Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4453ll 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4453 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATED MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF 12 AIR CONDITIONTNG UNITS WITH EQUIPMENT SCREENS ON THE ROOF OF THE COSTCO STORE LOCATED AT 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 CASE NAME: COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 UNITS lo ll WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale, “Developer”, has filed a verified a 11 12 13 14 15 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, “Owner”, as Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 17542 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County June 27,1995 16 WHEREAS, a CEQA document was prepared in conjunction with said p 17 (“the Property”); and l8 11 and 19 II 20 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of Janua 21 I1 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 22 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 23 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered i 24 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by 25 11 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 26 II NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 27 28 Commission as follows: ll A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 0 0 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 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, acc Exhibit “ND” dated December 4, 1998, and “PII” dated November attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacl identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monii Reporting Program, attached hereto, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVr project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning COI finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effi environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative D’ and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in a( with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidt the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration re independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures G alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Sc Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project. Conditions: 1. The developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Wholesale - HVAC Roof Units Project Mitigation Monitoring and R Program, dated November 24,1998. 2. Condition number 4. C) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3205 Mitigated Negative Declaration is amended to read as follows: “Rooftop equipment screens shall have an EIFS (Dryvit) finish equivalel manufacturer sandpebble texture and be beige in color as depicted on the sample on file in the Planning Department so as to blend in with the building surface texture and color. Should the existing Site Developml conditions allow the building or roof color to be changed, the color of the eq screens shall also be changed to be a compatible color to the satisfactio Planning Director.” ... ... PC RES0 NO. 4453 -2- e e 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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January 199 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons NOES: I ABSENT: I ~ ABSTAIN: ~ n CAFUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4453 -3- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: 95 1 Palomar Airport Road Project Description: A Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Developme Permit to allow the placement of 12 air conditioning units wil equipment screens on the roof of the existing Costco St0 building. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, tE initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but ( revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before tl proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid tE effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environme would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Ci that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for th. action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in th Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from th public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 2 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Plannin Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4446. DATED: December 4, 1998 ; CASENO: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 CASE NAME: Costco Wholesale - HVAC Roof Units PUBLISH DATE: December 4, 1998 ”~ MICHAEL J. HOrZMgLER Planning Director ll.\ . =cas Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-1161- 0 .. e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98- DATE: November 24. IS BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Costco Wholesale - HVAC Roof Units 2. APPLICANT: Mulvanny Partnership - Andrew Croasdell 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 11820 Northup Way, Suite E3( Bellevue, WA 98005: (425) 822-0444 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 17.1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Site Development Plan Amendment and a Coastal Developmc Permit to allow the placement of 12 air conditioning. units with equipment screens on the roof the existing. Costco building located at 95 1 Palomar Airport Road. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proje involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp: Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning W TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water [7 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources [XI Air Quality 0 Noise c] Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. c] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATII DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. IXI I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlit document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitigatc Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to 1 addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl. environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment, Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voide or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01 including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. k x //- 30 -5% Planner Signature Date I +/q B Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followil pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that E adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea( question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptc general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that E effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa~ effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement ( Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th. the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing : EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a] those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate1 may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includil but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a1 the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h8 not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, ’ deterrnine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinc significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or &vide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 17 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs ((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 - 0 o 0 0 5.1-15) 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 0 0 1 1) 5 Less Than No Significant Impa Impact 0 ix 0 IXI 0 w 0 [XI o [XI o w o w O w 0 [XI 0 w 0 IXI o w o [XI o [XI o w 0 [XI o w 0 IXI o rn Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 1 1) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- w 1 - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) 0 any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 o 17 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Irnpa Ix 1x IXI w w [XI €3 0 IXI w 1xI 0 !XI w w [XI IXI IXI Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and proposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 O inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 0 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0 the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 1 - 5.13-9) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fie hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 O X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0 0 1 - 5.9-15) 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Less Than Nc Significant Imp: Impact 0 €3 0 E3 0 E o E o [XI 0 IXI 0 €2 0 w o El 0 Ix1 0 [XI 0 IxI 0 El 0 [XI 0 w 0 El 0 [XI 0 [XI Rev. 03128196 0 8 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impe Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 [x 0 0 0 Ix XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 IXI facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) cl 0 0 w d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 (XI n n n rn U U U lL2J g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 -5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10) 10) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 8 0 17 [XI 0 cl 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 w 0 0 0 [XI 0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El 0 cl €4 0 0 El 0 0 El Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 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? 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? w 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impa Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 [x 0 0 C 0 0 [XI 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES . Earlier analysis of the existing Costco project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (ME 93-01) as well as the Conditional Negative Declaration dated February 28, 1991 for the Gene Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development P1; Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision approved for I original project. The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. The project site developed with a Costco store and gas station. This proposal to add rooftop air conditioners a1 equipment screening to the existing building is consistent with the applicable portions of t General Plan and is within the scope of MEIR 93-01. The Conditional Negative Declaratit approved for the project included the following mitigation measure: “No roof equipment 0th than skylights shall be permitted as is shown on the project plans because of the difficulty screening equipment from residences to the south and from view of travelers on Palor Airport Road.” Existing site conditions and proposed equipment screens will mitigate the vis1 impact of the roof top equipment. The additional potential significant aesthetic impact due this development that was not analyzed in the MEIR will be mitigated by the additior mitigation measure listed in this document and incorporated into the project design. Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Costco Wholesale HVAC Roof Units project is a proposal to allow the placement of 12 ; conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the existing Costco building located 95 1 Palomar Airport Road. No other site improvements are proposed. The air conditioning un are approximately 10 feet long, 7 feet wide and 4 feet 8 inches high. The proposed equipmc screen would be attached to the units. The screen will be made of ABS and include an E11 (dryvit) finish that will be textured and colored to blend in with the roof top and the existi building parapet. The equipment screen angles down away from the unit. Based on the height the top of the units, the building parapet height in relation to the roof elevation at each unit tl air conditioners and screening will not be visible except at elevations higher than the ro elevation. The design, materials and color of the proposed equipment screens will mitigate tl visual impact of the air conditioning units by providing adequate screening thereby not creating significant aesthetic impact. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion V. a) Air Quality The implementation of projects that are within the scope of and consistent with the updated 15 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mi traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are 1 major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since 1 San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considel cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in 1 updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a varic of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisic for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measu to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Dema Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mi transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is mark “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, t preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by C: Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for , quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects wit1 the scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no furth environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl Planning Department. The proposed project does not involve the generation of additional vehic trips that would have related air quality impacts. VI. a) TransportatiodCirculation The implementation of projects within the scope of and consistent with the updated 19’ General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb: Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectio~ are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerol mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measur to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develc alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestri; 12 Rev. 03/28/96 e Q linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wh adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highw onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. 1 project does not include the generation of additonal vehicle trips only the installation of roof t air conditioning units and equipment screens. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of t failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefo: the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because t recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includ a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement 1 Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master E1 including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts required. XIII. b) Aesthetics Approval of the original Costco project included the adoption of a Conditional Negati Declaration that included measures to mitigate any aesthetic impacts that development on the si could create. One of the mitigation measures was as follows: ‘‘No roof equipment other th. skylights shall be permitted as is shown on the project plans because of the difficulty : screening equipment from residences to the south and from view of travelers on Palomar Airpo Road.” Today the landscaped berm along the site’s Palomar Airport Road frontage screens tl majority of views to the site from persons in vehicles using Palomar Airport Road. The propost roof screening design will screen any view of the roof equipment that may be seen from persol using Palomar Airport Road. Residential units south of the Costco store will still have views ; the roof top as will development north of Palomar Airport Road because of the topography t this area. The proposed roof equipment screens will utilize materials to simulate the material an color of the building so as to blend in with the project design as much as possible thereb mitigating any potential aesthetic impact of placing equipment on the roof of the Costc building. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 e * 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 920( (760) 438-1161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upd: (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Conditional Negative Declaration for the Price Club (GPA 90-1LCPA 90-2/ZC 90-1/SDP 9 YCUP 90-3/HDP 90-9/MS 837), dated February 28, 1991, City of Carlsbad Planni Department. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 e e LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Rooftop equipment screens shall have an EIFS (Dryvit) finish equivalent to 1 manufacturer sandpebble texture and be beige in color as depicted on the material sam] on file in the Planning Department so as to blend in with the existing building surf: texture and color. Should the existing Site Development Plan conditions allow t building or roof color to be changed, the color of the equipment screens shall also changed to be a compatible color to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOIUNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 15 Rev. 03/28/96 --. - -. " "I .. _." "-..- - __ -.I- uu+vNuY+ .anuulm,la d@ 'p3o-ga I.10N 1 4: 16 cl@b CFIKLS~IRU COMM DE FAX NU. 4313 Y M 00 r, ~i r" ANT CnNr.WEUCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE MOVE MITIGATmG MEASURES -4N CONCUR WlTH TEE ADDIXON OF THESE ME4SURES TO THE PROSECT. (//w/qe Date Ad- Signature -6- @?St -4 1 a d 00 Q) 3 n a n B n a v) c?i fx W m 2 3 z W LL 0 \ v) 0 Q) -I v) C 3 0 c, .- w- 2 2 > I a, tu v) a, 0 I - - z- 8 c, u) 0 0 w 2 Z a !- x 2 a 0; n Cj .. W W z 5 9 n t Z 0 0 lii I- s d 2 > 0 fx a $ZA .E+ € mcn .- -ma m uo -00 3cl €S 2 9 .o Q & .5 z t;Fa g €5 1- t: '5 20 m-E .g .P a, 5 .= E LE2 p c '5 F&m ass m2 E 5 *n 5 a)= c SO 0 mg 0 .P a, az m 5 m= .- a z uzm 0E m 0 u- t; 00 24 gj QajE "%E" b g .- %E? . a.Fmq $.G!jZ mrc 30 EFSC ,a, clz 0 Eo -;;moa m "0 .- ms .e m am sa - mag E5UO 5 am L2 qjF3 SS30 gomm -5EmW s s a,K a g E.2 - '3 a,%% - G X .PO .5 $ fl - Q.G m - 0 F$F =+ .& Q- L +x s 000 'E u x -0- om% S .E 0 s e am mo F a,"ac\1 &.E m 8 sco3 0.5 c n Lcoii==c"co .= E r;; a, c m- c a,." I-zsiZ E v) 2 2 t 0 .- -0% $E >u E gg - t OY, $6 ZE m p5 u) .- 8-t: E gkz 2; a .- L E .r 0 c .- 5% 22 .- Y 5q a r-oa,a,a,a,a,mu) cnr,rrrr 8 a, .E .- Km "" i= a, gss c 5 a.2 2 2 S%Q 6 >%?i rzlq- L OK ??$?€.Em 0 Wa,v)a nm .C v) qE mQ-----m Ei5 $6.22 P, 0 LL$ZQQLEj c L Q, my" Cm 3 J Q1v) og!%oo.v, 3 p20 g 225 E a, 2 0% a, .- z m cEv)Q)3a,ov)Y a, mnv)$o= z g2:u) an% a, 0 v) 0.G.G ot= 4- OOCUQ)L~v c-.= &z.r!:m 6y.g ._ wn% 0 ra-v C r~E~~~~a,~ @ >-L- c m3a a,%z CQ 0 z -?nz$zQ -oaa, ._ v) 3 a= 0 QT~' CI m v)mDQ'tg'9 0 OL camm E.g oa u)u)u)ag i 0-3 .- Qm.4n~A&.5,G 2i.L~gY-D.n-J E%s 2 a, 0-0 x'"'5 D0-k .- CnCn-IEa Q ~,Q.G a, a,~ Q) on 2 a !. I .c a 0- .- - wt f x!