HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 47911
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. 4791
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE ADDITION OF A PUMP ISLAND AT THE EXISTING
GAS STATION, A 19,371 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO
THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE, INCLUDING TWO NEW
ROOF-MOUNTED HVAC UNITS, AND THE ADDITION OF
55 PARKING SPACES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN ARMADA DRIVE
AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-03tC)KDP 97-05(A)
WHEREAS, Design Development Group, “Developer”, has tiled a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder June 27, 1995, in the City of Cat&bad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of July, 2000, 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, 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:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct
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 Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated June 26, 2000, and “PII” dated June 20, 2000,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
C.
d.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 4791 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 f
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
d&&e
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairp&on
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
I/ PC RBSO NO. 4791 -3-
city of Cdsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, between
Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Norte, City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California
Project Description: Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit
Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline pump island at the
existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to
the existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted
HVAC units, and the addition of 55 parking spaces, all within the
existing developed area of the Costco property.
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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on tile in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED: June 26,200O
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(A)/CUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING EXPANSION
PUBLISH DATE: June 26.2000
MICHAEL J. HOtiMItiER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008.7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602.6559 69
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
DATE: June 20.2000
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Costco Gas Station/Buildine Exuansion
APPLICANT: Design Develoument Grow
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7625 Havenhurst Ave.. Suite 12A. Van Nuys, CA 91406 818-782-6484
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 3 1, 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for a Site Develoument Plan Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit Amendment, and Coastal Develoument Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a
gasoline muno island at the existing Costco gasoline station. a 19.371 square foot expansion to
the existing Costco warehouse. including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition
of 55 parking suaces, all within the existing developed area of the Costco orouerty.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning !xl Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems cl Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water
q Air Quality
0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[7 Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION. -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
cl
0
El
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
--- ~-I , /
Planner Signature Date
h/ZzlOS
Date
Rev.03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
-
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would othetwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNMG. Would the proposal:.
=)
b)
Cl
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans 01
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
=)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
=)
W
C)
4
e)
cl
g)
h)
i)
. _ expose people to potential impact.5 involving:
Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Seismicgroundshakiig?(#l:Pgs 5.1-l -5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-l - 51.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15)
N. 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-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5,.2-l 1)
5
Potentially Significant
Impact
III
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
El
q
B
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
UllkSS
Mitigation
incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B q ’
q
q q
B q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
cl
B 0
q
El
q
B
q
q
q
No
Impact
Rev. 03128196
- Issues (and Supporting Inform&n Sources)
8)
h)
0
Changes in the atnount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l _ 5.,2-l 1)
Changes in currents, or the course 01 direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations 01
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11)
Altered direction or mte of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5~2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
=)
b)
Cl
4
Violate any air quality standard 01 contribute to an
existing 01 projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, 01 temperature, 01 cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. Would the
=I
b)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle hips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
tunes OI dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farmequipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access OI access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site OI off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards 01 barriers for pedestrians OT bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-I - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
q
-cl
0
q
q
q
[XI
q
0
q
IXI
cl
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q q IXI
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-I - 5.4-24)
q q [XI
q q [XI
6 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Si@icant
IlllpaCt
Potentially Significant
Ullless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
cl
0”
q
q
q
cl
q
cl
0
q
q
cl
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Informa~on Sources)
4
e)
VIII.
=I
b)
C)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-j & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
=)
b)
C)
4
=)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicalsorradiation)?(#l:Pgs5.1O.l-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-j)
Increase fxe hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
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)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITIES 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 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
-~ Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Ullless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated q q q [xI
-Cl q q [XI
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B q
El
q q Ix1
q q [XI
q q El
q q El
q q [XI
q q IXI
q q IXI
q q El
q q !z
q q [XI
q q
El El
q El q
q q ElKI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Inform&n Sources)
b)
C)
4
e)
cl
9)
XIII.
4
9
Cl
XIV.
=)
b)
4
4
=)
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 _
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstw.ted negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-I - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l _ 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opporhmities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
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
Potentially SignifmM
1IllpCt
q .U
q
El q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
-Potentially
Significant UllkSS
Mitigation Incorporated q q
El
El
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q q
q
El q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Infonnatlon Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
U”kS Impact _
Mifigatmn
b)
C)
XVII.
Incorporated
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulativelv considerable? q q q IEI
(“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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, •I 0
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Cl IXI
Earlier analysis of the Costco site has been conducted on numerous occasions. The earliest
analysis was through the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts associated with buildout of the City’s
General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Next was the Conditional
Negative Declaration for the original Price Club store (SDP 90-05), which reviewed the potential
impacts of the development of the Price Club site (now known as Costco) with a 121,000 square
foot commercial retail and warehouse building and associated parking, landscaping and
improvements. The most recent environmental documentation for the site was the Negative
Declaration for the PriceCostco Gasoline State (SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A), which reviewed
the potential impacts of the construction and operation of a members-only, automated gasoline
station within the developed Costco parking lot.
Therefore, the project’s potential impacts on land use and planning, population and housing,
geology, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, cultural resources and
recreation have been previously analyzed in the earlier environmental analysis. The following
discussion deals with the potential impacts to those areas not previously analyzed, including a
discussion on air quality and transportation/circulation.
Rev. 03/2X196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline
pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to the
existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition of 55
parking spaces, on property located south of Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and
Paseo de1 Norte.
All proposed improvements fit within the existing developed portions of the Costco site and no
other revisions or expansions are proposed. The additional traffic generated by the project, as
analyzed by the City’s Engineering Department, will not impact to the levels of service of the
surrounding roadways and key intersections to an unacceptable level, The site remains
overparked by 238 parking spaces, therefore no adverse impacts to parking will occur.
Following is a discussion of potential impacts not previously analyzed, as well as more detailed
discussions regarding air quality and transportation/circulation.
WATER/UTILITIES
The project will generate an additional need for water service and other utilities, due to the
increase in warehouse and gas station square footage. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District
staff has reviewed the proposal and found no issues with the proposed increase or 22,000 gallons
per day. In addition, the project is conditioned that building permits will not be issued unless the
District certifies that adequate water and sewer facilities are available to the project. With regard
to other facilities, the City Engineering Department found that all existing facilities serving the
Costco site are adequate to accommodate the proposed expansion. The project must also pay a
Public Facilities Fee to offset its impacts on these existing public facilities. Given the above, no
impacts to water or other utilities will occur.
HAZARDS
The proposed construction activities will be monitored and controlled through standard practices
of the Carlsbad Building, Fire and Engineering Departments, including but not limited to:
providing for safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation through the site during
construction, precluding the storage of hazardous materials on site without Fire Department
approval, and maintaining satisfactory fire control measures at all times. Therefore, the proposed
Costco expansion project will not cause any significant adverse impacts with regard to hazards.
There will likely be a short-term increase in noise levels during construction, however the project
must conform to the City’s regulations regarding construction noise as contained in Section
8.48.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Therefore the impacts are considered to be
insignificant in nature.
AESTHETICS
The proposed expansions to the warehouse building and gas station canopy will match the
existing structures in materials, colors, and architecture. The expansions will not significantly
increase the project’s visibility from Palomar Airport Road and the rotated and redesigned
10 Rev. 03/28/96
receiving area will greatlyimprove the views of the project from the south. No adverse impacts
due to aesthetics should occur.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sultin, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the 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 build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as.proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control, These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
11 Rev. 03128196
develop alternative modesof transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 602-4623.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Conditional Negative Declaration for the Price Club - SDP 90-05, dated February 28,
1991.
12 Rev. 03128196