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