HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-18; City Council; 18533; Car Country Specific Plan AmendmentCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 13
o
LO
oo
ooCN
o
•H
4-J
3rHOCOCU
O.
O
cCO
I
CO
oiz;
cuocCO
•H•0SHO
"O0)U
(3•H
•HOa
OO
AB* 18,533
MTQ. 4/18/06
DEPT. PLN
TITLE:
CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
SP19(I)/LCPA 02-11
x^v yDEPT. HD. *7 <^t—
CITYATTY./Gi£-*>
^NVSCITYMGR '=4^
NS-799
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No.
Amendment (SP 19(1)), and ADOPT Resolution No.
Declaration and APPROVING Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-11) as recommended
for adoption and approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
2006-100
APPROVING Specific Plan
, ADOPTING a Negative
Project Applications
Negative Declaration
SP19(I)
LCPA 02-1 1
Administrative
Approvals
Reviewed by and
Final at Planning
Commission
To be reviewed -
Final at Council
X
X
X
O
OO
On March 15, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for a Specific Plan
Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to the Car Country Specific Plan and
recommended approval (7-0) to the City Council.
The Car Country Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 85 acres and is generally located
east of Interstate 5, south of Cannon Road, and west of Car Country Drive within the Mello II
Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 3. The primary
purpose of the proposed amendment is to provide standards to encourage the development of
parking structures and to provide consistent parking standards throughout Car Country. In addition
to these changes, the amendment would combine the text of the Original Car Country and the Car
Country Expansion area into one Local Coastal Plan implementation document, amend the approval
process for Original Car Country from a Planning Commission Determination to a Site Development
Plan, allow a Mediterranean architectural style in addition to the existing Spanish style, reformat the
Comprehensive Sign Program into one section, and correct a number of format and typographical
errors in the documents.
The Specific Plan implements the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and
the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-11) is required in order to incorporate the
proposed Specific Plan Amendments into the LCP implementation document.
There was no public testimony for the project; however, Bob Baker Enterprises, Inc., submitted a
letter of support. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's discussion is included in the
attached minutes. A complete description and staff analysis of the project is included in the attached
report to the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
No significant impacts were identified in the Initial Study prepared for this project. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration has been prepared and is recommended for adoption as part of the approval of
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. No public
comments were received on the Negative Declaration.
PAGE 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts have been identified.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-799
2. City Council Resolution No. 2006-100
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6041, 6042, and 6043
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 15, 2006
6. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 15, 2006.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Barbara Kennedy, (760) 602-4626, bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-799
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
3 THE CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN, SP 19(1) TO ALLOW
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN
4 AND TO CONSOLIDATE SP 19 AND SP 19(C) INTO ONE
DOCUMENT.
5 CASE NAME: CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: SP 19(1)
6
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
7
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Car Country Specific Plan SP 19 on
8
January 18, 1972, by adopting Ordinance No. 9288; and
9
WHEREAS, the City Council approved an amendment to the Car Country
10
Specific Plan SP 19(A) on June 19,1984, by adopting Ordinance No. 9720; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved an amendment to the Car Country
Specific Plan SP 19(B) on January 22,1985, by adopting Ordinance No. 9734; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved an expansion to the Car Country Specific14
Plan SP 19(C) on December 22,1987, by adopting Ordinance No. 9842; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved an amendment to the Car Country16
Specific Plan SP 19(D) on October 6,1992, by adopting Ordinance No. NS-214; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved an amendment to the Car Country18
Specific Plan SP 19(E) on August 20,1991, by adopting Ordinance No. NS-116; and
WHEREAS, an application for an amendment to the Car Country Specific Plan
2j SP 19(F) was applied for and withdrawn; and
22 WHEREAS, the City Council approved an amendment to the Car Country
23 Specific Plan SP 19(G) on June 27, 1995 and July 18, 1995, by adopting Ordinance No. NS-315
24 and NS-317, respectively; and
25 WHEREAS, the City Council denied an amendment to the Car Country Specific
26 Plan SP 19(H) on April 23, 1996, by adopting City Council Resolution 96-141; and
27
28
3
1 WHEREAS, after procedures in accordance with the requirements of law, the
2 City Council has determined that the public interest indicates that said specific plan amendment
3 Sp 19(1) be approved; and
4 WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 18th day of April
5 2006 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
6 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Specific Plan
7 Amendment as shown on Exhibit "SP 19(1)" dated March 15,2006, incorporated by reference.
8 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as
9 follows:
10 SECTION I: That Specific Plan Amendment SP 19(1) dated March 15, 2006,
11 attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference, is approved. The Specific Plan shall
12 constitute the development plan for the property and all development within the plan area shall
13 conform to the plan.
14 SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in
15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6042 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of
16 the City Council.
17 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty
I Q days after its adoption but not until approved by the California Coastal Commission, and the City
19 Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in
20 a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.21 ///22 ///23 ///24 ///25 ///26 ///
27
28
-2-
1 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
2 Council on the 18th day of April 2006, and thereafter.
3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
4 Carlsbad on the day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
5 AYES:
6 NOES:
7 ABSENT:
8 ABSTAIN:
9
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
10
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
12
13
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor14 y
15 ATTEST:
16
17 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
18 (SEAL)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-100
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
3 DECLARATION AND APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR AN 85-ACRE SITE GENERALLY
4 LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 5, SOUTH OF CANNON
ROAD, AND EAST OF CAR COUNTRY DRIVE WITHIN THE
5 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
6 CASE NAME: CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
CASE NO. SP19(IVLCPA 02-11
7
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
8 follows:
9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on March 15, 2006, hold a duly
10 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, attached to
11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6041 and incorporated herein by reference and Local
12 Coastal Program Amendment 02-11 according to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6043
13 and incorporated herein by reference, to amend the Car Country Specific Plan which serves as
the Implementation Plan for the Mello II Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan on properties
located within the Car Country Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission adopted Planning
16
Commission Resolutions No. 6041 and 6043 recommending to the City Council that they be
17
approved; and
18
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 18th day of April 2006
19
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration
20
and Local Coastal Program Amendment and;
21
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
22
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all
23
factors relating to the Negative Declaration, Specific Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal
24
Program Amendment.
25
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
26
hereby resolved as follows:
27
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as
28 follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6041 and 6043 constitute the findings and conditions of the City
Council in this matter.
3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 6041 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
4. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA 02-11), is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6043, on file with the City Clerk
and incorporated herein by reference.
5. That the approval of LCPA 02-11 shall not become effective until it is
approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's
approval becomes effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the iRth day of April , 2006, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin,Packard' and Sigafoose
NOES:None
ABSENT: None
CLAUDE A.
ATTEST:^SV-SBAO^.
,
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Cferk
£L£k^
(SEAL)
^Xiiif!j-'? ^vXJi.X
-2-
7
EXHIBIT 3
SITE
CAR COUNTRY SP AMENDMENT
SP 19(I)/LCPA 02-11
g
EXHIBIT 4
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6041
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
4 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SP 19(1) AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT LCPA 02-11 ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
6 OF CANNON ROAD, NORTH AND WEST OF CAR
COUNTRY DRIVE, AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 5 WITHIN
7 THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
8 3.
9 CASE NAME: CAR COUNTRY SP AMENDMENT
CASE NO: SP 19(T)/LCPA02-11
10
WHEREAS, Lexus Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with
11
the City of Carlsbad regarding properties located within the Car Country Carlsbad Specific
13 Plan Areas described as
14 Lots 1 through 11 of Carlsbad Tract Map 72-3, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
^ to map thereof no. 7492, filed in the Office of the County
lfi Recorder of San Diego, November 30, 1972 as file number
320455
17
and
18
Lots 1 through 10 of Carlsbad Tract Map 87-3, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
20 to map thereof no. 12242, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego, October 28, 1988 as file number 88-
21 552341
22 ("the Property"); and
23 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
24
project; and
25
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of March 2006, hold26
27 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
28 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
9
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
2 relating to the Negative Declaration.
3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
4
r Commission as follows:
5 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
7 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
8 Exhibit "ND," according to Exhibits "NOI" dated January 24, 2006, and "PII"
n dated January 10, 2006, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
10
Findings:
11
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
13 a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
14 thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proj ect; and
b. 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
17
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
18 Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
20 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PCRESONO. 6041 -2-
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of March 2006, by the
3
following vote, to wit:
4
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa,
Dominguez, Heineman, Segall and Whitton
6
NOES:
7
ABSENT:8
9 ABSTAIN:
10
11
12 MARTELL B. MONTGOMERI^Chairperson
13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
14 n
ATTEST:
15
16
17 DONNEU
Assistant Planning Director
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PCRESONO. 6041 -3-
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
CASE NO: SP 190VLCPA 02-11
PROJECT LOCATION: Car Country Specific Plan Area located north and west of Car Country
Drive, east of Interstate 5. and south of Cannon Road. Carlsbad, CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of an amendment to the Car Country Specific Plan and
Local Coastal Program. The Car Country Specific Plan implements the Local Coastal Program for Car
Country Carlsbad. The original Car Country (SP 19) and the Car Country Expansion area (SP 19(C)) are
currently covered by two separate documents. The proposed Specific Plan amendment will consolidate the
two components of the specific plan into one document and will provide one set of standards for signage and
parking for the entire Specific Plan area. The amendment would also allow parking structures up to 35 feet
in height and allow for an increased lot coverage of 50% in conjunction with the construction of a parking
structure. The amendment does not propose a comprehensive update to the Specific Plan; however, it does
address major areas of concern and conflicting standards between "old" and "new" Car Country, and also
corrects a number of typographical and other errors. The LCP amendment is necessary to ensure
consistency between the LCP and Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict
with the provisions of the LCP.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study
(EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
CRI The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that
remained to be addressed).
I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
, pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
DONNEU
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 « FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
.Ic
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Car Country Specific Plan Amendment
SP190VLCPA02-11
Car Country Specific Plan Area located north and west of Car
Country Drive, east of Interstate 5, and south of Cannon Road.
Carlsbad. CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of an amendment to the Car Country
Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program. The Car Country Specific Plan implements the Local
Coastal Program for Car Country Carlsbad. The original Car Country (SP 19) and the Car
Country Expansion area (SP 19(C)) are currently covered by two separate documents. The
proposed Specific Plan amendment will consolidate the two components of the specific plan into
one document and will provide one set of standards for signage and parking for the entire
Specific Plan area. The amendment would also allow parking structures up to 35 feet in height
and allow for an increased lot coverage of 50% in conjunction with the construction of a parking
structure. The amendment does not propose a comprehensive update to the Specific Plan;
however, it does address major areas of concern and conflicting standards between "old" and
"new" Car Country, and also corrects a number of typographical and other errors. The LCP
amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the LCP and Specific Plan. The proposed
amendment will not result in any conflict with the provisions of the LCP.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration 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 the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Barbara
Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD January 24. 2006 through February 23. 2006
PUBLISH DATE January 24. 2006
13
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • wwwJa»uaorB$ba»3ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: SP 9KD/LCPA02-11
DATE: January 10. 2006
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Car Country Specific Plan Amendment
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy. Associate Planner - (760) 602-4626
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Car Country Specific Plan Area located north and west of Car Country Drive,
east of Interstate 5. and south of Cannon Road. Carlsbad. CA
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Lexus Carlsbad 5444 Paseo Del Norte Carlsbad. CA
92008
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: R - Regional Commercial
7. ZONING: C-2 - General Commercial
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or
participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Program Amendment)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The
project consists of an amendment to the Car Country Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program. The Car
Country Specific Plan implements the Local Coastal Program for Car Country Carlsbad. The original Car
Country (SP 19) and the Car Country Expansion area (SP 19(C)) are currently covered by two separate
documents. The proposed Specific Plan amendment will consolidate the two components of the specific
plan into one document and will provide one set of standards for signage and parking for the entire Specific
Plan area. The amendment would also allow parking structures up to 35 feet in height and allow for an
increased lot coverage of 50% in conjunction with the construction of a parking structure. The amendment
does not propose a comprehensive update to the Specific Plan; however, it does address major areas of
concern and conflicting standards between "old" and "new" Car Country, and also corrects a number of
typographical and other errors. The LCP amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the LCP
and Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the provisions of the LCP.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
J Agricultural Resources
I | Air Quality
| | Biological Resources
I | Cultural Resources
j Geology/Soils
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
| I Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/C irculation
Utilities & Service Systems
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IX 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 "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planng Director's Signature
I / 1
Date
Date '
Rev. 07/03/02
lit
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
i)• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
Rev. 07/03/02 11
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D
Rev. 07/03/02 so
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
n
D
D
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
n
n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result hi a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impactn
n n m
EI
n
n EI
X
EI
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
n
D
D
D D
D
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D D
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula-
tively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
[XI
n
n n
n
n
n
16 Rev. 07/03/02
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
17 Rev. 07/03/02 30
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed text amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do
not propose or affect any policy or standard that could: a) adversely effect a scenic vista; b) substantially damage
scenic resources; c) degrade the visual character of any site; or d) create substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car
Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The proposed text amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do
not propose or affect any policy or standard that could: a) result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
use; b) conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract; or c) result in changes to
the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
AIR QUALITY—Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policy or standard that could conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality
plan.it
All properties within the city are located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for paniculate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PMio). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
18 Rev. 07/03/02 -•>/
Future development projects relate to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The proposed amendments are consistent with the growth assumptions of the General Plan. Future
development projects that are subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be required to be consistent
with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
No Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to properties within the city is in the City of Oceanside. Data
available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded
were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal
8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No
violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The proposed amendments do not involve
the physical development of any site nor air quality planning/standard changes. Any future development proposal
that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site specific basis.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The
proposed amendments do not propose or affect any policy or standard that would result in a contribution to a
cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Additionally, the project
does not include a proposal for physical development of any site. Any future development proposal that is subject
to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a
site specific basis.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? '7
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards relating to air quality or pollution. Any future development proposal that
is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site specific basis.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an activity that could create objectionable odors.
Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
19 Rev. 07/03/02 --,_
O«*
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an adverse effect on any sensitive
habitat or species, or interference with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Any
future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a conflict with local policies and ordinances
that protect biological resources or the provisions of any habitat conservation plan. Any future development
proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review
pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? /; :
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal Cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a disturbance of any human remains
or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource. Any future development proposal
that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site specific basis, and will be subject to the City's Cultural Resource Guidelines.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
20 Rev. 07/03/02 ^ ?
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo'
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
No Impact - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other
evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout
Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in
parts of the City. All development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to requirements such as the Uniform Building
Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects
are not significant. The proposed amendments, however, do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would expose people or structures to potential
adverse effects from a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure or landslides. Any
future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in substantial soil erosion on any site. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City's Engineering standards on a site specific basis.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 1S-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact (c, d & e) — The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site,
and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in impacts to unstable or expansive soil
conditions. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City's engineering standards on a site specific
basis.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in hazards associated with exposure to
hazardous materials. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan
will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to hazards associated with an
airport. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject
to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact (g & h) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would interfere with the implementation of an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan, or result in exposing people to risk from wildland fires. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, & 0 - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of
any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any water quality standards,
alter any drainage pattern, impact the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or result in the
degradation of water quality. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific
Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
22 Rev. 07/03/02 -> -^0.2
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood 'Hazard'
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (g, h, i, & j) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in placing housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Any
future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the division of an established community. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Any future development proposal that is subject to
the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site
specific basis.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with the any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country
Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a knowiwmineral resource that would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource.
Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to excessive noise
levels or groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Any future development proposal that is subject to the
amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site
specific basis.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels
associated with an airport. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country
Specific Plan will be subject to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport and further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
therefore will not directly induce any growth. In addition, the proposed amendments will not introduce any new
standard or provision that would indirectly induce substantial growth beyond what is currently allowed by City
policies and standards. Any future development within the city must comply with the City's Growth Management
Program. Because all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) have been planned to accommodate the growth
anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be necessary.
Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. Also, any future development
proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review
pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? *
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c) — The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or
people. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject
to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
24 Rev. 07/03/02
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service (fire & police protection,
schools, parks and other public facilities). Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car
Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an increase in use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur.
Also, the proposed amendments do not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan
will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for physical development of any site. A performance standard
for traffic is part of the City's Growth Management Program. Future development that is subject to the amended
Car Country Specific Plan will be required to comply with this performance standard, which ensures future
development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city's street system. In addition, future
development will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the
regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these
designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 "A-C" 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 "A-C" 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 "A-B" 29-77
SR78 120 "F" 144
1-5 183-198 "D" 219-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community
plans. The proposed amendments do not change the growth projections of the general plan. Achievement of the
CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies.
Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies,
they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
This project proposes no physical development of a property. Further, it does not propose to change or add a
standard that would affect levels of service as established by the CMP. Any future development subject to the
amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the CMP
on a site specific basis.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial
safety risks associated with air traffic patterns. Any future development subject to the amended Car Country
Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause a future project to increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible use. Any future development subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact (e & 0 - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in inadequate emergency access or parking
capacity. Any future development subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation. Any future development subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be
subject to further environmeEtal review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause future development to exceed any wastewater treatment
requirements. Any future development subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, on
a site specific basis.
26 Rev. 07/03/02 39
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
No Impact (b, c, d & e) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would increase the need for, or conflict with the
current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. All public facilities,
including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to
accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. Any future development subject to the amended Car
Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, or
impact the ability to accommodate solid waste disposal needs within the city. Any future development subject to the
amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site
specific basis.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would 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. Any future development subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects?)
No Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San
Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those
projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation,
congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the
region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The
City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
27 Rev. 07/03/02
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development^
within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
The proposed amendments will not affect any policies or standards that would conflict with City or region-wide
standards. Also, the proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site;
therefore, the project will not result in an individually or cumulatively considerable environmental impact. Any
future development subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly. Any future development subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan. September 6, 1994.
3. Carlsbad Municipal Code. Title 21. Zoning
4. Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones
5. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. November 1992.
29 Rev. 07/03/02
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6042
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SP 19(1) ON
4 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF CANNON ROAD, NORTH AND WEST OF CAR
COUNTRY DRIVE, AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 5 WITHIN
6 THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
7 3.
CASE NAME: CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN
8 AMENDMENT
9 CASE NO.: SP9UD
10 WHEREAS, Lexus Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding properties located within the Car Country Carlsbad Specific
12 Plan Area, described as
13
Lots 1 through 11 of Carlsbad Tract Map 72-3, in the City of
14 Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof no. 7492, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego, November 30, 1972 as file number
320455
17 and
18 Lots 1 through 10 of Carlsbad Tract Map 87-3, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof no. 12242, filed in the Office of the County
20 Recorder of San Diego, October 28, 1988 as file number 88-
552341
21
("the Property"); and
22
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Specific Plan
24 amendment as shown on Exhibit "X" dated March 15, 2006, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
25 Department, CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT - SP 19(1) as provided by
Government Code Section 65453; and
27 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of March 2006, hold a duly
28
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
3
relating to the Specific Plan Amendment SP 19(1).
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
5 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
7 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
o B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
9 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT - SP 19(1) based on the following findings and subject to the
10 following conditions:
11 Findings;
12 1. The Planning Commission finds that the Specific Plan Amendment (SP 19(1)), as
13 conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan based
on the facts set forth in the staff report dated March 15, 2006.
14
2. The Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the intent and guidelines of the
existing Specific Plan.
3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest,
j 7 health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City.
18 4. All necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the capital improvement
19 program applicable to the subject property.
5. The proposed commercial uses will be appropriate in area, location and overall design to
the purpose intended. The design and development standards are such as to create an
environment of sustained desirability and stability. Such development will meet
22 performance standards established by this title.
23 6. The existing streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon.
24
7. The area surrounding the development is planned and zoned in coordination and
substantial compatibility with the development.
8. No environmental impacts have been identified as noted in the Negative Declaration
27 prepared for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
28 9. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994.
PC RESO NO. 6042 -2-
10. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
2 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
3 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
4 Conditions:
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Specific Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur
7 substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
8
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and LCPA
02-11 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
- 6041 and 6043 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
3. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the project, the applicant shall submit to the
Planning Director a digital copy and a camera ready master copy of the CAR
12 COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN - SP 19(1), in addition to the required number of
bound copies.
13
14 NOTICE
15 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
17 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
18 you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
21
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
22 DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6042 -3-
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of March 2006, by the
3
following vote, to wit:
4
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa,
Dominguez, Heineman, Segall and Whitton
6
NOES:
7
ABSENT:
8
9 ABSTAIN:
10
11
12
13 MARTELL B. MONTj5OMER^fJhairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
14"
15 ATTEST:
16
17
DONNEU
18 Assistant Planning Director
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6042 -4-
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6043
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
4 AMENDMENT LCPA 02-11 FOR THE CAR COUNTRY
SPECIFIC PLAN SP 19(1) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CANNON ROAD,
6 NORTH AND WEST OF CAR COUNTRY DRIVE, AND EAST
OF INTERSTATE 5 WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF
7 THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
8 CASE NAME: CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT
CASE NO: LCPA 02-11
10
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program and
11
applicable Specific Plan(s) in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
13 WHEREAS, Lexus Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application for an
14 amendment to the Car Country Specific Plan, which serves as the Implementation Plan for
the Mello II Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, on properties located within the Car
Country Carlsbad Specific Plan Area, described as
17
Lots 1 through 11 of Carlsbad Tract Map 72-3, in the City of
18 Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof no. 7492, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego, November 30, 1972 as file number
320455
21 and
22 Lots 1 through 10 of Carlsbad Tract "Map 87-3, in the City of
„ Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof no. 12242, filed in the Office of the County
24 Recorder of San Diego, October 28, 1988 as file number 88-
552341
25
("the Property"); and26
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
28 Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit "X" dated March 15, 2006, attached to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 6042 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided in
41
Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of
2
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission
3
Administrative Regulations; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of March 2006, hold
g a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
7 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
o and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
9 relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
10
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
11
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
14 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
15 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on February 4,
17 2006, and ending on March 16, 2006, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
18
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
19 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CAR COUNTRY LOCAL COASTAL
20 PROGRAM AMENDMENT - LCPA 02-11 based on the following findings,
and subject to the following conditions:
21
Findings;
22
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
^ in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
24 of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the existing and
proposed uses are consistent with both the General Plan and the Local Coastal
25 Program, and the proposed amendments to the Car Country Specific Plan do not
conflict with any coastal zone regulations, land use designations or Mello II Land
26 Use Policies with which the development must comply.
97^' 2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
2g Program is required to bring it into consistency with the proposed Car Country
Specific Plan Amendment (SP 19(1)).
PC RESO NO. 6043 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and SP
19(1) and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
6041 and 6042 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of March 2006, by the
vote, to wit:
Planning
following
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa,
Dominguez, Heineman, Segall and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_J •»•"«*
#i§ fy*f~^
MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, ^iirperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:r\
^Sbn X WA
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
a ;
i
PC RESO NO. 6043 -3-49
raee City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBITS
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No•0
P.C. AGENDA OF: March 15, 2006
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: SP 19(IVLCPA 02-11 - CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
- Request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and to
recommend approval of Specific Plan Amendment SP 19(1) and Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 02-11 on property generally located on the south
side of Cannon Road, north and west of Car Country Drive, and east of Interstate
5 within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities
Management Zone 3.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6041
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6042 and 6043 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Specific
Plan Amendment SP 19(1) and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02-11 based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing a number of modifications to the Car Country Specific Plan (SP-19(I)
which are discussed in detail below. The Specific Plan, which was adopted by ordinance,
implements the General Plan and governs the development of Car Country Carlsbad. Therefore,
the Specific Plan serves as the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and
an LCP amendment is required.
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has
been prepared for the project.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Specific Plan 19, approved in 1972, established development criteria for the area known as Car
Country Carlsbad, located east of Interstate 5, south of Cannon Road, and north and west of Car
Country Drive. Specific Plan 19(C), approved in 1987, is known as the Car Country Expansion
area. This amendment incorporated the area west of Car Country Drive and south of Cannon
Road into Specific Plan 19.
The proposed amendment would combine the text of Specific Plan 19 and 19(C) into one
physical document. The amendment would also expand the list of approved structures to include
parking structures for the storage of new cars and employee parking. The ground level of the
parking structure could also be used for sales, service and/or parts. In order to accommodate a
SP-19(I)/LCPA 02-11 - CARXOUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENL^ffiNT
March 15, 2006
Page 2
parking structure, the proposed amendment includes provisions for increased building coverage
(up to 50%) and building height (not greater than 35 feet to top of roof deck), as well as modified
setback requirements. These modifications would only apply to future parking structure
proposals. •
The proposed amendment reformats the sign criteria for the Comprehensive Sign Program into
one section and deletes the old sign criteria within the Specific Plan. The old sign criteria are
superseded, pursuant to SP 19(G) which established the new sign criteria but did not delete the
previously existing text. The amendment also modifies the parking criteria so that one set of
standards applies to the entire Specific Plan area (both "old" and "new" Car Country). There are
also a number of minor formatting and typographical corrections and incorrect street names that
have been amended as part of the proposed revisions.
The original Car Country Specific Plan pre-dated the California Coastal Act, which was enacted
in 1976. However, the SP 19(C) amendment was subject to an LCPA amendment. The
proposed actions include an LCPA amendment that will review the proposed amendments for
consistency with the Mello II Land Use Policies and will formally combine SP 19 and SP 19(C)
into one LCP implementation document.
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed
within the following sections of this staff report:
A. Car Country Carlsbad Specific Plan (SP 19(1));
B. General Plan Regional Commercial (R) Land Use designation;
C. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport;
D. C-2 and C-2-Q Zone (General Commercial/Qualified Development Overlay)
Chapters 21.28 and 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
E. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment).
The recommendation for approval for this Specific Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable
regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations is
discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. Car Country Carlsbad Specific Plan
The original Car Country Specific Plan was approved in 1972. Since that time, there have been a
number of amendments and this proposal represents the ninth amendment (SP 19(1)). A
summary of the previous amendments is included as Attachment 7.
The primary purpose of the proposed amendment is to expand the list of approved structures to
include parking structures for the storage of new cars and employee vehicles and to establish
parking structure development standards related to building height, setbacks and lot coverage.
The proposed amendment would also combine the text of SP 19 (Old Car Country) and SP19(C)
(Car Country Expansion Area) into one document. Several format changes are also included as
SP-19(I)/LCPA02-11-
Marchl5,2006
Page 3
CAITCOUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
well as corrections to typographical errors. A summary of the proposed changes are included in
Table "A" below:
TABLE A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
Revision
Consolidate SP-19 and SP-19(C) into one document
Reformat table of contents and include a new Part 4 -
Comprehensive Sign Program
New Part 1 - Introduction & Background.
Add requirement for Site Development Plan approval in Old Car
Country
Add parking structures to list of permitted uses
Increase allowable lot coverage from 25 % to 50% when a
parking structure is part of a Site Development Plan
Increase the allowable height limit to 35 feet for parking
structures. (Currently 24 feet west of Paseo Del Norte and 35
feet east of Paseo Del Norte and 30 feet in Car Country
Expansion area)
Revise Architectural Design Criteria to add Mediterranean style
in addition to existing Spanish Style, allow wall surfaces other
than slump block in the Expansion Area, in Expansion area
expand color palette from specific allowable colors to general
use of warm, muted earth tones for all of Car Country
Add parking structure cross-section
Add 50 foot setback requirement for parking structures
Revise parking standards (see Table B and Attachment 8) to
establish one set of standards for all of Car Country
Define use of parking structures for use of new car storage,
employee parking and/or areas for sales, service, and/or parts
Add additional lighting criteria limiting roof-level parking
structure lights to either bollards or parapet-mounted lights
Require screening for parking structures
Fix section K & M, Undeveloped areas
Delete superseded sign regulations and replace with
Comprehensive Sign Program approved by SP 19(G)
Various text amendments to refer to new section numbers,
correct typographical errors, and reflect new street names
Page number in
final text version
N/A
Pgs. i thru iv
Pgs. 1-1 thru 1-2
Pg. 2-5
Pgs. 2-6 & 3-8
Pgs. 2-6 & 3-9
Pgs. 2-6 & 3-9
Pgs. 2-7, 2-16 & 3-9
Figs. 2-2 and 3-4
Pgs. 2-9, 2-10 & 3-11
Pgs. 2-10,2-11,2-18,
2-19, 3-12 & 3-14
Pgs. 2-11 &3-14
Pgs. 2-11,2-12,2-19
&3-16
Pgs. 2-12 & 3-17
Pgs. 2-1 3 & 2-20
Pgs. 4-1 thru 4-4
Throughout document
(see strike-out
version)
The amendment modifies the parking criteria so that one set of standards applies to all of the
auto dealerships within the entire Specific Plan area. The amendment also updates the parking
requirements for the commercial development areas (Lots 1, 4, 6 & 7 Old Car Country) to be
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. An
analysis of the proposed parking standards is provided below in Table B. In addition, a more
detailed analysis comparing the proposed parking standards with those of "old" Car Country, Car
Country Expansion Area, and zoning ordinance parking requirements is provided in Attachment
SP-19(I)/LCPA 02-11 - CAR
March 15, 2006
Page 4
RCOUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
8 -Parking Standard Comparison Chart. The proposed parking standards are consistent with the
existing standards in the Specific Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance. In instances where the Old Car
Country and Expansion Area parking standards conflicted with one another, the more restrictive
standard was used.
TABLE B
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PARKING STANDARDS
Use
Sales
Service/Repair
Parts:
Customer Parking
Employee parking
Storage and
Display (New and
Used Vehicle
Inventory)
All other Uses
Additional
requirements
Parking Standard
1 space/400 sf of gross floor area.
Gross floor area includes all interior
areas that are not specified below,
including, but not limited to: interior
display, reception areas, private
offices, and closing rooms
Four spaces per work bay for the first
three bays. Two spaces per bay for
each bay in excess of three. Work
bays shall not count as parking spaces
1 space/1,000 sf of gross floor area
for auto parts
1 space/1,250 sf of gross floor area
for auto parts
On-site storage of vehicles is
permitted as long as it does not
encroach into any employee or
customer designated parking space
Such parking as may be required by
Section 21.44 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code
All required customer and employee
parking spaces shall be striped and
designated as such to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director
Remarks
Standard from Expansion Area
Consistent with Zoning Ordinance.
Additional text further specifies
what uses the parking ratio shall be
applied to.
Standard from Expansion Area
Consistent with Zoning Ordinance
Standard from Old Car Country
Standard from Old Car Country
(reworded from previous 1
employee per 1,000 sf and 1 space
per 1 .25 employees)
New standard (see discussion
below)
(No standards for display in Zoning
Ordinance)
Standard from Expansion Area
Consistent with Zoning Ordinance
Standard from Expansion Area
SP-19(I)/LCPA 02-11 - CARTOUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
March 15, 2006
Page 5
TABLE B CONTINUED
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PARKING STANDARDS
Use Parking Standard Remarks
Commercial
Development
Areas
Professional Office: 1 space/250 sf.
(gross floor area)
Restaurants:
• Less than 4,000 sf. in size, 1
space/100 sf.
• 4,000 sf. in size or greater, 40
plus 1 space/50 sf. in excess of
4,000 sf.
Commercial: 1 space/300 sf. (gross
floor area)
Hotels & Motels: 1.2 spaces/unit
Consistent with Zoning Ordinance
Consistent with Zoning Ordinance
and Commercial Visitor Serving
Overlay Zone
Consistent with Zoning Ordinance
Consistent with Zoning Ordinance
The parking requirements for storage and display areas differ significantly between Old Car
Country and the Car Country Expansion Area The Old Car Country Specific Plan contains a
computation that is outdated and based on monthly sales volumes. The Car Country Expansion
Area is silent on the issue of vehicle storage and display and the amount of area to be provided is
generally determined by the individual dealerships. Staff recommends continuing with this
approach for both Old Car Country and the Expansion Area, with the requirement to stripe and
designate all customer and employee parking spaces so that these spaces are not used for vehicle
storage. Additionally, it should be noted that a number of the dealers utilize off-site storage
areas and it is not necessary for a dealership to provide all of their vehicle storage requirements
on site.
Staff has also asked the applicant to provide an analysis of the parking requirements from several
auto parks of similar sizes in the surrounding area. As shown in Attachment 9 - Comparison of
Auto Mall Parking Requirements, there is a wide range of parking requirements. Since there was
no clearly preferred standard used by all or most of the auto parks, there was no basis to make a
recommendation to change the standards from those currently proposed.
The parking requirement revisions are not intended to remediate all of the parking problems in
Car Country. The requirement to stripe and designate required employee and customer parking
spaces should help to ensure the spaces are used for their intended purpose. However, a more
comprehensive approach will likely need to be developed and will need to include a commitment
from the dealerships to effectively address the issue.
Although the proposed amendment does not result in a comprehensive update to the Car Country
Specific Plan, it does provide for the opportunity for dealerships to construct parking structures.
Additional on-site parking could help to alleviate some of the past parking issues that have been
identified within Car Country.
SP-19(I)/LCPA 02-11 - CAKTCOUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
March 15, 2006
Page 6
B. General Plan
The proposed amendments are consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan.
The existing General Plan Land Use designation for the site was adopted concurrently with the
Car Country Carlsbad Specific Plan to achieve consistency. The property has a General Plan
Land Use designation of Regional Commercial (R) which allows for the development of
automobile dealerships which draw customers from outside of the City. The proposed
amendments do not include a change in the land use and therefore, the Specific Plan will
continue to comply with the General Plan.
C. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport
The three southern most lots within Car Country are located within the Airport Influence Area
(AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar airport and, therefore, are subject to the regulations contained
in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for that airport. The CLUP essentially controls
land uses through two mechanisms: flight activity zone restrictions and aircraft noise exposure
compatibility. No portion of the Car Country Specific Plan area is located within the flight
activity zone for the airport, therefore the land use restrictions of the CLUP do not apply.
The three lots within the AIA are located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour.
According to the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix contained in the CLUP, commercial
retail uses are compatible within the noise contour listed above. The noise levels can be
sufficiently attenuated by conventional construction so that the indoor noise level is acceptable
and both indoor and outdoor activities associated with the land use may be carried out with
essentially no interference from aircraft noise. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment is consistent with the CLUP for McClellan-Palomar Airport.
D. Zoning
The Car Country Carlsbad Specific Plan area is located in the General Commercial (C-2) and
General Commercial-Qualified Development Overlay (C-2-Q) zones. However, development
proposals within the Specific Plan area are subject to the unique development standards of the
Specific Plan, rather than the City's Zoning Ordinance. Similar to the General Plan Land Use
designation, the zoning designations for the site were adopted concurrently with the Car Country
Carlsbad Specific Plan to achieve consistency. The proposed 35-foot height limit for parking
structures is consistent with the C-2 and C-2-Q zone regulations, which allow a maximum height
of 35 feet, with provisions for protrusions above 35 feet for roof parapets and other similar
structures. There are nojpt_coverage or setback standards in the C-2 or C-2-Q zones applicable
to this site so the proposed setbacks and coverage would not be inconsistent with the zoning
ordinance, but would be more restrictive that the underlying zone.
Development proposals in Old Car Country currently require approval of a Planning
Commission Determination (PCD), whereas a Site Development Plan is required for projects in
the Car Country Expansion Area. In order to provide consistency between the two Specific Plan
areas, modifications are proposed to the approval process so that all developments throughout
Car Country would require approval of a Site Development Pan.
SP-19(I)/LCPA 02-11 - CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
March 15, 2006
Page?
E. Local Coastal Program Consistency
The Specific Plan implements the intent of the Regional Commercial (R) General Plan Land Use
Designation and General Commercial (GC) Local Coastal Program Land Use designation. With
regard to consistency with the Local Coastal Program, the Specific Plan is the implementing
ordinance for the LCP. The LCP Amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the
LCP and the Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the
provisions of the LCP. The Specific Plan also implements the C-2 and C-2-Q zones and the C-2
LCP zoning designation. The original Car Country and the Car Country Expansion area are
currently covered by two separate documents. The proposed amendment will consolidate the
two documents into one and will provide one set of standards for signage and parking for the
entire Specific Plan area. Although the amendment does not result in a comprehensive update to
the Specific Plan, it does address major areas of concern and conflicting standards between Old
Car Country and the Car Country Expansion Area, and the amendment also corrects a number of
typographical and other errors.
The purpose of the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is to ensure consistency
between the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the Land Use Policies of the Mello II
Segment of the Local Coastal Program. The original Car Country Specific Plan was found to be
consistent with the Coastal regulations in effect at the time as indicated in the permit issued June
15, 1973 by the San Diego Coast Regional Commission. Subsequently, LCPA 87-2 (LCPA 87-
2F), which was processed in conjunction with the Car Country Expansion area, was approved by
the City Council on December 22, 1987. The proposed amendments to the Specific Plan will not
result in any inconsistencies with the policies of the General Plan and LCP Land Use Plan, or the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments will correct existing
inconsistencies and will allow for the development within Car Country Carlsbad to respond to
the changing demands of the automobile sales industry.
The proposed amendments would not affect any of the Mello II Land Use Policies related to
grading, landscaping, erosion, steep slopes, landslides and slope instability, seismic hazards,
erosion control practices, or removal of native vegetation. Individual development proposals
would be required to obtain approval of a Coastal Development Permit and comply with the
Land Use Polices of the Mello II Segment of the LCP. Additional Mello II Land Use Policies
that are applicable to this site include Policy 1-1 Allowable Land Uses, Policy 7-10 Parking,
Policy 7-13 Visual Access, Policy 8-1 Site Development Review (currently applies to expansion
area only), and Policy 8-5 Signage. The proposed amendment would not affect Policy 1-1 since
there is no proposed change to the allowable land uses. In accordance with Policy 7-13, the
parking^xevisions are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with the existing Specific Plan as
discussed previously. The proposed 35-foot height limit for parking structures would not result
in improvements that would obstruct public views or visual access to the coastline, therefore the
amendment is consistent with Policy 7-13. The amendment would add the requirement for a Site
Development Plan Review to the Old Car Country area and therefore is consistent with Policy 8-
1. The proposed amendment would not affect Policy 8-5, since no modifications are proposed to
the existing Sign Program, except for relocating the text into a new section of the Specific Plan.
A six-week LCPA public notice of availability period was required for the project. No
comments were received as of the date of preparation of this report.
SP-19(I)/LCPA 02-11 - CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
March 15, 2006
PageS
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EIA Part II) prepared for this project did not identify any potentially significant
impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is being
recommended for adoption as part of the approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt the recommended Negative Declaration was posted in the
newspaper, on the City's website, and was mailed to the California Coastal Commission and
State Clearinghouse for circulation. No comments were received in response to the NOI during
the 30-day public review period (January 24, 2006 - February 23, 2006).
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6041 (Neg Dec)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6042 (SP)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6043 (LCPA)
4. Location Map
5. Background Data Sheet
6. Disclosure Statement
7. Summary of Car Country Specific Plan Amendments
8. Parking Standard Comparison Chart
9. Comparison of Auto Mall Parking Requirements
10. Strike-out Version and Final Version of proposed Car Country Specific Plan SP 19(1),
dated March 15,2006
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO:SP19m/LCPA02-ll
CASE NAME: Car Country Specific Plan Amendment
APPLICANT: Lexus Carlsbad
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration
and to recommend approval of Specific Plan Amendment SP 19d) and Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 02-11 on property generally located on the south side of Cannon Road, north
and west of Car Country Drive, and east of Interstate 5 within the Mello II Segment of the Local
Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 11 of Carlsbad Tract Map 72-3. in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, according to map thereof no. 7492, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, November 30. 1972 as file number 320455 and
Lots 1 through 10 of Carlsbad Tract Map 87-3. in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego.
State of California, according to map thereof no. 12242. filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego. October 28.1988 as file number 88-552341.
APN: 211-060-02. 06 thru 10. & 13 thru 19 and 211-080-05 thru 14 Acres: Approx. 85 acres
Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial (R)
Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: C-2 and C-2-O Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan
General and Neighborhood
Commercial (C-2 & C-2-Q)
Site
North Public Utility (P-U)
South General and Neighborhood
Commercial (C-2 & C-2-Q)
East Open Space (OS)
West Transportation Corridor
(T-C)
Regional Commercial (R)
Travel/Recreation
Commercial (T-R)
Regional Commercial (R)
Open Space (OS)
Transportation Corridor
(TC)
Current Land Use
Auto Mall
Agriculture
Regional Commercial
Shopping Center
Vacant/Agriculture
Interstate 5
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Coastal Zone: IXI Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: I I Yes IXI No Coastal Development Permit: [~1 Yes No
Revised 01/06
Local Coastal Program Amendment: [X] Yes Q No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: GC Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A
Existing LCP Zone: C-2 Proposed LCP Zone: N/A
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Categorical Exemption,
X] Negative Declaration, issued January 24, 2006
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_
Other,
Revised 01/06
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your projectcannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit"
. . f.
Agents may sign mis document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not me applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person Judith A. Jones • Corp/Part Lexus Carlsbad
Title President Title
Address 5444 Paseo Del Norte
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Address 5444 Paseo Del Norte
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of die legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the snares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person "Tiidith A. Jones
Title.Trustee
Address 5444 Paseo Del Norte
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Corp/Part Judith A. Tones Separate Property Trust
Title Property Trust
Address 5444 Paseo Del Norte
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-46OO • FAX (76O) 6O2-85S9
)S^Oj3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2). above is a nonprofit organization or a trust list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust Judith A. Jones Non Profit/Trust
Title Trustee ; Title
Address 5444 Paseo Del None Address
Carlsbad, CA 92008
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
I I Yes [Xj No If yes, please indicate person(s):_
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
^ \b\as\od, ^i\
C\ . ^yvx JL/V-. ^cXcVW Q .
Signature of owner/date \\ Signture of applicant/date
Judith A. Jones, Trustee _ Judith A. Jones . Presideat
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:AOMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 Of 2
Attachment 7
SUMMARY OF CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
SP 19 - Car Country Specific Plan
Ordinance 9288, approved January 18, 1972
SP 19 (A) - Amend/clarify sign regulations
Ordinance 9720, approved June 19, 1984
SP 19 (B) -Amend sign regulations, spacing requirements for monument signs
Ordinance 9734, approved January 22, 1985
SP 19 (C) - 35 acre Expansion of Car Country
Ordinance 9842, approved December 22, 1987
SP 19 (D) - Allow auto rental and leasing, used vehicle sales, and auto repair subject to
approval of a CUP on lot 1 and 4-10 of Car Country Expansion area.
Ordinance NS-214, approved Octobers, 1992
SP 19 (E) - Allowing a delicatessen within the auto service center (SDP 88-3(A)
Ordinance NS-116, approved August 20, 1991
SP 19 (F) - Used car dealership & car wash on Lot 1 (withdrawn)
SP 19 (G) - Amendment of Car Country Specific Plan sign regulations
Ordinance NS-315, approved June 27, 1995 and Ordinance NS-317, approved July 18, 1995
SP 19 (H) - Expansion for Toyota Carlsbad
Ordinance NS-96-141, Denied April 23, 1996
CO
•Eo>
I
I
*••k>ra
O
O(0•cfflQ£
0o
"S
vw
^
IW2
(AVf
O)c!2
reQ.
cA
E
O
«=
'£
g
(/
a«
a01
co'«
raax
UJfr1
oot»
(0
*rf
o
ra
•o
O
•g
IB
0
5(A
O)C
B
TJ <D5 ro
'o £ro ^ •- S o CL
2? ^ £ w ° w»— . *^— v' ~« IM
S« 8 w «12
1* §. 1 siSg
(OCO (A ° £ 0 -2 £
oO g £- ro £3.8e 5 -5i P i_*^Q)tlof= ro m o 5 o raM-O (A ~ -c -a <l> £
Sf 1 5 U*l§s §„ s l|t^TfQ) {DC: 3 w " 42 c
!! *l ! f-lig-o SP w # " ° feowo 0:3 ° JEdJ-^Sti- ^ CMC 00 ~.Q.£O
0)
0)15 ro
ID-•c. a)™ "> J=ro _^
£ c-S*— fc— u2 -s co ro .2
O Q--«[^— \J*= <D roCO Q) -ft;co >,.!22 0^6O) Q. CO
•tr E 0)O ni r-
•4- V +3
CO "Doo 5-2i—/ mO ro T3
5 SS
8 E g oro 2 D)t3Q- CO 'in 0)W 3 m .t
T- O-S D
* §in co -D
1 1 1Q- Q. CO Cco co a) S
T- ^ Q> Sell flli>Ii «s
ll 3| "|o -jj g) ,- g)
i— m .— — >"»TO }= /S CO Q) O08°^ SQ-5 =s^ " 2.E| S w ro wa>
Z C ^ 0 T- T-
I
3 O> D)
I, C C2 2 ^; 2. ao3 fe o>
Si S.7T o o
® to g-ro 3 EWO LU (Office uses included above)D
"8 g
«1JD O
$2 8
£S ^0 0> °•Q. 0) OJ
Eto 5
<"o -1
1 space/ 1 .251 employee/6space1 employee/p0>3
D
w _x rn>vCO J?ro «*- .£-oo^ ^~ro w ro •^~4 spaces per work bay for firstplus 2 spaces per bay in excesWork bays shall not count as pspaces.(Consistent with CMC Sec. 21.CO
^"5.
£
5
f><n
2-B
t 8-2 8
>* X51
o %
5.Q
L_ LQ) 0)Q. Q-
§CO
CDQro roQ. 0.CO CO
•^r CN
i§
8^ & 1
ro O -Cm»s " 2
-a f s1 <u E SL§-°_ "2 cT^S ^ >: ° Q.JSQ. 52 ro o; p to
8 -§- 1 •§ S w
c?^-S 1 S^in i a2 .9 P ro ro ^A ? ro a. a. Q.^ fee « «EO CO <D CM T- 0)
O) 0)
C C
h= 15 -^2. a a1) °-
^ fc 0)o) E ><y o o
^ tA g-0) 3 E
W O UJ
^w
^ r- "S"S o !»1 space/1 000 sf of parts areaReworded as 1 space/1 ,250 sf(equates to previous standard <space/1 .25 employees, based iemployee/1000 sf parts floor airoC 0)0 ro
i IIro -Q w
CO CO -C-c o> roro ?>Q.
.2- $TRo §-0•s His8 «^8 w j>
^ ^0O O -Q.ro ro ca. a. c
CO CO Q)
0)c
iS
£ •0) m
E >•co o -2t to g-ro 3 Ea. O in
•o
Q 3
Storage - May not encroach intemployee or customer designaspacesCO0)
8
average monthlyQ)£ co
88
!&^ c
^•5
(DO)52CO
8"~
1
•o0)3_C
*3
0
0
tm
O
co
•ca
E
o
•o
•os(0
G)_c
^£n0.
cR
Q.Revised Specific0
'(ACreaX
^J&
oo
InreO
s
3
O
nO
•o
O
•srea
30}
c
£
ft
llj=.5»O COg^
= g<D E^ o21>• oro i_S o
i«*!§
o g-5
W 0 to
$roCO
Co
SBIs
\l
01CDm
1
B
S
EO13 (Included above)S2s i
MSS!|to 0) QJ
||!Vehicles othershall be displaregulations asi
i\y
D
2 ro3 0)
O oo
W
^~ 00 ,-* .~co o ^ ^-
ro * "0.1- ^ (0 T^ ,-
u- T— OOo *— O Co c | ro o ^ o ^ *^
2 w .g T <o y 2 y ^ y
"fc "i 0 M_ 2 C 1 W -| Q> -|
o^ I:-TAO>— 2 o 2 0-2m c ^ <-» >- <A c: o ^ WECM<u C§OO5 £25 0>QJ
a>
1
a.3.
3
Q>^ Q.
ro g
i 1 1ro o «
c5 2.O w w
c ^ "55 <DM- Q. 0) >-
"S ro ® « ""^
8 J| 8 "§§CM CO "Q. CM 0) IO
"nj "QJ p a? o3 -
O On) O O T—ro ro ro ro ,-Q. Q.IO Q. Q.-hCO CA CM CO CO n,
T- T- T^ T- -c- 0)
ST
{So- <„
£ w ^ <o g
<^ 0 | S .5
ro £ <D J5 -2 ro JJ
~? C - c C '7\ OJ t xj- o RJ 2 ^u S- - 'to t o> ^= <5 -^ w = £ 78
- S- J2 >S- -55 E 5Jo a; o 2 (D o oJ Q d- Q. CC O I
^^.^_
CM m
||
o !a
0?
0) CD"O CA
||
S" w
£ ro
roi_
J
CM
C.o
OTJj
« ro
o"°
i_ "55OJ =
"D -*-*C O3 C
"O ®0) CA*— .3
3 0
gJ^g
<> CO
COs3
OJ
0
—<
| City of Riverside /||n
o'S
ra
3U
01
~
A
5
3
J
><
3
a
5
0
i
>
!
J
J)
)
J
|
I iJIAuto Center Specific Plar, !_^-»
CO"o
<D
E
oO
8'E0)CO
6CO
It5
o"3
To•g
E
o(J5
"aTue
CO
QJ
S0
^<
>.ra•c<D>O
3
OJcE
rsl 1 space / 500 sf of street level GFA1 space/ 750 sf of GFA above or below streetlevelCOo3
(0 CO>* ^SS coQ. >,.<2 JO
X •—
1 1o -gsi
§<n
O- o
*- CO
8 8a aVJ W
-D
5 3 "o
; !5 o m
till
5 .C .W Q.
D I*5 -i
f rti
"ra
8 51 i. 5
a1 w i 2 w
3-1* §..£
5 c" I u g.CN CD U w
S.Q. g C §
*- <D .— to O
8COo.<n
II^>
o
CD 3
: O
• =8
I O._ OO T3*- Cw ^-o ro
<
iS05 O
Q T-" U
C1
i
1
Qa!c"ci ELL Employee parking is covered under the parking 1ratio for New/Used SalesThe Specific Plan proposes an employee ^Hparking lot to be built to remove employee ^flparking that should be available for customers IO)_c
COCL
0)
£
.\-0)
c3
"D
1 ao je
0 CO
w CO
fl
ra ^Q. ^
||
LLI 2
D)_C
^i
o>
o3•ac3
CD> 0)
." W
I|
f S
LLJ 2
O)
£
•j£
COCL
0!5
1c3
O1)
s!
w CO
2 -!5133 ^m\> y
9
? £3- o~ VCJ32 c.
?
J :o ;a) 1
?• iL |1
(I Customer parking is covered under the parkingratio for New/Used SalesThe off-street customer parking spaces shouldbe immediately obvious to anyone pulling intothe dealership. These spaces should be able to"speak" for themselves. Customer parkingspaces should be clustered, and, if part of alarger lot, clearly read as a separate group withone purpose only.o>,c
raa
IDJZ"^
•§
3
•o
§ £
8 CO
w W
g'S.E in
•£ 3a 1
1 0
O 2
0)c2
a
<D.C
^
1m ,_> g
O CO„ CO§«£ «•£'2CO >o- a
i iO 2
O)E.*:
cl
Q)£
1
3
5 w
j ra
- w£ ID
>
5 z
n o3 '•=J E t
31 1
I
5
L
5:
f3> c All off-street dealership parking, with theexception of short-term demo and servicevehicle parking, should be kept totally separatefrom customer areas and customer use of thedealership property. This separation can beachieved by use of walls and screens asrequired, and non-public means of access. 4mi0)£
&
(Dp
ra
•£• «
||
1 •§c '5
f &
CO g
£•_o co
C (D
11
JS a3 N
°>'«
£ 9v o£ a
ll5 jo
"c "o
° (1)
8 |!•§ll?so o>
Ho
~ O- Q)
(rt T3 "55
TO <5 c5 J=
<o "o "« c. w ^ C ^
S i ° —
£ "g -Q £to ra ^ co
*_; "S 3 c Q)« £ ™ to p
111!!8 '^ CD tS-O V> Q)
i E <u E "^w o 21 >^ ^""* "5 t- a>i ra 2 £ ffi
5 <5 n, E S
3 o O. ^ ^\
/3 to ^ ,w ra
3
5 -J;
? o
S c=. «
u _c
0 T3^ 0)— y)0 D Automobile Service Stations require 6 spaceson the same lot, plus 2 additional spaces foreach service bay on the same lot or within 100'.Automobile Service Centers require 6 spaceson the same lot, plus 3 additional spaces forieach service bay on the same lot or within 100'.>i
f
a0)
0)Q-
(O8COCLu>
en3
Q- c
^is
- 3
5 to
V G>
""" <D Cbc > c?5|
: 3 0)
*-" CO £
° 2.25 S S
l8.|
Q- O*- U5 U
j
O
0otf>CM
WOJ
o
D
£
i/)2iQ.)
"
1
Attac
Planning Commission Minutes March 15,2006 f^Q A CTT Page 13
Ut\f\r I EXHIBIT 6
6. SP 19(IVLCPA 02-11 - CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT - Request for
a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and to recommend approval of
Specific Plan Amendment SP 19(1) and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02-11
on property generally located on the south side of Cannon Road, north and west of Car
Country Drive, and east of Interstate 5 within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal
Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 6 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy would make the Staff
presentation.
Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on Item 6.
Ms. Kennedy made a detailed presentation, noting that the primary purpose of the Specific Plan
Amendment was to provide standards to encourage the development of parking structures and to provide
consistent parking standards for all of Car County. She stated she would be available to answer any
questions.
Chairperson Montgomery commented the Commission did receive a letter from Bob Baker that stated his
support of the project.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Segall asked what the difference is between Specific Plan 19 and 19(C). Ms. Kennedy
stated that the original Car Country SP 19 differs from SP 19(C) in the way parking is calculated. The
proposed amendment would provide a consistent parking standard and would reformat the sign program
for SP 19 and SP 19(C) into one section. This is not a comprehensive update where it merges it all the
standards from the old and new Car Country into one. This is a way fix the problems with the parking and
to allow parking structures as well as to fix some of the problems with the inconsistency with how parking
is calculated between old Car Country and new Car Country. Commissioner Segall asked if the next step
would be to merge all that with other issues. Ms. Kennedy stated that it could possibly be the next step if
there is direction from the Commission or Council to do a large comprehensive update. Commissioner
Segall stated that the previous applicant, Toyota Carlsbad, had a project that basically would not be
allowed in Car Country because the architecture is not Mediterranean. Ms. Kennedy stated that was
correct. Commissioner Segall asked if all height limitations would be increased to 35 feet for both 19 and
19(C). Ms. Kennedy stated that was correct and the 35' height limit is only for the parking structures.
There are different height limits depending on which side of the street a project is on. Commission Segall
asked for clarification for the all the uses, such as dentist offices, that would be included in the area but
are not related to Car Country. Ms. Kennedy stated that those uses were included in the original Specific
Plan. Ms. Kennedy further stated that most likely the City did not know how that area would be
developed and instead of limiting the uses to strictly car dealerships or related businesses, it would be
best to include other uses. Those areas ended up being developed with dealerships; however, not
knowing what can happen in the future, Staff decided to leave those uses included. Commissioner Segall
asked if those uses could be removed from the specific plan. Ms. Kennedy stated that those uses were
not added and they were there with the original specific plan. Commissioner Segall commented that one
of the concerns the Commission has is the parking in the area and why that issue was not addressed in
this proposal. Ms. Kennedy stated that the streets around Car Country are public streets with a two hour
parking limit where the employees of the dealerships do park. Commissioner Segall asked why the
employees park on the street and asked if it was because there is not enough onsite parking. Ms.
Kennedy stated that she did not know why. Ms. Kennedy stated that Staff hopes to have a stricter
requirement for parking and striping to indicate customer and employee parking. Commissioner Segall
asked if Staff had any thoughts to address the parking and related safety issues. Ms. Kennedy stated
that she feels it needs to come from the dealers and that they need to provide parking for their customers
and their employees to free up the street parking.
Commissioner Whitton stated that this is the time to require the dealers to provide parking spaces for their
employees and enforce the employees to park onsite.
Commissioner Dominguez commented that he was on the Planning Commission when the Specific Plan
was adopted. The commercial areas were included because there was a vision of mixed use for the
(0(0
Planning Commission Minutes March 15, 2006 Page 14
overall plan of Car Country originally. He further commented that the dealers within Car Country need
update that vision and to make the area more competitive.
Commissioner Baker inquired about the empty lot on the west side of Paseo Del Norte that is currently
sort of a park could ever be used for parking. Mr. Neu stated that the lot really would not fit the layout of a
parking lot. Mr. Henthorn, the applicant, commented that the lot is now Open Space. Commissioner
Baker asked if the architectural styles could be something other than Spanish/Mediterranean styles. Ms.
Kennedy stated that could be part of a comprehensive update. Currently there is consistency throughout
the Specific Plan with the Spanish architectural style.
Commissioner Dominguez pointed out that there have been several changes from the original vision for
Car Country. He feels that there should be restrictions on the architectural styles.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if a dealer constructs a parking structure onsite would it fulfill onsite
employee parking. Ms. Kennedy stated that with any kind of addition to the site, not just a parking
structure, Staff would re-evaluate the parking. Chairperson Montgomery stated there have been several
projects from Car Country within the last 3 years that have made revisions to their parking and asked if
there have been any noticeable changes. Ms. Kennedy stated that construction on several of these
projects have not yet been completed. Ms. Kennedy explained how parking is calculated for the sites.
Commissioner Whitton commented that the document states there will be parking for employees onsite
but there is nothing to compel the dealerships to encourage the employees to park onsite.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation.
Jack Henthorn, applicant, 5365 Avenida Encinas Suite A, Carlsbad, made a presentation and stated he
would be available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the car dealers have a council or group of the people that meet on a
regular basis. Mr. Henthorn stated there is an association and they meet periodically to discuss primarily
marketing and retail issues. Commissioner Dominguez asked if they ever discuss the future and or make
any projections. Mr. Henthorn stated he did not know.
Commissioner Segall asked about the commercial land uses that are allowed for lots 1, 4, 6 and 7. Mr.
Henthorn stated it could be that in the future the City may want to have the flexibility to include other uses
in Car Country or the City want to restrict those uses.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the
item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the item.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of Staff.
Commissioner Dominguez commented that the only way a comprehensive update to the Specific Plan
could be initiated is if the City makes the initial action.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6041 recommending adoption of a
Negative Declaration, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6042
and 6043 recommending approval of Specific Plan Amendment SP 19(1) and
Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02-11 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
April 08th, 2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 10th Day of April, 2006
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Proof of Publication of
HW£SttOU^GH&a, according to map thereof no° 12242, filed In
CASE FILE:SP 19(IVUCPA 02-11
> CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CAR COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00
p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, to consider a request to adopt a Negative Declaration and to
approve a Specific Plan Amendment SP 19(1) and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA
02-11, to provide parking standards in the Car Country Specific Plan area and to consolidate the
text of the original Car Country and Car Country Expansion areas into one Local Coast Plan
implementation document, on property generally located on the south side of Cannon Road,
north and west of Car Country Drive, and east of Interstate 5 within the Mello II Segment of the
Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 3 and more particularly
described as:
Lots 1 through 11 of Carlsbad Tract Map 72-3, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
map thereof no. 7492, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego, November 30, 1972 as file number 320455.
and
Lots 1 through 10 of Carlsbad Tract Map 87-3, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
map thereof no. 12242, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego, October 28, 1988 as file number 88-552341.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on/or after the Friday prior to the hearing
date. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4626.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Specific Plan Amendment and/or Local Coastal
Program Amendment 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, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008 at or
prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: SP 19(I)/LCPA 02-11
PUBLISH: April 8, 2006
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CAR COUNTRY SP AMENDMENT
SP19(I)/LCPA 02-11
Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide
Utilisez le gabarit 5160®
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
wwwtavery.com 7'~Q (I /ty
1-800-GO-AVERY
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
AVERY® 5160®
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD-
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST
TIM JOCHEN
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER jgST
1966OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR <
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
201 VALLECITOS DE ORO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949VIEWRIDGEAVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STEB
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION ,
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TEDANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
DAVID RICK
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
BARBARA KENNEDY
03/30/2006
888LS28S6 VO 01N3WVHOVS
909^-M 31S
AVM 30V11OO 0082
S30IAU3S BdncniM * HSId SO
AH3AV-OD-008H _®
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COMM DEV DEPT
505 S VULOCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA
BUREAU OF INDIARTAFFAIR'S
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY
STE 2450
980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 MTROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 921084402
CANNEL ISLANDS ,NATL
SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFIcV
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001
DEPT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DIST ENG
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLZDR
ARLINGTON TX 760114005
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ENV SERV DIV
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES
RM 100
1220NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPT OF FORESTRY
ENV COORD
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPT OF JUSTICE
DEPT OF ATTY GEN
RM700
110 WEST AST
SANDIEGOCA 92101
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G
ENV SERVICES SPR
STEJ
4665 LAMPSON AVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 907205139
OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFF OF LOCAL GOV ARRAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 958123044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV &
DEV COM
STE 2600
50CALIFORNIAST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941114704
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 958258202
SANDAG
EXEC DIRECTOR
STE 800
1STINTLPL2401 B ST
SANDIEGOCA 92101
US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID PACIFIC REG
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 G ST
DAVIS CA 95616
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
SDGE
8315 CENTURY PARK CT
SANDIEGOCA 92123
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
COUNJTY OF SD
SUPERVISOR
RM335
1600 PACIFIC
SAN DIEGO ca 92101
SD COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
STE B-5
5201 RUFFIN RD
SANDIEGOCA 92123
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
AH3AV-OD-OQ8-L.x»noL<; uieaeS ei zasnnn
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
OCCUPANT
5600 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RORICK BUICK
5335 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN ACURA
5556 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN ACURA
5566 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRODY FORD
5555 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRODY PONTIAC' •''*-
5425 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRODY PONTIAC
5445 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WESELOH CHEVROLET
5335 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WESELOH CHEVROLET
5125 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WORTHINGTON DODGE
5550 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOB BAKER VW
5500 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TOYOTA CARLSBAD
5424 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TOWNSEND LINCOLN
5434 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEXUS CARLSBAD
5444 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN HONDA
5199 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DISCOVER HYUNDAI
5285 CAR COUNTRY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WORTHINGTON DODGE
5365 CAR COUNTRY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN MERCEDES BENZ
5475 CAR COUNTRY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN MERCEDES
5475 CAR_£QUN:FRf DR
jBAD CA 92008
BOB BAKER JEEP/MITSUBISHI*
5515 CAR COUNTRY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOB BAKER JEEP/MITSUBISHI
5555 CAR COUNTRY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
1050 AUTO CENTER CT
CARLSBAD CA '92008
BOB BAKER CADILLAC
5215 CAR COUNTRY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN INFINITI
5245 CAR COUNTRY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WORTHINGTON DODGE
1040 AUTO CENTER CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
nnmc iueae6 ei zesnun
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
COPLEY PRESS INC
350 CAMINO DE LA REINA
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
JALAMA LAND MANAGEMENT LLC
2122 CRYSTAL COVE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
DIRECTORYVISION LLC
1546 PACIFIC RANCH DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
KING COMMUNITY TRUST
STEA
5120AVENIDAENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BENCHMARK PACIFIC
STEB
550 LACUNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PROPERTY RESERVE {$€'
STE 675 "~
150 SOCIAL HALL AVE
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
COGNAC CARLSBAD PACIFICA
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD COMMERCIAL
CENTER ASSN INC
PO BOX 1111
CARLSBAD CA 92018
SAN-GAL TRUST
STE 1820
550 C ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
PALAMA HUNA LLC
STE 100
1420 BRISTOL ST
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
CARLSBAD POINT CORP
PO BOX 178870
SAN DIEGO CA 92177
INNS OF AMERICA CANNON LLC
UNIT 200
755 RAINTREE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PALOMAR & CO
5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CPT/SC TITLE HOLDING
533 SOUTH FREMONT
LOS ANGELES CA 90071
C B RANCH ENTERPRISES-
STE 106
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CPG CARLSBAD HOLDINGS LLC
105 EISENHOWER PKWY
ROSELAND NJ 7068
ARO PARTNERS
STE A3
1015 CHESTNUT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DORIS BROOKING
375 SKYLINE DR
VISTA CA 92084
GRODY PROPERTIES LLC
6211 BEACH BLVD
BUENA PARK CA 90621
CARLSBAD AUTOPARK
PROPERTIES LLC
450 VISTA WAY
VISTA CA 92083
CHARLES WESELOH
1520HUNSAKERST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CANNON ROAD EAST LLC
5335 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHARP FAMILY LTD PTNSHP ETAL
1000 CHRYSLER DR
AUBURN HILLS Ml 48326
SHARP FAMILY LTD PTNSHP ETAL
1775ELEVADORD
VISTA CA 92084
STELLAR PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 8681
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
ROBERT TOWNSEND
5434 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN ASSOCIATES LLC
PO BOX 789
CARLSBAD CA 92018
TOWNSEND FAMILY TRUST
5434 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHRYSLER REALTY CORP
1000 CHRYSLER DR
AUBURN HILLS Ml 48326
HOEHN GROUP LLC
PO BOX 789
CARLSBAD CA 92018
AM3AV-O9-008-1
Jam and Smudge Free Printing l™111111 www.avery.com rjT\ AVERY® 5160®
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51 60® m—m 1-800-GO- AVERY
PROPERTIES HELIX LAND CO LTD HOEHN GROUP LLC
591 CAMINO DEL LA REINA P° BOX 1 5453 5454 PASEO DEL NORTE
IAN DTcOCA 921(^8 SAN DIEGO CA 92175 CARLSBAD CA 92008
/
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES /' .>-
STE A
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Car Country Specific Plan AmendmentSP 19(I)/LCPA 02-11
Location MapIN T E R S T A T E 5
P A S E O D E L N O R T E
S D N R
A R M A D A D R
C A R C O U N T R Y D RCANNON RDSITEP A C IF IC O C E A NCARLSBAD B L V DENCINASAVENIDA
Proposed Amendment• Establishes criteria for Parking Structures• Modifies the Parking Standards • Combines “Old” and “New” Car Country into one document• Requires an SDP in “Old” Car Country• Allows “Mediterranean” architectural styles• Reformats the Comprehensive Sign Program • Corrects formatting and typographical errors
Parking Structures• 50% lot coverage when a parking structure is included as part of a Site Development Plan• 35’ height limit (45’ for projections)• 50’ setback from front property line• First floor may be used for accessory uses• Bollards required for roof-level lighting• Requires screening for parking structures
Parking Standards• Provides one set of standards• Consistent with Zoning Ordinance• On-site storage of vehicles may not encroach into employee or customer spaces• Required employee and customer spaces shall be striped and designated
Analysis• General Plan – Regional Commercial (R)• Palomar Airport CLUP•Zoning (C-2 and C-2-Q)• Mello II Local Coastal Program
Recommendation• Adopt the Negative Declaration • Approve SP 19(I)/LCPA 02-11