Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-13; City Council; 17588; Gym & health spa parking rate amendmentCITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AB# 17,588 MTG. 4/13/04 m.: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-1 0 I DEPT. HD. I CITY ATTY. @- DEPT. PLN 4 ZCA 04-02LCPA 04-03 I CITY MGR RECOMMENDED ACTION: Housina and RedeveloDment Commission: That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 379 ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and APPROVING a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-03) to amend the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual changing the parking standard for “self-improvement services,” based upon the findings contained therein. 1 City Council: That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-703 , APPROVING an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance changing the parking standard for gyms and health spas (ZCA 03-03) and referencing the amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual (ZCA 04-02), and ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-121 , ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and APPROVING a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 03-10) based upon the findings contained therein. ITEM EXPLANATION: The project consists of two separate ZCA/LCPA proposals as follows: 1) ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10 is a proposal to change the Zoning Ordinance parking standard for “gyms and health spas” from 1 space per 35 square feet to 1 space per 200 square feet, which is applicable to properties outside the Village Redevelopment area; and 2) ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 is applicable to properties within the Village Redevelopment area, and is a proposal to: a. Amend the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual (Village MP) as follows: I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,588 i. Change the parking standard for “self-improvement services”, which includes “health spas”, from 1 space per 35 square feet to 1 space per 200 square feet; and ii. List “business and professional schools” separately from the “self-improvement services” category in Section II Chapter 6 of the Village MP; and change the parking standard for “business and professional schools’’ to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance parking standard for “vocational schools”, which is “one space/employee plus one space for each three students, minimum, with an adequate loading and unloading area.” b. Amend Section 21.35.020 of the Zoning Ordinance (V-R - Village Redevelopment Zone chapter) to reference the amendment to the Village MP. On March 3, 2004, a joint public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board to consider the above-described amendments. One member of the public spoke in support of the proposed amendments (Jan Sobel, who was representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce). The Planning Commission and Design Review Board expressed support for the proposal and both groups voted unanimously to recommend approbal. The Commission’s and Board’s discussion on the project is reflected in the attached draft mihutes from the March 3, 2004 hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL: I The Planning Commission and Design Review Board have determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and recomrdends adoption of a Negative Declaration and Addendum. , FISCAL IMPACT I The only anticipated fiscal impact would be from staff time requiredl to complete the amendment process through the Coastal Commission, and to process future devdlopment proposals subject to the amended parking standards. EXHIBITS: I 1 . 3. City Council Resolution No. 2004-121 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5542,5543 and 5544 ’ 5. Design Review Board Resolutions No. 292, 293 and 294 6. Staff Report to the Planning Commission and Design Review B$ard, dated March 3, 2004 7. Excerpts of draft Planning Commission and Design Review Bbard Minutes, dated March 3, 2004 I Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 3 79 2. City Council Ordinance No. NS-703 + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 379 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND APPROVING SAID LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION II, CHAPTER 6 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL CHANGING THE CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE PARKING RATE FOR “SELF-IMPROVEMENT SERVICES.” AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 04-02/LC PA 04-03 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and recommended their approval; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did on the 13th day of April , 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Costal Program Amendment, and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, and comments of all persons interested in or opposed to ZCA 04-0ULCPA 04-03; NOW, THEREFORE, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of Design Review Board Resolutions No. 292, and 294 are incorporated herein by reference and are the findings of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. 3. That the Negative Declaration and Addendum are adopted as shown in Design Review Board Resolution No. 292, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 4. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program (Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual) (LCPA 04-03), is approved as shown in Design Review Board Resolution No. 294, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 5. That the approval of LCPA 04-03 shall not become effective until it is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission’s approval becomes effective. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing and day of- Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th April , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard NOES: None A ABSENT: None ATTEST: /1 - R. PATCHEfT,’Secr&ary Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 379 page 2 2 4 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 ORDINANCE NO. NS-703 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BY AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21.44.020(b)(7) TO CHANGE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS FROM 1 SPACE PER 35 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 1 SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA, AND AMENDING SECTION 21.35.020 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 03-03/ZCA 04-02 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Section 21.44.020(b)(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (7) Gyms and Health Spas - One space/two-hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. SECTION 2: That Section 21.35.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: The Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan as adopted by Carlsbad City Council Ordinance No. 9591 on July 21, 1981, and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as adopted by Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 271 on November 21, 1995, and modified by Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolutions No. 280 on August 13, 1996, No. 291 on December 16, 1997, and No. 379 on April 13, 2004, are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into this chapter. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not become effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until LCPA 03-10 and LCPA 04-03 are approved by the California Coast a/ Commission. ) INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 13th day of April 2004, and thereafter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1f 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAl N: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-1 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, AND APPROVING SAID LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 21.44.020(b)(7) OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE PARKING RATE FOR “GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS” FROM 1 SPACE PER 35 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 1 SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. CASE NAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-1 0 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on March 3, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and recommended their approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 13th day of &ril 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments from all persons interested in or opposed to ZCA 03-03 and LCPA 03-10; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. 2. 3. That the above recitations are true and correct. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown on Exhibit “ND”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on information presented at the public hearing and contained in Exhibit “PII”, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5542 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. That the findings of the Planning Commission, as specified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5542, are incorporated herein by reference and are the findings of the City Council. 1 c L 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 4. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA 03-10) is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5544, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. 5. That the approval of LCPA 03-10 shall not become effective until it is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission’s approved becomes effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of April 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Menbers Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, and Packa NOES: None ATTEST: -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 I . EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5542 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 21.44.020(b)(7) OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE PARKING RATE FOR GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS FROM 1 SPACE PER 35 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 1 SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03- 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas;” and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration (Exhibit “ND”) and Addendum (Exhibit “A”), according to the NO1 dated December 10, 2003 and EIA Part I1 (Exhibit “PII”) dated November 20, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 9 1 2 1 - 4 4 d 6 r I E 5 1c 11 12 13 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereb find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for the project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5542 -2- lo ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT ZCA 03-03 / LCPA 03-10 1 ZCA 04-02 / LCPA 04/03 Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square feet of floor area. This Addendum to the project Negative Declaration is to modify the project description. The modification to the project description is insignificant and does not create any new significant environmental effect that was not previously identified. Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/200 square feet of floor area. The modified project description is as follows: Existin Proposed ~ Parking Stangdard Parkinp Standard 1 space/35 square feet 1 space/200 square feet of of floor area. floor area. Project Description: An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Villave Redevelopment Master Plan and Desim Manual, and Local Coastal Program to amend the parking requirement for “gyms and health spas” as follows: Zoninp Ordinance: Villape Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual: Self-Improvement Services Includes aerob idexercise studio, dance and music studio/school, health spa, and martial arts studio. Business and Professional Schools 1 space/emplovee DIUS 1 of floor area. minimum, with adequate Also, amend Section 21.35.020 of the Zonlnv Ordinance to reference the amendment to the Carlsbad Villape Redevelopment Master Plan and Desim Manual. DATE: Januarv 23.2004 Planning Director - City of Carlsbad Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square feet of floor area. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/200 square feet of floor area. CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO: ZCA 03-03 / LCPA 03-10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program as follows: 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 (EM 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 (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration are 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 Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD DECEMBER 10,2003 TO JANUARY 10,2004 PUBLISH DATE DECEMBER 10,2003 /a 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Exhibit “PII” Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/200 square (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZCA 03-03LCPA 03-10 DATE: November 20,2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Gyms and Health Suas Parking Rate Amendment LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner - (760) 602- PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Michael London, PureFitness - 501 West Broadway. Suite F, San DiePo, CA 92101 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONING: N/A OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL, IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Promam Amendment) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Droposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Promam Amendment is as follows: The uroiect consists of amending Section 21.44.020(bM7) of the Carlsbad Municiual Code to chanpe the parking rate for “gyms and health spas” as follows: I feet offloor area. I feet of floor area. The uroiect auulies to prouerties citvwide. therefore there is no specific uroiect site with a smcific environmental setting or surroundinrr land uses. 1 /3 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIROKRIESTAL FACTORS POTEXTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below \vould be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact.” or “Potentially Sigificant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the follo\ving pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation Hazards/Hanrdous Materials n Popu1ation and Housing Cultural Resources Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 I4 DETERMIXATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) El 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the en\,ironment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there \vi11 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 projecf, 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. l.d4/c 3 Pla er Signatur Date /2/5-/03 Date rnH Planning Director’s Signature 3 Rev. 07/03/02 EKVI RON3IESTAL 111 PACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envlronnientsl 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 ph\.sic31. biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City Ivith 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 llke 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 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. 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. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not liniired 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 nutigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of O\,erriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been nlade pursuant to an earlier EIR: (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant: or (4, through the EM-Part I1 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. 11. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) 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-1 997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 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) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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 S igni tican t Potentiall) Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significmi Impact Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h0 lmpsct Ixi (x1 Ix1 (XI IXI IXI IXI 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact KO lnipact 111. 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? cl 0 CI [XI ISI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 CI (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)? 0 17 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 ISI ISI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 0 0 (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? 0 IXI (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? 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) /9 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentiall! Unless Significant hlitigation Less Than Significant 10 InEt lngi Impact 0 Incorporated 0 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 nligratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or niptory 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) 0 0 0 0 om 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? 0151 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 0 0 0151 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ' in §15064.5? om (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) o 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. Q7lO3fQ2 8 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant hlitigation Significant 10 Incorporated InEt lngr Unless Less Than 0 Potentially Significant Impact 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of fornlal cemeteries? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) V. GEOLOGY Ah'D 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. 0 OKi OB ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 OB iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? om iv. Landslides? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 OIX] 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) 0 0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) OB 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) Rev. 07/03/02 9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS hIATERIALS - Would the project: 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) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) 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 Enviroiunental Evaluation) 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) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Siznificant Impact ci 0 0 0 0 0 pot en ti all!^ Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact n il 0 0 0 0 0 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 10 Rev. 07/03/02 d2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless hlitipation Incornorated Potentially Sipnificant Impact Less Than Siynificant So 1nEt 11~1 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 AhrD WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 0 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) 0 0 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? (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, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 OB (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 e) 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? 0 OB (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 f) 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) Rev. 07/03/02 a3 11 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g.. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Potentiall) Significanl Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO Impacr lsi 151 151 Ixl Ixl El Ixl Ixl Ixl 12 Rev. 07/03/02 act Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant NO Impact El Impact Incorporated 0 17 Impact n p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? u (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 0 LSI IXI (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? 0 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 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? 0 0 (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'? 0 0 0 IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? 0 0 ixl (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 17 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 oi m3fl 13 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Sign ificnnt Unless hlitiption Potentially Significant lrnpscr 0 Less Than Significant Incorporated 0 Impxi 0 Impxi 1si c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 0 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) 0 0 0 IXI 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) Ixl fJ 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? 0 (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)? 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Rev. 07/03/02 aQ 14 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 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) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which night 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 Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant lnipacr 0 0 0 17 El 0 IXI H 15 Rev. 07/03/02 97 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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) 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) 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) Result in inadequate emergency access? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Result in insufficient parking capacity? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) 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 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentiall! Significant Unless hl~tigation lncorporatcd 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significmr Inipxt El 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 16 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Have sufficient water supplies available to sene the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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) 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) 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 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless hlitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 El 5l Ixl 0 17 Rev. 07/03/02 29 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. Sectton 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the follolving on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state nhere they are available for reviea.. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist \vere nithin the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to appiicabie iegal standards. and state whether such effects were addressed by nlitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. .. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Sipificant 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. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF EN\’IRONRIENTAL E\’ALUATIOIV AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a cityvide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard \vi11 be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 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? No Impact (b & c) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parlung requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in substantial damage to scenic resources or degradation of the visual character of any site. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Any hture development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 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? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that would cause a conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 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? IS0 Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include 3 proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in changes to the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farnlland to a non-agricultural use. Any hture development subject to the proposed amended parking standard ivill be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gynls and health spas on a cityuide basis. .411 properties within the city are located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothdl areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, ths attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQSJ 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. The proposed project will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on properties throughout the city. 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 15 125(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: 0 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 (citywide) is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. Future development projects affected by the proposed amendment to the parking standards 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. 20 Rev. 07l03l02 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. 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 Yiolations 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. Long-term emissions associated uith travel generated from future development of gyms or health spas subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with future development of gyms or health spas, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any potential impact is assessed as less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal far any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for ‘‘gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a gym or health spa development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not a future gym or health spa development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the contribution to the cumulative impact from a future gym or health spa development within the city is considered de minimus. Any potential impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? KO Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. As noted above, future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard would not result in substantial pollutant emissiorls or concentrations. Any hture development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NO Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in any activity that could create objectionable odors. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis No impact is assessed. 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? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 33 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section -104 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal. err.) 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard th?t vfould 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 subject to the proposed amended parking standard )vi11 be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard 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 subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 8) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in an adverse impact to any environmentally sensitive tributary area. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $1 5064.5? 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in a disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental 22 Rev. 07/03/02 34 review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis, and will be subject to the City’s Cultural Resource Gudellnes No impact is assessed. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - \Vould 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 Rlines and Geology Special Publication 12. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from a rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground failure, or landslides. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in substantial soil erosion on any site. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to hrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and the City’s Engineering standards, on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 espansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in impacts to unstable or expansive soil conditions. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and the City’s engineering and building standards, on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 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‘.’ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. substances. or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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, mould 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people to hazards associated with an airport. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard 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 residential development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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) Impacts to groundwater quality? 24 Rev. 07/03/02 36 d) 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? e) 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 llon rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? f) 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? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? NO Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with any water quality standards, impact groundwater supplies/quality, 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 subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. h) 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? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which mould impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact (h & i) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. i) j) 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? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (j & k) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 25 Rev. 07/03/02 37 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean \\‘ater .kt Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (1, m, n, o LQ p) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that Fvould result in increased erosion or pollutant discharges into any surface \vaters, a change to receiving ivater quality, or an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with the any City land use plan, policy, or regulation. Any hture development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with the any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 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 Zoning.Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in 26 Rev. 07/03/02 38 the loss of availability of a mineral resource. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Any f’uture development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport. In addition, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport, will ensure that future development will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the airport. Also, any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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)? Less than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and therefore will not directly induce any growth. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would directly or indirectly induce Substantial growth. In addition, any future development within the city must comply with the City’s growth projections contained in the 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, any future growth subject to the amended parking standards will be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 27 Rev. 07/03/02 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacenient housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Also, any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? No Impact (a.i to a.v.) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any public service. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parlung standards will not affect any standard that would increase the use of existing parks or other recreation facilities. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? Less than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parlung rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to existing traffic load or capacity of any street system. In addition, 28 Rev. 07/03/02 the performance standards of City’s Growh Management Program will ensure that hture development \\ill not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city’s street system. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. Less than significant impact assessed. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant 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: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 Existine ADT* Los Buildout ADT* 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 21-50 “A-C“ 32-65 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 120 “F” 144 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 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. 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. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal to amend the City’s general plan or to physically develop any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parkmg standards will not affect any standard that would cause any future development to exceed a level of service standard established by the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the CMP on a site specific basis. Less than significant impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. . The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard 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 proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. . The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Existing Parlung Standard No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. . The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citynidr basis. The proposed amendment to the parlung standards will not affect any standard that would result in inadequate emergency access. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard nil1 be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. Proposed Parking Standard 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than significant - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed change to the parking rate for “gyms and health spas” is as follows: area. I floor area. Although the proposed parking rate is a reduction to the currently required number of parking spaces for gyms and health spas, the proposed rate more closely reflects the current parking demand of gyms and health spas. The existing parking requirement is excessive when applied to the modem day gyms. Gyms now have large amounts of open area (more area per piece of equipment, saunas, lobbies, seating areas, courts, offices, etc.) that were not commonplace at the time the current parking requirement was established. A parking rate study was submitted with the project that concludes the average parking demand for a gym during peak hours is 4.35 spaces/1,000 square feet (1 space/230 square feet). In addition, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation data indicates the average parlung demand for gyms is 4.37 spacesll ,000 square feet (1 space/229 square feet). The proposed rate of 1 space/200 square feet is consistent with, and slightly higher than, the results of the parking study and ITE parking generation data. Based upon the nature of modem day gyms, and the results of the parking study and ITE data, the proposed parking rate will not result in significantly inadequate parking capacity for gyms and health spas. In addition, any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. Less than significant impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to hrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would cause any future development to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards 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. No impact assessed. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 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) - 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. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would increase the need for, or conflict with the current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard 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 proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard 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 proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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?) 31 43 Rev. 07/03/02 Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (S.4NDAG) projects regional gro\\tIi for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG pro~ect~ons. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm n-ater quality control. air qualit)! st31idards. habitat conservation, congestion manasement 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 ivith the region- wide standards. The proposed amendment to the parking standards \vi11 not affect any standard that u.ould conflict with other City or region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic 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. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. Future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, houever. emissions associated with a hture gym or health spa development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a future gym or health spa development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) 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 CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The proposed amendment to the gym and health spa parking standard will not affect any standard that would conflict with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that future development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact - The proposed Zoning 0rdinanc.e and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parlung rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORRIATION 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. City of Carlsbad Fimess Center Parking Rate Study, November 11, 2003, prepared by RBF Consulting. Parking Generation, August 1987, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Final Master Environmental ImDact ReRort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994. Carlsbad Municiual Code. Title 2 1, Zoning Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and MaRRinE Study, November 1992. L I- & - 33 7. Rev. 07/03/02 45 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5543 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 21.44.020(b)(7) OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE PARKING RATE FOR GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS FROM 1 SPACE PER 35 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 1 SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 03-03 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21 S2.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas;” and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in SECTION 1 of Exhibit “X,” dated March 3, 2004, and attached hereto GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - ZCA 03-03/ZCA 04-02; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - ZCA 03-03, based on the following findings: 4b 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 Findings: 1. The prop sed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 03-03, is consistent with the General Plan in that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Carlsbad’s Land Use Element and other policies of the General Plan. Specifically, Commercial Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.4 and C.13, within the Land Use Element, state that commercial uses should be designed to provide adequate off- street parking, and that the parking requirements for commercial areas should be reviewed periodically to ensure adequate parking and to identify parking problems. The project analysis indicates the proposed parking standard is adequate to meet the parking demand for health clubs; and also indicates the current parking standard is a “problem,” in that it is excessive and prohibitive to the development of health clubs. 2. The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 03-03, reflects sound principles of good planning in that it: a) is consistent with the General Plan; b) ensures consistency between the various provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program relating to parking for “gyms and health spas”; and c) ensures an adequate and appropriate parking standard for “gyms and health spas.” PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOUMIUER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5543 -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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5544 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING MENT TO AMEND SECTION 21.44.020(b)(7) OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE PARKING RATE FOR GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS FROM 1 SPACE PER 35 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 1 SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. CASE NAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMEND- CASE NO.: LCPA 03- 10 WHEREAS, PureFitness, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas;” and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program and Zoning Ordinance be in conformance, and therefore, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is required in conjunction with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (implementing ordinance) to ensure consistency between the two documents; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X,” dated March 3, 2004, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5543 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided for in Public Resources Code Section 30514 and Article 15, Subchapter 2, Chapter 8, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (California Coastal Commission Regulations); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 4g 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 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Coastal Commission requirements, the Local Coastal Program Amendment was subject to a six-week public review period, starting on December 11,2003 and ending on January 22,2004, and the Planning Commission considered all comments received, if any. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - LCPA 03-10, based on the following findings: Findinw : 1. 2. ... ... ... ... 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 of the Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, East Batiquitos Lagoon and West Batiquitos Lagoon segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that it ensures consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and does not alter any coastal zone regulations, land use designations or policies, with which future projects subject to the amended parking standard must comply. That the proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to ensure consistency with the proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 03-03). PC RES0 NO. 5544 -2- 49 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 Commissi n PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning f the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: x MICHAEL J. HOLYMILKER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5544 -3 - 50 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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 292 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 11, CHAPTER 6 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL CHANGING THE PARKING RATE SECTION 21.35.020 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE THE AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL. CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING FOR “SELF-IMPROVEMENT SERVICES,” AND AMEND RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 04-02 / LCPA 04-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Director, in cooperation with the Housing and Redevelopment Director, has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, relating to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas;” WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration dct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Exhibit “ND”) and Addendum (Exhibit “A”), according to the NO1 dated December 10,2003 and EIA Part I1 (Exhibit “PII”) dated November 20,2003, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5544 and incorporated herein by reference, based on the following findings: Findims : 1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for the project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EL4 Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Marquez, Board Members Baker, Heineman, Lawson, and Paulsen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: n DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director DRB RES0 NO. 292 -2- 1 i ,I - 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 293 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 21.35.020 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING MANTJAL (LCPA 04-03). RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 04-02 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Director, in cooperation with the Housing and Redevelopment Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to reference an amendment to the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (LCPA 04-03), which relates to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas;” and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit “X,” SECTION 2, dated March 3, 2004, GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - ZCA 03-03/ZCA 04-02, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5543 and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 53 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 B That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - ZCA 04-02, based on the following findings: FindinPs: 1. The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 04-02, is consistent with the General Plan in that the Objective of the Village land use category of the General Plan Land Use Element is to implement the Redevelopment Plan through a comprehensive plan; and the Zone Code Amendment will ensure consistency between the Zoning Ordinance (implementing ordinance of the General Plan) and the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual (implementing comprehensive plan of the Redevelopment Plan). 2. The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 04-02, reflects sound principles of good planning in that it: a) ensures consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as mandated by State law; and b) ensures consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and other regulatory codes of the city; and c) ensures an adequate and appropriate parking standard for “self-improvement services” @e. “gyms and health spas”). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Marquez, Board Members Baker, Heineman, Lawson, and Paulsen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: n - DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director DRB RES0 NO. 293 -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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 294 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 11, CHAPTER 6 OF THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL CHANGING THE PARKING RATE CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING FOR “SELF-IMPROVEMENT SERVICES .” RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: LCPA 04-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Director, in cooperation with the Housing and Redevelopment Director, has prepared an amendment to Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual relating to the parking standard for “self-improvement services,” which include “health spas;” and WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual is the Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Village Redevelopment Segment of the LCP; and WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, General Plan and Zoning for properties within the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, PureFitness, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “Y,” dated March 3,2004, attached hereto, and as shown in Section 2 of Exhibit “X,” dated March 3,2004, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5543, incorporated herein by reference, as provided for in Public Resources Code Section 30514 and Article 15, Subchapter 2, Chapter 8, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (California Coastal Commission Regulations); and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a 55 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 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 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Coastal Commission requirements, the Local Coastal Program Amendment was subject to a six-week public review period, starting on January 22, 2004 through March 4, 2004, and the Design Review Board considered all comments received by the date of the public hearing, if any. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - LCPA 04-03, based on the following findings : Findings: 1. 2. ... ... ... 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 of the Village Redevelopment segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that it will not create any conflicts with other provisions of the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual (LCP for Village area); and does not conflict with any Coastal Act regulations or policies, with which future projects subject to the amended parking standards must comply. That the proposed amendment to the Village Redevelopment segment (Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual) of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to amend the parking standard for “self-improvement services” (Le. “gyms and health spas”) within the Village Redevelopment area of the city to ensure an adequate and appropriate parking standard for such uses. DRB RES0 NO. 294 -2- 5b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Marquez, Board Members Baker, Heineman, Lawson, and Paulsen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CARLSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOm ATTEST: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director DRJ3 RES0 NO. 294 -3- 57 ai 0 cd B E 6: m rcr 0 e, c, & H 3 k 0 0 m W 0 cd B + ai 0 cd 8 8 B b & sf 2 m ru 0 W Y 8 0 0 m k e, 0 cd 8 + 58 d 0 1% I$$$ z e, 0 m 2 i e, 5 $ 0 cd 0 + E 5-9 EX&lT 6 - The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Item No. Q) P.C. AGENDA OF: March 3,2004 Application complete date: November 19, 2003 Project Planner: Jennifer Coon Project Engineer: NIA SUBJECT: ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-1O/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section 21.44.020(b)(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code changing the parking rate for “gyms and health spas”; and a request for a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section 11, Chapter 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual changing the parking rate for “self-improvement services,77 and amend Section 21.35.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to reference the amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. I. RECOMMENDATION Planninp Commission: That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5542, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5543 and 5544, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 03-03) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 03-10), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Desim Review Board: That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 292 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 293 and 294, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-02) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-03), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The project consists of a proposal to change the parking requirement for “gyms and health spas” from 1 space per 35 square feet to 1 space per 200 square feet. This is a significant reduction to the number of parking spaces currently required for ‘‘gyms and health spas.” However, the current parking standard is outdated and does not reflect the parking demand generated by health clubs today. Health clubs today are designed with more open area that does not generate ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10/ZLA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HbALTH SPAS PARIUh’G RATE AMENDMENT March 3,2004 additional parking demand. The applicant has submitted a parking study and data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which support the proposal to reduce the parking requirement for “gyms and health spas.” Based upon the more spacious design of modem day health clubs, and the results of the parking study and ITE data, staff supports the proposed parking rate for “gyms and health spas.” 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Description The project consists of two parts, as follows: A. ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10 is an amendment to Section 21.44.020(b)(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) changing the parking requirement for “gyms and health spas” from 1 space per 35 square feet of floor area to 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area. This amendment applies citywide, except for the Village area. B. ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 is an amendment to Section 11, Chapter 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual (Village MP) changing the parking requirement for “self-improvement services,” which includes “aerobic/exercise studio, business and professional schools, dance and music studio/school, health spa, and martial arts studio.” The parking requirement for “self-improvement services” is proposed to be modified as follows: i. With the exception of “business and professional schools,” the parking requirement for “self-improvement services” is proposed to be changed from 1 space per 35 square feet to 1 space per 200 square feet. .. 11. The “business and professional schools” use is proposed to be listed separately from the “self-improvement services” category, and the parking rate changed from 1 space per 35 square feet to 1 space/employee plus 1 space for each 3 students, which is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance parking standard for “vocational schools.” ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 also involves an amendment to Chapter 21.35 (V-R Zone) of the Zoning Ordinance to reference the amendment to the Village MP. The project does not involve any one particular property, it is an amendment to parking regulations that will affect future development of “gyms and health spas” on a citywide basis. An amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the LCP applicable to properties outside the Village area, and the Village MP is the LCP for the Village area. ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT March 3,2004 Background The applicant submitted the proposed ZCA and LCPA to change the parking requirement for “gyms and health spas” in response to comments received from Planning Department staff on a preliminary review application (PRE 03-28). The preliminary review application was a request for comments on a preliminary proposal to develop a health club at 61 15 Paseo Del Norte (previous Hadley’s Market site). The proposed number of parking spaces was not consistent with the current requirement for “gyms and health spas.” Staff acknowledged that the current parking standard is outdated, and that, with supporting analysis and data justifying a more appropriate parking rate, an amendment to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas” could be supported by staff. Staff also advised the applicant that an application to amend the parking standard (ZCNLCPA), should be processed separately from any development application for a health club, so that the development project does not bias the recommendation for a new parking standard. An amendment to the Village MP was determined necessary to be consistent with the parking standard proposed for the Municipal Code, and to ensure the parking standard in the Village area reflects the current parking demand of health clubs. IV. ANALYSIS A. Applicability and Decision-Making Authority The project applies to two portions of the city (Village area and portions of the city outside the Village) that are governed by separate development codes (Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual and the Zoning Ordinance). The Village MP implements the Redevelopment Plan and regulates land use in the Village area, it also serves as the LCP for the area. Therefore, approval of LCPA 04-03 will officially amend the text of the Village MP document. Chapter 21.35 (V-R Zone) of the Municipal Code incorporates the Village MP by reference, and ZCA 04-02 will amend the chapter to reference the amendment to the Village MP for tracking purposes. The Zoning Ordinance regulates development within the city, excluding the Village area, and is the implementing ordinance for the LCP outside the Village area. Therefore, approval of ZCA 03-03 will amend the Zoning Ordinance parking standard for health clubs, and approval of LCPA 03-10 will ensure the amendment also applies to properties within the coastal zone. The Design Review Board (DRB) and Housing and Redevelopment Commission (HRC) have decision-making authority for land use and policy decisions within the Village area. The Planning Commission (PC) and City Council (CC) have decision-making authority for land use and policy decisions for all portions of the city outside the Village area. In addition, the two LCPA applications are subject to the. final approval of the California Coastal Commission. Table A, below, indicates the decision-making bodies that have authority over the various aspects of the project: la ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10/ZcA 04-02ILCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HLALTH SPAS PARKTNG RATE AMENDMENT March 3,2004 E- S * 0 e U Q) -- TABLE A Decision-Making Authority PC CC DRB HRC Coastal Commission R X R X NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZCA03-03 R X LCPA 03- 10 ZCA04-02 X R R X X I LCPA04-03 I I IRIXI X I R = Authority to recommend approval or denial X = Decision-making authority B. Parking standard analysis The recommendation for approval of the proposed parking standard for “gyms and health spas” is based on an analysis of the following: 1. Current parking standard; 11. iii. .. Parking Study and ITE Parking Generation data; Other jurisdictions’ parking standards for health clubs; and 1. Current parking standard The Zoning Ordinance currently requires “gyms and health spas” to provide 1 parking space for every 35 square feet of gross floor area. The Village MP lists “health spas” under the category of “self-improvement services,” and also requires 1 space for every 35 square feet of floor area. Staff agrees that the current parking standard for “gyms and health spas” (1 space/35 square feet) is outdated and does not reflect the current parking demand of health clubs. The existing parking requirement is excessive when applied to modern-day health clubs (this statement is supported by the project Parking Study and ITE Parking Generation data discussed below). Health clubs today are designed with more open area (more area per piece of equipment, saunas, lobbies, seating areas, courts, offices, etc.), which was not as commonplace in health clubs at the time the current parking requirement was established (1986). Given the size of most health clubs built today (clubs surveyed in parking study ranged from 11,430 to 51,284 square feet, and the clubs surveyed by ITE ranged from 10,500 to 85,000 square feet), the current parking requirement of 1 space/35 square feet is prohibitive. For example, a 54,000 square foot health club (as proposed in preliminary application PRE 03-28) would require 1,543 .parking spaces. To determine a parking standard that is appropriate for health clubs today, staff relied on several sources of information, including: 1) a Parking Study of existing health clubs in north San Diego County; 2) ITE Parking Generation data; and 3) parking standards for health clubs in other jurisdictions. L3 ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HkALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT March 3,2004 Location Facility Size Weekday (Mon.) Weekday (Thurs.) (square feet) Peak Parking Use Peak Parking Use 5 1,284 4 1,000 39,804 227 (4.43/1000 sf) (1 space/226 sf) 189 (4.61/1000 sf) ( 1 space/2 17 sf) 232 (5.83/1000 sf) (1 space/l72 sf) 187 (3.65/1000 sf) (1 space/274 sf) 189 (4.61/1000 sf) (1 space/2 17 sf) 161 (4.04/1000 sf) (1 space/248 sf) LA Fitness Encinitas LA Fitness Vista 24-Hour Fitness Sport-Oceanside ii. Parking Study and ITE Parking Generation data Weekend (Sat.) Peak Parking Use 205 (4.00/1000 sf) 1 space/250 sf) 164 (4.00/1000 sf) (1 space/250 sf) 131 (3.29/1000 sf) (1 space/304 sf) A Parking Study prepared by RBF Consulting, dated November 11, 2003, indicates the average parking demand of health clubs in the north San Diego County area during weekday peak hours is 4.35 spaces/1000 square feet (1 space/230 square feet). In addition, ITE Parking Generation data indicates the average weekday parking demand of health clubs is 4.37 spaces/1000 square feet (1 space/229 square feet). 24-Hour Fitness Oceanside Fitness Elite Carlsbad The Parking Study is based on a survey of five health clubs in north San Diego County (LA Fitness - Encinitas, LA Fitness - Vista, 24-Hour Fitness Sport - Oceanside, 24-Hour Fitness - Oceanside, and Fitness Elite - Carlsbad). The survey sites were selected to obtain parking demand characteristics for health clubs of varying size. 9,3 84 85 (4.39/1000 sf) 83 (4.28/1000 sf) 90 (4.64/1000 sf) (1 space/228 sf) (1 space1234 sf) ( 1 space/2 16 sf) 56 (4.90/1000 sf) 32 (2.80/1000 sf) 50 (4.37/1000 sf) (1 space/204 sf) (1 space/357 sf) (1 space/229 sf) 1 1,430 ITE Parking Generation data and the Parking Study survey indicate the peak parking demand for heath clubs occurs during weekday evenings, typically as members are on their way home from work. The Parking Study also indicates that the weekend peak demand occurs on Saturday mornings. Peak Rate Average The parking surveys of each site were conducted during peak demand times (two weekdays from 5:OO pm to 7:OO pm, and one Saturday from 8:OO am to 1O:OO am). Parking counts (number of spaces occupied) of all sites were taken every half-hour during the peak demand times between September 8th and September 20th 2003. The average parking demand is based on the highest demand (most number of spaces occupied) at each site. The results are summarized in Table B, below: 4.06/1000 sf (1 s~ace/246 sfl 4.35/1000 sf (1 space1230 square feet) ITE Peak Demand Rate Current City Requirement 4.37/1000 sf (1 space/229 square feet) 28.57/1000 sf (1 space/35 square feet) - 28.57/1000 sf (1 mace135 so ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HeALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT March 3,2004 The Parking Study indicates that none of the sites surveyed experienced overflow parking that would have resulted in understated parking counts. The three largest sites essentially functioned as stand-alone facilities, due to: 1) the configuration of the parking lot; and 2) that only members of the health clubs parked near the facilities. The parking at the two smaller sites was more integrated into and/or shared with a larger shopping center. At these locations, obsewations were made of members entering and exiting the health clubs to include the parking demand of those members who did not park in front of the health club. The Parking Study indicates, however, that the smaller sites operated as stand-alone facilities on the weekend, since adjacent commercial businesses were not open at the time of the counts. The Parking Study recommends that the average parking demand rate (4.35/1000 sf) be increased by 10% (4.8/1000 sf) to be conservative, and to account for circulating vehicles that may have been missed during the surveys. The recommended rate of 4.8/1000 square feet is equivalent to 1 space/208 square feet of floor area. The proposed parking rate of 1 space/200 square feet is 15% more than the Parking Study average (4.35/1000 sf), and is slightly more conservative than the study recommends. iii. Parking standards for health clubs in other jurisdictions Table C, below, indicates the parking standard for health clubs in other jurisdictions. TABLE C I Vista I 1 space150 square feet The parking standards of other jurisdictions indicates that the proposed standard of 1 space/200 square feet is consistent with several other jurisdictions. With the exception of Vista, the parking standard for health clubs in other jurisdictions ranges from 1 space/100 square feet to 1 space/300 square feet, with the majority being 1 space/200 square feet. Some of the jurisdictions surveyed (i.e. Chula Vista, Del Mar, Coronado) did not have a parking standard used for gyms 13- ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HgALTH SPAS PARKTNG RATE AMENDMENT March 3,2004 Page 7 and health clubs, which is why they are not listed in the table. In these cases, the jurisdiction would typically require a parking study for a proposed health club to determine the appropriate parking ratio. C. Other uses under “self-improvement services” category of Village MP In addition to “health spas,” the “self-improvement services” category in the Village MP also includes “aerobic/exercise studio,” “business and professional schools,” “dance and music studio/school,” and “martial arts studio.” With the exception of “business and professional schools,” the uses are similar to a “gym and health spa” use. In fact, many jurisdictions apply the same parking rate for aerobic/dance/martial arts studios as for health clubs (Oceanside, Poway, Solana Beach, Temecula, Munieta). Staff recommends changing the parking rate for all the uses under the “self-improvement services” category to the rate proposed for “gyms and health spas” (1 space/200 square feet), except for “business and professional schools.” The Zoning Ordinance specifies a separate parking standard for “vocational schools,” which is equivalent to “business and professional schools.” The Zoning Ordinance parking standard for “vocational schools” is “one space/employee plus one space for each three students, minimum, with an adequate loading and unloading area.” To be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends the “business and professional schools” use be listed separately from the “self-improvement services” category in the Village MP; and the parking rate be changed from 1 space/35 square feet to the Zoning Ordinance parking standard for “vocational schools,” as specified above. D. General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Village MP and LCP consistency The proposed ZCA and LCPA will not result in any inconsistencies with the policies of the General Plan, or the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Village MP and LCP. The General Plan Land Use Element specifies that commercial uses should be designed to provide adequate off-street parking, and that the parking requirements for commercial areas should be reviewed periodically to ensure adequate parking and to identify parking problems (Commercial Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.4 and C.13). The Parking Study and ITE data indicate the proposed parking standard is adequate to meet the parking demand for health clubs. The data also indicates the current parking standard is a “problem,” in that it is excessive and prohibitive to the development of health clubs. The proposed amendment is consistent with General Plan objectives and programs. With regard to consistency with the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed amendment to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas” will not create any conflicts with other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT March 3,2004 With regard to consistency with the Village MP (the LCP for the Village area), the proposed amendment to the parking standard for “self-improvement services” will not create any conflicts with other provisions of the Village MP/LCP. With’regard to consistency with the LCP for areas outside the Village area, as mentioned earlier in this report, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the LCP. The LCP amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the LCP and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the provisions of the LCP. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The initial study (EIA Part 11) prepared for the project did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration and Addendum have been prepared and are being recommended for adoption as part of the approval of the proposed ZCAs and LCPAs. The Addendum was prepared to amend the project description to include the amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Because ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10 and ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 are subject to the approval of two different decision-making bodies (CC and HRC), the Negative Declaration, which applies to both parts of the project, must be adopted by both the CC and HRC. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted in the newspaper, and was mailed to the California Coastal Commission and State Clearinghouse for circulation. No comments were received prior to the preparation of this report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. JC:bd Planning Commission Resolution No. 5542 (Negative Declaration) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5543 (ZCA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5544 (LCPA) Design Review Board Resolution No. 292 (Negative Declaration) Design Review Board Resolution No. 293 (ZCA) Design Review Board Resolution No. 294 (LCPA) Strike-out and underline version of proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments and Village Master Plan and Design Manual amendments Parking Study prepared by RBF Consulting, dated November 1 1,2003, with ITE Parking Generation data attached * ATTACHMENT 8 4 C 0 N S U LTI N G November 11,2003 JN 55-1 001 36.002 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: City of Carlsbad Fitness Center Parking Rate Study Planning Department Staft RBF Consulting was retained to assist in establishing a new parking rate for fitness center facilities in the City of Carlsbad. The study methodology, including representative fhess center facility selection and parking count collection periods, was developed based on prior meetings with the City of Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Parking Section (Chapter 21.44) currently requires one (1) parking space per thirty-five (35) square feet of gross floor area. This requirement is equivalent to 28.57 parking spaces per thousand square feet (TSF) of floor area. Parking Survey of Selected Sites RBF Consulting has performed peak parking demand counts at five fitness center locations in the North County. Published ITE Parking Generation data and previous visits to select study sites indicate that the peak parking demand for fitness center facilities occurs during the weekday p.m. peak, typically as members are on their way home from work. Site visits also indicate that the weekend peak parking demand typically occurs on Saturday mornings. As such, parking demand dab was collected for each of the five sites on two weekdays between Monday and Thursday from 500 to 7:OO p.m. and on one Saturday from 8:OO to 1O:OO a.m. Parking counts were taken at every half-hour to document the parking variation during the study periods. All counts were performed between September 8'" and September 20". The study locations are shown in Attachment 1. The survey results are summarized in Table 1. More detailed survey information, including the parking demand variation for every half-hour, is shown in Attachment 2. As mentioned previously, the survey sites were selected based on discussion with City staff. In order to obtain parking demand characteristics for fitness centers of varying size, the selected survey sites ranged in size from 11,430 to 51,284 square feet. The layout of the facility parking was also considered in the site selection. None of the facilities experienced PLANNING DESIPN CONSTRUCTION 5050 Avenii Endnas. Suite 260, Carlsbad. Caliimia QZOOB 760.476.9193 FAX 760.476.9198 OfksslccatedthrwghoutCalifcmia.ArizDMBNevada =wRBF.m 68 City of Carlsbad, Planning Department November 11,2003 Page 2 Facility Size (square feet) 51,284 JN: 551001 36.002 4 Weekday Peak Parking Use (Rate Per TSP) 227 (4.43) overflow parking that would have resulted in understated count data. Due to the parking lot configuration of the three largest sites (LA Fitness Encinitas, LA Fitness Vista, and 24-Hour Fitness Sport Oceanside), the sites operated as though they were stand-alone facilities and only patrons of the fitness centers parked near the facility. The two smaller sites (24-Hour Fitness Oceanside and Fitness Elite Carlsbad) were more integrated into larger shopping centers. At these locations, observations were made of patrons entering and exiting the fitness center in order to include the parking demand of patrons that did not park in front of the facility. The smaller fitness center sites, however, operated as stand-alone facilities on the weekend since the adjacent commercial establishments were not open at the time of the counts. Weekday Peak Parking Use (Rate Per TSP) 187 (3.65) Table I Fitness Center Peak Parking Count Summary Weekend Peak Parking Use (Rate Per TSP) 205 (4.00) Location 189 (4.61) LA Fitness 201 S. El Camino Real Encinitas LA Fitness 680 Hacienda Drive Vista 24-Hour Fitness Sport 4655 Frazee Road Oceanside 24-Hour Fitness 2213 El Camino Real Oceanside Fitness Elite for Women 2616 El Camino Real Carlsbad 164 (4.00) 161 (4.04) 83 (4.28) 32 (2.80) I 189(4.61) 41 ,OOO 131 (3.29) 90 (4.64) 50 (4.37) 39,804 1 232 (5.83) 85 (4.39) 11,430 56 (4.90) Peak Rate Average I (4.35) I (4.W ITE Peak Demand Rate (4.37) I I Current City Requirement I (28.57) I (28.57) I I * TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 City of Carlsbad, Planning Department November 1 1,2003 Page 3 JN: 55-100136.002 L) The above findings show that the average peak parking rate on a weekday was observed to be 4.35 spaces per TSF of floor area. The average peak parking rate observed on the weekend was 4.06 spaces per TSF of floor area. The collected data is very consistent with the average peak parking rate published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual. ITE’s weekday peak parking rate for health clubs is 4.37 spaces per TSF of floor area. Attachment 3 contains the ITE Parking Generation information for the sports club/health spa land use. The surveys conducted at the various fitness center sites took into account the total square footage of the facility. Facility square footage was obtained from the Zoning and Planning Departments for the respective jurisdictions. Related ancillary uses were captured as part of the observed peak parking demand at the survey sites. These ancillary uses included activities such as clothing and nutritional supplement sales, coffee and juice bars, and chiropractic and physical therapy services. Conclusion The findings of our parking demand survey of fitness facilities in the North County area indicate an average peak parking rate of 4.35 spaces per TSF of floor area. This observed rate is very consistent with the published IT€ peak parking rate of 4.37 spaces per TSF of floor area. Based on these findings, we recommend a revised parking rate of 4.8 spaces per TSF of floor area for fitness center facilities. This rate applies a ten percent factor above the observed average peak parking rate of 4.35 spaces per TSF of floor area to account for circulating vehicles and to remain conservative. A rate of 4.8 parking spaces per TSF of floor area is roughly equivalent to one (1) space per 208 square feet of floor area. Please call me at 760-476-9193 if you have any questions regarding this analysis, or if you need any additional information. Sincerely, 4!& Project Engineer Transportation Services Attachments: 1 Site Survey Locations 2 Peak Parking Survey Data 3 ITE Parking Generation Sheets J 4655 Frazee Road Oceanside Women 1 LA Fitness 680 Hacienda Drive . Vista 41,000 S.F. 2616 El Camino Real 24 Hour Fitness 2213 El Camio Real Oceanside LA Fitness 201 S. El Camino Real Encinitas NOT TO SCALE 71 SITE SURVEY LOCATIONS Attachment 1 JNE-lWlJB-Odober20W 3 Attachment 2 Peak Parking Survey Data 73 Attachment 3 ITE Parking Generation Sheets 74 $’ LAND USE: 495 SPORTS CLUB/HEALTH SPA DESCRIPTION PARKING CHARACTERISTICS AND Sports clubs and health spas are facilities offering nUmeroustypeS Of fitness activities, possibly includ- ing weight training, aerobics, jaZerCiSe, Saunas, running, and racquetball. The spas surveyed nor- mally had some, but not all, of these activities. The spas surveyed ranged in Size from 10,500 to 85,000 square feet. DATA LIMITATIONS Peak parking occurred between 6:oo and 7:00 PM, probably when members were on their way home from work. Saturday and Sunday studies are needed to develop weekend parking rates. n m D D PI P P B Parking Generation, August 1987/lnstitute of Transportation Engineers 73 SP0:JS CLUB/HEALTH SPL395) Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET - LEASABLE AREA On a: WEEKDAY PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Range of Standard Number of Average 7,000 GSf Rate Rates Deviation Studies Leasable Area. 4.37 1.66-1 1.70 2.00 43 38 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION n w n 3 0 0 0 a w 0 cn a z 3 a 8 a a n if Y W II 400 a 350 * 300 a 250 8 200 * 150, 100% 50. 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 X = 1000 GROSS SQUARE FEET LEASABLE AREA 0 ACTUAL DATA POINTS FllTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 0.72 Ln(X) + 2.35 R2 = 0.574 Parking Generation, August 1987/lnstitute of Transportation Engineers 74 Planning Commission Minutes Minutes of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: CALL TO ORDER PaSXHIBIT 7 DRAFT March 3, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:OO P.M. March 3,2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Planning Commission Chairperson White called the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board to order at 6:OO p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Montgomery led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and Whitton; Chairperson Marquez, Board Members Baker, Heineman, Lawson, and Paulson Absent: None Staff Present: Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director Suzanne Parsons, Deputy City Attorney Michele Masterson, Management Analyst Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Michael Grim, Senior Planner Dennis Turner, Principal Planner Anne Hysong, Associate Planner Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner Jessica Galloway, Assistant Planner Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, Engineering Development Services Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director Lori Rosenstein, Housing and Redevelopment Management Analyst Dale Schuck, Public Works SupervisorlContracts and Agreements Chairperson White directed everyone’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for that evening’s public hearing. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. Chairperson White opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson White asked Assistant Planning Director, Don Neu, to introduce the first joint-hearing item. 1. ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-1OlZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 - GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - Request for a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section 21.44.020(b)(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code changing the parking rate for “gyms and health spas”; and a request for a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section II, Chapter 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual changing the parking rate for “self-improvement services,” and amend Section 21.35.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to reference the amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Neu introduced Item 1 and stated that Associate Planner, Jennifer Coon, would make the Staff presentation. Associate Planner, Jennifer Coon, presented the Staff Report stating that the gyms and health spas’ parking rate amendment is a proposal by Pure Fitness to amend the parking standard for gyms and health spas from the current standard of one space per 35 sq ft to one space per 200 sq ft. The application involves amending the Zoning Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program, which would be applicable to properties outside the Village area, and also amending the Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, which would apply to properties within the Village area. Staff is requesting of the Planning Commission a recommendation to adopt the project Negative Declaration and a recommendation to approve the Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the parking standard for gyms and health spas from one space per 35 sq ft to one space per 200 sq ft. Staff is requesting of the Design Review Board a recommendation of adoption of the project Negative Declaration, an approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the Village Master Plan amending the parking standard for self-improvement services from one space per 35 sq ft to one space per 200 sq ft, and recommending approval of a Zone Code Amendment to reference the Amendment to the Village Master Plan in the Village Redevelopment Zone of the Zoning Ordinance. In terms of project analysis, the current standard was established in 1986 and does not reflect the current parking demand of health clubs today. When the standard was established, it was based on parking standards in other jurisdictions for public assembly uses. The Institute of Traffic Engineers’ (ITE) parking generation data estimates that the parking demand of health clubs today is approximately one space for every 229 sq ft, and they have indicated that the peak parking demand times occur during weekday evenings and on Saturday mornings. The applicant also submitted a parking study that surveyed five health clubs in the North San Diego County including two LA Fitness facilities, two 24-Hour Fitness facilities, and a Fitness Elite facility. The surveys were conducted during peak parking demand times and concluded that the average parking demand of those facilities was one space for every 230 sq ft. The parking study recommends that the average parking demand be increased 10% resulting in a parking rate of one space for every 208 sq ft. The proposed standard is a 15% increase over the results of the study. Staff also surveyed the parking standards in other jurisdictions and found that the parking standards for health clubs range from one space per 100 sq ft to one space per 300 sq ft with the majority being one space per 200 sq ft. Therefore, the proposed standard is consistent with many jurisdictions in the area. Based on the ITE parking generation data, the project parking study and standards in other jurisdictions, Staff believes that the one space per 200 sq ft is an appropriate rate for a health club. With regard to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan, health spas are included under the category of self-improvement services, which also includes business and professional schools, and aerobic, dance, music, and martial arts studios. With the exception of the business and professional schools, most of those uses are similar to gyms and health spas. Many other jurisdictions require the same parking rate for dance and martial arts studio-type uses as they do for health clubs. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the parking rate for self-improvement services in the Village Redevelopment Master Plan be changed from one space per 35 sq ft to one space per 200 sq ft. With regard to the business and professional schools use, Staff is recommending that that use be listed separately from the self-improvement services category and that the parking standard be changed to match the Zoning Ordinance standard for vocational schools, which is one space per employee plus one space for each three students with sufficient area for loading and unloading. Chairperson White asked the Commissioners and Board Members if they had questions for Staff. She asked if any members of the audience wished to comment on this Item. Seeing none, she asked the applicant if he wished to make a presentation. Jack Henthorne, 5365 Avenida Encinitas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated that he was representing Mr. Michael London and Pure Fitness, Inc. who is the sponsor of the Item under consideration. Mr. London first became aware of the parking issue associated with this Zone Code Amendment in his efforts to redevelop the Hadley Store south of Palomar Airport Road on Paseo del Norte. The store is vacant and has fallen into disrepair. Mr. London proposed in a preliminary review application filed with the City Staff to redevelop the site with a 40,000 sq ft state-of-the-art fitness facility along with several ancillary uses, including an office for the visitors and convention bureau, a sports memorabilia center, and a number of other items that would cater to the residents of Carlsbad as well as to visitors of the City. From the Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004 Page 3 preliminary review it became evident that the standard in Carlsbad was somewhat outdated. The restrictive parking requirement deters interest in facilities locating within the City. One of the problems is the sheer volume of parking associated with these facilities. If you look at something akin to Curves of 3,500 sq ft, it would require 100 parking spaces under the current ordinance. A 40,000 sq ft fitness facility, therefore, would require 10.5 acres dedicated to parking spaces, which is three and a half times the size of the Hadley Store site. REF Consulting conducted the parking study. He introduced Dawn Wilson. Dawn Wilson, RBF Consulting, stated that there were three steps to conducting this parking study. The first step was the parking rate survey where the parking code was evaluated in 19 municipalities within the state of California. Then five fitness facilities were examined that were of a similar nature in North San Diego County. The next step was to look at the parking rates which ranged from 1:35 sq ft to 1:250 sq ft. The third step was to conduct an existing parking demand survey. The five facilities examined were in Solana Beach, Encinitas, Vista, Oceanside, and San Marcos. A 50,000 sq ft facility in Vista would require 1,000 parking spaces, in Solana Beach it would require 250 parking spaces, and in Carlsbad it would require 1,430 parking spaces. The parking demand survey looked at two weekdays and one weekend day during the peak periods to get a representative sample size for each facility. The majority of the facilities examined had one space per 200 sq ft in terms of demand. Their recommendation is to revise the Carlsbad parking code to one space per 200 sq ft. Mr. Henthorne concluded the presentation by reviewing the benefits of this proposed change. He stated that the Code Amendment would allow fitness facilities to locate in Carlsbad, thereby reducing the need to travel to remote locations for those types of services. Thus, there would be a reduction in traffic congestion. It would retain some sales tax revenue that goes to other communities. It would create new business opportunities for fitness centers and related activities. It would increase the opportunity for those currently operating under constrained 1 :35 to upgrade their facilities. It would allow upgrades and development of areas currently underutilized. Chairperson White opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium. Jan Sobel, Executive Consultant, Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, 5934 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce wholly supports the change in the parking requirements for health clubs and spas. She noted that it was about time that a City that was the home of Jauercise and 24-Hour Fitness had one of those facilities. She stated that it was also about time to fix the horrible looking Hadley's and that would be a good location for a gym. She shared that at one time she ran a health club of about 100,000 sq ft in Los Angeles which had 13,000 members. She stated that their parking ratio was five parking spaces to 1,000 sq ft. Chairperson White closed public testimony and asked for a motion. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5542, recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5543 and 5544, recommending approval of a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 03-03) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 03-10), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall disclosed that he is a member of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and had no knowledge of the action that the Board took relative to this issue. He stated that he believed this was the right direction to take. He commended the applicant for bringing this forth. Commissioner Dominguez agreed that this change was substantially overdue. He added that he favored having a separate component to deal with the spoiler effect that employees had on these parking arrangements. He noted that one city had an underwriting component that dealt specifically with the Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004 Page 4 provision of adequate parking for employees. He stated that he would like to see that become a part of this Zone Change. Commissioner Whitton concurred with Commissioner Dominguez. Commissioner Montgomery asked Staff if the parking rates included employee parking. Ms. Wilson replied that the parking rate reported was for the City of San Marcos, which had a less restrictive rate at 1:250, so the additional employee parking was most likely because their rate was higher than any of the other jurisdictions. Based on the survey, 1:200 would more than account for employee parking. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he would prefer to leave it at the proposed rate. Commissioner Dominguez noted that the study was based specifically on the use of a fitness center, whereas, the Hadley site was also proposing ancillary uses. He stated that there were certain unknowns involved that should be addressed more specifically. Mr. Henthorne stated that the ancillary facilities would be subject to the current Zone Code requirements for parking. For example, commercial facilities would have parking spaces at the commercial rates and restaurants at the restaurant rates. Commissioner Baker stated that she was satisfied with the 1 :200 sq ft proposal. Commissioner Heineman stated that he supported the proposal as presented. Commissioner Whitton concurred. Chairperson White stated that she could support the motion as well and called for a vote. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton Chairperson Marquez then asked for a motion from the Design Review Board. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Board Member Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Design Review Board adopt Design Review Board Resolution No. 292 recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration, and adopt Design Review Board Resolutions 293 and 294, recommending approval of a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-02) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-03), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Board Member Lawson asked Staff if the City had lost projects within the Village as a result of the restrictive nature of the existing codes. Staff Lori Rosenstein replied that in the last few years the yoga studio in the Village wanted to relocate and expand, but could not as a result of the City’s parking requirements. She added that a few larger gym facilities, such as 24-Hour Fitness, had considered the downtown area but they could not meet the current parking requirement. She stated that more recently Carlsbad Dance Studio wanted to expand, and that they were limited in their expansion because their site had some extra parking available but not enough to meet current Code regulations. A shared parking arrangement had to be made to allow the expansion. Board Member Lawson observed that facilities such as Fitness Elite require 327 parking spaces under the current Code, but under the revised Code it would be a much lower number. He asked how those additional spaces would be viewed under the new Code and how it would affect a gym’s expansion ability. He asked if the extra parking spaces in an existing parking lot would be available for expansion of any other operations that are sharing that same parking area. Ms. Coon replied that they would be if they calculated all the uses in the center based on the standard in effect at the time, if there were excess spaces, then there may be some room for expansion or establishment of different uses. Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2004 Page 5 Chairperson Marquez called for a vote. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: NOES: None Baker, Heineman, Marquez, Lawson, and Paulson RECESS: Chairperson White called for a brief recess at 6:35 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Chairperson White called the meeting back to order at 6:45 p.m. with all Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION ACT1 ON : Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Workshop of February 11, 2004 as amended by Commissioner Montgomery on pages 3 and 4. The first sentence of Commissioner Montgomery’s comments on page 3 should read: Commissioner Montgomery pointed out that out of four floor plans there may be three different elevations and big changes in requirements could lead to changing the original plans and ultimately creating 12 separate building plans. Commissioner Montgomery’s statement on page 4 should read: Commissioner Montgomery stated that porches are a nice aesthetic feature of a house but wants to make sure that any action regarding the size, etc., doesn’t undermine or eliminate porches from the development of a community. Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None MOTION ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 18, 2004 as amended by Commissioner Heineman on pages 7 and 8. The second sentence of Commissioner Heineman’s comments on page 7 under Discussion should be deleted: /=kwted A. The first two sentences of Commissioner Heineman’s comments on page 8 should read: Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Munoz if each of the initial segments would be fairly short segwwts. Mr. Munoz stated that they were all about a mile in length with the trail dimensions in each city being very similar and, therefore, the bulk ofthe trail has not been built and would permit changes. Baker, Heineman, Montgomery, White, and Whitton VOTE: 5-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: Dominguez, Segall April 12, 2004 TO: CITY COUNCIL VIA: City Manager FROM: Planning Director ERRATA FOR AB 17,588 - GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-1 0 - ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 Section 2 of Ordinance No. NS-703, line 18 % shall be corrected to read I'.. .on December 16, 1997, and No. 2Q3 379.. ." The case number shall be corrected from LCPA 03-01 to read LCPA 03-10, where it appears in Resolution No. 2004-121 on page 1, Line 9 in the title and on Line 20, and page 2, Lines 1 and 3. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director April 12, 2004 TO: CITY COUNCIL All ReceIvbAgenda Item b I For the Infmatlon of the CITYCOUNCIL -CMLwd VIA: City Manager FROM: Planning Director ERRATA FOR AB 17,588 - GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT - ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10 - ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 Section 2 of Ordinance No. NS-703, line 18 % shall be corrected to read I'. . .on December 16, 1997, and No. 2Q3 379.. .'I The case number shall be corrected from LCPA 03-01 to read LCPA 03-10, where it appears in Resolution No. 2004-121 on page 1, Line 9 in the title and on Line 20, and page 2, Lines 1 and 3. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 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: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This EDay of April, 2004 This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of CMEW 0 l!”DMENr AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE Karen A. Peczeli NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising The Coast News Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County. Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550, Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DEGO, 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 principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a newspaper printed and published weekly and which news- paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, EncinitadCardiff, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNista and the County Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (8/4/94, #677114, B2393, P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print- ed copy, 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 1. 2004 Icertify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California on the 18th day of March, 2004. u Clerk of the Printer Space above for County Clerk's Filing Stamp JOTICE IS HEREBY GWEN that the City Council and Housing and Wbvebpment Commission of the Ci d Carlsbad will hold a joint public hear- ng at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drhre, Carlsbad, Califania, it 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, April 13,2004, to consider a request to adopt a Negative Wataticm and Addendum, and approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local hstal Program Amendment to amend Sectlon 21.44.02qb)(7) of the Carlsbad ulunicipal code changing the parking rate formgyms and health spas"; and a to ipprove a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to mend Section II, Chapter 6 of the Ctlrlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan ind Deslgn Manual changing the parking rate for "self-improvement services,"and imend Section 21.35020 of the Carlsbad Municipal code to referencs the mendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopllent Master Plan and Design ulanual. hose persons wishing to speak on this proposal am cordially invited to attend he public hearing. Copies of the agenda MI will be avallabb on and after Aprii 9, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637. f you challenge the Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Code 9mendmen(s andlor Locelcoastal Program Amendmentsin court, MI maybe imitedb raising onlythose issues you or someone else reised at the public hear- ng- . in this notice OT in written correspondence wlveredtome city of Wlsbad, Am: city Clerk, 1- Carlsbad Vlilage Drlve, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at x prior to the public hearing. CASE NAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE PUBLISH: Apfil2.2004 CTP(OFCA.RLSBAD CIM COUNCIL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION rm-- '-' -1 CN 7863 Apr 1,2004. I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, to consider a request to adopt a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section 21.44.020(b)(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code changing the parking rate for “gyms and health spas”; and a to approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section II, Chapter 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual changing the parking rate for “self-improvement services,” and amend Section 21.35.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to reference the amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. 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 and after April 9, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637. If you challenge the Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Code Amendments and/or Local Coastal Program Amendments 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: ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-1 O/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 CASE NAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT PUBLISH: April 2, 2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION From: Isabel le Pau Isen To: legalads@thecoastnews.com Date: 3/29/04 4:54PM Subject: Public Hearing - Gyms and Health Spas Parking Rate Amendment Aaron: Please publish the attached Notice of Public Hearing for the Gyms and Health Spas Parking Rate Amendment. Please publish this ad in the Thursday, April 1, 2004 newspaper. This will be a 1/8 page ad with City seal and border. Thank you. Isabelle Paulsen, CMC Deputy Clerk City of Carlsbad City ClerklRecords Management ipaul@ci.carlsbad.ca.us From: Isabelle Paulsen To: kpeczel i anctimes. com Date: 3/29/04 4:49PM Subject: Public Hearing - Gyms and Health Spas Parking Rate Amendment Karen: Please publish the attached Notice of Public Hearing for the Gyms and Health Spas Parking Rate Amendment. Please publish this ad in the Friday, April 2, 2004 newspaper. This will be a 1/8 page ad with City seal and border Thank you. Isabelle Paulsen, CMC Deputy Clerk City of Carlsbad City ClerWRecords Management ipaul@ci.carlsbad.ca.us cc: Bobbie Hoder; Jennifer Coon; Val Dinsmore From: legalads <legalads@thecoastnews.com> To: Isabelle Paulsen <ipaul@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 3/29/04 5:07PM Subject: Re: Public Hearing - Gyms and Health Spas Parking Rate Amendment on 3/29/04 554 PM, Isabelle Paulsen at ipaul@ci.carlsbad.ca.us wrote: > Aaron: > Please publish the attached Notice of Public Hearing for the Gyms and Health > Spas Parking Rate Amendment. > Please publish this ad in the Thursday, April 1, 2004 newspaper. > This will be a 1/8 page ad with City seal and border. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > Isabelle Paulsen, CMC > Deputy Clerk > City of Carlsbad > City ClerWRecords Management > ipaul@ci.carlsbad.ca.us > > > > Thank you Isabelle! It was a pleasure meeting you last week. Aaron J. Buttress ClassifiedlLegal Sales The Coast News -- 760-436-9737 xt#lO7 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template frr 5: CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST 701 ENClNlTAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE . ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD P U B L I C W 0 RKS/CO M M U N I TY SERVl CES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER JENNIFER COON 03/16/2004 AWERYB Address Labels SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLECITOS WATER DlST 201 VALLECITOS DE OR0 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SANDIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER MICHAEL LONDON PUREFITNESS STE F 501 W BROADWAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 I. P. U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUT H 0 R I TY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT STEVE PIRATO JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC STE A 5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 Laser 5160@ Smooth Feed SheetsTM ' WENDY WESTBERG STE 370 26440 LA ALAMEDA MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TED OWEN 5934 PRIESTLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CALTRANS DISTRICT 11 BILL FIGGE MAIL ST 50 P 0 BOX 85406 SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406 U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE JOHN MARTIN 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD CARLSBAD CA 92009- BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RONALD M JAEGER 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 Shipping Labels RANCHO CARLSBAD HOA RUSS KOHL 5200 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ANTHONY & DICKY BONS 25709 HILLCREST AV ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650 REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG PO BOX 92007 LOSANGELES CA 90009 BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8 BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING STE 2450 980 NINTH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 Laser 5163@ Smooth Feed SheetsTM . CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK SUPERINTENDENT 1901 SPINNAKER DR SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER PO BOX 271 1 LOSANGELES CA 90053 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR STE 350 901 MARKETST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAIRMAN 722 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON DC 20006 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STE 400 611 RYAN PLAZA DR ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005 DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV P 0 BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460 DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES RM 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD P 0 BOX 944246 1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 450 GOLDEN GATE AV SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 110 WEST A ST DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RM 700 SANDIEGO CA 92101 Shipping Labels Laser 5163@ DEPARTMENT 0 F TRANS PO RTATlO N RM 5504 1120 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PO BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO CA 93044 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION & DEVMT COMMISSION BILL TRAVIS STE 2600 50 CALIFORNIA ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704 U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT STE RM W 1834 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY STE W-2605 SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1888 Shipping Labeis MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR 350 GOLDEN SHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN OCRM,55MC4 N/ORM - 3 1305 EAST-WEST HWY SILVER SPRING MD 20910 STATE LANDS COMMISSION DWIGHT SANDERS STE 1005 100 HOWE AV SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 MID-PACIFIC REGION U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LILY ALYEA STE 702 333 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197 Laser 5163@ .Smooth Feed SheetsTM ' USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT 41 69 430 "G" ST DAVIS CA 95616 CITY OF ENClNlTAS COMDEV DEPT 505 S VULCAN AV ENClNlTAS CA 92024 SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR GARY GALLEGOS STE 800 1ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CYRIUMARY GIBSON 12 142 ARGYLE DR LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702 LANIKAI LANE PARK SHARP SPACE3 6550 PONTO DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 s h i p p i n g La be Is WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD PO BOX 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95801 TABATA FARMS PO BOX 1338 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338 LESLIE ESPOSITO 1893 AMELFI DR ENClNlTAS CA 92024 LAKESHORE GARDENS TOM BENSON 7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOHN LAMB 1446 DEVLIN DR LOSANGELES CA 90069 Laser 5163@ . Smooth Feed Sheets7M SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC KIM BLESSANT 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101- COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN ART DANELL RM 335 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT JAON VOKAC 5201 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 STE 8-5 FLOYD ASHBY 416 LA COSTA AV ENClNlTAS CA 92024 GEORGE BOLTON 6583 BLACKRAIL RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 STATE LANDS COMMISSION MARY GRIGGS STE 100 S 100 HOWE AV SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 PERRY A LAMB 890 MERE POINT RD BRUNSWICK ME 04011 COASTAL CONSERVANCY RICHARD RETECKI STE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DALEIDONNA SCHREIBER 7163 ARGONAUTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES STE 1311 1416 9TH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 AVERY@ Shipping Labels Laser 5163@ ,Smooth Feed SheetsTM SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS NAN VALERIO STE 800 401 “B” STREET SAN DlEGO CA 92101 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEBBIE FOUNTAIN LENNAR HOMES CH RlSTl N E ZORTMAN STE 320 5780 FLEET ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-4702 AWERY@ Shipping Labels Laser 5163@ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a request to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section 21.44.020(b)(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code changing the parking rate for “gyms and health spas”; and a to approve a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Section II, Chapter 6 of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual changing the parking rate for “self-improvement services,” and amend Section 21.35.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to reference the amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. 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 and after [DATE]. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637. If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendments and/or Local Coastal Program Amendments in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-1 O/ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 CASE NAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT PUBLISH: [DATE] CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PLEASE PUBLISH IN TWO PAPERS. THANK YOU. Gyms & Health Spas Parking Rate Gyms & Health Spas Parking Rate AmendmentAmendmentJack Henthorn & AssociatesJack Henthorn & Associates Why Are There No FullWhy Are There No Full--Size, Upscale Size, Upscale Fitness Facilities in Carlsbad?Fitness Facilities in Carlsbad?1.1.The restrictive parking requirement deters The restrictive parking requirement deters interest in locating within the Cityinterest in locating within the City!!Current parking requirement = 1 space/35 sfCurrent parking requirement = 1 space/35 sf Why Are There No FullWhy Are There No Full--Size, Upscale Size, Upscale Fitness Facilities in Carlsbad?Fitness Facilities in Carlsbad?2.2.Facilities cannot feasibly meet the parking Facilities cannot feasibly meet the parking standardstandard!!A 3,500 sf facility would require 100 parking A 3,500 sf facility would require 100 parking stalls based on the current standardstalls based on the current standard!!A 40,000 sf fitness center would need 1,143 A 40,000 sf fitness center would need 1,143 spaces spaces !!1,143 spaces would require 10.51,143 spaces would require 10.5--acres of acres of land devoted strictly to parkingland devoted strictly to parking Fitness Facility Fitness Facility Parking Rate SurveyParking Rate SurveyPrepared by:Prepared by:RBF ConsultingRBF Consulting MethodologyMethodology""Parking Rate SurveyParking Rate Survey""19 Municipalities in California19 Municipalities in California""5 in North San Diego County5 in North San Diego County""Parking Rates Range from 1/35 sf to 1/250 sfParking Rates Range from 1/35 sf to 1/250 sf""Existing Parking Demand SurveyExisting Parking Demand Survey""Recommendation for Carlsbad Parking RateRecommendation for Carlsbad Parking Rate Parking Requirement Parking Requirement ComparisonComparison2502501/200 sf1/200 sfSolana BeachSolana BeachSpaces for a 50,000 Spaces for a 50,000 sf Facilitysf FacilityRateRateLocationLocation1,4301,4301/35 sf1/35 sfCarlsbadCarlsbad2002001/250 sf1/250 sfSan MarcosSan Marcos2002001/250 sf1/250 sfOceansideOceanside1,0001,0001/50 sf1/50 sfVistaVista5005001/100 sf1/100 sfEncinitasEncinitas Parking Demand SurveyParking Demand Survey""Five Locations in North San Diego CountyFive Locations in North San Diego County""Equivalent Size and AmenitiesEquivalent Size and Amenities""Two Weekdays and One Weekend DayTwo Weekdays and One Weekend Day""Weekday: 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.Weekday: 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.""Monday & ThursdayMonday & Thursday""Saturday: 8:00 to 10:00 a.m.Saturday: 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. Survey SummarySurvey Summary""LA Fitness Encinitas LA Fitness Encinitas ––1 space / 226 sf1 space / 226 sf""LA Fitness Vista LA Fitness Vista ––1 space / 217 sf1 space / 217 sf""Elite Fitness Carlsbad Elite Fitness Carlsbad ––1 space/ 204 sf1 space/ 204 sf""24 Hour Sport 24 Hour Sport ––1 space / 171 sf1 space / 171 sf""24 Hour Fitness 24 Hour Fitness ––1 space / 228 sf1 space / 228 sfITE Parking Generation Rate = 1 space / 230 sfITE Parking Generation Rate = 1 space / 230 sf RecommendationRecommendationRevise City of Carlsbad Parking Code fromRevise City of Carlsbad Parking Code from1 space per 35 square feet, to 1 space per 2001 space per 35 square feet, to 1 space per 200square feet (equivalent to 5 spaces per 1,000square feet (equivalent to 5 spaces per 1,000square feet).square feet). Benefits Resulting From the ZCABenefits Resulting From the ZCA""Allows comprehensive fitness services to locate Allows comprehensive fitness services to locate close to employment and residential areas. This close to employment and residential areas. This reduces travel times and distances resulting in reduces travel times and distances resulting in less air pollution. less air pollution. ""Retains sales revenue that is currently flowing Retains sales revenue that is currently flowing into surrounding communities.into surrounding communities. Benefits Resulting From the ZCABenefits Resulting From the ZCA""Creates new business opportunities within Creates new business opportunities within Carlsbad for fitness centers and related activities.Carlsbad for fitness centers and related activities.""Increases opportunity to upgrade underutilized Increases opportunity to upgrade underutilized sites.sites.""Creates opportunity for growth of existing Creates opportunity for growth of existing fitness facilities.fitness facilities. Sponsor Requests the City Council’s Sponsor Requests the City Council’s Support of the Proposed Zone Code Support of the Proposed Zone Code AmendmentAmendment""Current standard = 1 space/35 sq ft of gfaCurrent standard = 1 space/35 sq ft of gfa""Proposed standard = 1 space/200 sq ft of gfaProposed standard = 1 space/200 sq ft of gfa Gyms & Health Spas Parking Rate Gyms & Health Spas Parking Rate AmendmentAmendmentJack Henthorn & AssociatesJack Henthorn & Associates Gymnasium Based StandardGymnasium Based Standard""Public Assembly Based (Exhibition)Public Assembly Based (Exhibition)""Occupancy Load BasisOccupancy Load Basis""1 space/5 seats1 space/5 seats""1 seat = 7 square feet1 seat = 7 square feet""1 space = 35 square feet1 space = 35 square feet Gyms & Health Spas Parking Rate AmendmentZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03 Proposal•Applicant: PureFitness•Amend parking standard for “Gyms & Health Spas”:From: 1 space/35 square feetTo: 1 space/200square feet What’s Involved•Zoning Ordinance & LCP Amendment•Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual Amendment Planning Commission & Design Review Board Approval•March 3, 2004 - Planning Commission & Design Review Board joint hearing•Planning Commission:Recommended Approval of ZCA & LCPA•Design Review Board:Recommend Approval of LCPA (Village) Request•City Council:Adoption of project Negative DeclarationApproval of ZCA/LCPA Request•Housing and Redevelopment Commission:Adoption of project Negative DeclarationApproval of LCPA (Village MP) Analysis•Current standard (1 space/35 sq.ft.)- established 1986- does not reflect current parking demand ITE Parking Generation Data•Average parking demand of health clubs:1 space/229square feet Parking Study•5 health clubs in N. SD County•Concluded average parking demand:1 space/230square feet Recommended Parking Standard•Parking study recommends 10% increaseConservativeAccount for circulating vehicles•Proposed standard:1 space/200square feet= 15% increaseslightly more conservative Other Jurisdictions•Parking standards for health clubs range:From: 1 space/100 square feetTo: 1 space/300 square feetMajority: 1 space/200square feet•Proposed standard consistent with other jurisdictions Recommended Parking Standard•Based on:ITE DataParking StudyOther jurisdiction’s standards1 space/200square feet is appropriate Village Master Plan•“Self-Improvement Services” category includes: health spas business & professional schoolsaerobic/dance/music/martial arts studios•Uses similar to “gyms & health spas”•Except “business & professional schools” Self-Improvement Services•Many jurisdictions require same parking standard•Staff recommends changing parking standard for “self-improvement services”:From: 1 space/35 square feetTo:1 space/200square feet Business & Professional Schools•List separately•Change parking standard to match ZC standard for “vocational schools”:1 space/employee+ 1 space/each 3 studentswith adequate loading & unloading Summary•Request City Council:Approve ZCA & LCPAAmend parking rate for “Gyms & Health Spas”Amend V-R zone chapter Summary•Request Housing & Redevelopment Commission:Approval of LCPAAmend Village MP changing parking rate for: “Self-Improvement Services” “Business & Professional Schools” Gyms & Health Spas Parking Rate AmendmentZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10ZCA 04-02/LCPA 04-03