Loading...
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