC of El C:aminc, Real, across from the cxistiny commercia.1 zoning where the Guntry Store is located, As you know, all existing ncighborhood shopping center sites in the City of C:arlsbad arc located cithcr on Interstate 5 or F,I Camino Real. There is a simple reason fi,r this. These roads arc dcsigncd to handle large volumes of trdt’tic, The complerion of Reach II of Clannon Road will relieve pressure i?om several major intersections along I-S and El Camino Kcal. It will also provide Carlsbd residents, and others, wilh an opportunity to exit Cannon Road and 1-S and make a direct connoc:ion with 1;l Carnino Real. Most of this traffic will continue along Clannon Road east Wough the Wobe~son Ranch 10 College Avenue or continue north on Ll Camino Kcal along the Robertson Ranch Liontage up to Tamarack Avcnuc and Chestnut Drive. A ncighborhood shopping cenler location on I.3 Camino Real in the Robertson Ranch wolrlti fit in very nicely with thcsc traffic patterns, Under the Tmplementiny Policies and Action Programs, Section C2, Paragraph 5 states that “New sites for local shonniny centers should not be located Aon~ LI Cw ,. . l Hcsl, so as to minimize the commercialiration of this scenic roadww”. All of the exposure the Robtison IBmily has had over the last I7 years with commercial developers and the major markets has shown a prcfcrcncc to locate on 1-7 Camino Real. I[ is the most important nonh-south, major arterial in the C’ity ol’ C&bad desiged to carry large volumes ol’ trallic. To climinatc the possibilit,y of locatiny a ncighborhood shopping center on El Camino Real would not. be. in our eslimalion, a wise decision for the Planning C:ommission to make at this time, Approximately one year ago. I provided the City Council and the planning staff wit,h a summary of land uses along t+I Camino Real throughout the entire city limits. A copy or that letter is attached. As you can see, this heavily lravclcd road has only about IO’/0 of its land use dedicated to commercial prqjects, over MY% of this commercial zoning on El Camino Real is located either at Marron Road or La Costa Avenue and, 90% of these projects have already been developed I don’t believe these fiyurti indicate a trend toward the commercialization of El Camino Real. ‘I’his Planning Commission and all futwrc Planniny Commiysivns should have the discretion ol’ approving neighborhood shopping centers on El Camino Real based upon the merits of the site and the benefits they will provide lo the citizenry. I believe it is best 10 review the project first, Ihen make your decision. =2(Tommissi*n Members ,Nov-ZB-00 04:SZP : (I October 4 1999 , P-04 Mr. Dennis Turner Advance Principal Planner CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 El Camino Real Carlshad, CA WOOS Re: C’otnmercial Land Study Dear Dennis: Over this last weekend I calculated the road frontage alnny both sides of El Casino Rcnl kthin the city limits ofthc Cily of G&bad. !+‘hilc 1 am sure my figures are not entirely accurate, it did point out some interesting facts reyarding commercial zoning along El Camino Real. From what 1 was able to dcterminc, there arc @proximately 102,OOO Iinear feet of fiontagc on both sides of El Camino Real. Of this amount, only 9500 feet (9.31% of the total) is zoned for retail commercial USC and 92,6% ol that total has already been developed. The only exception is the Sunny Creek site. It is interesting to note that over 60%~ ol’ the retail commercially zoned property in Ihe Cily of C&bad on El C.amino Real is located RI the intersections ol’E1 Camino Real with La Costa Avenue and h4arron Road. Further, 60% of the land zbrlcd for retail commercial use on %I Ctirnino Real Faces retail commercial hntage on the other side of the slreel so, the visual impact is significanlly Ias. As to other land uses that front El Cumino Real in the City ofCarlsbad, there are1 750 rcct of office allocation at the north end of town which consists of only I .7 1 O/u of the total frontage. Interestingly, thcrc is almost as much industrially-zoned land that fronts El Camino Rcdl as commercial. When the UA (Unplanned Areas) of The Bressi Ranch and the Fox Property are developed, the industrial frontage on El Camino Real ti exceed that of commercial. In summary about &I% of the land that fronts El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad is zoned for open space, rcsidcntial or governmental uses (Palomsr Airport, a small percentage of the total). From what I have been able to determine, the Tamarack site and the Akandte site on the Robertson Ranch are the only two possible locations for retail commercial zoning consideration on El Camino Real. If either of these sites were approved for neighborhood commercial, it would only increase the retail commercial zoning kontagc on El Camino Real by one percentage point increasing the amount from 9.3 1% of the total to 1029% which would still be less than the potential industrial uses. ,Nov-28-00 04:63P *a + P-06 It should also be pointed out that the Alremale site would be located across from mistjr,g commercial zoniny along El Camino Real (‘l-he Country Stow). 1 believe these to be intcrcsting figukcs that should be provided to the council members when addressing the subject olrctai1 commercial zoning along El Camino Real. In particuiar, the location of the Alternate site, which would visually not necessariIy increase commercial zoning along El Camino Real, but complement tistiag zoning (The Country Store). In sunbnal’y, from a planning point of view, if there is a need for additional retail commercial zoning in the northeast quadrant of the City and, if the planning staff feels the Tamarack site or the Altomate site are best suited to meet that need, then the impact on El Camino Real frontage is quite negligible. This is a small price to pay for the right locstion. Please call if you have any questions. Regards, cl---~ /35- GUP GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES, LLC STEVEN P. GRANT L.4RRY TUCKER November 28,200O The Planning Commission City of Carlsbad c/o Gary Wayne 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: GPA OO-04/LCPA 00-06 Shopping Center Policies Ladies and Gentlemen: Grant Tucker Properties (“GTP”) is a developer of neighborhood shopping centers, including the soon to be redeveloped La Costa Plaza in Carlsbad, California. GTP has also proposed developing a neighborhood shopping center in the northeast quadrant of Carlsbad on the Robertson Ranch. Accordingly, we have been carefully following the proposed modification to shopping center policies which is being considered by the City at this point. By way of letter to Dennis Turner of September 13,2000, we set forth several comments on the text of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. According to Dennis, most of the changes which we proposed were found to be appropriate and acceptable, however, the staff declined our request for the deletion of Paragraph C5. Paragraph C5, which appears under the heading “Implementing Policies and Action Programs” states (at page 32 of our draft), “New sites for local shopping centers should not be located along El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic roadway.” Implementing Policy C4 suggests that local shopping centers should not be located directly within residential neighborhoods. Implementing Policies C4 and C5 effectively mean that there will be no new neighborhood shopping center on the Robertson Ranch. This policy direction, when coupled with the proposed deletion of the commercial site in Calavera Hills, and the fact that there is probably a marketplace reason why the Sunny Creek site has been long delayed, could result in no new neighborhood shopping centers in the northeast quadrant of the City, despite a very significant increase in residential housing proposed for that area. One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658 (949) 251 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax Email: gtp@ohill.com The Planning Commission November 28,200O Page 2 We hope the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council against a prohibition of new supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping centers along El Camino Real, for the following reasons: 1. The purpose of a supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping center is to conveniently service the needs of those nearby for basic necessities. Accordingly, they should be optimally located on streets where significant average daily trips already exist. This allows the public to combine vehicle trips, and visit shopping locations on their way to and from other locations. El Camino Real is the main north-south road through the center of the City. 2. Please note in the proposed changes to the Land Use Element (which includes the new policies referred to above), the deletion of an existing policy which states, “3. Locate neighborhood commercial sites generally one mile apart and an optimal distance fi-om other commercial centers.” The existing General Plan, and the Master Environmental Impact Report which supported the update of General Plan in 1994, contemplates the strategic location of neighborhood commercial sites in order to cut down drive times (and congestion). 3. GTP initially proposed a site on the Robertson Ranch at the southeast comer of Tamarack and El Camino Real. Due to community concerns, we have reconsidered this proposal. Instead, an alternative site has been proposed on the Robertson Ranch along El Camino Real which is across from the southern end of the commercially zoned Country Store area. 4. The effort to keep El Camino Real as scenic as possible is already reflected in the sizeable setback (60’) which is required before development can occur on the Robertson Ranch along El Camino Real, south of the Country Store. Due to many requests by the City for a significant wildlife corridor, road rights-of-way (most notably Cannon and College), a park, a school and a detention basin, the 1,000 plus housing units allowed on the Robertson Ranch under the existing General Plan will cover most of the remainder of the Ranch. We submit that the back of even well- designed housing is not necessarily more scenic than a well-designed, screened shopping center. 5. We agree that unnecessary “commercialization” of El Camino Real would be a mistake. There is no need for office/industrial uses nor strip commercial in this /37 The Planning Commission November 28,200O Page 3 6. area; it can locate elsewhere without inconvenience to the neighbors. However, a supermarket-anchored modestly sized neighborhood shopping center, with the City’s stringent Site Development Plan standards, would serve a true need in the northeast quadrant and shouldn’t be precluded. The SDP standards and the need for a shopping center permit, which appear to us to be far more restrictive than the standards for new housing in the City, could actually promote a more “scenic” El Camino Real than tract housing. McMillan Development is in the final stages of the original build out of Calavera Hills (f 480 homes) and now is seeking a Master Plan Amendment in the northeast quadrant for an additional 700 plus homes. The Kelly Ranch has nearly as many housing units as are proposed for the Master Plan Amendment being sought by McMillan. The Robertson Ranch and other housing planned for the northeast quadrant will add another f 2,000 units. Where will all of these future residents shop? In an area where peak hour drive times are already an increasing concern, a restriction which prohibits a new supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping center on El Camino Real near to residents should be seriously scrutinized. Based upon the above, we respectfully request that the policy which precludes a new supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping center along El Camino Real be deleted (revised) from the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element. If the proposed prohibition of new commercial along El Camino excludes supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping centers, we would have no objection. Very truly yours, Grant Tucker Properties By: 3 7v Larry Tucker LT/bem cc: Dennis Turner Virginia Robertson Jim Hicks 138 11/28/00 15:58 FAX 714 739 7409 ___ _ _ ._-.- -- ALBERTSOyS --. .--- -- --.--I - - --- -. ..- ___ ._ woo2 ‘ A Aiba- 6565 Knott Avenue Buena Park, CA 90620-l 158 Phone: (714) 739-7852 Fax: (714) 739-7409 Alkrtson’s Real Estate Dcparbmnt Jeff Dierck - Sr. Real Bstatc Manager Southern California Region November 28,200O FAX: 760-602-8569 (w/Original to Follow) The Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Commercial Land Use Amendment To Whom This May Concern: As you may know, Albertson’s has been attempting to secure a site in North Carlsbad along El Camino Real for over ten years, without success. We are not interested in the commercial sites in Calavera Hills nor in Sunny Creek, since each of these sites is poorly located in relationship to the population. Our business is a convenience business where we need to be near our customers. This is especially true with dual income and single parent families where time is at a premium. While we had hoped for a site at the southeast comer of Tamarack and El Camino Real, community concern about that site has led us to the conclusion that we should consider an alternate location. However, we do need to be located on El Camino Real in the center of the population we serve, so that our customers, most of ’ whom are on El Camino Real at some point in time during each day, can conveniently shop at our store. With all the housing in Calavera Hills, both existing and planned, the housing planned for the Robertson Ranch, the Kelly Ranch, and other planned developments in the northeast quadrant, not to mention all the existing surrounding housing, we believe it is very important for us to be located somewhere between Cannon Road and Tamarack Avenue, on El Camino Real. We have identified a potential alternative site mid-way between Cannon and Tamarack at the corner of El Camino Real and the main entry street planned for the Robertson Ranch. We expect this entry street to ultimately have access to Glasgow in Calavera 139 11/28/00 15:58 FAX 714 739 7409 ALEIERTSONS ---- _--- _ _ __-.--.- ------ ---.--.--- M 003 Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad November 28,200O Page Two Hills, which could remove the need for many customers who live in Calavera Hills to continue on El Camino Real into the very busy Tamarack intersection. We believe this alternative location addresses the concerns of the local community about our proposed Tamarack project. We also want to provide the Planning Commission with assurances that our sales studies show an overwhelming demand for a supem\arket in Carlsbad in the general vicinity of the Robertson Ranch. We are also working on a site in Oceanside at College and Marron (as a relocation for our existing Oceanside store). We believe that the Robertson Ranch and the new Oceanside sites will both be excellent locations for us. They are not mutually exclusive; we believe that we need both sites in order to adequately serve the trade areas which we are trying to service. While some citizens may believe that both sites are not “needed” our sales studies show the opposite. We have no incentive to incur the considerable expense to process and build two locations, if only one is actually necessary. We believe the people of northeast Carlsbad deserve to have the convenient service of a modern supermarket available to them without having to drive the extra distance on city streets to our other proposed store in Oceanside, or to the Vons at Marron and El Camino Real, which is already highly congested. Based upon the above, we respectfully request that the City Planning Commission delete from its recommendation to the City Council a prohibition of a new neighborhood shopping center site on El Camino Real. While some residents might feel that such deletion is appropriate, we hope the planning professionals at the City will be mindful of the long term interests of those who have yet to move into the City. JD:pm/PlanningCommissionCarlsbad.doc JAME%M. HICKS October 4, 1999 Mr. Dennis Turner Advance Principal Planner CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Commercial Land Study Dear Dennis: Over this last weekend I calculated the road frontage along both sides ofEl Camino Real within the city limits of the City of Carlsbad. While I am sure my figures are not entirely accurate, it did point out some interesting facts regarding commercial zoning along El Camino Real. From what I was able to determine, there are approximately 102,000 linear feet of frontage on both sides of El Camino Real. Of this amount, only 9500 feet (9.3 1% of the total) is zoned for retail commercial use and 92.6% of that total has already been developed. The only exception is the Sunny Creek site. It is interesting to note that over 60% of the retail commercially zoned property in the City of Carlsbad on El Camino Real is located at *he intersections of El Camino Real with La Costa Avenue and Marron Road. Further, 60% of the land zoned for retail commercial use on El Camino Real faces retail commercial frontage on the other side of the street so, the visual impact is significantly less. As to other land uses that front El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad, there are1750 feet of office allocation at the north end of town which consists of only 1.71% of the total frontage. Interestingly, there is almost as much industrially-zoned land that fronts El Camino Real as commercial. When the UA (Unplanned Areas) of The Bressi Ranch and the Fox Property are developed, the industrial frontage on El Camino Real fl exceed that of commercial. In summary about m of the land that fronts El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad is zoned for open space, residential or governmental uses (Palomar Airport, a small percentage of the total). From what I have been able to determine, the Tamarack site and the Alternate site on &Robertson Ranch are the only two possible locations for retail commercial zoning consideration on El Camino Real. If either of these sites were approved for neighborhood commercial, it would only increase the retail commercial zoning frontage on El Camino Real by one percentage point increasing the amount from 9.3 1% of the total to 10.29% which would still be less than the potential industrial uses. 5150AMNlDAENClNAS.CANSOAD,CA92008. (760)438-2017.(760)4384048FAX lOOwEsT LlDERTYSTNET*SUlTE 820. NNO,NV89501 l (775)3294@30 .(775)329-8526 FAX /4/ It should also be pointed out that the Alternate site would be located across from existing commercial zoning along El Camino Real (The Country Store). I believe these to be interesting figures that should be provided to the council members when addressing the subject of retail commercial zoning along El Camino Real. In particular, the location of the Alternate site, which would visually not necessarily increase ~mmercial zoning along El Camino Real, but complement existing zoning (The Country Store). III summary, from a planning point ofview, ifthere is a need for additional retail commercial zoning in the northeast quadrant of theCity and, ifthe planning staff feels the Tamarack site or the Alternate site are best suited to meet that need, then the impact on El Camino Real frontage is quite negligible. This is a small price to pay for the right location. Please call if you have any questions. P.O1 THOMAS I?. FLANAGAN Product Liability ConsuLtant 298 8 Ridgefield Avenue BUS (760) 729-2574 G&bad, California 92008 FAX (760) 729-7474 DATE: To: FIRM: FAX NO.: VOICE NO.: FROM: RE: FAX COVER SHEET . . September 25,200O DENNIS TURNER - SENIOR PLANNER CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT (760) 602-6669 (760) 60214609 THOMAS P. FLANAGAN PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO COVER LOCAL SHOPPING CENTERS TOTAL NUMBEROFPAGESFORTJ3JSTRANSMTSSlON(INCLUDINC,COVERSHEET): 6 IF THEREIS A~DlFplClJLTY~HTHIS~NSMIsSION OR ALL PAGFB ARENOT RECEIVEJI,PLEASECALL(76D) 7292574. ‘l’lIE PAGES COMPRISING THIS FAGit M Ii ,I E 1XnNSMISSION CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICES OF ‘I’IWMAS P. FLANAGAN. THIS INFORMATION IS INTKNIXI) SOIXI~Y WOR I!SE BY THE 1~lVII~lJAL ENTITY NAMED AS THE RECIPIEY’I’ IIEHEOC. IF YOIJ ARE NOT THE INTENDED HIKIYIKNT. BE AWARE THAT A!!Y DWXWHR. IW’I~CATION. DISTRIBUTION. OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANS’vlISSlON IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVW ‘I‘1115 TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, I’I.RASl? NOTIFY 11s BY TELEPHONE IMMEl)IA’I’EI .Y SC’, WE MAY ARRANGE TO RETRIEVE THIS THA YSMISSION AT NO COST TO YOU. COMMENTS: DENNIS - 1 SEE NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FORTHE PROPOSEDCHANGESTOTHE6ENERALPLANTOCOVER LOCAL SHOPPING CENTERS. I THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THESE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGES. MY OVERALL COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING STAFF ARE THE SAME AS THOSE I SENT TO YOU A WEEK OR SO AGO IN MY DRAFT SEPTEMBER 1CITH LETTER (SEE ATTACHED. I LOOK FORWARD TO COMMENTING ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE P A OPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGES rt;‘:tE PROPOSED PLAN REVISIONS ARE SENT OUT FOR PU;EIli . 143 3cr -c3-CIUILW 1lL1;s-d P.02 Y CALAWRA HILLS ~DenuisTucner skni~Pi8nner Fiig3i!m c 1635 Faraday Avaue carlebadcAp2oog (760) 6024w9 Wehavemvitwed~~~DcdrsPtioaaad~Propawd~~~taad~ ~~prosram mt Rcgiardbg’2ocalshoppingcentw”tifiadlilc amendment anexceUcntstmingplaaforaiiall discussionoftbae~tbat theGeneral Plan. P.03 The major points you proposed in the General Plan Amendments listed below arc strongly endorsed by us and we bclievc that they should bc adoptcd in the Proposed General Plan Atnedaa, These include theGeneral Comments (that we bcLieve were discus& at the workshops) end some Specific Comments (that were discussed iu the workshop) but are not in the Proposed General Plan Amendment : 1. GENERAL COMMKNTS A, The General Plan should bc amcndcd to replace the cummt Neigh&hood and Commercial Shopping Ccntcr dcsiguatious with a ucw designation cntitkd ‘Local Shopping Center”. B. Local Shopping Centers should not permit or encourage Strip Ma& C. Local Shopping Cc~.~tcrs should be financially viable. D. Less Local Shopping Ccntcrs rather than mom Local Shopping Ccnbrs LIZ &&able with the concept that somewhat larger Local Sh T ping Ccutcrs (12 to 14 acxes) could nxlucc the need conditions for additional Local S opping Centers. E. Local Shopping Centem should be within a 7 to 10 minute driving time f&m most citizens homes and provide for basic commercial ticc to all ateas of the City with some gaps in the driving time zones pcmitkd if conditions SO juSti@ the gaps (namely ifit would he impractical or would mult in roe many Lot pitlgcCntC~tOfilliflthC small trading gaps). This type of quirement will be used by devekqers to force more Local Shopping Centers into Carlsbad than it needs. Tbc General Plan Anxndment needs to consider that if&z Local Shopping enter is on a Medium Sized Local Shopping Center Site (12 to 14 acne) thentheprimarytra&arcanccdstobe de-d to iuclude a larger primary “p” primary trade area (such at 2.5 miles and or a 7 to 10 minute driving time!) F. Local Sho@g C-enters uadc areas can vary widely k shape, size, aud configur+m so tong as Stn Malls and their attendant shallow depths (usually 700 feet or less LII depth are avoi dcl ) and Local Shopping Ccntcrs of adequate depth (1000 feet or more!) 8~ encouraged. Note; As council Member Mart Hall said we are not going to have Strip Malls like some of the recent additions in Oceanside (such as the new low depth Strip M East comer of College and Mission). /45- . ‘. P.04 G. Lmal Shopping Centcrs should include r[ a minimum a Super Market and a Drug Store As the Anchor Tenants with necessary Secondary Tenants inch&d. Note: However, we do not agree that some of those Zkco&ry Tenants should include the Big Box Stores listed on page 15 of the Proposed General Plan Amendment (such as T-et, K-Mart, Home Depot, Staples, Comp USA, Good Guys. Etc.). The general discussion by the City Council and the Citizens of Carl&ad indicated a strong desire not to have Big Box Stozes in C&&ad, but rather th12;as acceptable to drive to adjacent cities to shop at such Big Box . H. Local Shcq@ng Ccnkrs should not have any serious entrance and egress problems. 2. SPEcTFrC COMMENT S REGARDING SRE SELEClTON OF THE LOCAL SHOPPING Inaddition CotheGeneralC otnnmts regmhg site sekticm of the Local above, we believe that the following Specific Comments S * ?fF Proposed Local shopping Center Gene g Centers should seriously be considered for the Ian Amendment A. Site Selection far the Local Shopping Ccnter should include impacts to the following areas adjacent to the Local Shopping Centet: - schools - Civ Habitat Areas (Planned and Future), including Habitat Links - CityParks - Churches - Policestations P.05 B . Site Selection for the Local Shqping Center should include traffic impacts (additionai AmI to the following areas adjacent to the Local shopping caltcr: - schools - FircStations - w- - City Habitat Areas (planned and Future) - CityParks - Residential Neighborhoods - DaycareceIlteIs - churches - Polkestations C . Site Selection for the Local Shopping Center should include: D . - Traffic Iqacts and Safety Hazards to School Cbildxcn Site Selection for the Local Carkbed Shoppiug Center to outside the clcy limits of Carl&ad. Note: Spec&xlly, the large 35 xre commercial site atmomced by McMiUan C2mmxcial at the South Coast AspUt location at the( southwest comer of College Boulevard and the 78 Fmway) and curtly in the Oceanside Shilarly, the Green ACIW Shopping Centers in Encinita~ will provide adequate shopping opportunities for Carlsbad’s La Costa Residents. str-d3-2000 10: 36 P.06 E . The Pqosed Local Shopping Center Amendments should m . e the scvcre site access and egress locations when considering Small Sized Lot Y (8 to 10 acres). Shopping Gnkrs F The Proposed Local Shopping Center Amendments should encourage Medium Sized bcal shopping Ceders (12 to 14 acre-s) iu size over Small Local Shopping Centers (8 to 10 acres) because the City Council and the Citizens of C&bad expressed a strong desire at the workshops for tis (not rno~~) Local Shopping Center sites in the city. Note: These Medium Local Shopping Ccntcrs (12 to 14 acre sites) would have beucrassessandegressandcanservealietlelargerprimarytradc~ Nok: These Medium Local Shopping Centers (12 to 14 acre sites) would look less like shallow St@ Malls, would have the adequate site depth to ofI& a bett~traf5c flow and would offer a better shopping experience. Note: These Medium Local Shopping Centers (12 to 14 acre sites) primary trade area should be 2.5 miles. WethanlcthcCi@ofCa&badPlanningDepartmenttdtbeCityCouncilatxadoftimcfor considering our suggested amcndmcnts to The Genual Plan and we look farward to working with you ou the Proposed LocaI Shapping Ccntcr Plan Amendmeuts. s-y, Thomas P. Flanagau Joan R. F%agan ce: Mayor Bud Lewis Councilwoman Julie Nygaan3 couIlctiomM Ramma Filmila councilwoman Ann Klllchii , CouncllmanMattHall Carlsbad City HaU 1200 Carl&ad Village D&e C&bad, CA 92008 Ray Patchctte - City Manager Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Eric Munoz - Senior Planner - Calavera Hills TOTAL P.86 i42 SEP-22-00 FRI 08.:23 AM WESTERN SUMMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 ,- c* -. /&.-+" P. 01 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL lo: Fax: l-760-602-85 s9 From: RichardA Reck chtw 09e2/00 -- ----. ‘it@: ProposdGencralPlan Ammdmmt Pagss: 4 CC: Mayor Bud Lewis, Council McaiwRay Patchtte, Michad Holzmillcr 8t Eric Munoz u’ligmt CIIFWRNICWU OFlame- q --Pb upL;rwRecyd .Thank You, : ., ” /4/9 SEP-22-00 FRI 08:23 AM WESTERN SUMMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 P# 02 .s.c QL b ~~~~0~ ., - -,..- -$-,, ..-,,_.-.-.- ,, _, - _. _ _,, -..-....- . . ..-. - -_ __ _ _ _ . . _ - .---.. .- ._ ~. ._,_-~~~~~--~..~.~~~IIs_d59 J--------------Y-- -:ixI_1. -A-- ..--.-.-...--- _._ ._....__ ._ . . - - &&“.$ Jg . . ‘.~.‘- .” .?&,cr_l u I_._ &. PC p p l&3z.dL~~ . . -. ., _ __--. -;,&yf--p~;& ~~~.~~~~~~~Er~~~~PI/.*-..--. .-e . . .- .: l..$J3& p.$ .I kk. e.vF ,:” I... :.r...a ..N ..c/...<~.&---.-e. “7. A.) k s,7A, ‘,~cr.;,t) : .sLLL.e ; ,. s. 7kekc:.m*:ti~LL.~: : ” . \._ .; . . .;.PypL L.._...... +~&hL~.. ..g!G ..s;-_cni.; __.__ / [ 4 - .-- --L-l :.a&L. --r*’ i-.- .: c . ‘( ,..:. - . ..,..... _:. ,...._-, -.--.. - __-- I .- - .,. . -.. .,_-.___ -.--- ~ - . . -* -.-.. --.- .---..---.-_-_ .-_.-.. ;/q?-..- SEP-22-00 FRI 08:23 AI WESTERN SUHMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 P, 03 67 _ _. 1kJq 0 * . ..$.. fi .&“A2 ,, str_o^r ..d ” . . . 4- - 0 .,. rCta.\ ti ( (J 1. .p~~e.~~ ..-. .&--.. ..q-$+k _____.. &fI ( 8) .~. - 4iwyxL _ _....- - .-... I ‘, ---.- 1 ,1.-t;-;.. at. q i&P&- T “K.,tii. ..“- cGG?k~>~l$~~q,q!Ay-- ----.- :’ @A _...._ L..Lct_.A d . .._ .~ -.... 1.. . . . . .:.. .-I’ . . . - . . . . . ,B f > “, ~ . . . . . . “_ . -,--. ~ -..,.-; --_... ,-.- ._.___.____.” ., __,. _. . .,___ .., “‘:, v. ., . ._... :, -4 -. _.__ ~. . . . . .._ “_,.. . _ . .- . ..: ._ - . . _.. ~dsx I... ..--- .-.-. _ ---- --. ..-.- SEP-22-00 FRI 08:24 AM WESTERN SUMMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 P, 04 0 3 ..s. ,, .,. -7 _... ._ .-.... _., . ,, _.,, , ., _ -em.---. .-.., _.... ~ --_ ..A- ,. ,..-- 1 ,I i \ 5 ..,.. h.oCi) Q.i ,N .q .c< u. ?,.< r..s ...~-..~~~-~~..~i.r...~ . ...-* I.. : _.” - ..,_ . ...” . ” 0 GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES, LLC STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER September 2 1,200O Dennis Turner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ,-‘- .1, I, ” ,,.;J ?’ Re: Case #GPA-OO-04/LCPAOO-06 Shopping Center Policies Dear Dermis: This letter shall serve to supplement my letter to you of September 13,200O regarding the above- referenced topic. Section C. 13 appearing on Page 34 addresses the need for an amendment to the municipal code to establish development standards, design guidelines and a planned shopping center permit process. However, it is not entirely clear as to what would happen with an existing project which has already been through the discretionary approval process, but which has not received a building permit at the time of the adoption of the future amendment to the municipal code. For instance, La Costa Plaza has all of its entitlements and a recorded parcel map. While we expect Albertsons to pull a building permit before the end of the year, Grant Tucker Properties probably will not pull a building permit until sometime in February, so that all the buildings are finished about the same time. If the municipal code is amended prior to our pulling the building permits on our shops parcels, we want to make sure that we are not subject to further review by the City by virtue of any code amendment to implement the changes which the staff is proposing to the land use element. Best regards, Grant Tucker Properties LT/bem cc: Jeff Dierck Steve Grant Larry Tucker One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658 (949) 251 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax Email: gtp@ohill.com b-3 4 September 20,200O Dennis Turner, Senior Planner Carlsbad Planning Dept. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 c .:. _ :. . Y, ; y-- “J;,+ “i;y ‘42 Dear Mr. Turner, We appreciate your work on the Proposed General Plan Amendment & Local Costa1 Program Amendment regarding “local Shopping centers.” As homeowners at The Cape of Calavera Hills we are concerned. We are in agreement with Tom Flanagan and his letter to you of Sept. 10,200O. Driving seven to eight minutes to shop is very realistic. Our habit has been to shop on our route home or combine shopping with other trips. For economic reasons we find that we shop at several different large centers-not limiting ourselves to the nearest center. Therefore driving 1.5 miles to shop is irrelevant. We need to make you aware of the lack of adequate parking at Calavera Park. Future planning is needed to prevent additional trafIic and parking in this area. When there is a large event at Calavera Park participants park: in no parking areas on Glasgow, in our subdivision on private streets ( there is hardly room enough for our residents & their guests to park), and any where else they can find. Glasgow is not wide enough for cars to pass the illegally parked cars within the double yellow lines. Carlsbad City & the Carlsbad Police Department have chosen to not enforce the “NO PARKING” signs on the west side of Glasgow. There have been times when someone placed black plastic bags over the No Parking signs. Thank you for considering these problems when planning shopping centers. vfpprl a”. CY! Jcr!kS d&f;48 cat* cod cirdc Cartsbad. CA 920094549 cc:Mayor Bud Lewis Councilwoman Julie Nygaard Councilwoman Ramona FiMila Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Councilman Matt Hall City Manager Ray Pachette Planning Director Michael Holzmiller Senior Planner Calavera Hills Eric Munoz ’ JAMES M. HICKS LAND SALES September 13, 2000 Mr. Dennis Turner Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 163 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed Amendment Land Use Element\Carlsbad General Plan Dear Dennis: I have reviewed the draft report of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan as it relates to commercial land uses. As you would expect, the Robertson family has a concern regarding your policy guidelines suggesting “new sites for local shopping centers should not be located along El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic roadway.” With the exception of the downtown core, &l commercial development in the City of Carlsbad is located along freeways, prime arterials and major arterials. The simple reason for this is that these roadways are designed to carry the vast majority of traffic throughout the city. In our estimation to completely eliminate the central north-south route through the city for future commercial development is poor planning. It appears as if Item 5 is counter-productive to the other six guidelines under your Implementing Policies and Action Programs. As an example, if you don’t allow neighborhood shopping centers along El Camino Real you would be forcing these uses into the residential neighborhoods. This is contrary to Item 4. What is particularly perplexing to us is that our proposed Alternative Site for a local shopping center is located across from the Country Store, an existing commercial development. Therefore, this future intersection has already been ’ commercialized”. We believe this to be a very important point. With the exception of a small amount of constrained open space, the entire El Camino Real frontage through the City of Carlsbad (approximately 9.66 miles) is either currently developed or planned for some type of development. According to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards the most stringent setback requirements for both residential and non-residential land uses exist along that portion of El Camino Real from the Country Store to College Boulevard. The setback in this area is 6O’at grade for all uses. It appears as if the City Council that adopted these standards in 1984 made adequate provisions for the visual preservation of this area. 5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS l CARLSBAD, CA 92008 l (760) 438-2017 l (760) 4384048 FAX 100 WEST LIBERTY STREET l SUITE 820 l RENO, NV 89501 l (775) 3294000 . (775) 329-8526 FM / 5-r In a study we provided to the City approximately one year ago (copy attached), it was shown that the addition of a neighborhood shopping center site on the Robertson Ranch along El Camino Real would increase the amount of commercial zoning along the entire length of El Camino Real from 9.31% to 10.29%. This is an increase of less than 1%. If it makes good planning sense to locate a local shopping center on the El Camino Real frontage of the Robertson Ranch, this seems like a very small impact. The Draft of the Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study prepared by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department in October of 1996 identified the fact that the provision of a neighborhood shopping center site on the Robertson Ranch will provide enhanced neighborhood commercial service in this area. To support the Alternate Site, it has been shown that locating a neighborhood shopping center on the Robertson Ranch would fill a void in the community. Further, the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards has made more than adequate provision for development setbacks from the Country Store to College Boulevard. And finally, commercial land uses currently exist across El Camino Real from the Alternate Site. To quote Section C.2 of the proposed amendment, “In some instances it may not be possible to implement all of these guidelines fully and some degree of compromise may be required”. The Albertson’s store planned for the Alternate Site meets six of the seven guidelines suggested in the proposed land use amendment. From a planning standpoint as well as one of community needs, it does not seem advisable to preclude new sites for local shopping centers to be located along El Camino Real, particularly at the Alternate Site. The best site should be selected and the issues and concerns should be addressed. The result of this will be a well-planned, well-designed local shopping center that will provide the residents in the immediate area with a much-needed community amenity. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Regards, . GUP GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES, LLC STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER Dennis Turner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 September 13,200O 4 /- < +r. -,. iq ‘., Re: Case # GPA OO-04/LCPAOO-06 Shopping Center Policies Dear Dennis: I have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan concerning retail commercial development in the City of Carlsbad which accompanied the Negative Declaration dated August 23,200O. I have attached the changes which I believe are appropriate. I would also like to set forth in letter form the rationale for some of the changes which I have suggested. My thoughts are as follows: 1. At Page 13, the all important issue of “trade area” is addressed. A critical feature in a marketplace such as Carlsbad, which has many older centers and few newer ones is the size of the anchor tenant. The smaller the supermarket, the smaller the trade area. For example, the small Von’s at Tamarack and I-5 has a smaller trade area than the larger Von’s at Alga and El Camino Real. Smaller, outdated facilities have more of a convenience characteristic, which should be reflected in your language concerning trade areas. In other words, customers will drive further to the Von’s at Alga than they will to the Von’s at Tamarack. 2. Also on page 13, you have recognized that drive time and distance are quite important in determining trade area. You have not, however, defined the time of day during which drive time should be defined. Further, while you have mentioned “geographic barriers” in the determination of trade area, another barrier, which is just as important, is a large number of cars on the same street on which a customer is attempting to travel. A customer will view this the same as, say, a river without a convenient bridge. Accordingly, we believe the appropriate drive time to consider is the peak hour, since time in and around the peak hour is the time Albertson’s tells us that supermarkets generally enjoy a clear majority of their weekday customers. 3. At page 3 1, we believe that Implementing Policy 4, which was deleted (locate neighborhood commercial development so that wherever possible it is centrally located within its service area) should be slightly reworded so that it refers to “local shopping centers” and “trade area”, and remain a policy. It states an obvious preference which is consistent with the City’s objectives of not having overlapping trade areas. One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658 (949) 251 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax Email: gtp@ohill.com /5-7 Dennis Turner September 13,200O Page 2 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. If travel times are not measured at the peak hour, then we believe that travel times to a local shopping center should not exceed five minutes, since it will probably double at peak hour. Further, it should be clear that drive times are measured at build out. Since the policy of a general plan is long range in nature, the long range conditions of the City should be what the policy attempts to address. (Paragraph 2 on page 3 1). Paragraph 4 on page 32 should allow for shopping centers along “or near” major streets or future extensions of major streets. It may not always be possible to place a shopping center on a major street and indeed with the city’s full access requirements, especially along arterials, it may be nearly impossible to actually access a shopping center off of two major streets. Most “local shopping centers” will not have 1200 feet of frontage, which is what we understand is the city requirement for full turning movements from major intersections. Paragraph 5 at Page 32 is really aimed at the Robertson Ranch, since there is not much left on El Camino Real which is not already zoned for its ultimate use (including proposed centers at Sunny Creek and La Costa Glen), or already developed. The Robertson’s Ranch will not look like it does today ten years from now. Is a well landscaped, bermed frontage shopping center set back from El Camino Real really less desirable than small lot subdivision tract homes backed up to El Camino Real? Paragraph 6 on page 32, again should address the concept of “at build out.” Paragraph C5 on page 32, should define “community” tenants (or the definition should be provided earlier, perhaps in the schedule on page 12). While Grant Tucker Properties is not in the business of developing projects with “community” anchored tenants, we would observe that quite often due to the sheer size of those tenants, it is not possible to have those tenants “share walls” with other tenants in a center and indeed those tenants are generally on their own parcel, where walls are not “shared”, but rather each user has its own wall, which looks (through flashing and design) to be shared. Lastly, I am not sure I agree with the conclusions in the Negative Declaration. As the introduction of the Land Use Elements logically asserts (page l), areas planned for residential use should not be put to such use until the City can be assured that all necessary public facilities to service such uses will be available concurrently. The policies of Land Use Element presently in effect contemplate additional commercial being available in the northeast quadrant to serve the intense residential development allowed under the Land Use Element. If commercial is eliminated on El Camino Real and will not be allowed in the neighborhoods, coupled with the proposed elimination of the Calavera Hills commercial site, then the proposed change to the Land Use Element mean less commercial choice and therefore more drive time (i.e. the Land Use Element and Circulation Element would become out of balance). Presumably, the roads set forth Dennis Turner September 13,200O Page 3 in the Circulation Element were sized based upon the policy of convenient commercial to reduce drive time. In short, the environmental document does not address the effective prohibition of further new commercial in the northeast quadrant, which in turn would cause the Land Use Element to be out of balance with the Circulation Element. If you have any questions concerning my comments do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Grant Tucker Properties By: /G Larry Tucker cc: Jim Hicks Steve Grant Gary Wayne . 1. . Land Use Element *z &a& M h- Tenant composition and ‘the type of anchor tenant are the main identifiers of a shopping center type. An anchor tenant may be an individual tenant or a group of like uses that function as an anchor tenant. For example, a combination of gourmet food shop, delicatessen meat market, and green grocery might function in lieu of a supermarket. A food service cluster, several restaurants, and a cinema complex may function as other anchor tenants. Tenant composition and the characteristics of the leading tenant/s define a commercial center type. Although building area, site size, trade area, etc. are influential, they are not the primary factors in determining a center we. $?&.&BQ- Lj m U?%k~U f-G+- Another impor?ant concept for a// \ retail shopping centers is the idea of ’ trade areas. The trade area is the geographic area that provides the majority of steady customers necessary to support a shopping center. The boundaries of a the trade /area are determined by a number of variables, including the type of center, i its accessibility, geographic barriers, LI the location of competing facilities j . . ti 4 and, very importantly, driving timv,& mn\r distance (See Table 3, Guidelines for f I Typical Shopping Cen ters). W*\d Consequent/y, trade areas can vary widely in shape, size, and conf/gura tion. In genera/, the closer potential customers are to a site the more like/y they are to patronize it. The number of persons residing within the trade area (and their related purchasing power) must be of a sufficient size for the center to be economically viable. When the trade areas of centers overlap then competition may exist between the centers and the purchasing power of the residents w//l be shared between the centers. From the City’s standpoint, the desired number and Iota tion of shopping ten ters, especially local shopping centers, depends upon a number of factors (detailed later) that relate to ‘Wting” together the trade areas of potential sites and making policy decisions about the amount of gaps and overraps that should exist between the trade areas. Page 13 . . Land Use Element a. Local Shopping Center (L): The local shopping ten ter designation allows shopping centers that include elements of the traditional neighborhood center and, under some circumstances, elements of the traditional community shopping ten ter. Each local shopping center must contain the anchor tenants and secondary tenants that service the daily needs and convenience of local neighborhoods. These tenants include retail businesses, small offices, and a variety of services. The most common anchor tenant is a supermarket, although a large drugstore or combination of supermarket and drugstore may also serve. Secondary tenants can include small offices (for banks, insurance, real estate and other services); personal grooming providers (like beauty parlors, barbershops, and nail salons), Laundromats, cleaners, small retail stores, sit-down and fast food restaurants, and gas stations, among others. Typical characteristics of sites for these centers are given in Table 3: Guidelines for Shopping Centers. While all sites with the designation Local Shopping Center must provide neighborhood goods and services, Page 14 s 6121 /OO hi/ * k . Land Use Element Guidelines for Shopping Centers. Both types are described in more letail in the following sections. CCC G+c::,%%-&q =* . Lb. 3:.1,4PxMq Lb . IC. Table 3: GUIDELINES FOR TYPICAL SHOPPING ENTERS I Typical Local Shopping Shopping Center Center Characteristics Required of All Local I Possible Option, Depending on Trade Area Focus Shopping Centers Local daily goads and Site and special Approvals Local, ptus community-wide services Anchor Tenants (examples) -... -L . ..-- -.--_ __.--_ Restaurant, bank, real Secondary Tenants estate, personal (examples) grooming, small retail, fast food, gas station, cleaners, video rental goods and services Value department store, chain apparel store, vofume speciatty store, home improvement center, multi-plex cinema Apparel, specialty retail, restaurant, specialty automotive. sporting goods Site Size (acres) Gross Lease Area 8-20 60,000 - 150,000 (sq. ft.) To 30 up to 400.000 (sq. ft.) Primary Trade Area Drive Time Primary Trade Area Radius Primary Trade Area Pooulation 5 - 10 minutes 1.5 miles. 10.000 - 40,000 people 10 - 20 minutes 3 - 5 miles 40,000 - 150,000 people Regional Shopping Center Regional Full-fine department stores (2 or more), factory outtet center, “power center of several high-volume specialt) stores. Full range of speciafty retak, restaurants. entertainment 30-100 300,000 to 1.5 million (sq. t?.) 20 - 30 minutes 8 - 12 miles 750,000 + people Page12 6/21/00 /L o Land Use Element amount of land will be determined by a future amendment to the Planned Community Zone. 8. OBJECTIVES B.l To limit the amount of new C.13 Introduce programs to revitalize all commercial land use designations to that residential areas which are deteriorating which provides for basic commercial or have a high potential of becominr of the City without deteriorated. overlaps in trade ,1,+.-&& areas,.Q C.14 Ensure that all hillside developm&t is designed to preserve the visual quality of the preexisting topography. consisten; with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community. C. 15 Consider residential development, which houses employees of businesses located in the PM zone, when it can be designed to be a compatible use as an integral part of an industrial park. COMMERCIAL A. GOALS A.1 A City that achieves a healthy and diverse economic base by creating a climate for economic growth and stability to attract quality commercial development to seNe the employment, shopping, recreation, and service needs of Carlsbad residents. A.2 A City that provides for the development of compatible, conveniently located F&&&%& local shopping centers. A.3 A City that promotes economic development strategies, for commercial, ,industrial, office and tourist-oriented land uses. A.4 A City that promotes recreational and tourist-oriented land uses which seNe visitors, employees of the industrial and business centers, as well as residents of the city. 8.2 To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services. “Adequately sewed” means no residential area is outside the primary trade area of the nearest local shopping ten ter 8.3 To establish and maintain commercial development standards to address landscaping, parking, signs, and site and building design, to ensure that all existing and future commercial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 7 Applications to convert land to commercial land use designations shall be accompanied by a conceptual development plan of the site and a market study that demonstrates the economic viability of using the land in the way being requested. Such studies shall give due consideration to existing and future sites that may compete within shared trade areas Page 30 6/21/00 lb3 : . : Land Use Element C.42 Utilize the following guidelines iFi . . . 3 determine the appropriate spatial distribution of new sites for local shopping centers and to assign associated zoning. In some instances it may not be possible to implement all of these guidelines fully and some degree of compromise may be required. 21. &q&e-~ New master plans and residential specific plans and other large development proposals shall evaluate whether there is a need to include a local shopping center within the developmen 1, consis tent with these guidelines. -~J+ww& I .2. Although local shopping centers may contain community-serving tenants, for site location purposes, the primary trade areas of the centers should be based upon the local-serving tenants (see Table 3: Guidelines for Shopping Centers). In particular, a trade area’s boundary may ,.&j be described in terms of the _ _ _ travel time of tenant patrons. 3. Citywide, trade areas of centers should abut one another as much as is possible, so as to result in minimal gaps and overlaps. This assures that all parts of 6/21/00 Gtl . .- Land Use Element the City will have “coverage” by a center, while reducing the propensity for over- commercializa tion (See Goal B. 1.) complement but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. This shall be accomplished by: ;>- 1” 4.) Generally, local shopping i/ enters should not be located direct/y within the residential neighborhoods they serve, but, rather, on the 5. 6. 7. of major streets. HY%?* 8 7. Controlling lights, signage, and minimize the 47 2. $&in the trade ashould be of a size that the centef would be economically viable, considering other existing and future centem. Consider intersection spacing and other circulation criteria to assure safe, and functional access to the ten ter. Good locations will provide ready access from principal travel routes and have several en trances. (Sites located along primary arterials may have difficulty meeting this guideline.) c.2 I Build, and operate A local shopping centers in such a way as to hours of operation to avoid adversely impacting surrounding uses. Requiring adequate landscaped buffers between commercial and residential uses. Providing bicycle and pedestrian links between proposed w/ocaI commercial centers and surrounding residential uses. c.3 Comprehensively design all commercial centers to address common ingress. and egress, adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. Each center should be easily accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles to nearby residential development. C.4 Ensure that commercial architecture emphasizes establishing community identity while presenting tasteful; dignified and visually appealing designs compatible with their surroundings, . Page 32 6/21/00 hk- -. .- *’ , Land Use Element overall function and design of the ten ter, including the architecture, circulation and landscaping. The inclusion of such tenants should complement, not supplant the principal function of the center, which is to provide local goods and sewi~p&q& i ppGt&- 7. Irk& community ,,an/zhor,, tenant may be built as al stand-alone building. It must1 share walls and its building facade with other tenants in the center. I. Neither community “anchor” tenants nor secondary tenants may feature corporate architecture or logos. c5. Ensure that all commercial development provides a variety of courtyards and pedestrian ways, bicycle trails, landscaped parking lots, and the use of harmonious architecture in the construction of buildings. C.6 Permit the phasing of commercial projects to allow initial development and expansion in response to demographic and economic changes. Site designs should illustrate the ultimate development of the property and/or demonstrate their ability to coordinate and integrate with surrounding development. C.7. Outdoor storage of goods and products in shopping centers is not . allowed. Temporary exceptions may - be allowed for display and sale of traditional, seasonal items such as Christmas trees, pumpkins, and similar merchandise. In these exceptions, both adequate parking and safe internal circulation (vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle) is to be main rained. C.3. 8. Encourage commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities, as long as they protect the residential character of the community and the opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in a safe, attractive and convenient manner) the continued use of the beach, local transportation, and parking facilities. C&9. Orient travel/recreation commercial areas along the l-5 corridor, in the Village, or near resort/recreation areas. C&70. Revise Section 21.29.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (Commercial Tourist Zone, Permitted Uses and Structures) to more accurately reflect the intent of the Travel/Recreation Commercial general plan designation to serve the traveling public, visitors to the city, as well as employees of business and industrial centers. C.44~77. Review parking requirements for commercial areas on a periodic basis to ensure adequate parking and to address identified parking problems. C.?? EO - C.?2 s&cc ?!x z3+&mcs & 3 Page 33 ~~ 612 I/00 j& Gremmer: aI 2 9-160 repetitive, I am foregoing detailing all my comments g I & agree with Tom & Joan Flanagan’s and your Staff, Mayor Lewis& Councilmembers. With the rapid growth we are currently experiencing,xe Trafftc Impact is an important issue concerning shopping centers. I feei a medium-sized local shopping. center (12-15 acres, excl. “big boxes”) woul& more feasible & provide a one-stop shopping service to everyone. Strip h@ls are inadequate, clutter our landscape, & fall by the wayside as they soon be- come unoccupied, succumbing to the larger shopping center market. ,..P -.: I also consider protecting our City’s Habitat Area of prime importance as dll as the Traffic Impact resulting from the Site Selection of any local shop@g center. .;. Having worked in the Planning Dept. in the past with Jim Barnes, Chief Plan@r with San Clemente, I am well tuned-in to your workload assignments, eff&s, workshops & dedication on our behalf & thank you for your continued sup&&t & leadership in our communities in keeping Carlsbad a place we’re proud to&l “home.” Let’s keep Carlsbad the “Quiet Village” that we all enjoy! Sincerely, 4 &:.+&+&/ 2984 Ridgefield Avenue .’ ,* James & Marilyn Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549 760-729-2591 September 19,200O City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Attn: Dennis Turner - Senior Planner RE: Proposed General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Regarding Local Shopping Centers Dear Mr. Turner: After reviewing the Negative Declaration, the Proposed General Plan Amendment and the Local Coastal Program Amendment, we feel the amendment regarding local shopping centers is as good a place as any to start with. With the excellent work you have done in the City Council, the Planning Staff and the Citizens of Carlsbad workshops held in 1999 on this subject, we have high regards for you and know you would like to keep Carlsbad a great place to live. If Carlsbad could have larger local shopping centers, (ideal depth is 1,000 feet or more) rather than more little ones - it would benefit everyone. We shop on our way home from work, or during the lunch hour - like most working families do. We believe it was Council Member Matt Hall that said we are not going to have Strip Malls like some near by Cities. Smaller local shopping centers would only deter great anchor tenants with needed secondary tenants. Driving 3 - 5 miles on the weekends to the supermarkets is not a problem for anyone that I have talked with. The driving time would be, at the most 10 minutes. But we strongly feel that allowing big box stores as secondary tenants should not be included as listed on page 15 of the Proposed General Plan Amendment (such as K-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Staples, Office Depot, Wal-Mart, Comp USA, Good Guys, Toy R Us, Big Five and etc.) During one of the workshops, the Citizens of Carlsbad and the City Council had discussed that there was a strong desire to keep the big box stores out of Carlsbad. The Proposed Local Shopping Center Amendments should encourage medium sized local shopping centers with 12 to 14 acres sites rather small local shopping centers with 8 to 10 acres sites as was expressed in the workshops. Medium James & Marilyn Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549 760-729-2591 local shopping centers would serve a little larger primary trade area and would look less like strip malls and the traffic flow would be better. We also think the City of Carlsbad has to look into a community park with pool facilities. We do not have an adequate community park to hold Company Picnics, Family Reunions with pool facilities. This is a great need for us and will serve all of Carlsbad. But before anything should be done, we need to see what the environmental impact is. We would like to thank the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and the City Council ahead of time for considering my suggestions to the General Plan and we look forward working with you on the Proposed Local Shopping Plan Amendments. Sincerely, cc: Mayor Bud Lewis Councilwoman Julie Nygaard Councilwoman Ramona Finnila Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Councilman Matt Hall Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Vi!lage Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ray Patchette - City Manager Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Eroc Munoz - Senior Planner - Calavera Hills JAYE.LEVINE TELEPHONE (760) 720- I I 7 I TELEFAX (7601 720-I I 76 AlTORNEY AT LAW 306 I MADISON ST - 3-E. B CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92006 May 22,200O Mayor Bud Lewis and Members of the Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Neighborhood Shopping Center Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: My family has resided in north Carlsbad for fifteen years, for the past eight years near the intersection of Kelly Drive and El Camino Real. During this time, we have been patiently waiting for a new neighborhood shopping center in our part of the City. While Carlsbad continues to approve the construction of many new homes each year, there have been no new neighborhood shopping centers in north Carlsbad since the Vons center on El Camino Real was developed some twenty years ago. Although it was nice to see that store expand into a modem supermarket a few years ago, the drive there and back is almost unbearable during heavy commute times. Also, there seem to be many more shoppers using that store than before, resulting in longer checkout lines and a crowded parking lot. The Vons center on Tamarack is not any more convenient for us, and in addition, is too small to provide the variety of foods, goods and services that should be available to all residents of Carlsbad. I was strongly in favor of the development of the proposed Tamarack Square shopping center at the corner of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real. However, upon attending a public meeting on the project approximately one and a half years ago, it was apparent that many residents objected to that location, primarily out of concern for additional congestion at the Tamarack intersection, the supposed negative effect on air quality from increased automobile use in the area, and safety issues related to the presence of children who attend Kelly School. While some who attended the meeting were of the opinion that we did not need another shopping center in our part of the City, many individuals who felt that way appeared to be older or retired folks, those who have the flexibility to shop whenever they choose to. In my family, both my wife and I work, our children are in school all day, and they participate in athletics and other activities after school and into the evening. We have neither the time nor the flexibility to shop during the work day, and I believe that is true of the majority of residents in my neighborhood. / 70 Mayor Lewis and Council Members May 22,200O Page Two I understand that an alternative shopping center site has been proposed on the Robertson Ranch, on El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Cannon Road. That location, if approved, would seem to address the concerns raised by opponents of the Tamarack Square shopping center. The alternative location would also achieve all of the following: the quality of life for my family and our neighbors would be improved by having access to a modem supermarket which offers all of the special goods and services most new supermarkets provide; the presence of an additional market chain would provide some competition for Vons; and most importantly, it would be close and convenient to my neighborhood, thus saving all of the residents precious time. The same is true for Calavera Hi!ls and all of north Carlsbad. A neighborhood shopping center located at the new proposed site would enable area residents to shop at a quality supermarket without having to drive for miles at a snail’s pace in rush hour traffic. I would also like to address an issue which has been previously raised: whether the City should bar construction of additional shopping centers on El Camino Real north of Palomar Airport Road, with the exception of the long delayed Sunny Creek project. Although this may sound like a good long-term policy, what will really be achieved if the Robertson Ranch is graded and developed solely with homes, as the general plan now provides? Simply a longer drive to the supermarket for many more families. The corridor along El Camino Real will not remain open space indefinitely. If other projects in the City are any indication, new housing units will be clustered, very close to one another, and perhaps backed up to El Camino Real. Rather than more, densely packed housing, we would rather see a well landscaped neighborhood shopping center with the quality of architecture and aesthetic standards the City of Carlsbad requires of developers. More housing means more people, which means more traffic. A new neighborhood shopping center will serve those residents who are already in the surrounding neighborhoods; it will not bring in more people. Most Carlsbad residents travel on El Camino Real some time during the day. The proposed Robertson Ranch site would be an excellent location for a center. Residents would not have to drive out of their way to get there, and the completion of Cannon Road from I-5 to El Camino Real would make the proposed site even more convenient, particularly for those returning home from points south. For the past couple of years, the Council has been wrestling with the issue of where to locate neighborhood shopping centers, and has employed polling data to assist it in making its decisions. However, I do not believe that the Council should rely too heavily on the results of a poll in planning the long-term commercial requirements of the City. That is the responsibility of the City Council, our elected representatives. I believe that historically, the Council has done an excellent job planning the development in our city, and I would trust the Council’s independent Mayor Lewis and Council Members May 22,200O Page Three judgment in that regard. Polling data is merely a snapshot in time and is not a valid substitute for years of experience. The Council’s decisions should be based on what is best in the long run for Calsbad and the majority of its citizens. In order to provide support to the Council, and to encourage it to make a choice in the very near future which is based on sound long-range planning, I have decided to form a group of residents to support the development of a new neighborhood shopping center in north Carlsbad, one that will be easy to get to and is near the residential area to be served. While it is sometimes easier to rally people against something, rather than for something, I believe there will be substantial support for a new local shopping center in our part of town, whether it is built on the Robertson Ranch site, or at another location which is comparably close and convenient. JEL:lse cc: Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne Dennis Turner City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Char$e&s, 1,200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, u consider a request for approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, deleting “Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” land use designations and creating, in their place, a “Local Shopping Center” designation, together with definitions, guidelines, goals, objectives, policies, and implementing programs, for possible application Citywide. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited ‘,“. attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after N-0. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609. If you challenge the amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 00-04 CASE NAME: NEW COMMERCIAL POLICIES/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PUBLISH: CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ Smooth Feed SheetsTM : Pm t.?,p’--- r.,- : i’zc .r,.‘uiiii: !&. . City Clerk 1 .ibl CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE 505 S VULCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING STE 50 STE B STE B 330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 5201 RUFFIN RD LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-l 331 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST SANDAG 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800. SAN DIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET SAN DIES@ CA 92101 U.S. FISH 8, WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION 2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 103 CARLSBAD CA 92008 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER DENNIS TURNER l/4/2001 AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@ &.. *xx> 77 _ slaqel ssaqw ~ P,z_i3‘%k \ -- _ I. . FAhllLj’ HENKEh 492: LOhlC\ Cc?c;3;- CARLSBAD. CA C;r-c -L-u+ VERNON & EVELYN I+,NSE~ 4587 ESSEX COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETE & KATHY HAAS 4415 TRlESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SARA GUIN 4675 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PATRICIA HOLMES 2657 REGENT RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 K GAVIN 4505 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JUDY & DAN GAITAN 4135 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GORDON FRENCH 2913 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBYANN & MIM GUALTIERE 4360 EL CAPITAN CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HANS & SALLY LINDENSHOV 2688 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ,,swys P=kl Y~Op.%-!S @09’15 smootp FBmEerE ‘.’ GARY & SYLVIA GRAHAM 4540 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 STACY HENDERSON 4879 ALONDRA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WANDA HANNA 4737 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SUSAN GUTIERREZ 1864 PALISADES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS FELDMANN 2703 TIBURON AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS M GOLAS 4720 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LARRY & SHIRLEY GAST 4551 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 G FURROX 820 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JIM FRAMPTON 4220 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WILLIAM KAMENJARIN 4430 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JIM HICKS 5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LOUIS & WENDY HEIT 1881 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PAT & DON HADLEY 4628 TELESCOPE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LESTER &AGNES GUSNARD 4110 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBIN GREEN 3825 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DANIEL GLASSEY 4630 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 J & J GALANTE 4660 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 IRENE FUCHS 4635 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 B LITHGOW 4519 ST GEORGE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS W T LISENBY 4571 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ;,vs b i i ? ; ROBERT 6. TA1,14?; ,E ZE? 4499 SALIS6UR” 3?i’.‘E CARLSBAD. CA G2,735 KIM & JILL KLEREKOPER 4721 TELESCOPE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PAT KELLY 2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DEREK & KENDALL HOLMES 4850 PARK DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3811 LYNDA JONES 2665 REGENT RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 S INFERRERA 1828 HIGH RIDGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3759 JULIA HUFF 3930 HOLLY BRAE LANE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROSEMARY FALKENSTEIN 4108 LA PORTALADA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REESE BROWN 2711 ATHENS AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CHRISTINE BORIS 4549 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ,,s>=ys pw wow @091S JaSTb -:., Smoolb +c fp& >nnz:c JAY LEVINE 4927 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LYNDA KRAK 6609 CURLEW TERRACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TOM KING 4781 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BERNICE HILL 2984 RIDGEFIELD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JERRY KALICK 4734 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CLIFF JOHNSON 2741 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CAROLYN HUl-TENMAIER 2750 AUBURN AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARLINE 8, JIM HOPE 4558 CAPE CODE CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALDEN & MALYNDA KAY 4367 TUOLUMNE PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7924 WILLIAM BRADFORD P. 0. BOX 863 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOSEPH & LUCH LEVESQUE 4350 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 KAZIM KONYAR 1757 TAMARACK AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HENRY & VESTA KIDD 4726 BIRCHWOOD CR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALDEN KAY 6300 YARROW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92009-l 597 MR & MRS W JOOLINGEN 3827 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WE&DRJENKS 4548 CAPE COD CR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRANK HUTCHINS 2590 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GARY & NANCE HOOD 1788 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROD & JUDY BENSON 4405 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ELIZABETH Boll-ORF 4527 CARNABY COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 spqe-j ssagpy .- AES,&k @09X J=Qi70&CTt.. Smooth FeeC a ---4 JOHN & SUE BLOSCH 4811 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PATRICIA BIXLER 4878 SEVILLA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETER & MARSHA BERTINO 2709 SOUTHAMPTON CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TAFFY CANNON 4430 TRIESTE DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS DOUG BAKER 4213 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3647 EDWARD ALOE 2613 SUlTER ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 bOUG & LAUREE ADAMS 4519 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 STEPHENBERK 3520 CATALINA DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ANGELA & JOHN ESCALLE 4862 ALONDRA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DOUG DU BOIS 3606 ASHBY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ,@~JQk&lk?Ld.~uia~ asn , , , DANIEL 8, DENA BLISS 4949 PARK DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS ROBERT BEYNON 4415 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN FLENTZ 4541 LAMBETH COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DAVID BEESON 1745 TAMARACK AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICHARD ARMSTRONG 2621 BANBURY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRAN AGLIATA 4745 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 G RADLOW 7760 FAY AVENUE L4 JOLLA, CA 92027 AUDREY 6 CURLEY P 0 BOX 863 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 DAVID & JEAN ELLIS 4732 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JEAN DORNON-REUS 4738 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 -- _ - .’ - . -.L-o MR & MRS ROBERT 6,k,s1\ 3629 CHESHIRE A\‘: CARLSBAD. CA 920~~ W R BEVERLY 4605 LA PORTRALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92006 NANCI BENSON-GRUNING 4703 BIRCHWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 STEVEN & SUSANA BAUM 4610 TRAFALGAR LANE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BRIAN & SHEILA ANDERSON 4125 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GEORGE AFANSEV 4550 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LORI HOMSTED 3608 CHESHIRE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008- FRANK ESQUEDA 4640 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALEX EBEL 4467 GLADSTONE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TIMOTHY DONOVAN 4451 DORCHESTER PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 d3aays paad wo_quls @09X Jasel _) znoo:r LeeG S?Ers ROB DONATH STE 2A 7720 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JOHN DE LAURENTIS 4250 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LINDA CALDER 4645 LA PORTALADA DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 ROBERT & GLORIA COOK 4575 CHELSEA CT CARLABAD, CA 92008 LEN MARTYNS 7304 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD, CA 92009- JANET CLARK 2622 VALEWOOD AVE CARLABAD, CA 92008-7925 RALPH KUBIAK 2715 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JACK & NORMA PAEPKE 4560 TRIEST DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN ORMEROD 4563 LAMBETH COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BETTY NIELSEN 2663 SUl-rER STREET ’ CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS E DES ROSIERS 4307 SIERRA MORENA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DANA BROWNELL 2020 AURA CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BOB & EDA CROSBY 4411 SALISBURY DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 ANN COLLINS 4762 GATESHEAD RD CARLABAD, CA 92008 DEBRA CLARKE 4807 KELLY DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 MARY & JOE CICCARELLI 3412 SANTA CLARA WAY CARLABAD, CA 92008 WM &VIRGINIA DAVIES 4345 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JANICE PACAYOS 3505 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LAURA & DON OGAN 4202 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETER & SYLVIA NIBLO 2629 VALEWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 sjace: ssaJ?pt’ 8d.z z&t . AL & GAIL DE \I’EESE 3815 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD. CA Cz~:o: MR & MRS RALPH DARTON 4230 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOS CORNWELL 4403 MAYFAIR CT CARLABAD, CA 92008 BILL AND ILA CLAYTON 6569 CONEFLOWER DR CARLABAD, CA 92009-25 12 VIOLET CLARK 4740 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLABAD, CA 92008 DR & MRS S CARMICHAEL 4566 HORIZON DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 ARTHUR WOOD 4770 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN O’SHAUGHUESSY 4096 LOMA LAGUNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS SC0l-r O’CONNELL 4325 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS ROBERT NELSON 4839 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ,,snaqs pw wow t&g s lase ,cfnootP rePC 1 rs?e:s-r..’ qaqq ssa;ppy _ ASZ ‘k,‘, THOMAS & JILL NASH 2978 RIDGEFIELD AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ZIEMER 4728 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FAMILY TORRES 4919 LOhlA COURT CARLSBAD. CA s23,‘~ RICHARD & NANCY WOZNlAK 4545 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LAWRENCE PAULSEN 4817 NEBLINA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PAUL WOLKIN 4107 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR&MRSA WllTENDORFER 2721 GREENOCK CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BILL & SONYA WI-IT 4825 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LAURA WINEHOLT 6664 CURLEW TERRACE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 JACK WILSON 2585 REGENT ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JERRY & ARLENE WEINTRAUB 4435 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RUTH LONG 4716 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS JOHN VAALER 2758 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ELAINE TUTTERROW 4625 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TRACY TROUSSET 4919 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETER&SUSANTRENT 2706 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ZDEP 1978 HIGH RIDGE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICHARD RECK 4534 HARTFORD PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ~REDA is vANcE SCHWEITZER 4650 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JERRY & SHARON SCHUCK 2721 ATHENS AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BARBARA & KARL SCHAEFFER 4440 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICK & LISA SCARCIA 4245 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92111 JEFF 8, MAURINE SAITERWHITE 4366 TUOLUMNE PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7924 ANGEL SANTIAGO 2395 LAFAYElTE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BARBARA RUSCllTl 4656 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GUY RONEY 3495 PONTIAC DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2135 ANDREA RYAN 3502 DONN DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 THOMAS PAPPAS 4410 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD. CA 92008 JIM ROEGER 4520 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RUMI RICE 4450 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 w,smw paad wow sjaqei SSaJppv *,r. . Ati3AkY ‘a. -. 9.’ SANDI RAY 2959 CAPE COD CIRZ,E CARLSBAD. CA C20,7s CHRIST & JOAN POTZ 8, HAYASHI 4798 NEBLINA’DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GARY & KAREN POLSTER 4385 TUOLUMNE PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARJORIE PETERSON 1841 VALENCIA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RESIDENT STE D 2340 VIA FRANCISCA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RALPH & MYRTLE MOYER 4730 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BRAD & DUREA THRALL 3608 ASHBY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DONALD & AMY MILLER 4610 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 NICK MELILLO 3746 LONGVIEW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS RALPH MORGON 4145 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 wLswqs paw wow- @09LS s~oc’~ Ewyp&r: ,, a w-b , -_-- RESIDENT STE 207 6417 TOBRIA TERRACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CAROLINE PRESCO?l 4669 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DECK POPE 1977 EAST POINTE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARY & ROGER PHILLIPS 2765 VICTORIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARION PEIPMEYER 3018 GREENWICH ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DEBRA MC NAIRN 1794 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ii L MOYER 4724 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRED MOREY 2618 ABDUL ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 LACY METCALFE 4901 AVILA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LESLIE MURRELL 4718 AMBERWOOD CT CAR-BAD, CA 92008 m09T?-: WdW Wl DON PATERSON 2768 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LESLIE & PAUL POZNANTER 4824 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JUDITH POOLE 4407 MAYFAIR COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBERT PETERSON 2766 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ED & GAIL WALKER 4381 SHASTA PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CAROLYN MUDGETT 2541 REGENT RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRANK MORRALL 4635 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 VIRGINIA MOORE 4652 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RALPH MESSINA 4620 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RAY MC NAY 2905 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 @09L5 JaSEl Smoo:b Feed StleefsT”’ sjaqc: ssa.ippy h8zfLk MARY MC GRAW-GUERRERO 2970 LEXINGTON CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 AGNES MC CAFFERTY 4545 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SHIRLEY hlAX\2:EL, 4891 SEVILLA i’iF\’ CARLSBAD. CA E2,‘3: JOE MATUSINEC P. 0. BOX 863 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 MARGARET & LEE MASSEY 4710 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MICHELE MARTINET 1865 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN MARTIN 2287 BRYANT DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 KURT MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICHARD & DORIS MACKEY 4721 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PEGGI LORENZ 3906 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JENNIE LUM 4530 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92102 BEVERLY & FRED LORENTSEN 4866 PARK DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBERT MEED 2284 LINDSAY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RANDY STEWART 46 15 IA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LOUISE TESTERMAN 4951 AVILA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MOREEN SWEENEY 2645 SUTER STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JIM SUTCLIFFE 4583 PICADILLY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JAU TANK 4656 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WANDA STILES 4305 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HAROLD STIDOLPH 4814 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 EMMA SCOl-l- 4728 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WILLIAM STEELE 2001 EL CAMINO REAL OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 BONNIE SPOSATO 4563 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BARRY SPACHER 4914 PARK CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 VIRGINIA SMITHE 4340 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CAROL SHIRK 4625 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ARTHUR SERRIN 4423 SALISBURY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BONNIE & FRED SMELTZER 4823 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOYCE & CHARLES STIFFLER 4820 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DAVE SHAUGHNESSY 2842 FAIRFIELD AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 wlwaqs paad wow oow~o~ aaqdtw asn Smooth Feed SheetsTM GARY SMITH 2729 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARC DOYLE BUSINESS REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE CO. #150 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 JEFF PINTAR CB COMMERICAL REAL ESTATE STE 900 4365 EXECUTIVE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92101 GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES LARRY TUCKER P 0 BOX 7974 NEWPORT BEACH CA MIKE HOWES HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC SUITE 150 5900 PASTEUR COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 LA JOLLA MARKETPLACE PETER & C WALSH & SMITH SUITE 4 7514 GIRARD AVE LA JOLLA CA 92037 MAG PROPERTIES WARD PHIL 5075 FEDERAL BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92102 PAUL KLUKAS PLANNING SYSTEMS SUITE 100 1530 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD CA 92009 TOM FLANAGAN THE CAPE HOA 2988 RIDGEFIELD AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN SLAWSON SUITE C 2564 STATE STREET CARLSBAD CA 92018 ANTHONY VILLESEUR BUSINESS REAL ESTATE #200 4380 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92101 JAN SOBEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5620 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUSSELL GROSSE GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO SUITE A 5850 AVEINIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 VIC GAUSEPOHL ILLIF THORN REAL ESTATE SUITE 100 2386 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD CA 92008 BOB LADWIG LADWIG DESIGN GROUP INC SUITE 300 703 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD CARLSBAD CA 92009 WILLIAM NEECE NEECE COMMERCIAL SUITE 212 4241 JUTLAND DR SAN DIEGO CA 92117 DAVID HUBBARD PROCOPI, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH STE 2100 530 6 STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 BIZIEFF GORDON M & ASSOC P 0 BOX 2143 CARLSBAD CA 92018 CALAVERA HILLS DEVELOPMENT 1965 PRATT BLVD ELK GROVE VILLAGE IL 60007 JIM SARDO COMMONWEALTH TITLE SUITE 600 1455 FRAZEE ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92108 JIM HICKS HALE DAY GALLAGHER SUITE 820 W LIBERTY ST RENO NV 89501 JOHN BURHAM & CO RETAIL COMMERICAL SUITE 1 1901 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEE & ASSOCIATES IAN MAKSBURY SUITE 102 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM PLANNING SYSTEMS SUITE 100 1530 FARADAY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JEFF ROGERS ROGERS & UCKER SUITE 1050 591 CAMINO DEL LE REINA SAN DIEGO CA 92018 Li 7.3 ,& AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@ City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 6, 2000, to consider a request for approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, deleting “Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” land use designations and creating, in their place, a “Local Shopping Center” designation, together with definitions, guidelines, goals, objectives, policies, and implementing programs, for possible application Citywide. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 30, 2000. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609. If you challenge the amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 00-04 CASE NAME: NEW COMMERCIAL POLICIES/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 23,200O CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us smootp terc: &‘I---- GARY & SYLVIA GRAHAM 4540 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 STACY HENDERSON 4879 ALONDRA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WANDA HANNA 4737 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SUSAN GUTIERREZ 1864 PALISADES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS FELDMANN 2703 TIBURON AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS M GOLAS 4720 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 4551 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARRY ii SHIRLEY GAST JIM FRAMPTON 4220 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 r-x- , > \- : r;. lI.‘,‘EE“ ;,~yjy,=, ;+i;y --- G FURROX 820 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WILLIAM KAMENJARIN 4430 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JIM HICKS 5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LOUIS & WENDY HEIT 1881 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PAT & DON HADLEY 4628 TELESCOPE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LESTER & AGNES GUSNARD 4110 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBIN GREEN 3825 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DANIEL GLASSEY 4630 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 J & J GALANTE 4660 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 IRENE FUCHS 4635 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 B LITHGOW 4519 ST GEORGE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS W T LISENBY 4571 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FAMILY HENKEN 4923 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD. CA 9200~ VERNON ii EVELYN HANSEN 4587 ESSEX COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETE & KATHY HAAS 4415 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SARA GUIN 4675 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PATRICIA HOLMES 2657 REGENT RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 K GAVIN 4505 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JUDY & DAN GAITAN 4135 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GORDON FRENCH 2913 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBYANN & MIM GUALTIERE 4360 EL CAPITAN CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HANS & SALLY LINDENSHOV 2688 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Laser 5160@ ,sfl-loorr; Ttt’;‘L Dtlr=.z ROBERT & TAhlARA LEIDE: JAY LEVINE 4927 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOSEPH & LUCH LEVESQUE 4350 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 4499 SALISBURY DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 LYNDA KRAK 6609 CURLEW TERRACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 KAZIM KONYAR 1757 TAMARACK AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 KIM & JILL KLEREKOPER 4721 TELESCOPE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TOM KING 4781 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HENRY & VESTA KIDD 4726 BIRCHWOOD CR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PAT KELLY 2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BERNICE HILL 2984 RIDGEFIELD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALDEN KAY 6300 YARROW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92009-l 597 DEREK & KENDALL HOLMES 4850 PARK DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-38 I 1 JERRY KALICK 4734 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS W JOOLINGEN 3827 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LYNDA JONES 2665 REGENT RD CARLSBAD. CA 92008 CLIFF JOHNSON 2741 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WE&DRJENKS 4548 CAPE COD CR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 S INFERRER.4 1828 HIGH RIDGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3759 CAROLYN HUlTENMAlER 2750 AUBURN AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRANK HUTCHINS 2590 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD. CA.92008 JULIA HUFF 3930 HOLLY BRAE LANE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 MARLINE & JIM HOPE 4558 CAPE CODE CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GARY & NANCE HOOD 1788 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROSEMARY FALKENSTEIN 4108 LA PORTALADA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALDEN & MALYNDA KAY 4367 TUOLUMNE PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7924 ROD & JUDY BENSON 4405 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 REESE BROWN 271 I ATHENS AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WILLIAM BRADFORD P. 0. BOX 863 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ELIZABETH BOl-TORF 4527 CARNABY COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CHRISTINE BORIS 4549 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ! -‘r.. c - _ . __-’ Lc ~~dp3~ L,+z.:c - - laser 5160@ -.. ..:;,;-;.. - MR & MRS ROBERT BIASIN: 3629 CHESHIRE AVE JOHN & SUE BLOSCH 481 I KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DANIEL & DENA BLISS 4949 PARK DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 PATRICIA BIXLER 4878 SEVILLA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS ROBERT BEYNON 4415 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 W R BEVERLY 4605 LA PORTRALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETER & MARSHA BERTINO 2709 SOUTHAMPTON CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN FLENTZ 4541 LAMBETH COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 NANCI BENSON-GRUNING 4703 BIRCHWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TAFFY CANNON 4430 TRIESTE DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 DAVID BEESON 1745 TAMARACK AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 STEVEN&SUSANABAUM 4610 TRAFALGAR LANE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS DOUG BAKER 4213 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3647 RICHARD ARMSTRONG 2621 BANBURY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BRIAN & SHEILA ANDERSON 4125 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 EDWARD ALOE 2613 SUTTER ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRAN AGLIATA 4745 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GEORGE AFANSEV 4550 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92608 DOUG & LAUREE ADAMS 4519 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 G RADLOW 7760 FAY AVENUE LA JOLLA. CA 92027 LORI HOMSTED 3608 CHESHIRE AVE CARLSBAD. CA 92008- STEPHEN BERK 3520 CATALINA DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 AUDREY B CURLEY P 0 BOX 863 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 FRANK ESQUEDA 4640 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ANGELA & JOHN ESCALLE 4862 ALONDRA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DAVID & JEAN ELLIS 4732 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ALEX EBEL 4467 GLADSTONE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DOUG DU BOIS 3606 ASHBY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JEAN DORNON-REUS 4738 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TIMOTHY DONOVAN 4451 DORCHESTER PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Laser 5160@ ;,.,‘JaL,. “==L -“i;-.- ROB DONATH STE 2A 7720 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MR & MRS E DES ROSIERS 4307 SIERRA MORENA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN DE LAURENTIS DANA BROWNELL 4250 TRIESTE DR 2020 AURA CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LINDA CALDER 4645 LA PORTALADA DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 BOB & EDA CROSBY 441 I SALISBURY DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 ROBERT & GLORIA COOK 4575 CHELSEA CT CARLABAD, CA 92008 ANN COLLINS 4762 GATESHEAD RD CARLABAD, CA 92008 LEN MARTYNS 7304 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD, CA 92009- DEBRA CLARKE 4807 KELLY DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 JANET CLARK 2622 VALEWOOD AVE CARLABAD, CA 92008-7925 MARY & JOE CICCARELLI 3412 SANTA CLARA WAY CARLABAD, CA 92008 RALPH KUBIAK 2715 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WM &VIRGINIA DAVIES 4345 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JACK & NORMA PAEPKE 4560 TRIEST DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JANICE PACAYOS 3505 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN ORMEROD 4563 LAMBETH COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LAURA & DON OGAN 4202 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BET-l-Y NIELSEN 2663 SU-I-TER STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETER & SYLVIA NIBLO 2629 VALEWOOD AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ? ::y : . ,--.a.<‘ , - .r: ’ ;,‘~yrctT :A?‘- - I _-_ .- .I .- AL & GAIL DE REESE 3815 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD. CA g2008 MR & MRS RALPH DARTON 4230 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD; CA 92006 JOS CORNWELL 4403 MAYFAIR CT CARLABAD, CA 92008 BILL AND ILA CLAYTON 6569 CONEFLOWER DR CARLABAD, CA 92009-25 12 VIOLET CLARK 4740 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLABAD, CA 92008 DR & MRS S CARMICHAEL 4566 HORIZON DR CARLABAD, CA 92008 ARTHUR WOOD 4770 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN O’SHAUGHUESSY 4096 LOMA LAGUNA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS SCOll- O’CONNELL 4325 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS ROBERT NELSON 4839 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Laser 5160@ =I,,““,,! , iiL 4’1 --Lb THOMAS & JILL NASH ZIEMER 2978 RIDGEFIELD AVE 4728 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICHARD & NANCY WOZNIAK 4545 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR&MRSA WITTENDORFER 2721 GREENOCK CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JACK WILSON 2585 REGENT ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS JOHN VAALER 2758 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PETER&SUSANTRENT. 2706 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LAWRENCE PAULSEN 4817 NEBLINA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BILL & SONYA WI-l-T 4825 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JERRY & ARLENE WEINTRAUB 4435 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ELAINE TUlTERROW 4625 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ZDEP 1978 HIGH RIDGE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FREDA & VANCE JERRY & SHARON SCHUCK SCHWEITZER 2721 ATHENS AVE 4650 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICK 8, LISA SCARCIA 4245 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92111 JEFF & MAURINE SAlTERWHITE 4366 TUOLUMNE PL CARLSBAD, CA 92006-7924 ANDREARYAN BARBARA RUSCllTl 3502 DONN DRIVE 4656 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JIM ROEGER RUMI RICE 4520 TRIESTE DR 4450 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FAMILY TORRES 4919 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD. CA 92006 PAUL WOLKIN 4107 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LAURA WINEHOLT 6664 CURLEW TERRACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RUTH LONG 4716 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD. CA 92008 TRACY TROUSSET 4919 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICHARD RECK 4534 HARTFORD PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BARBARA & KARL SCHAEFFER 4440 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ANGEL SANTIAGO 2395 LAFAYEl-l-E CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GUY RONEY 3495 PONTIAC DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2135 THOMAS PAPPAS 4410 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Laser 5160" I,It”u,;: t =;i &LIZ=.= RESIDENT STE 207 6417 TOBRIA TERRACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DON PAlTERSON 2768 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CAROLINE PRESCOTT LESLIE & PAUL POZNANTER 4669 WOODSTOCK ST 4824 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DECK POPE 1977 EAST POINTE AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JUDITH POOLE 4407 MAYFAIR COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARY & ROGER PHILLIPS 2765 VICTORIA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROBERT PETERSON 2766 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARION PEIPMEYER 3018 GREENWICH ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ED & GAIL WALKER 4381 SHASTA PL CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DEBRA MC NAIRN 1794 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CAROLYN MUDGE-IT 2541 REGENT RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 h L MOYER 4724 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRANK MORRALL 4635 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FRED MOREY 2618 ABDUL ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VIRGINIA MOORE 4652 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LACY METCALFE 4901 AVILA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RALPH MESSINA 4620 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LESLIE MURRELL 4718 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RAY MC NAY 2905 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD, CA 92008 m . ..____ I - ‘_ := - ‘% /.~~,y-_ -‘T 4; - .c SANDI RAY 2959 CAPE COD CIRCLE CARLSBAD. CA 9’2005 CHRIST & JOAN POT2 & HAYASHI 4798 NEBLINADRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GARY & KAREN POLSTER 4385 TUOLUMNE PLACE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARJORIE PETERSON 1841 VALENCIA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RESIDENT STE D 2340 VIA Fl?ANCISCA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RALPH & MYRTLE MOYER 4730 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BRAD 8, DUREA THRALL 3608 ASHBY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DONALD & AMY MILLER 4610 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 NICK MELILLO 3746 LONGVIEW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MR & MRS RALPH MORGON 4145 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Laser 5160@ ~l:I”“.,I I CCL 211=c’;3 -- _ MARY MC GRAW-GUERRERO 2970 LEXINGTON CIRCLE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOE MATUSINEC P. 0. BOX 863 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 JOHN MARTIN 2287 BRYANT DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JENNIE LUM 4530 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92102 ROBERT MEED 2284 LINDSAY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JAU TANK 4656 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 AGNES MC CAFFERTY 4545 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MARGARET & LEE MASSEY 4710 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 KURT MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PEGGI LORENZ 3906 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RANDY STEWART 4615 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 MOREEN SWEENEY 2645 SUTTER STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SHIRLEY MAXWELL 4891 SEVILLA WA‘I’ CARLSBAD, CA 920OE MICHELE MARTINET 1865 EAST POINTE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 RICHARD & DORIS MACKEY 4721 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD. CA 92008 BEVERLY & FRED LORENTSEN 4866 PARK DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LOUISE TESTERMAN 4951 AVILA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JIM SUTCLIFFE 4583 PICADILLY CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WANDA STILES HAROLD STIDOLPH EMMA SCOTT 4305 LA PORTALADA DR 4814 KELLY DR 4728 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 WILLIAM STEELE BONNIE SPOSATO 2001 EL CAMINO REAL 4563 CHANCERY CT OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BARRY SPACHER 4914 PARK CT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 VIRGINIA SMITHE CAROL SHIRK ARTHUR SERRIN 4340 TRIESTE DR 4625 LA PORTALADA DR 4423 SALISBURY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BONNIE & FRED SMELTZER DAVE SHAUGHNESSY JOYCE & CHARLES STIFFLER 4823 KELLY DR 2642 FAIRFIELD AVE 4820 KELLY DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Adrjrccc LP~GIC I SW- - S-L- Laser 5160@ _ _. _ v-w -a.---- GARY SMITH 2729 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 BUSINESS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE CO. BROKERS MARC DOYLE ANTHONY VILLESEUR STE 150 200 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS 4380 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR CB COMMERICAL REAL ESTATE JEFF PINTAR STE 900 4365 EXECUTIVE DR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE JAN SOBEL 5620 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES LARRY TUCKER P 0 BOX 7974 NEWPORT BEACH, CA GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO RUSSELL GROSSE STE A 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES MIKE HOWES STE 150 5900 PASTEUR CT ILLIF THORN REAL ESTATE VIC GAUSEPOHL STE 100 2386 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LA JOLLA MARKETPLACE PETER &C WALSH 8, SMITH SUITE 4 7514 GIRARD AVE LA JOLLA, CA 92037 LADWIG DESIGN GROUP INC BOB LADWIG STE 300 703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD, CA 92009 MAG PROPERTIES WARD PHIL 5075 FEDERAL BLVD SAN DIEGO. CA 92102 PLANNING SYSTEMS PAUL KLUKAS STE 100 1530 FARADAY AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 THE CAPE HOA TOM FLANAGAN 2988 RIDGEFIELD AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 JOHN SLAWSON STE C 2564 STATE STREET CARLSBAD. CA 92018 NEECE COMMERCIAL WILLIAM NEECE STE212 4241 JUTLAND DR SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 PROCOPI, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH DAVID HUBBARD STE 2100 530 B STREET San 3ircp ai 92/a I BIZIEFF, GORDON \I S ASSOC PO BOX 2143 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 CALAVERA HILLS DEVELOPMENT 1965 PRATT BLVD ELK GROVE VILLAGE, IL 60007 COMMONWEALTH TITLE JIM SARDO STE 600 1455 FRAZEE ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 HALE DAY GALLAGHER JIM HICKS STE 820 W LIBERTY ST RENO, NV 89501 JOHN BURHAM & CO RETAIL COMMERICAL INTERES STE 1 1901 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE LEE & ASSOCIATES IAN MAKSBURY STE 102 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PLANNING SYSTEMS DENNIS CUNNINGHAM STE 100 1530 FARADAY AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ROGERS & UCKER JEFF ROGERS 1050 591 CAMINO DE LE REINA SAN DIEGO, CA 92108- A notice has been mailed to all property owners/occupants listed hereip , Dale: // ‘~~-,/2~~ Sign&e; QVY& $A Addrzs Label Laser 5160@ Shopping Center Policies GPA 00-04 City Council - 2113lOl Overview of the Program n Revised G.P. Policy framework (tonight) l Proposes new land use class + Includes goals, policies, guidelines l Policy framework controls remaining parts n Create new zone (coming) n Site-specific changes(coming) + Trade Area Study (travel time, population) + Hearings on G.P./zoning changes Definitions - Neighborhood Commercial I n Local convenience goods/services l Anchors: grocery/drug stores w Secondary tenants: barber, video, cleaners, restaurant, bank, gas station, small office, etc. m Trade area = l 5-10 min. ixavel time, or -I r . l 1 % mi. radius n 6to 12acres n 6K to 12K people J 1 Definitions - Community Commercial n Intermediate to neighborhood and regional n Anchors: value dept store, chain apparel, “big box” specialty, home improvement n Secondary tenants may include grocery/drug, upscale restaurant, multiplex cinema, etc. n Trade area = l 10 to 20 min. travel time, or r + 3 to 5 mi. radius n IO to 30 acres n 40K to 5Ok+ people History - Overview n 1994: New G.P. -Need more shopping centers H 1996: Commercial Study l NeighborhoodIcommunity commercial issue l Insufficient neighborhood shopping centers + Travel-time methodology for trade areas n Three workshops (6/99,9/99,3/00) l 7 alternative policy scenarios l Survey of residents’ shopping values + Selected policy scenarios and principles Important Concepts From 2 Concepts - Kinds of Shopping W Community Commercial l Scenarios 1, 7 say eliminate 4 Scenario 6 says keep for airport/industrial corridor + Discussion - north/south areas may need community or regional commercial Concepts - Trade Areas, Gaps and Overlaps n Trade areas: convenient access n 5- 10 minute travel time for local centers n Overlapping trade areas = competition n Gaps between trade areas = inconvenience/ monopoly m .: . pJgJ CWl~pS es JsJ just right! GOAL: No gaps; no overlaps of I Concepts - Size and Number Local Centers n Outcome scenarios indicate preferences for: l Larger centers, with superior design l Fewer centers, on edge of neighborhoods n Implies “larger” trade areas + 1996 travel time study: 5 minutes (off peak) + 2000 travel time study: 7 minutes (off peak) - 3 I Staff Proposal To Planning Commission I Proposal - New Land Use Class w Delete neighborhood and community commercial n New “Local Shopping Center” (merge old “N” and ‘72”) l &+t focus on local goods and services (naghborhood) + Mav have community tenants - special design + integrated center design + No corporate design/logos (no “‘big boxes” + No outdoor storage n Apply to all existing and future local shopping Proposal - Gaps and Overlaps n (Planning Commission modified proposal) Proposal - Location Criteria n Delete old criteria (1 every mile, master plans) n Implement policy scenarios + Place on edges of neighborhoods (main roads) + No new sites along El Camino Real (Planning Commission modified proposal) m Use travel times to define trade area spacing + Study: 7 minutes, off peak n Evaluate wade area population n Evaluate intersection spacing constraints P.C. Changes -Gaps/Overlaps n Obj. B.1. “... provides for basic commercial service to all areas of the City without creating undue overlaps in trade areas, while providing desirable diversity without over-commercialization,. . . n Led to change to Location Policy C.2.4 allowing overlaps in trade areas to provide a degree of competition and diversity. P.C. Changes - El Camino Real n Staff Rec. Policy C.2.6: “ New sites for local shopping centers should not be located along El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic roadway” n P.C. change: “New sites for local shopping centers located along El Camino Real shall be designed so as to preserve the scenic quality of this designated scenic corridor.” 5 Shopping Center Policies 3 GPA 00-04 a Agenda Item #24 Public Hearing ;Isi? Council Mtg. 2-13-01 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY Prepared By The City of Carlsbad Planning Department October, 1996 -DRAFl- DRAFT DRAFT The Carlsbad COW Council Claude A. “Bud” Lewis, Mayor Julianne Nygaard, Mayor ProTern Ramona Finnila Matt Hall Ann J. Kulchin Citv Staff Ray Patchett, City Manager Ron Ball, City Attorney . Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Jim Elliott, Financial Management Director Lisa Hildabrand, Finance birector Michael J. Holrmiller, Planning Director Dennis A. Turner, Principal Planner Karl Von Schlieder, GIS Coordinator Diane Johnson, Planning Technician II Proiect Manaaet and Author Dennis A. Turner, Principal Planner (619) 438-l 161 x4443 DRAFT DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................... ..“..........................................”..“..................................” ....................... 1 OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE ........................................................................................................................................... 1 REFINING THE ISSUE .................................................................................................................................................. 1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 2 FIMNNGS Z.. ......................... ...................................................................................................................................... 3 NEW ISWES RAISED BY THE STUDY- .......................................................................................................................... 3 II. INTRODUCTION ................................................. ..“.......................................................................................” .... 5 OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE ........................................................................................................................................... 5 OUR VI~I~N-TI-IE GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIWS, AND POLICIES ................................................................ .6 III REFINING THE ISSUE ........................................................................................................................................ 8 KEY ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 8 REFINE THE KEY QUESTION.. ................................................................................................................................... 10 DEFINE THE TEST TO ANSWER THE KEY QVES~ON ................................................................................................. 10 IV. DEFINITIONS OF RETAIL SHOPPING FORMS ......................................................................................... 10 SHOPPING CENTERS ................................................................................................................................................. 10 STRIP COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL Disnuc~s ................................................................................................ 11 CLASSWING SHOPPING CENTERS ........................................................................................................................... 11 NEIGHBORH~~D SHOPPING CEWERS ...................................................................................................................... 12 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS ............................................................................................................................... 13 COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTERS.. .......................................................................................................................... 13 SPECIALTy CENTERS ............................................................................................................................................... 14 SUMMARY TABLES .................................................................................................................................................. 14 CL&~IR?NG COMMERCIAL SITES FOR THIS STUDY ............................................................................................... 18 Sins INCLUDED IN Tl-ns STuDy .............................................................................................................................. 19 V. TRADE SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................................................................. 22 MARKETING ANALYSIS AND TRADE SERWE AREAS.. ........................................................................................... .22 USE OF TRADE SERWE AREAS I?v THIS STUDY ..................................................................................................... .23 VI. STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 24 SELECT STUDY SITES.. ............................................................................................................................................ .24 ANAL~E PRIMARY TRADE AREAS - RADIUS METHOD ....................................................................................... .24 ANALYZE PRJMARY TRADE ARE.@ - TRAVEL-TIME METHOD.. ........................................................................... .25 ANALYZE EFFECX OF PROPOSED SITES ................................................................................................................. .26 VII. FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 VIII. NEW ISSUES RAISED BY THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 1: NEIGHBORH~~D AND COMMIJN~TY SHOPPING SITES ............................................................................. .33 FIGURE 2: COMMUNITY SITES--~-MILE RADIUS ................................................................................................... .34 FIGURE 3 : NEIGHBORH~~D SITES-~ S-MILE RADIUS.. ......................................................................................... .35 FIGURE 4: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES .................................................................................................................... .36 FIGURE 5: NEIGHBORH~~D SITES-5-MINLJTE TRAVEL TIME ............................................................................... .37 FIGURE 6: PROPOSED NEIGHBORH~~D SITES-~-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME.. ............................................................ .38 FIGURE 7: EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED SITES-~-MINUTE TRAVEL TIME.. .............................................................. .39 DRAFT DRAFT APPENDIX A: MEMORANDUM FROM FINANCE DEPARTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 LIST OF TABLES TABLET: CHARACTERISTICS OF SHOPPING CENTER~......................................................................................~ 2 TABLET: MAJOR/ANCHOR TENANTS (EXAMPLES FOUND IN THE SAN DIEW AREA) ........................................ 16 TABLES: TYPICAL SIZES OF SHOPPlNci CENTERS ............................................................................................ 17 TABLET: SmsI~c~umD~mSmY ....................................................................................................... 20 TABLET: PF~M~RY~~EAREAGWDEL~NES ............................................................................................... 23 DRAFT ii DRAFT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview of the Issue In the Spring of 1996 the City Council asked staff to investigate two questions: 1. Given the vision and land use objectives that the City has established for itself, does the City have sufficient land designated for existing and future retail shopping? (This question was asked at a time when several informal inquiries had been brought to City staff by land owners and commercial property brokers for possible commercial development proposals and General Plan changes.) 2. Assuming that we do need to add additional commercial sites, does the City have adequate means to prevent those undesirable effects commonly associated with strip commercial development? Staff was charged to refine the two questions and bring back an analysis for the Council’s consideration. The analysis was not to make site-specific recommendations with regard to any of the tentative proposals or existing commercial developments. Rather, the scope of the study would be more generalized. Do we have sufficient sites (of the right types, existing and planned) to provide the sub-areas of the city with the means to meet their local shopping needs for daily goods and services? Any follow-up to the study would depend upon the answer to the question. If the answer were: “no, not all parts of the city would be served adequately”, then the follow-up might be to find ways to provide the needed services - and prevent strip development while doing so. If the answer were: “yes, all areas of the city would be served adequately”, then no follow-up might be needed. In either case the results would be useful for examining subsequent commercial proposals, at the level of either land use (general plan/zoning change) or site development. This initial study does not attempt to deal with these proposals however. Refining the Issue Using the City Council’s discussion for guidance, staff refmed the general questions by introducing certain key assumptions: Key Assumntions in the Analysis: 1. In order to avoid the issue of development phasing over time, the analysis was based on the City’s build-out condition. It assumed all land uses would be built in keeping with the General Plan and all General Plan roadways would be implemented (year 2020). Unless stated otherwise, all report findings and comments are referenced to this future time frame, even when stated in the present tense. DRAFT DRAFT 2. The study analyzed “neighborhood” and “community commercial” center development only; it excluded “regional”, “travel-recreation services” and “office” commercial designations. It did not include the Village commercial district, the new “transit- oriented” commercial proposal of Poinsettia Properties, Carlsbad Ranch’s “outlet mall”, or The Country Store. 3. The study analyzed commercial sites located outside of Carlsbad, as some areas of Carlsbad will likely be within the primary trade areas of these sites. A total of 50 shopping centers were included in the study. 4. The study treated “Neighborhood” and “Cormmmity” commercial sites separately, as they have differing target markets and trade areas. General Methodology The concept for the analysis was as follows. Staff identified 44 existing and planned shopping centers and plotted them on a map. There were 22 neighborhood shopping center sites and 22 community shopping center sites. A “planned site” is one which is currently vacant but designated on local general plans for neighborhood or community commercial development. In addition, staff took note of four private proposals for additional neighborhood centers and two proposals for community commercial centers. Some of these proposals were in other cities. -These proposed sites were mapped separately. Once the sites were identified staff plotted their primary trade service areas in two ways. First, a rough approximation was made by plotting a simple radius around each site. Separate maps were prepared for neighborhood and community commercial centers. This was technically easy to do and provided an early view of the trade area coverages. From this work staff was able to determine, on the one hand, that nearly all areas of the City would be served by multiple- overlapping community center trade areas, meaning that service would be good. For this reason, no further trade service area work was done on community commercial sites. On the other hand, the radius mappings for neighborhood commercial sites showed extensive areas of the City that may not be within the primary trade service area of any neighborhood center. These areas might not be well served. To better evaluate this initial observation, a refined trade area analysis was undertaken for neighborhood shopping centers (only). This involved calculating the primary trade service area for each of the 22 centers as a 5-minute travel time, rather than a simple distance radius. The 22 sets of calculated trade area information were then merged and plotted on a map. This more- highly refined (and technically much more difficult) analysis provided a better measure of the degree to which gaps and over-lapping coverages would actually exist. In addition, the trade areas for the four private proposals for new neighborhood centers were calculated. This information was then merged with that of the existing and planned neighborhood centers on a second map. DRAFT 2 DRAFT Findings 1. The Council’s key question is answered. The combined neighborhood and community commercial service available to most areas .of the City will be good, if shopping opportunities found in both Carlsbad and surrounding communities are considered. We do, however, ne8d to create additional neighborhood commercial sites to serve a few neighborhoods. This need is diminished (although not eliminated) if two of four proposed neighborhood commercial developments are implemented, one in Carlsbad and one in San Matzos. (The other two - one in Oceanside and a second in San Marcos - would not provide significant service to Carlsbad.) 2. As anticipated, the principal trade area coverage for some areas of the City comes from commercial developments located outside of Carlsbad. Residents often have to travel to other cities to shop, especially for some of the discount department store/specialty shopping provided in most community shopping centers. The need to go to other cities is true to a lesser degree for neighborhood shopping centers. One of the major causes of this situation with regard to community commercial centers is discussed in the next finding. 3. While Carlsbad distinguishes between “community” and “neighborhood” commercial in the General Plan, we have not really built “community” commercial developments. Instead, we have tended to build “neighborhood” commercial developments on “community” commercial sites. This finding is based upon an analysis of the sizes of sites and anchor tenants in existing Carlsbad community commercial sites (see main report). 4. The City Council’s second question regarding “strip commercial” is answered by Finding 1. Because we don’t need to create much new commercial development, a major way to prevent strip development is just to say “no” to proposals that would create it. Such action would be supported by existing policies in the General Plan that specifically address preventing strip commercial. In addition, the City has engineering and design standards that serve well to mitigate some of the worst aspects of strip development related to curb-cut spacing, intersection spacing, and on-site vehicle circulation. New Issues Raised by the Study: 1. Is the City comfortable with a significant portion of Carlsbad’s commercial shopping needs being met by other cities’ commercial developments? This is primarily a sales tax generation issue. The Finance Department has examined this issue in a separate memorandum (Appendix A). Generally, it finds that, although the conversion of community commercial uses to neighborhood commercial uses would reduce the City’s anticipated net revenues, the projected financial outlook for the City is such that financial considerations should not be the driving force behind commercial land DRAFT 3 DRAFT use decisions. If the City finds that it is preferable for other cities to be the home for some types of community commercial development, the impact to the City’s anticipated revenues would not be significant. Please see Appendix A for further discussion. 2. Should the City pursue developing more “true” community commercial developments? Evaluated in the context of a) the City’s historical development trends, b) the City’s vision and self image of itself as expressed in the General Plan, and c) as a fiscal priority (see preceding issue), the staff answer to this question is: “No, not if the City prefers not to do so.” If this is an accurate reflection of the City’s predisposition on community commercial development, a follow-up question arises then: Does Carlsbad, therefore, need -both “neighborhood” and “community” commercial General Plan designations? Perhaps not. If our general preference is that community commercial developments, and the image and potential problems associated with some of these developments, are better located in adjoining cities, then perhaps the “community commercial” designation is not needed. The report identifies possible changes to General Plan commercial designations that would respond to this observation. However, staff recommends that additional analyses of this subject would be desirable before the City pursues any such changes. Please see the main report for a more-detailed discussion of these issues. DRAFT DRAFT II. INTRODUCTION Overview of the Issue In the spring of 1996 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad became interested in certain issues regarding retail comme%al development within the City. This interest resulted, principally, from two factors. First, when the Carlsbad General Plan was updated at the end of 1994, the Planning Department advised the City Council that the City would probably need additional commercial designations on the Land Use Map for local-serving retail commercial land uses. The department was not at that time prepared to make specific recommendations for these additions, however. Further study, including consultation with property owners, would be needed to evaluate the feasibility of sites and to determine where and how many might be needed. Second, during the interim following the General Plan update, inquiries were made by property owners about a variety of possible commercial development proposals, together with the changes to zoning and general plan designations that might be required to implement the proposals. Several such proposals were brought to the attention of Council members in the spring of 1996. The Council was concerned about how these proposals might or might not meet the previously- identified need for additional local retail development. Further, members expressed concern about how the proposals related to the over-all commercial land use objectives of the City, and, indeed, the vision and image that the City has of itself with regard to commercial development. Among these concerns were specific questions. Would new commercial developments result in the City moving away from its tradition of focusing retail development in planned centers and towards the development of “strip commercial” areas and the problems sometimes inherent in such development ? Do we have the tools in place to: control traffic congestion, assure high- quality design, and bring into the City the right kinds of commercial tenants? Does the City truly need retail development in excess of what is already shown on the General Plan Land Use Map? If so, how much, what kind, and where? Out of these concerns, in early summer 1996, the Council requested staff to prepare answers to two general questions: 1. Given the vision and land use objectives that the City has established for itself, does the City have sufficient land designated for existing and future retail shopping? 2. Assuming that we do need to add additional commercial sites, does the City have adequate means to prevent those undesirable effects commonly associated with strip commercial development? The first question is the key to the second. If little or no new commercial development is needed then, there is little need to worry about future strip commercial development as little exists in the DRAFT 5 DRAFT City today. This report contains staff’s response to the Council’s direction, and focuses primarily, although not exclusively, on the first question. Our Vision-The General Plan Goalk, Objectives, and Policies Part of the context for the City Council’s questions lies with the City’s sense of itself and its vision for the future. Only by reviewing this sense of “self? can an approach be formulated with which to answer the Council’s questions The Carlsbad General Plan contains several statements that articulate the City’s aspirations for itself. In particular, the balance of the General Plan document is predicated upon its initial “Vision” statements, located at the very beginning of the document. Among others, this vision of the City contains the following general self-defining statements. Carlsbad is to be: A City which balances the diverse living, playing, and working needs and services of the four sub-communities within the City [emphasis added]. A City committed to the economic growth of progressive commercial and industrial businesses to serve the employment, shopping, recreation, and service needs of the its residents. To bring about this vision, the General Plan articulates many goals, objectives, and policies. A number of these, contained in the Land Use Element, relate to the needs of the community for shopping opportunities and how these needs may be met. Among the four overarching commercial goals that the General Plan establishes for the City are Goals A. 1 and A.2: A.I. A City that achieves a healthy and diverse economic base by creating a climate for economic growth and stability to attract aualitv commercial develoument to serve the emDlovment, shoooina, recreation, and service needs of Carlsbad ‘s residents. [emphasis added] A.2. A City which provides for the development of compatible, conveniently located neighborhood shopping centers. These goals not only establish the City’s desire for local shopping opportunities that meet the needs of all the City’s diverse residents, that are conveniently-located, and that are compatible with residential neighborhoods, but also are located in centers, as opposed to linear strips. To achieve these general Goals, the General Plan also establishes three more-specific Objectives, two of which speak directly to the City Council’s area of interest: Objective B. I. To limit the amount of new commercial iand use desknations to that which can feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to those which are consistent with DRAFT 6 ’ DRAFT the prime concetN and image of the communitv as a desirable residential,. onen space communitv. [emphasis added] Objective B.2. To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms of daily shopping neea5 which include convenience goods, food, and personal services. The General Plan goes on to establish more detailed guidelines and policies that would help to achieve these objectives. Several of these relate directly to the Council’s concerns. For example, as was stated earlier, with the General Plan update of 1994 staff advised Council that not all possibly needed commercial sites were known at that time. One General Plan Policy, in particular, speaks, in part, to how the city should respond: Policy C. 1. Utilize the following guidelines in distributing neighborhood CommerciaLzoning, until such time as urecise locations for neighborhood commercial facilities are develoved. . . . [emphasis added] A list of six guidelines follows this policy, guidelines that speak directly to how to locate future neighborhood commercial land uses and how to prevent strip commercial development. The relevant portions of these guidelines direct that new development: . . . provide . . . a neighborhood commercial site located generally at the intersection of prime, major, or secondary arterials in consolidated centers (rather than linear development) . . . [C.l .l .] Locate neighborhood commercial sites generally one mile apart and at an optimal distance fLom other commercial centers. [C.1.3.] Locate neighborhood commercial development so that, wherever possible, it is centrally located within its service area. [C. 1.4.1 In addition Policy C. 13. speaks directly to control of strip commercial development: Strip commercial development shall be discouraged along scenic highways and major thoroughfares . . . [C. 13 .] In summarv, Carlsbad’s self-vision is primarily one of a residential, open-space-oriented community that provides for .the local shopping needs of its residents, businesses, and service providers, but does so with the minimum amount of new commercial land necessary to that task, with such new development provided in well-designed centers, as opposed to linear configurations. DRAFT 7 DRAFT III REFINING THE ISSUE In undertaking to prepare responses to the two general questions asked by the City Council, it was staffs understanding that the analysis was not to make site-specific recommendations with regard to any of the tentative proposals or existing commercial developments. Rather, the scope of the study would remain generalized. Essentially, the key question is: Does/will the City have adequate retail service &nsistent with its vision for itself? Using the City Council’s discussion for guidance, staff refined the general questions. First, a set of key assumptions was introduced. Next, the key question was restated. Finally, a test was devised to provide an answer to the key question. Key Assumptions for the Study Assume a “build-out ” condition Staff decided to focus the analysis on the ultimate build-out condition of the city. That is, the City Council’s key question became: “Once all land and roads are developed in keeping with the General Plan will all areas be served with adequate local shopping opportunities?” This focus enabled the study to avoid having to deal with the complicated issue of phasing and a perhaps shifting balance of supply and demand for retail services. This perspective is in keeping with the long-term view of the General Plan. Unless stated otherwise, all reportfindings and comments are referenced to this future time frame, even when stated in the present tense. Focus onlv on neiahborhood and communitv commercial sites It was clear that the Council was concerned primarily with retail shopping for local goods and services. Therefore, it was decided to limit the analysis of land uses to sites that provide local sales of groceries, personal services, sundries, household goods, small-scale offices, and other local-serving goods and services. These sites would include existing retail centers and undeveloped sites that are designated by the General Plan as either “neighborhood commercial” or “community commercial”. Not within the scope of the study would be those sites that either exist or are designated by the general plan for “regional commercial”, “travel/recreation commercial” and “office commercial”. The first designation is primarily for centers with full- line department stores (including many specialty goods), targeted for a regional market. The second designation is intended for hotels, motels, vehicle services, and recreation services. The last designation is primarily for sites for larger-scale office uses, which act as employment centers rather than providers of goods and personal services. It was stafYs understanding that all of these uses were outside the area of Council’s concern. DRAFT 8 DRAFT In addition staff omitted several other examples of existing and pending retail commercial from the study, including: The Village - Staff understood that the Council was not concerned about retail “coverage” from the Village. - Carlsbad Ranch - The “outlet mall” was not included because the proposal was still pending when the study was undertaken; this proposal would be more of a “regional commercial” land use, in any case, which was not included in the analysis. Poinsettia Properties - This proposal for “transit-oriented retail” near the Poinsettia Coaster station had not been developed sufficiently for inclusion in the study. The type of commercial use that may be included with the proposal will likely be other than that found in neighborhood and community shopping centers. The Country Store - Although the site of this store is designated in the General Plan as neighborhood commercial, the locally owned grocery/deli is not part of a center and functions primarily as a convenience store. Include sites from a buffer area around Carlsbad The radius method of depicting primary trade areas would use a 3-mile radius for community shopping centers (see Table 5, later). Therefore, it was assumed that community shopping centers located in other cities as much as three miles from the Carlsbad border might have primary trade areas that would include areas of Carlsbad. Staff decided that any such centers should be evaluated along with Carlsbad’s shopping centers. Therefore, all areas of adjoining cities that were within three miles of the Carlsbad boundary were included in the study. These cities are Encinitas, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista (see Figure 1 at the end of the report for a map showing the full study area). Treat neiphborhood and communitv commercial centers seuaratelv Neighborhood and community shopping centers have different targeted markets because they provide different goods and services. Therefore, they have trade areas with distinctly different characteristics. Although the City Council’s original question did not make the distinction between these two types of retail center, staff decided that the two center types should be examined separately. A discussion of the differences between the types of centers follows, in Section IV. DRAFT DRAFT Refine the Key Question By inclusion of the above assumptions the City Council’s key question could be restated as follows: Question: Does Carl&ad have adequate neighborhood and community commercial sites (existing and planned) to provide all the sub-areas of the city with the means to meet their fiture local shopping needs for daily good and services? Define the Test to Answer the Key Question &t: Ifall areas of the City will be within the primary trade area of at least one neighborhood commercial center and one community commercial center, then the City will have basic retail service, which will be defined to be “adequate service “. From the General Plan’s Objectives (see Section II) it will be recalled that one of the primary objectives of the City is “To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which can feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City.. .” In keeping with this objective, the “test” is “passed” if all areas of the City will have at least minimum service of both types of local-serving commercial; that is, each area will be within the primary trade area of one neighborhood and one community commercial center. IV. DEFINITIONS OF RETAIL SHOPPING FORMS An understanding of certain key terms and concepts is critical to an understanding of this study, the methodology used to test the key questions, and the resulting findings. The following section provides a general discussion of important concepts and terms. Shopping Centers In Carlsbad, retail shops and stores are generally planned to be located in and to operate out of shopping centers. While the term “shopping center” is used rather loosely by some, those most concerned with commercial interests have more or less standardized a definition. According to the Community Builders Council of the Urban Land Institute a shopping center is: A group of architecturally unified commercial establishments built on a site that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as an operating unit related in its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that it serves. The unit provides on-site parking in definite relationship to the types and total size of the stores. DRAFT 10 DRAFT Shopping centers may stand alone amid other land uses such as office or residential, or, in more urbanized areas, may be placed next to one another, to form larger retail areas. Shopping centers may be distinguished from other retail development forms such as strip commercial or commercial districts. Strip Commercial and Commercial Districts In a broad sense, “strip commercial” is any grouping of retail businesses not found in a shopping center. While there is no formal definition, the term usually applies when a number of individual retail stores front on a street and are situated side-by-side on individual properties. This situation likely means that the individual businesses are planned, built, and managed separately and usually (but not always) lack a common design theme. When several adjacent streets are developed with strip commercial, then the area may form a shopping district (with or without incidental off-street parking). Carlsbad’s Village is an example of a shopping district, as opposed to a center. This district consists of a grid of streets along which numerous properties serve as the sites for many dozens of individual businesses, all operated and managed independently, and without benefit of an integrated architectural or design theme. Another pattern of retail development also could conceivably be termed “strip”. This occurs when several true, usually smaller, centers are sited adjacent to one another along a boulevard, forming a sort of linear shopping district. One example of such development is found in the City of Encinitas, along El Camino Real south and north of Encinitas Blvd. A half-dozen true shopping centers are inter-mixed with a number of retail businesses on individual lots. In this instance each center and the individual businesses have numerous driveway curb-cuts leading to off-street parking. This mix of center and strip commercial is a sort of hybrid of the two forms, and reflects Encinitas’ “general commercial” land use designation. Ciassl~ing Shopping Centers Shopping centers have traditionally been divided into three principal categories - neighborhood, community, and regional - each with a distinct function, trade area, and tenant mix, as will be described shortly. In the last decade or so, however, these definitions have sometimes become less clear. Changes in retail marketing strategies have given rise to a number of sub-types which, on the one hand, might be characterized as specialized sub-categories of the three main categories, or, according to some, constitute whole new categories. “Specialty centers”, “big-box” or “power” centers, off-price/outlet centers, discount centers, “fashion centers” and other variations have all come upon the scene. Often these are located in integrated “centers”, but sometimes they stand alone on individual properties and do not conform to the traditional definition of “center”. Nevertheless, the three traditional categories of shopping center are: a) still the basis for a large fraction of commercial development, b) recognized by builders and architects nationwide, and c) defined in the Carlsbad General Plan as distinct land use classifications. This study retains these traditional categories. When the newer varieties of retail centers were encountered by staff, they were fit into one or another of the traditional categories. DRAFT 11 DRAFT Although such factors as site acreage, gross leasable floor area, population served, and other factors may be indicative of the category-type of a center, no single factor is as definitive of “type” as a center’s tenant classification. The size of a center, for instance, is usually just an indirect measure of the tenant characteristics of a center. In this study the categories of shopping center are distinguished primarily by their principal or “anchor” tenants. Table 1, “CharacteristicS of Shopping Centers”, gives an overview of the key characteristics of the three types of shopping center. This is followed by a more detailed discussion of each type of center and variations on these characteristics. Table 1: Characteristics of Shopping Centers Center Type Anchor Tenent Typicel Groee Leaee Range of Groee Leeee Site Size Min. Population Ama (Sq. FL) Area (Sq. FL) (acme) Needed to Suppom Neighborhood Supermarket 50,000 30,ooo to 100,ooo 8to12 6,000 to 12,000 Discount Store, Community Large Variety, Jr. 150,000 100,OOcl to 300.000 10 to 30 40,000 to 150,000 Dept. store Regional Full-Line Department Store 400,000 300,000 1.5 to million 10 to 100 150,000 to 300.000 sources~ “Shopping Center Development Hand-And ad.) Urban Land Institute, 1985. Carlsbad General Plan. Land Usa Element, 1994. Commercial land brokers contactad in tha course of thii study. t Neighborhood Shopping Centers The neighborhood shopping center provides for the retail sale of convenience goods (food, pharmaceuticals, and sundries) and personal services that meet the needs of an immediate neighborhood trade area. The principal (and defining) anchor tenant is a supermarket. Occasionally, a group of smaller, more-specialized food retail shops, in conjunction with a drug/sundries store will function as the “supermarket”. A wide variety of merchandise and customer services may or may not be provided in the center. Other principal tenants may be a drug store or (less common today) a small variety store. Secondary tenants may include fast-food/carry out stores, video rental stores, beauty/barber shops, cleaners and laundromats, branch banks, liquor stores, and ladies ready-to- wear stores (among others). A typical neighborhood center has a gross-leasable area of about 50,000 square feet, with a range of from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. When including a fulLsized supermarket, the site is typically 8-12 acres. The service area of the center is defined by the primary service area of the supermarket tenant and typically reaches a population of 6,000 to 12,000 people, encompassing an area of 1 ‘/z miles radius and a travel time of 5-10 minutes. In some rural areas neighborhood centers may serve up to 40,000 people and have extended service areas and travel times. DRAFT 12 DRAFT A special&d sub-category of neighborhood center which has grown in popularity in the last couple of decades is the “convenience store”. Auto-oriented, this center is typified by a small lot, usually on a comer, with a store which retails a limited variety of groceries, sundries, snacks, and often auto-related products (including the vending of gasoline and oil). This center may have only one tenant or at best a few. Principal tenants in San Diego include 7/l 1, Circle K, and some major chain gasoline stations that include “mini-markets”, such as Arco’s AM/PM stores. A typical site is 1-2 acre in size. Some parties would define convenience stores as a fourth type of center, while others argue that, even when accompanied by other tenants on the site, they are not “centers” at all. Regional Shopping Centers The regional shopping center is at the opposite end of the retail scale. It provides an exceptionally wide variety of goods, general merchandise, apparel, furniture, and home furnishings in depth, variety, and often specialization. It’s defining characteristic is the full-line department store as anchor tenant. While some regional centers may have only one department store, two or three is more typical, and in some “super regional” centers as many as five department stores have been incorporated into a single center. These principal tenants are complemented by numerous secondary tenants offering additional general and special&d goods and services. Regional shopping centers seek to reproduce the scale and variety of shopping opportunities once available only in central business districts, responding to the shopping needs of people with diverse needs and incomes. The mix of secondary tenants therefore is also diverse and may fluctuate over time. Regional centers are the largest of the three center categories. They may be completely enclosed under one roof, or exist as an open air mall. The typical gross leasable area of a center with two or more department stores is about 800,000 square feet, although the full range of regional centers is from 300,000 to 1.5 million square feet. Sites can range from as little as 10 acres (for a multi-level, urban center, like San Diego’s Horton Plaza) to over 100 acres (for a single-level super center with surface parking). The regional center serves a trade area of 150,000 to 300,000 people, with travel times up to 25 or 30 minutes. Community Shopping Centers The community commercial center is perhaps the most difficult of the three types of center to define. Basically, it is the in-between center providing a wider variety of retail goods and services than the neighborhood center, but neither as wide in variety nor as deep in specialization as the regional center. Consequently the size of its trade area lies in-between neighborhood and regional centers as well. A community shopping center is defined as much by what anchor tenants it does not have, as by what it does have. Specifically, they do not have a full-line department store, as this is a defining character of the regional center. Also, many of the newer trends in specialized retail marketing have evolved in the community commercial center, so that the category continues to undergo changing characteristics. DRAFT 13 DRAFT Originally, the community shopping center was developed around a junior department store or large variety store as anchor tenants. These types of stores are much less common today, however, being supplanted by the discount or off-price department store, or by a strong specialty store such as a hardware/building material/garden supply store, or even an electronics/appliance “big box” store. A supermarket may be a secondary major tenant, but is not considered a key part of the definition. A broader range of secondary goods and services also helps distinguish community shopping ceriters from neighborhood shopping centers. The community shopping center typically has a gross leasable area of about 150,000 square feet, with a range from 100,000 to 300,000 square feet. The center needs a site of 10 to 30 acres, depending often upon how parking is configured. It normally serves a trade area population of 40,000 to 150,000 people within a 10 to 20 minute drive. Specialty Centers Several types of specialty centers have evolved over the years. They differ Corn the traditional centers in one basic way-the way in which anchor tenants are treated. In one major variant, there may be no single, large anchor. Instead a grouping of similar tenants together may function as an anchor. Some of the “garment district” centers, home furnishings centers, or outlet malls seen in some areas of the state are examples of this approach. In another variation, the anchor may be a highly specialized super-store, for example the so-called “big box” or “category killer” stores. These might include super centers specializing in toys, office supplies, computers, sporting goods, and even pet supplies. Sometimes these super stores are stand-alone, without secondary tenants, in which case they are not really centers at all. In some cases, they are supported by minor tenants on the site. A current trend is a cluster of big box stores built on a single site without physical connections or secondary tenants, sharing only a common parking area. Perhaps the newest major tenant to emerge as a center anchor is the mega-multi-screen cinema complex, sometimes partnered with such secondary tenants as a fast-food court, bookstore, music store, and/or video arcade, to form a community entertainment center. Often these specialized centers operate as community centers, targeting similarly-sized trade service areas and travel times. Occasionally, the specialized nature of the center results in a targeted trade area that more closely resembles that of a regional center. For example, some of the newly-emerging, large-scale “outlet” malls or clustered big box centers may successfully target price-conscious clientele willing to undertake the 25- to 30-minute travel times normally associated with regional shopping centers. Summary Tables Table 2, “Major/Anchor Tenants”, lists the kinds of businesses that serve as defining major and anchor tenants for each of the three major classes of shopping center. It also gives the names of companies which are examples of these kinds of businesses that are commonly found in the San Diego region. Many of these companies are located in the 50 centers that were analyzed in this study and served as criteria for staff to assign center classifications. DRAFT DRAFT Table 3. “Sizes of Shopping Centers”, shows the typical range of site size, in acres, for the various types of shopping centers. In addition to information cited previously, this table includes information obtained in the course of this study from commercial land brokers. Of interest is the observation that convenience store centers typically only need l-2 acres, while the “next-size- up”, neighborhood commercial centers, range from 8-12 acres. The ‘in between” site size of 3-7 acres is described by one broker as “no man’s land”. These sites are considered too small by most supermarket developers for use as neighborhood shopping centers. Table 3 also provides the amount of acreage associated with most of the existing and planned neighborhood and community shopping centers in Carlsbad. DRAFT 15 DRAFT TABLE 2: MAJOR/ANCHOR TENANTS (Examples Found in the San Diego Area) Traditional 4 Regional Sbowiw Ceoters Less Traditional b Depatiment Stores J.C. Penney Macy’s Montgomery/Focus Nieman-Marcus Nordstrom Robinson/May Sears Communitv ShoDDiw Ceders DiscountiOff-PrictVKariety Building/Gardeen/urrtiture SpecialryBig Box Clothes Time Fedco K-Mart Marshall’s Price-Costco Ross Super Thrifty Target Wal-Mart Home Base Bookstar Home Depot Circuit City Nursery Land Computer City Jeromes’ Furniture Warehouse Good Guys Levitz Warehouse Office Depot Oshman’s SportMart Pacific Theater multi-plex Petco Pier 1 Imports Staples Neiphborhood ShoDDine Center Supermarket Specialty Market Convenience Market Albertsons Lucky Ralph’s Vons Keils Boney’s Marketplace Smart & Final Trader Joe’s 7/11 AM/PM (Arco) Circle K “mom and pop” local DRAFT 16 DRAFT TABLE 3: TYPICAL SIZES OF SHOPPING CENTERS Center TvDe Acres TV&al Tenants Convenience Store l-2 7/l 1, Circle K [“no man’s land”] 3-7 [May be too small for new supermarket centers] Neighborhood 8-12 Vons; Thrifty Drug Community 10-30 Target, K-Mart, Home Depot Regional 1 O-60 l-2 full-line department stores &lacy’s, Sears) Super Regional 15-100 3+ full-line department stores (J.C. Penney’s, Nordstrom) ExamDIes of Site Sizes of Centers in the Carlsbad Area Name/Location Acres G.P. Desip. Vons (Tamarack at Adams) Plaza Paseo Real (Vons) (El Camino Real at Aviara Parkway) Poinsettia Plaza (Ralph’s) La Costa Plaza (in transition) Plaza de la Costa Real (Vans) Carlsbad Plaza (Vons, Good Guys) Carlsbad Plaza South (general commercial) 4.8 Neighborhood 15.8 Community 18.5 Community 8.5 Community 16.3 (incl. slopes) Community 15.5 Community 11.7 Community (vacant, planned, proposed) Poinsettia Lane at Paseo de1 Norte 5.1 Neighborhood Ranch0 Santa Fe at Camino de 10s Caches 7.6 Neighborhood University Commons (San Marcos, Questhaven at Rcho Sta Fe) 10.0 (approx) Neighborhood Ranch0 San Elijo (San Marcos, on Questhaven) 13.0 Neighborhood Calavera Hills (Village E-l, on Carlsbad Village Dr.) 9.0 Community Sunny Creek (El Camino Real at College) 18.6 Community Robertson Ranch (Tamarack at El Camino Real) 15.0 (approx) Res. Medium MAG Properties (Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. at La Costa Ave.) 54.0 (net) Community Green Valley (Carlsbad) 18.3 Community Green Valley (Encinitas) 56.0 Regional (+12.2 mixed use) DRAFT DRAFT Classifying Commercial Sites for This Study Three major challenges arose with regard to classifying commercial sites for inclusion in this study. The way in which staff responded to these challenges results in several special assumptions that affected the balance of the analysis and its results. General Commercial ArZas This study included a three-mile “buffer” area around the City of Carlsbad in recognition of the fact that the trade service areas for sites located outside of Carlsbad could overlay parts of Carlsbad. This meant that commercial sites in Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Encinitas were examined in the study, in addition to sites within Carlsbad. Unfortunately, each city uses its own general plan designations and zoning to control where and how commercial development occurs. All five jurisdictions use functionally similar descriptions of “neighborhood commercial” as a land use type. However other commercial designations vary. Some use “community commercial”; some don’t. A particular problem arose with the fact that all of the other cities use some variant on the land use term “general commercial”. They use this designation to site a significant amount of their commercial businesses, leading, in some cases, to the development of commercial districts and/or corridors/strips. Except for the Village area, Carlsbad does not have such districts or commercial strips. Our commercial developments are normally planned in centers. This study is geared to examining centers. The challenge, then, was for staff to evaluate strip or district commercial development in the other cities and (using the descriptions from above) to try and find the functional equivalents of neighborhood, community, and even regional .commercial “centers”. This proved to be a challenging and somewhat subjective effort. As an example, the commercial area in Encinitas which is located along El Camino Real at and north of Encinitas Boulevard consists of a commercial district&rip that is designated by the Encinitas general plan as “general commercial”. Upon examination, there are five distinct commercial “centers” in this area (plus some sites that are not true centers) which are situated near to, and, in a couple of cases, adjoin one another to form the strip. Staffs initial response was to classify this large aggregation as functionally equivalent to a regional center and to delete it from the study. Following a field examination, however, staff determined that the area lacked the key tenant - a major full-service department store (a marginal candidate, Target, is closing and moving to the new Encinitas Ranch regional center). The five centers actually operate as five community commercial centers. Eventually they were treated as a single, very large community commercial center for purposes of the study. SDecialtv Commercial CenterdSites Another problem was the treatment of specialty commercial sites and centers. A number of commercial sites are anchored by the type of “big box” or specialty store/complex discussed above. When these were encountered, staff had to make a judgment call as to whether or not the site functioned as a “center”, and, if so, what type of center. An example is North County Square DRAFT DRAFT in Vista (Sycamore Ave. at University, off of Highway 78), with Wal-Mart, Target, Office Depot, Petsmart, Michael’s and some fast food outlets. Staff classified this site a community commercial center, despite lacking an integrated design. It functions as several stand-alone buildings sharing a large parking area. If Wal-Mart is considered a full-line department store, the site could possibly have been classified a small regional center. To assist with the foregaing two issues, City staff met with the planning departments of each of the four other cities. The nature of the study was explained, and, using maps of each city’s existing and planned commercial sites (prepared by SANDAG), the functional equivalents of neighborhood and community commercial sites were plotted. Sometimes the other planning department had fairly strong views about how certain sites should be treated. These views were respected in the study. Eventually, candidate “centers” were identified and mapped. Approximately 60 sites were initially identified. “Communitv Commercial” Centers that ODerate as Neiphborhood Commercial Centers Within Carlsbad itself, a special issue emerged. Three of the developed sites that the General Plan designates for community commercial land use do not actually operate as community commercial centers. All three centers lack a junior department store or discount store to serve as an anchor tenant, and, therefore, do not meet the definition of community commercial. These three sites, in fact, operate as neighborhood commercial centers, having a supermarket as the principal tenant. These sites are: l Plaza Paseo Real (Vons site at El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway). l La Costa Plaza/Plaza de la Costa Real (Vans at El Camino Real and La Costa Blvd.). l Poinsettia Plaza (Ralph’s site at Poinsettia Lane and Avenida Encinas). These three sites were given community commercial labels in Table 4 (due to their designations), but were analyzed in the study as neighborhood shopping centers. Sites Included in This Study Each of the original 60-some-odd candidate sites was visited in the field to review its tenant mix and to verify its classification. Some were consolidated with adjoining centers and treated as a single site. A few were deleted for various reasons. As was mentioned, above, three Carlsbad sites that are designated for community commercial centers were treated as neighborhood shopping centers. In the end staff included in the study a total of 50 existing, planned, or proposed centers, including 26 neighborhood centers and 24 community centers. Table 4, “Shopping Center Information” gives a listing of all of these sites, including a break-out by city and type of center. The table also gives information about each center, including its name, location, principal tenants, and the Traffic Analysis Zone with which it is associated. DRAFT 19 DRAFT W E a j 5 5 e J D I s e E 3 5 P J L g J $ E : % s i !i u 7 3 L i I ! I I 2 i 4 : 4 ! c ’ : i j : c i 4 : , i : I ’ i : I : I : i 1 I t I I ’ ! : < i ’ . I J 1 , I I i i I I I I I i I ; i I I 1 r I < : ! I 7 B I . . t l ii i i f - : E : 1 : (: : : I : ; :! : ; c I Y : t , i I I i ! I ] ! i I 1 i i i z ! I . , i ! I i : I : j i ! 3 , i , j , I I : ii ! : : I I ; ! I I : I 1 ; s I i I II c I ; I . ; 1 A ‘s z E $ E .z P P ii 2 5 e .- a b E 9 I? B Y! E 8 i.i Ii g E e P , = u” Ez. 4 d n v. TRADE SERVICE AREAS Marketing Analysis and Trade Service Areas When a commercial developer considers acquiring a building site for a new shopping center, many factors must be considered: market analysis, economic analysis, potential tenants, leasing plan, financial negotiations, and public land use approvals. Of these, perhaps the most important in the initial stages is the market analysis. Before a developer can begin to consider the other factors, he must first identify and evaluate the market for the site and then calculate its potential patronage for various categories of goods and services. The market analysis is a sort of chicken and egg situation. A prospective tenant will not be interested in a center until a market analysis is conducted, but a proper analysis cannot be made until it is known what key tenant the trade area will attract. Therefore, two types of analysis must be pursued simultaneously. One is to market the site to key tenants. The second is to determine the number and type of customers who may be brought to the center so as to determine the customer draw and potential volume of business. In order to do the latter, one basic premise must be understood. A shopping center cannot generate new business or create new buying power. It can only: a) attract customers from existing businesses within the trade area; b) fulfil1 a need that has not been previously met within the trade area; or c) capture the increase in the purchasing power of the trade area that accrues as the population grows. The required scope of the market analysis, therefore, may include such factors as population size and growth potential, purchasing power, site access, proposed tenants, and shoppers’ buying habits and preferences as determined by an evaluation of the trade area’s demographics (income, age, education, ethnic@, etc.). Thus, the concept of “trade area” is critical. The trade area is the geographic area that provides the majority of the steady customers necessary to support a shopping center. The boundaries of the trade area are determined by a number of variables, including the type of center, its accessibility, geographical barriers, the location of competing facilities, and, very importantly, driving time and distance. Consequently, trade areas can vary widely in shape, size and configuration. In general, the closer potential customers are to a site, the more likely they are to patronize it. Trade areas are generally divided into three sub-zones of influence: l The primary trade area is the geographical area from which the center will derive its largest share of repeat sales, generally 70 to 80 percent of the center’s regular customers; l The secondary trade area generates from 15 to 20 percent of the total sales; and l The tertiary or fringe trade area forms the broadest area from which customers are drawn. Generally, if a residence is within the primary trade area of a shopping center, that center will be sufficiently convenient to the residence to provide an adequate level of service to the residence DRAFT 22 DRAFT (at least for the types of goods and services being offered by the center). If a residence is within the primary trade area of more than one shopping center of the same type, the residence will be even better served by virtue of have a greater range of choices of goods and services and, perhaps, the benefits of price competition. Use of Trade Service Areas in This Study What the City Council wants to know is “Do we have enough shopping centers, of the right types and in the right locations, to provide for the shopping needs of the future population of the City?’ Put another way, the question is “If we consider the trade areas of all of the,existing and planned neighborhood and community shopping centers found within Carlsbad and the surrounding areas, would all areas of Carlsbad fall into the primary trade area of at least one neighborhood shopping center and at least one community shopping center?” The boundaries for the primary trade area for a given shopping center will be a function of all of the factors noted above, and a full market study would be required to determine its unique shape and size at a given point in time. This study was not intended to conduct a full market analysis for any one shopping center site, let alone each of the 50 existing and potential sites it examines. Such an effort would be a mammoth undertaking, far beyond the capabilities and resources available for this study. Fortunately, such an undertaking may not be necessary to address the question asked by the City Council. A generalized answer can be prepared using general&d descriptions of primary trade areas. A generalized description of a primary trade area for a “‘typical” example of shopping center can be roughly defined in terms of either a) a simple distance radius from a center, for a rough and ready approximation, or b) the travel time from a center, for a more refined approximation. A simple distance radius is easy to plot, but does not reflect topographic features and tra.& conditions that might affect patrons’ access to a center. A travel-time analysis that does address these factors is better, although it is more complex to prepare than a simple radius. Yet it is nowhere near so difficult to prepare as a full-blown market study. Table 5, “Primary Trade Area Guidelines”, gives industry-accepted norms for distance radii and travel times for “typical” examples of each type of shopping center. I Table 5: Primary Trade Area Guidelines 1 Type of Center Neighborhood Driving Time (Minutea) Radius (Miles) 5 1.5 Community 10 3 to 5 Regional 20 8 Super Regional 30 12 Adapted from: Shopping Centcr Development Handbook (second ed.), Urban Land Institute, 1985 DRAFT 23 DRAFT The City Council’s question can be addressed by using these approximations for the primary trade areas for shopping center sites, and then simply plotting these trade areas on a map. The question is answered by looking at the plots and noting what areas of the City are served by none, one, or two or more primary trade areas. VI. STUDY METHODOLOGY The following information is an abbreviated description of the methodology used to answer the questions asked by the City Council. This methodology made extensive use of geographic information system (GIS) technology. Both the San Diego Association of Governments and City of Carlsbad GIS databases and analytic capability were utilized. Where intermediate results were obtained in the over-all process, these results are noted. Select Study Sites Determine the sites that will be analyzed in the study. 1. Define the study area to include a three-mile buffer area around the City boundary, based upon the three-mile primary trade area radius associated with typical community commercial shopping centers, as determined by literature research. 2. Using land use files provided by SANDAG using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, examine the general plan land use classifications in use by Carlsbad and the four cities included within the three-mile buffer area. Search for: neighborhood commercial, community commercial, and other commercial land use designations that might serve as the functional equivalents of neighborhood and community commercial shopping centers. Plot on maps the areas of the five cities that are subject to these designations. Examine these areas for existing and future commercial centers. Meet with other planning departments and refine this information. Field check possible centers. 3. Identify existing and planned shopping centers for inclusion in the study (22 neighborhood and 22 community shopping centers). See Figure 1, “ Neighborhood and Community Shopping Sites”. Identify proposals pending before planning departments for shopping centers that would require modifications to current general plans (4 neighborhood and 2 community commercial sites). This gives a total of 50 sites. Enter these sites as data layers in SANDAG’s geographic information system. Anaiyze Primary Trade Areas - Radius Method Evaluate the areas of Carlsbad that are within the primary trade areas of shopping centers using a simple radius mapping. Treat neighborhood and community shopping separately. DRAFT 24 DRAFT 1. Calculate and plot (using GIS technology) a simplified primary trade area for each of the 22 existing and planned community shopping centers based upon a 3-mile radius. (See Figure 2: “Community Sites - 3-Mile Radius”). Repeat for the 22 existing and planned neighborhood commercial sites using a 1.5~mile radius (See Figure 3: “Neighborhood Sites - 1 S-mile radius”). Look for over-laps and gaps, between trade areas on both plots. 2. Results. On inspection, it appears that there are no significant gaps between primary trade areas of community commercial centers; that is, almost all areas of the city are within at least one trade area and most are within two or more trade areas for community commercial centers. On the other hand, the neighborhood shopping plot shows major gaps in coverage, indicating that some areas of the City are not within the primary trade areas of neighborhood shopping centers. In addition, it appears from both maps that some areas of Carlsbad are served primarily by shopping centers located outside of Carlsbad. Atiaiyze Primary Trade Areas - Travel-Time Method Undertake a more-refined analysis of neighborhood shopping center trade areas (only) to refine the results that were obtained from the simple radius method. Conduct a travel time analysis. Define primary trade areas of neighborhood centers as a five-minute travel time. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Using SANDAG transportation models identify the TrafEc Analysis Zones (TAZ) associated with the study area (Carlsbad, plus 3-mile buffer area). 715 TAZ were identified. Plot these as a geographic information system data layer and combine .with the data layers of the 50 commercial sites. Associate each commercial site with one of the 715 TAZ. Configure SANDAG’s TRANPLAN transportation model with a) year 2020 street systems and b) 2020 land use assumptions (for traffic generation) for each TAZ, for all five jurisdictions. (Fortunately, this massive task was already in progress as part of a separate transportation planning effort and did not take long to finish for this study.) Run TRANPLAN to calculate estimated future travel times between the centroid of each TAZ to the centroid of each other TAZ. (715 TAZ x 715 TAZ = 5 11,225 travel times calculated.) Transfer SANDAG GIS coverages and TRANPLAN travel-time calculations to Carlsbad geographicinformation system for remaining analysis. For each TAZ containing one of the 22 existing and planned neighborhood shopping center sites, determine a list of TAZ that are within a five minute travel time (22 sites x 715 possible travel times). Figure 4, “Traffic Analysis Zones” displays the relationship between neighborhood centers and TAZ. DRAFT 25 DRAFT 6. Using Carlsbad GIS technology, create a data layer that shows all TAZ in the study area. Indicate those TAZ that are and those that are not within a five-minute travel time of any neighborhood shopping center. Identify and distinguish those TAZ that are within a five- minute travel time of more than one shopping center. Plot data layer as maps. See Figure 5, “Neighborhood Sites - 5-Min. Travel Time”. 7. Results. Inspection of the travel-time map corroborates the results obtained from the simple radius analysis. There are several large areas of eastern Carlsbad that are not within the primary trade area of any neighborhood shopping center. These areas include parts of Calavera Hills, Robertson Ranch, Sunny Creek, Kelly Ranch, Veteran’s Memorial Park, and the airport industrial area. Another band extends from Squires Dam southerly through the Carlsbad Oaks industrial area, Carrillo Ranch and northeast La Costa. Anaiyze Effects of Proposed Sites 1. Using the same travel-time method as in the previous section, calculate and plot the 5- minute travel times of the four proposed neighborhood shopping sites in Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Oceanside. See Figure 6, “Proposed Neighborhood Sites - 5-Min Travel Time”. 2. Overlay these data on the map of the existing and planned sites, generated in the previous section. 3. See Figure 7, Results. “Existing Plus Proposed Sites - 5-Min. Travel Time”. The composite map shows that the primary trade areas of the proposed Oceanside Ranch0 De1 Oro site and the San Elijo Ranch site in San Marcos do not overlay Carlsbad. On the other hand, the coverage created by the San Marcos University Commons site and the Carlsbad Robertson Ranch site do cover parts of Carlsbad, providing enhanced neighborhood commercial service. Although neighborhood commercial coverage is better, three areas remain uncovered however. One is the existing residential area just west of Lake Calavera. A second is the Veteran’s Memorial Park/Palomar Airport area and the industrial area south of it. The third is the industrial area between Squires Dam and Palomar Airport Road. VII. FINDINGS 1. The Council’s key question is answered. Although the combined neighborhood and community commercial coverage in most areas of the City is good, we do need some additional commercial sites in a few areas. The primary need is for additional neighborhood shopping centers. The areas that will not be within the primary trade area of a neighborhood center are parts of Calavera Hills, Robertson Ranch, Sunny Creek, Kelly Ranch, Veteran’s Memorial Park, and the airport industrial area. Another band DRAFT DRAFT extends from Squires Dam southerly through the Carlsbad Oaks industrial area, Carrillo Ranch and northeast La Costa. This need is diminished (although not eliminated) if two of four proposed neighborhood commercial developments are implemented, one in Carlsbad and one in San Marcos (the other two - one in Oceanside and a second in San Marcos - would not provide significant service to Carlsbad). Although neighborhood commercial coverage is better with the addition of these sites, three areas would. still remain outside of a primary trade area, however. One is the existing residential area just west of Lake Calavera. A second is the Veteran’s Memorial Park/Palomar Airport area and the industrial area south of it. The third is the industrial area between Squires Dam and Palomar Airport Road. A follow-up to this report might be to work with property owners to determine possible sites in or near these areas for additional neighborhood shopping centers 2. As anticipated, the only trade area coverage for some areas of the City, will come from commercial developments located outside of Carlsbad. This can be seen most easily from the radius maps for the neighborhood and community commercial sites. (Figures 3 and 4). These areas are generally located along the City’s borders, northern, eastern, and southern. One of the major causes of this situation with regard to community commercial is discussed in the following finding. 3. While Carlsbad distinguishes between “community” and “neighborhood” commercial in the General Plan, we have not really built “community” commercial developments. Instead, we have tended to build “neighborhood” commercial developments on “community” commercial sites. This finding is based upon an analysis of the sizes of developed sites and their anchor tenants. Examples of such sites include: La Costa Plaza, Plaza de la Costa Real, Plaza Paseo Real, West Bluff Plaza, Poinsettia Plaza, and Carlsbad Plaza South. Most of these sites contain supermarkets, the defining anchor tenant for neighborhood commercial centers, and all lack an off-price or discount department store, the defining anchor tenant for community commercial centers (see Tables 3 and 4 for additional information on these sites). With one exception, all of these sites were treated in the study as neighborhood commercial sites. The exception was Carlsbad Plaza South, which was combined with Carlsbad Plaza as a single community commercial site. The treatment of these community sites as neighborhood sites is the primary reason that the neighborhood commercial coverage in the southern half of the City is better than it otherwise would be using only the designated neighborhood commercial sites. Another major consequence of this situation is that much of the community commercial coverage for Carlsbad will come from centers located outside of Carlsbad Only three community commercial sites remain vacant in Carlsbad. The one in Calavera Hills (Village E-l) consists of but 9 net acres and is probably too small to accommodate the type of anchor and secondary tenants necessary for a community commercial center. Although it may eventually develop as a neighborhood center, it was treated as a community commercial site in the study. The second remaining vacant community commercial site is the l&acre Sunny Creek site at El Camino Real and College DRAFT 27 DRAFT Boulevard. The last is the 54-acre MAG properties site on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road at La Costa Ave. These two sites will be important to providing community commercial coverage in the eastern part of the City A factor that may contribute to this situation is the size of the sites. All of Carlsbad’s designated neighborhood sites are less than eight acres (See Table 3). It may be that these sites are to% small to accommodate contemporary neighborhood centers with full supermarkets. One commercial broker advised staff that commercial sites of 3-7 acres are too big for convenience stores and too small for today’s supermarket-based centers. In order to find larger sites for neighborhood shopping centers, developers may have tended to look to sites with community commercial designations. Carlsbad’s community shopping center sites range from 12 to 18 acres, towards the lower end of the range (10 to 30 acres; see Table 3) for community shopping centers, but adequate for large neighborhood shopping centers. 4. The Council’s question about controlling “strip commercial” is answered in part by Finding 1. Because we don’t need many new commercial shopping sites, we can just say “no” when proposals for additional or expanded shopping developments are made, if these proposals would tend to create the type of commercial strips that are described in Section II of the report. Such actions would be supported by existing policies in the General Plan that speak directly to limiting strip commercial (see previous Section II). In addition, the City has engineering and design standards that serve well to mitigate some of the worst aspects of strip development related to curb-cut spacing, intersection spacing, and on-site vehicle circulation. We have the controls we need to control strip commercial. VIII. NEW ISSUES RAISED BY THE STUDY Staffs analysis and findings raise two new general issues that the City may wish to take up. Although staff identified these issues in the course of preparing this study, it has not attempted to address them fully because a) they were not part of the original scope of work for the study, and, b) the City Council may prefer to pursue these issues in certain ways, or may choose not to pursue them at all. If the following issues are to be pursued in greater depth than is provide herein, staff recommends that additional data be collected and analyzed in one or more follow-up studies. Issue I: Is the City comfortable with a significant portion of Carkbad’s commercial shopping needs being met by other cities’ commercial developments? Preliminarv analvsis: The major aspect of the issue is fiscal and has to do with sales tax generation. If Carlsbad residents make a significant amount of their purchases in other cities, it will result in sales tax revenues being returned to other cities and not Carlsbad. DRAFT 28 DRAFT The Finance Department has examined this issue in a separate memorandum (Appendix A). Generally, it finds that, although the conversion of community commercial uses to neighborhood commercial uses would reduce the City’s anticipated net revenues, the projected financial outlook for the City is such that financial considerations should not be the driving force behind commercial land use decisions. If the City finds that it is preferable for other cities to be the home for some types of community commercial development, the impact to the City’s anticipated revenues would not be significant. Please see Appendix A for further discussion. Issue 2: Should the City pursue developing more %ue” community commercial developments? Preliminary analvsis: As Finding 3 (above) sets out, the City has tended to build neighborhood shopping centers on the sites its General Plan designates for community commercial centers. The result is that the city has more sites providing groceries and local goods and services than is called for by the plan. On the one hand, this is fortuitous because, as it turns out, the City needs these sites and a few additional neighborhood commercial sites in order for all areas of the City to be adequately served. On the other hand, the City has little in the way of traditional community commercial shopping centers. The City lacks the Targets, K-Marts, Home Depots, Toys-R-Us, and other commercial businesses that typically anchor such centers. The question is, does the City want or need these types of retailers within its boundaries, or is it better to have such services provided from sites located outside its city limits, so long as the City’s residents have convenient access to them? A response to this question may be developed by referring back to the vision that the City has for itself. Recalling from Section II, the Carlsbad General Plan articulates a general vision statement for itself, together with goals and objectives to realize the vision. Section II summarized that vision of the city as follows: Carlsbad’s self-vision is primarily one of a residential, open-space-oriented community that provides for the local shopping needs of its residents, businesses, and service providers, but does so with the minimum amount of new commercial land necessary to that task with such new development provided in well-designed centers, as opposed to linear configurations. Some forms of community commercial development, particularly the newer trends for “big box” development and highly specialized mega-stores, may not be fully in keeping with the City’s image as “primarily a residential, open-space-oriented community”. Clearly, the City has not historically encouraged such commercial developments, despite providing a designation in the General Plan that could accommodate them. The City seems more comfortable with larger, well- designed neighborhood centers, and these, in fact, are what we have tended to produce on sites designated for both neighborhood and community commercial uses. Therefore, both the City’s historical growth pattern and it’s vision of itself seem to say: “No, neither traditional nor newer forms of community commercial development are in keeping with what Carlsbad wants for itself To the degree that Carlsbad residents choose to patronize such DRAFT DRAFT developments, it is desirable that they do so in other cities. ” Further, given a fiscal situation that seems able to support the City’s vision of itself, there is no great need to provide for future community commercial developments. If this is an accurate reflection of the City’s predisposition on community commercial development, a follow-up question arises then: Does Carlsbad, therefore, need both “neighborhood” and “c6rnnmnity” commercial General Plan designations? Perhaps not. If our general preference is that community commercial developments, and the image and potential problems associated with some of these developments, are better located in adjoining cities, then perhaps the “community commercial” designation is not needed. One response would be simply to delete community commercial from the General Plan as a land . use classification, retaining “neighborhood” commercial as is. This would have the effect of precluding community commercial developments. If the City is certain that we don’t want such developments in the City this might be an appropriate response. Another possible response, one that would retain greater flexibility, would be to merge the “community” and “neighborhood” commercial designations into a single “retail center” classification that would allow the types of anchor tenants associated with both designations. By doing so the City could continue to encourage the type of center we have traditionally developed, but retain the option to build some types of community commercial developments, when and where we determine appropriate. If the City would like to preclude specifically some types of the newer trends in community commercial (big box megastores, for example), a careful crafting of the merged designations could achieve this end. And, of course, a third response would be to make no change, retaining both designations. The Planning Department has not in this study undertaken a thorough analysis of these responses. There may be other responses in addition to the ones identified. Further, matters of supporting zoning, appropriate development standards (minimum lot size, for example), interest and support by property owners, and other matters should be examined in detail before undertaking any changes in General Plan designations. If the City Council is interested in any of the options identified above, direction should be given to staff to return with appropriate follow- up studies. DRAFT 30 DRAFT FIGURES DRAFT DRAFT * Neighborhood Shopping Sites l Community Shopping Sites 1/\/1 3-Mile Buffer Around Carlsbad *This map cornrim baae infomwtiin from the San Diego Auacktion of MI lnfomution syslm This Imp comoinr plan update These dets have nof Sonw of the ger!enl plan daigMMM on this map hwe bean mcdiiiad from their ori 8, inal bignation bytha City of Carfrbad Planning D~PNtment. b changes hma been made for the purposes of this study only and am not necesaafllv reflected in the C3eneml Plan of the Ciiv of C&bad. m1ssr cirf d -et* /ea&2,-~ulllRuhr~.~~~ wnwss Figure I: Neighborhood and Community Shopping Sites I 1/\/1 3-Mile Buffer Around Carlsbad Scelr: One Inch - 1.5 Miles I I Jlikir map contains hue information tmm the San Dim Associatiin of mw?mmmt8 fsAND*ol mnd Infwn\ation Syrtem. Thin m8p cont*iN mrl rAm u&k These data have not been through local review to SOW48 of the,ptd pl8n *in8tiom an thir m8p Mu8 hem moddied ;yw;r;, Yhe8 md da+atwm bytha CitT d thkbad Rannbag 8 chmgm h8v8 bsen m8da for the ~ufpo885 ot thii dudy only md 8nt not necaurfly mfkted in the Genanl Plan ot the City of CAbad. Figure 2: Community Sites - 3 Mile Radius I k\/i 3-Mile Buffer Around Carl&ad Scale: One Inch - 1.5 Miles I J’hs map &trinr base infwmatiDn from the Sol ~iipo wi o( StWmmmtS IMMMQ) ReDiMlsr hlamaion Svstem This nup com&va data from the SAND&J 1886 been thmugh local mviw to 8” ml plan update Thee date hwe not ata ! Some of the,pml plm d+#Miw p” thk map ruVa been modified $r,;roz L IMI duignaton by the Qtv of Cad&ad Pfanning e Changes llwa been made for the pwposes of this riudy only and we not mce~sarilv reflected in the General Plan d ths City 01 CerBbad. @lSes an d cd&d us ~~Pmdn~mn!nshrm.mt~.~l OUlnMS Figure 3: Neighborhood Sites - 1.5 Mile Radius A Neighborhood Shopping Sites l Community Shopping Sites !8 3-Mile Buffer Around Carl&ad SC&: One Inch - 1.5 Miles Jbb cont8hs bus infommtion tmm the San Dii &socbtien oi d.t. tmm% k%%%?~~&?=e~a~%* bean through locaf rsvMw to ate Some of theppnaml p!an *inations pn this map hsve * modifii ~~a;mm~ ??h mal deslgnatlon by the Qiy ol Cwkbad Plmnmg e change8 have been made for th4 purpossr of this study only md am not mceuafflv ra(lectad in ths Gnneml Plan of tha City of Carlrbad. (OlUM citv d cdmbd es /.a+2lPmdu--lm.e8~.~, 06n6m Figure 4: Traffic Analysis Zones 0 No Centers Within 5 Minutes n One Center Within 5 Minutes n T wo or More Centers Within 5 Minutes * w I =+ I I k\/l 3-Mile Buffer Around Carlsbad Scdr: One inch - 1.5 Miles I I -This map contdms base informnt~km fmm the !%n Diego ksseciation of Dovmtm8ntr fMND*a) Information System This map conwins data from tha SAW 199 plan update These data hm not been thmugh local review to Saw of!hs gonad plan dasiimtii on this map have bean mod#ii &ya;b$;’ lml demgmtion by the City of C&bad Planning “?n me chmgsr hwa been made for the purpo~ea of this study only and are not necsrrril~ refknzted in the Osnal Plan of the WV of carlsbad. (DIW city d c.!&d OB /MlVdlPlOdUoupl~t2O.eemo6ml osnsms Figure 5: Neighborhood Sites - 5 Minute Travel Time Ocean u No Centers Within 5 Minutes * n One Center Within 5 Minutes *I E l T wo or More Centers Within 5 Minutes + I @ 3-Mile Buffer Around Carlsbad Scdr: One Inch - 1.5 Miles ;RHs map wntainr bus infonmtlon from the San Diego kmciatii d Qovmmants IMND*o) lkploml InfowmtiDn System This map cont8im data fmm tha SMJDAG 1996 been through Lwl rsvisw to r ml plm updrtr These data hme not ata only and mm not mcmsmilv mlkicted in the Qenanl Ptan of the City d CM&ad. Figure 6: Proposed Neighborhood Sites - 5 Minute Travel Time APPENDIX A: MEMORANDUM FROM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DRAFT 40 DRAFT 0 No Centers Within 5 Minutes l One Center Within 5 Minutes n T wo or More Centers Within 5 Minutes @ 3-Mile Buffer Around Carlsbad * *I + s I Scale: One Inch - 1.5 Miles I Jltis nwp wnt8ks base information from ths San Dingo Aorociatian of Oouernm8ntr 6ANDAQl Rsgioml lnfomwtion System Thk nw contains data from the SANDAD 1996 bean thmuwh local rsvim to 2 enmal plan update These data have not ata I !&mm of the gemml plan dmigmtiom on this mrp ham been mod&d from their or’ 7-h DapaRmmt. M designation by the City of Cadsbad IFanning ame changes ham bean mada for the purposes of thii study onfv and am not necessarily reflected in the Oanaml Plan of the Ciiv of Carl8bad. mww cilv 04 c- es l-9z-~mzo.~7.m) wnsm Figure 7: Existing Plus Proposed Sites - 5 Minute Travel Time Aa Id&w 2-d 7-61 tLz@ew- d? GPA 00-04 Commercial Policies Changes in Recommendation Due to Planning Commission Input 1. Trade Area Gaps and Overlaps - Objective B.I. (GP page 30) Original Staff Recommendation: “B.I. To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which provides for basic commercial service to all areas of the Citv without creating undue overlaps in trade areas, consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community.” Planning Commission Revision: “B.I. To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which provides for basic commercial service to all areas of the Citv without creatinq undue overlaps in trade areas, while providin_s desirable diversify without over-commercialization, consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community.” 2. Staff Modification to Policy C.2.4 (location criteria for shopping centers) in Response to Planning Commission Recommendation (GP page 32) Original Staff Recommendation: “4. Citvwide, trade areas of centers should abut one another as much as is possible, so as to result in minimal qaps and overlaps. This assures that all areas of the Citv will have “coveraqe” bv a center, while reducinq the propensitv for over- commercialization (see Goal B.l .).I’ Revised Staff Recommendation: “4. Lookinq towards build-out, local shoppino centers should be located such that qaps will not occur between adioininq trade areas, thus providins for a basic level of local service to all areas of the Citv (See Obiective B.2.). In addition, trade areas of centers mav overlap so as to provide both a deqree of competition between, and diversitv in, shopping center opportunities, but onlv to the degree that such overlaps do not result in over-commercialization of the Citv (See Obiective B.l). The term “over-commercialization is not intended to be a quantitative term, but may be qualitativelv determined from time to time.” F:NVordlCommercial Study/PC PG text change Page 1 3. El Camino Real - Policy C.2.6 - Location Criteria for Shopping Centers (GP page 32) Original Staff Recommendation: “6. New sites for local shoppinq centers should not be located alone El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic roadway.” Planning Commission Revision: “6. New centers for local shopping centers located alonq El Camino Real shall be desiqned so as to preserve the scenic quality of this desiqnated scenic corridor.” Text Key: Existing General Plan text = plain text Original staff recommendation for change = underlined text Planning Commission revisions = bold, underlined text F:AWordlCommercial Study/PC PG text change Page 2