Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-02; City Council; 15079; Costco Wholesale HVAC Roof Units- . . p 2 - - ! 13 CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEMA BILL TITLE- -’ COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 I- DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. CITY MGRW RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 4‘9 c ?b APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, SDP 90-05(D) and CDP 98-34. ITEM EXPLANATION: On January 20, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of the Costco Wholesale HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) Roof Units project, which is proposed for property located at 951 Palomar Airport Road. The project site is located in the Coastal Zone as well as Local Facilities Management Zone 5. The applications propose the placement of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the existing Costco Store building. The store presently has no air conditioning. A condition of the May 21, 1991, approval of the original project prohibited roof equipment other than skylights to mitigate any aesthetic impacts that development on the site could create. The Planning Commission and staff have evaluated the proposal and are recommending that based on the location and size of the equipment in addition to the color and materials for the proposed equipment screens no significant aesthetic impact will be created by this proposal. The following three actions are necessary: 1) Revise the prior environmental document and mitigation monitoring and reporting program; 2) amend an existing condition of the original Site Development Plan; and 3) approve a Coastal Development Permit. The project is subject to the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone Urgency Ordinance which requires that the City Council have final review and approval of all commercial projects that would otherwise have received final approval from the Planning Commission around the LEGOLANDKarlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Planning Commission amended the proposed mitigation measure to require that should the building or roof color be changed the color of the equipment screens will also be changed to be a compatible color. No public testimony was provided at the Planning Commission hearing. The project as designed complies with all applicable plans, ordinances and policies. More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on December 4, 1998 and is recommended for approval. The initial study (EIA-Part II) prepared in conjunction with this project determined that potentially significant aesthetic impacts could be created by the placement of equipment on the roof of the building. The proposed roof equipment screens will utilize materials to simulate the material and color of the building. This will blend the equipment screens in with the project design as much as possible thereby mitigating any potential aesthetic impact. The proposed mitigation measure addresses the design, material, and color of the proposed equipment screens FISCAL IMPACT: All public facilities to serve this development are in place. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA tJlLL NO. vi,014 EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. “i9 c 76 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4453, 4454, and 4455 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 20, 1999 5. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 20, 1999. 1 ; ‘I 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. 99-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SDP 90-05(D) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 98-34 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF 12 AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WITH EQUIPMENT SCREENS ON THE ROOF OF THE COSTCO STORE BUILDING LOCATED AT 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 CASE NAME: COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on January 20, 1999, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the Costco Store, and adopted Resolutions 4453, 4454, and 4455 recommending to the City Council that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on 2 nd dayof March , 1999, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to SDP 90-05(D) and CDP 98-34; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the project and it was determined that with the implementation of the required mitigation measure a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be issued for the project, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site 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 Development Plan Amendment SDP 90-05(D) and Coastal Development Permit CDP 98-34 is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4453, 4454 and 4455 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The Provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: “NOTICE TO APPLICANT” “The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not latter than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.” PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 2nd day of March 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, Kulchin & Hall NOES: None /) Al-TEST: (SEAL) -2- EXHIBIT 2 -\ V COSTCO WHOLESALE SDP 90=05(D)/CDP 98-34 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 3 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 CONDITIONING 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 UNITS CASE NO,: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, “Owner”, described 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 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a CEQA document was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of January, 1999, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I 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 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibit “ND” dated December 4, 1998, and “PII” dated November 24, 1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have 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. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project. Conditions: 1. The developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Costco Wholesale - HVAC Roof Units Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated November 24,1998. 2. Condition number 4. C) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3205 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is amended to read as follows: “Rooftop equipment screens shall have an EIFS (Dryvit) finish equivalent to the manufacturer sandpebble texture and be beige in color as depicted on the material sample on file in the Planning Department so as to blend in with the existing building surface texture and color. Should the existing Site Development Plan conditions allow the building or roof color to be changed, the color of the equipment screens shall also be changed to be a compatible color to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.” PC RESO NO. 4453 -2- 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compaq L’Heureux, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director 8 PC RESO NO. 4453 -3- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: 95 1 Palomar Airport Road Project Description: A Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit to allow the placement of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the existing Costco Store building. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. 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 Don Neu in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 16 1, extension 4446. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: December 4,1998 SDP 90-05(D)lCDP 98-34 Costco Wholesale - HVAC Roof Units December 4,1998 Planning Director as Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 * (760) 438-116 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 DATE: November 24. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Costco Who esale - HVAC Roof Units 1 2. APPLICANT: Mulvanny Partnership - Andrew Croasdell 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1183.0 Northup Wav. Suite E300, Bellevue. WA 98005: (425) 822-0444 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 17.1998 5. $h Q i i 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. q Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems q Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics cl Water cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources H Air Quality 0 Noise cl Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) cl cl cl [XI 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. An Mitigated 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 Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Date 2 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 fl 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 I. l 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. l 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 otherwise be determined significant. I3 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. 4 b) c) 4 e) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 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 land uses? (#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: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) b) 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) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or 4 b) cl d) e> f) !a h) 9 expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1.15) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 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 fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) 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-l - 5..2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl cl q cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Cl cl cl Less Than Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl cl 0 cl cl cl 17 cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl No Impact 1xI [XI El [XI El (XI lxl Ix] [XI Ix] lxl lx lxl El El lxl El [XI [XI 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) 4 4 f) g> h) 9 Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) 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-l - 5..2-11) Altered direction or rate 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-I - 5..2-11) 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- 1 - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a> b) 4 4 e> 0 !d proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl Cl cl cl cl IXI cl cl cl El cl 0 cl 0 cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 cl El q cl cl cl cl cl q cl cl cl cl cl 0 cl El Less Than Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl No Impact El El IXI El IXI El El Cl lx El El cl IXI lxl lzl la [XI IXI VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 6 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 4 b) c> 4 e) VIII. 4 b) c) 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) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 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-l -5.12.1-5 & 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-I - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 4 b) cl 4 4 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-l - 5.10.1-5) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-q 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 - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 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-l - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q 0 Cl q q q q q q q q q cl q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q 0 q q q q q q q q q q cl q Less Than Significant Impact q q cl q cl 0 q q cl q q q q q q q cl q No Impact El !xl IXI !z El El El [XI lxl [XI [XI El txl lxl IXI [XI IXI Ix] 16 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the 4 b) c) 4 d f) g) XIII. a> b) c> XIV. a> b) 4 d) 4 proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 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-l - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 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 demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-I - 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: a) W XVI. 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 opportunities? (#I :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl 0 cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated cl cl cl 0 Cl cl cl Cl cl 0 IXI q cl Cl cl cl cl cl cl Less Than Significant Impact cl cl cl 0 0 cl cl cl cl cl cl cl q cl cl 0 cl 0 0 No Impact IXI [XI [XI El El [xl El [XI El El cl IXI lx lxl lx lzl El El Ix1 8 Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 restict 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? Potentially Significant Impact cl cl Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated cl cl (XI cl 0 cl cl cl Ix] 9 /g Rev. 03128196 -. 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 (MEIR 93-01) as well as the Conditional Negative Declaration dated February 28, 1991 for the General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision approved for the original project. The MEIR is cited as source #l in the preceding checklist. The project site is developed with a Costco store and gas station. This proposal to add rooftop air conditioners and equipment screening to the existing building is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is within the scope of MEIR 93-01. The Conditional Negative Declaration approved for the project included the following mitigation measure: “No roof equipment other than skylights shall be permitted as is shown on the project plans because of the difficulty in screening equipment from residences to the south and from view of travelers on Palomar Airport Road.” Existing site conditions and proposed equipment screens will mitigate the visual impact of the roof top equipment. The additional potential significant aesthetic impact due to this development that was not analyzed in the MEIR will be mitigated by the additional mitigation measure listed in this document and incorporated into the project design. A Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. 10 Rev. 03128196 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT M NTAL SETTIN The Costco Wholesale HVAC Roof Units project is a proposal to allow the placement of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the existing Costco building located at 95 1 Palomar Airport Road. No other site improvements are proposed. The air conditioning units are approximately 10 feet long, 7 feet wide and 4 feet 8 inches high. The proposed equipment screen would be attached to the units. The screen will be made of ABS and include an EIFS (dryvit) finish that will be textured and colored to blend in with the roof top and the existing building parapet. The equipment screen angles down away from the unit. Based on the height at the top of the units, the building parapet height in relation to the roof elevation at each unit the air conditioners and screening will not be visible except at elevations higher than the roof elevation. The design, materials and color of the proposed equipment screens will mitigate the visual impact of the air conditioning units by providing adequate screening thereby not creating a significant aesthetic impact. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion V. a) Air Ouality The implementation of projects that are within the scope of and consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result in 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 sulfur, 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 buildout 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 buildout, 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. 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 within the scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. The proposed project does not involve the generation of additional vehicle trips that would have related air quality impacts. VI. a) TransportationKirculm The implementation of projects within the scope of and consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout 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 buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian $ / 12 Rev. 03/28/96 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 project does not include the generation of additonal vehicle trips only the installation of roof top air conditioning units and equipment screens. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout 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, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. XIII. b) Aesthetics Approval of the original Costco project included the adoption of a Conditional Negative Declaration that included measures to mitigate any aesthetic impacts that development on the site could create. One of the mitigation measures was as follows: “No roof equipment other than skylights shall be permitted as is shown on the project plans because of the difficulty in screening equipment from residences to the south and from view of travelers on Palomar Airport Road.” Today the landscaped berm along the site’s Palomar Airport Road frontage screens the majority of views to the site from persons in vehicles using Palomar Airport Road. The proposed roof screening design will screen any view of the roof equipment that may be seen from persons using Palomar Airport Road. Residential units south of the Costco store will still have views to the roof top as will development north of Palomar Airport Road because of the topography of this area. The proposed roof equipment screens will utilize materials to simulate the material and color of the building so as to blend in with the project design as much as possible thereby mitigating any potential aesthetic impact of placing equipment on the roof of the Costco building. 13 Rev. 03128196 III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-l 161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environme ta1 Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated Makh 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Conditional Negative Declaration for the Price Club (GPA 90-l/EPA 90-2/ZC 90-l/SDP 90- S/CUP 90-3/HDP 90-g/MS 837), dated February 28, 1991, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. a3 14 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Rooftop equipment screens shall have an EIFS (Dryvit) finish equivalent to the manufacturer sandpebble texture and be beige in color as depicted on the material sample on file in the Planning Department so as to blend in with the existing building surface texture and color. Should the existing Site Development Plan conditions allow the building or roof color to be changed, the color of the equipment screens shall also be changed to be a compatible color to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 15 Rev. 03/28/96 lli30/98 l-1:4? FA.1 ---.. IU~&~~~--.AHCKITECTS -. -- huN ] 4t 16 C - ’ Ok cA!wbu cufln oE FAX NU. W-‘/4 AAPPI .rN ~.QKUZJUXCETMZTIGATION MLASI JRF~ THrS 1s To CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE REVlEwD THE #&oVE MITIGATMG MEASURES .m CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE ME4SURES TO ‘IHE PROJECT. Date - 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. 4454 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SDP 90-05(D) TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF 12 AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WITH EQUIPMENT SCREENS ON THE ROOF OF THE COSTCO STORE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 CASE NAME: COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS CASE . . WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, “Owner”, described 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 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - L6M” dated January 20, 1999, on file in the Planning Department, COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS, SDP 90-05(D) as provided by Chapter 2 l.O6/Section 2 1.06.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of January, 1999, 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, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Site Development Plan Amendment. WHEREAS, on May 21, 1991, the City Council approved, SDP 90-05, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3209; and amended SDP 27 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 90-05 most recently on October 21, 1997 as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4143. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad 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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS, SDP 90-05(D) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findines: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the project design complies with the requirements of the General Commercial (C-2) Zone. The height of the proposed roof equipment and equipment screens will be less than the 35 foot base building height for the zone. Adequate screening is proposed so as to blend in with the project design as much as possible so as not to create a potential aesthetic impact. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that no grade level site alterations are proposed. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the landscaped berm along the site’s Palomar Airport Road frontage will screen the majority of the roof from view of persons traveling on that roadway. The proposed equipment screens will further obstruct views of the roof equipment in combination with the existing building parapet. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the project will not result in the generation of additional traffic thereby not impacting the street system serving the site. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. PC RESO NO. 4454 -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 Conditions: 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, fi-om and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced legible version of the approving (resolution(s)) on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Approval of SDP 90-05(D) is granted subject to the approval of CDP 98-34. SDP 90- 05(D) is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4455 for the CDP 98-34. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4453 . 49 PC RESO NO. 4454 -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 City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit by Resolutions No. 4454 and 4455 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 10. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Costco Wholesale HVAC Roof Units Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 11. Condition number (34. 4. C) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3209 is amended to read as follows: “Rooftop equipment screens shall have an EIFS (Dryvit) finish equivalent to the manufacturer sandpebble texture and be beige in color as depicted on the material sample on file in the Planning Department. so as to blend in with the existing building surface texture and color. Should the existing Site Development Plan conditions allow the building or roof color to be changed, the color of the equipment screens shall also be changed to be a compatible color to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.” 12. Approval of SDP 90-05(D) supplements the approvals of SDP 90-05, SDP 90-05(A), SDP 90-05(B), and SDP 90-05(C). All conditions of approval found in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3209. 3913, 4065, and 4143, dated April 3, 1991, April 3, 1996, March 19, 1997 and August 6, 1997, respectively, remain in full force and effect except as modified herein. General: 13. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Site Development Plan Amendment. Code Reminders 14. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 2 years from the date of project approval. 15. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. PC RESO NO. 4454 -4- 30 1 2 3 4 5 NOTICE 6 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Planning. You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PC RESO NO. 4454 -5- 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 planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4454 -6- 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. 4455 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER CDP 98-34 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF 12 AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WITH EQUIPMENT SCREENS ON THE ROOF OF THE COSTCO STORE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 95 1 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS CASE NO.: CDP 98-34 WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, “Owner”, described 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 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “M” dated January 20, 1999, on file in the Planning Department, COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS, CDP 98-34 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of January 1999, 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, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CDP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 33 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 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS, CDP 98-34 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findingss: I 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the project is in compliance with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. The project complies with the requirements of the Coastal Resource protection Overlay Zone as the project site is presently developed and no coastal resources will be impacted by the placement of rooftop equipment and equipment screens on the existing building. Conditions: 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and tile the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given PC RESO NO. 4455 -2- 34 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 a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COURTNE~AN. Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: I . 1-v T MICHAEL J. HOtiMILL%R Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4455 -3- EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 0 5 Application complete date: May 15, 1998 (+ 90 day extension) P.C. AGENDA OF: January 20,1999 Project Planner: Don Neu Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS - Request for a recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the Costco Store building located at 951 Palomar Airport Road in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 5. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4453, 4454, and 4455, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 90-05(D)) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-34), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION These applications propose the placement of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the existing Costco Store building. The store presently has no air conditioning. A condition of the May 21, 1991 approval of the original project prohibited roof equipment other than skylights to mitigate any aesthetic impacts that development on the site could create. Staff has evaluated the proposal and is recommending that based on the location and size of the equipment in addition to the color and materials for the proposed equipment screens no significant aesthetic impact will be created by this proposal. The following three actions are necessary: 1) Revise the prior environmental document and mitigation monitoring and reporting program; 2) amend an existing condition of the original Site Development Plan; and 3) approve a Coastal Development Permit. The project is subject to the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone Urgency Ordinance which requires that the City Council have final review and approval of all commercial projects that would otherwise have received final approval from the Planning Commission around the LEGOLAND/Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the Planning Commission is being requested to make a recommendation of approval on the project to the City Council. SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS January 20, 1998 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a site development plan amendment and a coastal development permit that would allow the installation of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the Costco Store building located at 95 1 Palomar Airport Road. No other building or site modifications are proposed. The air conditioning units are approximately 10 feet long, 7 feet wide and 4 feet 8 inches high. The units would be placed in twelve separate location across the roof. The proposed equipment screen would be attached to and angle down away from the air conditioning units. The screen will be made of ABS and include an EIFS (dryvit) finish that will be textured and colored to blend in with the roof top and the existing building parapet. The Costco (Price Club) project was originally approved by the City Council on May 21, 1991. A Conditional (Mitigated) Negative Declaration was the environmental determination approved for the project. Included were several mitigation measures dealing with potential aesthetic impacts that development on the site could create. One of these approved mitigation measures is as follows: “No roof equipment other than skylights shall be permitted as is shown on the project plans because of the difficulty in screening equipment from residences to the south and from view of travelers on Palomar Airport Road.” This mitigation measure was approved as a condition of approval for the Conditional (Mitigated) Negative Declaration and the Site Development Plan. The proposal, therefore, includes replacing the above referenced condition with the proposed new mitigation measure which addresses the proposed roof equipment screens. Today the landscaped berm along the site’s Palomar Airport Road frontage screens the majority of views to the site from persons in vehicles using Palomar Airport Road. The proposed roof equipment screening design will screen any remaining view of the proposed roof equipment that may be seen from persons using Palomar Airport Road. Residential units south of the Costco Store will still have views to the roof top as will development north of Palomar Airport Road because of the topography of this area. The proposed roof equipment screens will utilize materials to simulate the material and color of the building so as to blend in with the project design as much as possible thereby mitigating any potential aesthetic impact of placing equipment on the roof of the Costco building. General Plan, Zoning & Existing Land Use for the Site and Adjacent Property The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Regional Commercial (R) which is established for commercial centers which draw customers from outside the City and also generate interregional traffic. The zoning designation for the site is General Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-2-Q). The existing land use is permitted by the general plan and zoning designations for the site. The qualified development overlay zone requires the approval of a site development plan which is proposed to be amended. The following table lists the general plan, zoning and existing land use for the site and adjacent properties: 37 SDP 90-05(D)lCDP 98-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS January 20,1998 Page 3 Site North South East West General Plan Zoning R C-2-Q Existing Land Use Costco Store & Gas Station OS OS PI T-R, G & T-R/O OS Agriculture OS Native Vegetation L-C Undeveloped C-T-Q, R-A-10,000 & Carls Jr., Caltrans R-P Facility, Offices, Future Daycare Center R (Regional Commercial), OS (Open Space), PI (Planned Industrial), T-R (Travel/Recreation Commercial), G (Governmental Facilities), 0 (Oftice), C-2 (General Commercial), L-C (Limited Control), C-T (Commercial -Tourist), R-A (Residential Agricultural), R-P (Residential Professional), Q (Qualified Development Overlay Zone) Applicable Regulations The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed within the following section of this staff report: A. Regional Commercial (R) General Plan Land Use Designation; B. General Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-2-Q); C. Site Development Plan findings required by the Qualified Development Overlay Zone - Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020; D. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport; E. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone - Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 2 1.203; F. Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone Urgency Ordinance (Urgency Ordinance No. NS-424); and G. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5). IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will cover the project’s compliance with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which they are presented. SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS January 20,1998 A. General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed screening of the roof equipment will result in the project site remaining aesthetically pleasing as specified in General Plan Land Use Element Overall Land Use Pattern Objective C.l. No change in land use is proposed and the existing land use is consistent with the Regional Commercial (R) Land Use Designation. B. Zoning The project site is zoned C-2-Q (General Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone). The proposed roof equipment is customarily associated with the type of regional retail operation existing on the site. The base building height for the C-2 zone is 35 feet and allowed height protrusions must not exceed a height of 45 feet. Additional building height is’pexmitted to 45 feet with architectural features to a height of 55 feet through the approval of a site development plan and the compliance with additional development standards. The existing building parapet height is 30 feet. The proposed roof equipment will reach varying heights because of the slope of the roof. The maximum height of the proposed roof equipment is 31 feet 9 inches in the center of the roof, well below the maximum permitted height of 45 feet and also below the 35 foot building height. C. Site Develoument Plan FindinPs Reauired Bv The 0-Overlav Zone The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q-Overlay) which is a part of the zoning designation for the property requires that a site development plan be approved for any use proposed on the site. As previously addressed, a site development plan which contains a condition of approval prohibiting roof equipment has been approved for the site. The four required findings with justification for each are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for the site development plan amendment. This section summarizes the necessary findings and support for each. The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental setting as the project design complies with the requirements of the General Commercial (C-2) Zone. The height of the proposed roof equipment and equipment screens will be less than the 35 foot base building height for the zone. The proposed roof equipment will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area or adversely impact the site or surroundings as adequate screening is proposed to blend in with the project design and avoid creating potential aesthetic impacts. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use as no grade level site alterations are proposed. All features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses will be provided. The landscaped berm along the site’s Palomar Airport Road frontage will screen the majority of the roof from view of persons traveling on that roadway. The proposed equipment screens will further obstruct views of the roof equipment in combination with the existing building parapet. The project will not cause the generation of additional traffic thereby not impacting the street system serving the site. 39 SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS January 20,1998 D. Comnrehensive Land Use Plan For McClellan-Palomar Airnort The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The site is within the 60 CNEL noise contour for the airport. The property is approximately 7,500 feet (1.4) miles west of the airport. The airport land use plan identifies the primary use of the site as being compatible with the noise levels for the site. The proposed roof equipment is customarily associated with commercial land uses and will not have any impacts on aircraft operations. E. Mel10 II Se 4 nt f the 1 ion m As presently developed, the existing use complies with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Section 21.06.020). Installation of roof equipment and equipment screens will not impact any coastal resources and therefore no coastal permit issues exist. F. Carlsbad Ranch Overlav Zone Urgencv Ordinance The Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone Urgency Ordinance applies to an area generally bordered by Cannon Road on the north, Poinsettia Lane on the south, Hidden Valley Road and Aviara Parkway on the east, and Carlsbad Boulevard on the west. The urgency ordinance contains no additional development or design standards. The effect of the urgency ordinance is to require commercial projects subject to Planning Commission review to undergo City Council review and approval. In compliance with the urgency ordinance the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council on the project instead of taking the final action as would be the case in the absence of the ordinance. G. Growth Management Ordinance (LFMP - Zone 5) The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. The installation of roof equipment and equipment screens does not impact any of the growth management performance standards therefore an analysis of each growth management facility is not necessary. V. ) The initial study (EIA-Part II) prepared in conjunction with this project determined that potentially significant aesthetic impacts could be created by the placement of equipment on the roof of the building. The previous environmental documents approved with the original development project included mitigation measures to prevent potential aesthetic impacts such as prohibiting roof equipment. Today the landscaped berm along the site’s Palomar Airport Road frontage screens the majority of views to the site from persons in vehicles using Palomar Airport Road. The proposed roof screening design will screen any view of the roof equipment that may remain from Palomar Airport Road. Residential units south of the Costco store will still have SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS January 20,1998 views to the rooftop as will development north of Palomar Airport Road because of the topography of this area. The proposed roof equipment screens will utilize materials to simulate the material and color of the building. This will blend the equipment screens in with the project design as much as possible thereby mitigating any potential aesthetic impact. The proposed mitigation measure addresses the design, material, and color of the proposed equipment screens. The project design incorporates the required mitigation measure and as a result staff has determined that no potential aesthetic impact will be created. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on December 4, 1998 and noticed for a 20 day public review period. No comments have been received. AT m: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4453 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4454 (SDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4455 (CDP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statement Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - “M”, dated January 20, 1999 ND:eh:mh CASE NO: SDP 90-05 (D)/CDP 98-34 CASE NAME: 2 stc APPLICANT: Mulvannv Partnership REQUEST AND LOCATION: Th ’ Q its with uioment ] r ns nh ro f e 0 rAi rt Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Mar, 17542 in the Citv of Carlsbad. County of n Di 3 te untv R rder of n Di go Cou nt un APN: 21 l-040-36 Acres: 14.80 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A Land Use Designation: R R i ( 1 Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A Existing Zone: C-2-0 Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Site Zoning C-2-Q Land Use Costco Store & gas station North OS Agriculture Native Vegetation Undeveloped Carls Jr., Caltrans Facility, offices, future daycare center South OS East L-C West C-T-Q, R-A-10,000 & R-P ms P School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: N/A gg MENT q Negative Declaration, issued q Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated El Other, Mitipated Negative Declaration 44 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applicetions which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Boerd, Commission or Committee. The following information must be disclosed: 1. APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the I &etiwe A+9 9edor 2. OWNER List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the 3. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) or (21 above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the partnership. 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or 12) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576’- (619) 438-1161 l FAX (619) 436-0894 43 MPR 19 ‘98 14:31 PAGE.04 ’ - 5. Have you ha- xe than $250 worth of business I .,acted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve ( 12 1 months? cl Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s); Person is defined as ‘Any ,Indi&dlual, -:firm, ,co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fralernal orgsnization, corporation, estata,Zrust, mceiver; syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or .other political ,sub,division or any other group or combination acting as a unit.? ,, NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of o\n/ner /Ir/dr;r/,d jz&d&?r5A;o. Pi5 Print or typehame of applicant ’ Disclosure Statement 1 O/96 MQR 19 ‘98 14:31 Page 2 of 2 4q / PFIGE .05 ‘alI LlKkIWv liWWlVd I.56 - WY ‘ClVBS-IW3 86/61/f - NOLLKICIV 3VAH z n 7 i r i 3-J .----..- ’ j ! ! i ! i i I- ..-..-..-.--__--.-._-..-..--. I 1 45 : : I I 1 1 I I i I I I I I I I 3 4w 966l Po:~:u a0 Jaa a4 ~~p~r-rpa~ro~\~anls\~~o-~6\~6\a~~sa~\:H c+--- @ r *.+ n w 3 : 3 ? k 3 *--I 5 E @A ” 5 : Q-4 , zr 3 I i \ e-- 3~ i. I @-- - J’ II bj 1 : B @---- e--- 60026 V3 ‘ClVBSW3 “Clll LXOd?JW XWW-IVd 156 - V3 'ClV~S-RIV3 86/61/E - NOLLI(Iav 3vAI-I ZW~#mLM - 3 SI0-M A I f G-j- J -! $:‘ 4” _- a----f t c ; L :I- i / 7: +g I @ .--- ii: ;! % _). : @--- 0 -L 9 I 1 z I= E JI w F $ IlWWYIVd IS6-V3‘aVBSW3 . 86/61/E-NoxuaaV3vAH z9y 'BSHM - a SI0-M E Lg ,./& B ii _1--.11- ,_-__.-- I, _ -1 p T-----. ‘\ * _-..-1,, __I:I 822 2 :Yr: J ~; 1 --.. Ir I f ; ti $9 . . j i *; .*i F.6 t, y; I8 a. 60026 v3 ‘av8SW3 "cm .L~od2IIv XVP ;6 - v3 ‘av8sTdvs ~0/51/01 - NOIIICKIV 3VAH Z9t7tr '3SHM - 3 5103'6 E 60026 v3 ‘avESI, "'(Td~~O~~O?\rdIS6-V3'~~~ 86/SI/OI -NOLLICXV3VAH '3SHM - a SI0-M B 3 APUV 866~ 6~ :60 :PT 80 =a a4 6Mp.r-ppa~rop\hanls\~~o-~6\P6\a~lsa~\ :H - EXHIBIT 5 DRAFT 5. SDP 90-05lD)ICDP 98-34 - COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS - Request for a recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment and Coast Development Permit to allow the installation of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the Costco Store building located at 951 Palomar Airport Road in the Coastal Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne introduced this item, announced that the Commission’s action on this item is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration, and stated that Senior Planner, Don Neu would present the staff report. Project Planner, Don Neu presented the staff report and described the project as follows: The Costco project is located at 951 Palomar Airport Road and is before the Commission at this time because when the project was first approved in 1991, there was a condition placed on the project both from the Environmental Review and from the Site Development Plan standpoint. What that condition did was to prohibit roof equipment on the store building. That was recommended by staff as a conservative measure because at the time there was a considerable amount of community controversy surrounding the project. The concern that the City had, at the time, was the result of the project’s location being much lower in elevation than the surrounding properties. Each of the proposed air conditioning units will have its own individual screening. The parapet of the building is approximately 30 feet in height and the top of the unit on the highest point of the roof will be 31.9 feet. Considering their locations, it is not likely that anyone on the ground on-site will be able to see any of the units. Because the building is located on a lower elevation, there were some concerns that persons using Palomar Airport Road and the residents of the Sea Gate project to the south would have views onto the roof. The berming on Palomar Airport Road benefits the project by almost completely screening any view from Palomar Airport Road. The access points onto the property are the only places from which the roof is seen. Staff feels that with the screening that is being proposed, the public view points are quite well covered. That leaves view points from the Sea Gate project and the hotel project in Carlsbad Ranch that will have views onto the roof. The screening proposed is the type of screening that affixes to the air conditioning unit itself. The unit is a fairly low profile unit. With the configuration of the units there will be no duct work running across the roof area. The proposed screening is meant to mimic the building elevations, the inside of the parapets, and the roof colors and will cause those units to blend into the background and not be a prominent feature. It is not unusual, in the City of Carlsbad, to have roof equipment as long as it is properly screened. The City has received a letter from the owners of the Sea Gate project (a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department) stating that they do not have any problems with the proposal. Staff has had personal discussions with the time-share/hotel developer and he has indicated that the proposed screening is acceptable. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this project to the City Council. Commissioner Welshons asked if the new homes, to the east of the project, are able to see the top of the / 3-o MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 &AFT page 9 roof of the project. Mr. Neu replied that there is not much of a view. He stated that he had gone up to that housing area along Hidden Valley Road and nothing could be seen from there. He further stated that he went into a couple of other developments and from the streets there was no view of the roof. He also pointed out that he did not have access to any of the back yards so he cannot speak for those views. Mr. Neu also pointed out that the topography and the land form provides something of a buffer between those homes and the project roof. Commissioner Welshons stated that, in the past, this applicant has been given an inch and taken a mile. Because of that, Commissioner Welshons stated that she has concerns with two conditions; 1) Condition No. 2, Resolution No. 4453. She pointed out that this condition refers to the finish of the screens which are sandpebble in texture and beige in color as depicted on the material sample so as to blend in with the existing building surface texture and color. Commissioner Welshons went on to ask that if the applicant chooses to change the color of this building, is there a guarantee that the colors on the roof will achieve the proper end result which is to make the air conditioning units as inconspicuous as possible; and, 2) on page 11 of the Negative Declaration in the discussion of the Environmental Evaluation, Project Description/Environmental Setting, Commissioner Welshons pointed out that it states that “no other site improvements are proposed” and goes on to state “the air conditioning units are aooroximately 10 feet long, 7 feet wide and 4 feet 8 inches high“ and there is no reference that directs anyone to the exhibits that are attached with these resolutions. She stated that at some time in the future, if a unit breaks down and they choose to replace it with a larger unit, she would like a guarantee that they will not exceed the height or change the color proposed in this project. She asked if language could be added to control or to make sure that it is caught somewhere in the check process. Mr. Neu replied that it is possible to add language. He agreed that it is possible that at some time units will have to be replaced and what the City would do is apply Planning Condition No. 1 which deals with the approvals referring back to the exhibits. However, he continued, the Building Department says that if the units need to be replaced, they would have to receive a Mechanical Permit. There are some administrative ways to flag this project and have the ability to make sure that the replacements are dealt with properly. Andrew Croasdell with Mulvaney Partnership Architects, Bellevue, Washington, stated their concurrence with the staff report or amended conditions. He also stated that they have no objection to guaranteeing the finish material or color of the screens. Mr. Croasdell added that there are no plans for painting this building. He further stated that the color may change slightly (for the better) when they install the units and will have the contractor verify the color with color samples to get as close as possible. Mr. Croasdell stated that if a unit breaks down, it will be replaced and if there is a need to increase capacity another unit will be added. Also, if some guarantee is needed to ensure that they do not add or change the size of units, or change the method of screening without Planning approval, Mr. Croasdell stated there would be no issue with that. Mr. Croasdell stated that in his 5 year experience with Costco, there has never been an occasion to change a roof system and this is a very efficient system for Costco. Mr. Croasdell stated that the building was originally a Price Club building and he has no idea why air conditioning was not installed when the building was first constructed. Commissioner Welshons stated that the reason air conditioning was not included in the original construction is because one of the mitigation measures in the Environmental Report was an aesthetic condition to eliminate air conditioners from the roof because they are unattractive and not aesthetically pleasing to passers-by as well as to the residents of the housing development to the south. She went on to say that what the Commission must do is to accept a finding that says that having air conditioners on the roof is not so bad any more because of the berm along Palomar Airport Road and because they will now have pleasant looking screens around them. Chairperson Heineman opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Seeing no one wishing to testify, Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Neu for comments on Page 11 of the Environmental Evaluation, Project Description/Environmental Setting, adding that at this time, the word “approximately” seems inappropriate because there is no maximum size or height stated . 57 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 aRAFT Page 10 Mr. Neu replied that there is no condition that specifically limits the equipment to the size stated in the evaluation, other than the fact that the sizes are on the exhibits. The City’s determination, if the size of the units are substantially the same, would be to allow them. However, if the size is substantially larger, then the City would not allow them. Commissioner Welshons asked what would happen if Costco were to put in additional air conditioning units, raising the total of units over the allowed 12 units and using more roof space. Mr. Neu replied that this Site Development Plan Amendment limits them to 12 units and to go beyond that would require amending the Site Development Plan, again. Commissioner Welshons asked if it is necessary to be restrictive on the size and is there a possible loophole that Costco could use to circumvent the issue. Mr. Rudolf stated that it appears as though the Commission is leaning toward changing the project description, set out in the EIA, Part II, which is the Negative Declaration that has already been issued and out for public review, and no public comment has been received. If the Commission changes the project description, at this point, that would be starting the Environmental process all over again. Commissioner Welshons stated that she does not want to cause the Environmental process to be started all over again. Mr. Rudolf pointed out that if the Commission wishes to amend or add to Condition No. 2, Resolution No. 4453, then he would suggest that since it is identical to Condition No. 11, Resolution No. 4454, that both be identically amended. Rather that changing the Environmental Review, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Neu if a condition could be added to cover the size of replacement air conditioning units. Mr. Neu replied that it is possible but pointed out that if the size of each unit is very specific, and the manufacturer makes even minor size changes to the units in the years to come, it could make things very difficult for the applicant. Commissioner Welshons agreed with Mr. Neu and requested that only Condition No. 2, Resolution No. 4453, and Condition 11, Resolution No. 4454 be amended. VOTE ON AMENDMENT ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to amend Condition No. 2, Resolution No. 4453, and Condition No. 11, Resolution No. 4454, to add the following: Should the existing Site Development Plan conditions allow the building or roof colors to be changed, the color of the equipment screens shall also be changed to be a compatible color, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 7-o Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Welshons, Savary, and Noble None None ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4453, 4454, and 4455, recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 90-05(D)) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-34) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 20,1999 DRAFT Page 11 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 7-o Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Welshons, Savaty, and Noble None None d-3 PROOF OF PUBLlc. ,TION (2010 8 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 adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: FEb. 12, 1999 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. sa!! Marcos Dated at California, this of m. 1999 12th day &+ ----- - ---_ SignatZ ---- ----- /’ NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space I. .Jr the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Noti- of PMicL~g----- ----__------ __-_---------------------- AsassEssoR PARCEL Nuw%m 2wcwca AFWCANP !%?$$$b Em, Bslem. WA%im CASE NAME. OJ3TcO WW,LESALE+%+TW WAC-UNITS L@60116February121998 COSTCO WHOLESALE SDP 9OaS(D~CDP W-34 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - DESCRIPTION: COMPLETE DATE: May 15,1998 (+ 90 day extension) Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the Costco Store Building. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone at 951 Palomar Airport Road in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 5. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 21 l-040-08 APPLICANT: Mulvanny Partnership 11820 Northup Way, Ste. E-300 Bellevue, WA 98005 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City Council, in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on March 2, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after February 26, 1999. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Don Neu at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438-l 161, extension 4446. APPEALS If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Permit and/or Coastal Development Permit 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 City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1. Anneals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Kl This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3 111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108- 1725. CASE FILE: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 CASE NAME: COSTCO WHOLESALE - ROOFTOP HVAC UNITS PUBLISH: February 12, 1999 COSTCO WHOLESALE SDP 90=05(D)/CDP 98-34 (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached ace the materials necessary for you to notice SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 - Costco Wholesale HVAC Roof Units for a public hearing before the City Council. PltaSe nOtiCe the item for the COUIlCil IReetfng Of erst Available Hearing. ., ,- -_. Thank you. Assistant Clty Man-- - . February 1, 1999 Date . . City of Carlsbad JVOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: May 15,1998 (+ 90 day extension) DESCRIPTION: ._ -++FivlAC -Ito - @F---+Jpj~~ - Request for -of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Site Development Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation of 12 air conditioning units with equipment screens on the roof of the Costco Store building. LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located at 951 Palomar Airport Road in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 5. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 2 1 l-040-08 APPLICANT: Mulvanny Partnership 11820 Northup Way, Ste. E-300 Bellevue, WA 98005 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on m-2+3+999 at 6:00 p.m. ?-Jic J-CA-d/ /9?9 Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after 3anua+&l-sg-P. ~~~+~;G~~, /Yyp, If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Don Neu at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438- 1 16 1, extension 4446. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 l (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 , APPEALS d P If you challenge the Site Development Permit an Coastal Development Permit 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 prior to . the public hearing. ( (($g ic.wL.. p-j& &Y&i5 1. Appeals to the City Cd: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council. appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. 2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 13 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. q This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. &pplicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108-1725. CASE FILE: CASE NAME: PUBLISH: SDP 90-05(D)/CDP 98-34 COSTCO WHOLESALE - ROOFTOP HVAC UNITS . . - RAY & BARBARA WINTER 1745 ROCKY ROAD FULLERTON CA 92831 PAC SAN DEVELOPMENT INC 2260 RUTHERFORD ROAD SUITE 110 CARLSBAD CA 92008 : PAC SAN DEVELOPMENT INC 2260 RUTHERFORD ROAD SUITE 110 CARLSBAD CA 92008 - CB RANCH ENTERPRISES 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008 LEGOLAND CARLSBAD INC 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 13 CARLSBAD CA 92008 SIERRA CAPITAL CORPORATE 50 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 2020 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 -, JAMES & DOROTHY GAISER 3340 RIDGECREST DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 GLASJAR FUNDING LP . : 14657 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 500 DALLAS TX 75240 CHILDRENS & OTTO-ROSE ORCO CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY 2100 RITCHEY ST*s 92705 UDC HOMES INC 438 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH SUITE 11 SAN DIEGO CA 92108 CARLSBAD RANCH COMPANY 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008 ‘CARLBUS ASSOCIATES LP 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008 QUINCE ASSOCIATES LTD .1524 DORCAS STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92110 KONSTANTINOS MANASSAKIS 'CARLSBAD CORPORATE 6030 PASEO DEL NORTH PO BOX 34089 CARLSBAD CA 92009 LAS VEGAS NV 89133 MULTI PO BOX 7576 STOCKTON CA 95267 PACIFIC SALES KITCHEN 2080 WASHINGTON AVENUE TORRANCE CA 90501 RICHARD WILLIAMS PO BOX 177 SAN LUIS REY CA 92068 FOUR SAC SELF STORAGE SUITE C 2727 NORTH CENTRAL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85004 CARLSBAD PACIFIC RESORT 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 20 CARLSBAD CA 92008 THE PRICE COMPANY 999 LAKE DRIVE ISSAQUAH WA 98027 . . . . .’ _ 1 . ‘_. . , . _ _ RAY & BARBARA WINTER PO BOX 290 DALLAS TX 75221 PRICESMART INC 4649 MORENA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92117 PAUL & PEGGY HADLEY PO BOX 12727 PALM DESERT CA 92255 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 200 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO SAN DIEGO CA 92108-l 725 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BRD STE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS - OAK GUY MOORE JR 6503 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 I SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 BST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 801 PINE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING DEPT I DAVID CARRITINI I COSTCO WHOLESALE I 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CA DEPT OF FISH 81 GAME STE 50 330 GOLDENSHORE DR LONG BEACH CA 90802 LAFCO 1.600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER DON NEU ANDREW CROASELL MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP STE E300 11820 NORTHUP WY BELLEVUE WA 98005 - -w 3 OCCUPANT OCCdPANT OCCUPANT 925 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD ~ 6100 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6118 PASEO DEL NORTE : 6120 PASEO DEL NORTE j CARLSBAD CA 92009 : CARLSBAD CA 92009 , _ . -.* - d L - RAY & BARBARA WINTER ' JAMES & DOROTHY GAISER 1745 ROCKY ROAD 3340 RIDGECREST DRIVE FULLERTON CA 92831 CARLSBAD CA 92008 PAC SAN DEVELOPMENT INC RAY & BARBARA WINTER ARBARA WINTER 2260 RUTHERFORD ROAD 1745 ROCKY ROAD ICKY ROAD SUITE 110 FULLERTON CA 92831 'ON CA 92831 CARLSBAD CA 92008 WINTER 1745 ROCKY ROAD FULLERTON CA 92831 GLASJAR FUNDING LP 14651 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 500 DALLAS TX 75240 WINTER 1745 ROCKY ROAD FULLERTON CA 92831 PAC SAN DEVELOPMENT INC 2260 RUTHERFORD ROAD SUITE 110 CARLSBAD CA 92008 MULTI PO BOX 7576 STOCKTON CA 95267 UDC HOMES INC MULTI 438 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH PO BOX 7576 SUITE 11 STOCKTON CA 95267 SAN DIEGO CA 92108 CARLSBAD RANCH COMPANY 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CB RANCH ENTERPRISES ' 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008 MULTI PO BOX 7576 STOCKTON .CA 95267 LEGOLAND CARLSBAD INC 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 13 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLBUS ASSOCIATES LP 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008 SIERRA CAPITAL CORPORATE QUINCE ASSOCIATES LTD 50 CALIFORNIA STREET .1524 DORCAS STREET SUITE 2020 SAN DIEGO CA 92110 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 KONSTANTINOS MANASSAKIS CARLSBAD CORPORATE PAUL & PEGGY HADLEY 6030 PASEO DEL NORTH PO BOX 34089 PO BOX 12727 CARLSBAD CA 92909 LAS VEGAS NV 89133 PALM DESERT CA 92255 MULTI PO BOX 7576 STOCKTON CA 95267 PACIFIC SALES KITCHEN 2080 WASHINGTON AVENUE TORRANCE CA 90501 RICHARD WILLIAMS PO BOX 177 SAN LUIS REY CA 92068 FOUR SAC SELF STORAGE SUITE C 2727 NORTH CENTRAL AVE PHOENIX AZ 85004 CARLS.BAD PACIFIC RESORT 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 20 CARLSBAD CA 92008 THE PRICE COMPANY 999 LAKE DRIVE ISSAQUAH WA 98027 . .. . . .... .... . . -. .L. ........... __-a_ 'RAY &?I BARBARA WINTER PO BOX 290 DALLAS TX 75221 PRICESMART INC 4649 MORENA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92117 col”Y / , -OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 925 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 6100 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 OCCUPANT 6118 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OCCUPANT 6120 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009 MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP T W SMITH ESQ 11820 NORTHRUP WAY #E300 SUITE 200 BELLEVUE WA 98005 2170 EL CAMINO REAL OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CLERK NO COUNTY SUP CASE NO N69883 325 SO MELROSE DRIVE VISTA CA 92083 GUY MOORE JR 6503 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CA COASTAL COMMISSION SUITE 200 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH SAN DIEGO CA 92108 A not’-- b.,~ w railed to all c -c fcxmpants listen Date OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 925 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 6100 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6118 PASEO DEL NORTE 6120 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 City of Ca.rlsbad March 8,1999 Mulvanny Partnership Andrew Croasdell 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Enclosed for your reference are copies of Carlsbad City Council Agenda Bill No. 15,079, and Resolution No. 9976. These documents went before the City Council on March 2, 1999, when the Resolution was adopted, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project referenced above. If you have any questions regarding your contract, please call Mr. Don Neu, in the Planning Department. Mr. Neu can be reached at (760) 438-l 161 extension 4446. Kathleen D. Shoup Sr. Office Specialist 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 - (760) 434-2808 @