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 @