Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 34301 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3430 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING BUENA VISTA PUMP STATION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET. CASE NAME: BUENAVISTA PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO: CUP 92-O6/SUP 92-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of October, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 11 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, 12 and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all l3 factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 14 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 16 3.7 18 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning hereof, based on the following findings: Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 19 dated July 1,1992, and "PII", dated June 29,1992, attached hereto and made a pari 20 I 21 // Findings: 22 1. The City of Via, acting as the Lead Agency, has complied with CEQA by carryiq initial study. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that th, 23 out the environmental review for the proposed improvements. This involved a project may have a significant impact on the environment. 24 25 2. The City of Carlsbad, acting as a responsible agency, has complied with Sectio~ Negative Declaration during the approval process for a Conditional Use Permit an 26 15050(b) of CEQA by reviewing the Lead Agency's environmefltal analysis an 27 28 special use Permit. 3. The site has been previously graded and contains an existing pump station. The sit can adequately accommodate the proposed pump station improvements. ll e 0 1 2 4. Jefferson Street and the existing access road are adequate in size to handle the low 3 frequency maintenance vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project. 5. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant13 impacted by this project. In addition, the project site is outside the 100 yea 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planninl 5 floodway and compEes &th the (Sty's Flood PI& Management Regulations. 6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October, 1992, bj 7 I/ the following vote, to wit: 8 9 AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Noble Welshons & Savary. 10 11 12 13 NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Hall. ABSTAIN: None. 14 15 16 17 ATTEST: 5- - TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 18 19 6 I 20 PLANNING DIRECTOR I1 21 22 23 24 25 I/ 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3430 -2- N 0 EGA e City of Vista TIVE DECLARA + t ,4 9: "\. -,\,- >Ii;;b.; 1 ~~/;/~;;?;;,:~ -a .Jut. 2 1:cq; U',?. TION- RECEIVED 3uL 2 3 1331 CITY OF CA$i;:$g FINDING THAT THE PROJECT LISTED BELOW PbXWINQ #&p WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMEYT YAYE OF PROJECT: PC5-081 PROJECT DESCRIP?ION: An environmental review for the Buena Vista Pump Station upgrade project. PROJECT LOCATION: The property is located off of Jefferson Street in the City of Oceanside and Carlsbad. APN: 156-301-01 & 02. PEZOJECT PROPONENT: City of Vista LEAD AGENCY (Preparer of Initial Study): The City of Vista P. 0. Box 1988 Vista, CA 92085 NAME OF PERSON 7; CONTACT: Deborah A. Nielsen, Assistant Planner that the proposed project the, environment. PUBLIC REVIEW RECORD Public Review Period \ypto ,*,m Comments Received: J eo0 EucAiypTus AVE. 0 P.O. BOX 1988 - VISTA. CA 9201s 61atnew~ FAX 61919*5-7859 0 a CITY OF VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Proponent: City of Vista 2. Address of Proponent: P.O. Box 1988, Vista, CA 92083 3. Phone Number of Proponent: (619) 726-1340 4. Date Checklist Submitted: N/A 5. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Vista 6. Name of Proposal, if applicable: PC5-081 11. DESCRIPTION AND SETTING OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The project site consists of an existing pump station structure that is circular and is approximately 20-feet in height. this structure houses the sewage pumps and motor control equipment. Access to the site is off Jefferson Street and there is a paved access road down to the existing pump station. The Buena Vista Creek is to.the south and a graded pad with natural vegetation lies on the north and east of the project. The proposed improvements are: four sewage pumps, variable frequency drives, two engine generators, a bar screen and comminutor and a new building for the generators and electrical-control equipment. '1 e YES NO MAYBE 111. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. EARTH: Will the proposal result in: A. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? "- x B. Disruptions, dfsplacements, compaction or uncovering of the soil? "- X C. Change in topography or ground sur- face relief features? "- X D. The destruction, covering or modifi- cation. of any unique geologic or physical features? "- X E. Any increase in wind or water ero- sion of soils, either on or off the site? X "- F. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes' in silt- ation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? "- X G. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslfdes, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? "- X DISCUSSION OF EARTH EVALUATION: The proposed improvements are an addition to an already existing use and thus will not destroy or change the existing physical features. Routine application of the City's grading code will mitigate any negative impacts that may be associated with the 36 cubic yards af grading proposed. 2. AIR QUALITY: Will the proposal result in: A. Substantial air emissions or deteriora- tion of ambient air quality? X X - _I " B. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or " temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X " '2 0 0 YES NO MAYSE DISCUSSION OF AIR QUALITY EVALUATION: The proposed improvements include four new sewage pumps and two new engine generators along with other improvements. Routine conformance with the Sap Diego Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations, the California State Health and Safety Code, and the Federal Air Quality Regulations will mitigate negative impacts that may be associated with land uses that are to be established on the project site. 3. WATER: Will the proposal result in: A. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? " X B. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X "P C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? "- X D. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? " X E. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? "- X F. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? "- X G. Change in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through inception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? " x H. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? " X I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X " DISCUSSION OF WATER EVALUATION: the ground water supply. These upgrades at the pump stathn will help to protect the Buena Vista Creek and the Buena ' The project will not impact the water quality of the City or Vista Lagoon. 4. PLANT LIFE: Will the proposal result in: 3 e YES NO MAYS€ A. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X ”- B. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? x ” C. Introduction of new species of plants into the area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X ” D. Reduction in acreage of any agricul- tural crop? X ” DISCUSSION OF PLANT LIFE EVALUATION: There is no indication of sensitive or endangered plant life . exiting on the project site because of the existing activities in the vicinity and on the site. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: Will the proposal result in: A. Change in the diversity of - species, or numbers of any species of animals, (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, 0 or insects)? ”- 4% B. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? x ”- C. Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or a result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? D. .Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X ”- X ”- DISCUSSION OF ANIMAL LXFE EVALUA’Pr6NE There are no indications that endangered animal Species are located within the project area. No significant negative impacts will be generated affecting animal life in the area due to the extensive urban activities surrounding the area and the project site. 6. - NOISE: Will the proposal result in: A. Increases in existing noise levels? x ”- ’. 4 @ YES NO MAYBE B. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X ”- DISCUSSION OF NOISE EVALUATION: Routine compliance with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District- rules and regulations will successfully mitigate any negative impacts related to noise levels. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: Will the proposal produce new light and glare? ”- X DISCUSSION OF LIGHT AND GLARE EVALUATION: Additional light or glare that may be produced by the project will be successfully mitigated by compliance with the provisions of the City of Carlsbad zoning ordinance. 8. LAND USE: Will the proposal result in a substantial of an area? alteration of the present or planned land use X ” DISCUSSION OF LAND USE EVALUATION: The project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Furthermore, it is an existing project that is compatible with the commercial development within the area. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: A. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X ”- DISCUSSION OF NATURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION: The project will not result in substantial additional consumption of natural resources or cause depletion of nonrenewable resources. Routine conformance with the Uniform Building Code and State regulatians concerning conservation of such resources will mitigate those incremental impacts that may be associated with the project. 10. RISK OF UPSET: Will the proposal involve: A. A risk of an explosion or the.release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X ”- B. Possible interference with an emergency X ”- -5 rn YES NO YAYBE DISCUSSION OF RISK OF UPSET EVALUATION: The application Of the Uniform Building and Fire Code to building permits on this site will mitigate any risk of upset that may be associated with the project. 11. POPULATION: A. . Will the proposal alter the location distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population o'f an area X " EVALUATION OF POPULATION EVALUATION: The project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The project will not result in an increase in population or any changes in density or redistribution of population within the planning area beyond that permitted by the General Plan. 12. HOUSING: Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X " DISCUSSION OF HOUSING EVALUATION: The project is not residential in nature and will not pose a direct impact on the Housing Element of the General Plan. It will not impact the housing stock, quantity or quality in any manner. 13. TRANSPORTATfON/CIRCATION: Will proposal result in: A, Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? x "- B, Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? X " Co Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? X "- Do Alterations to present patterns of cir- culation or movement of people and/or goods? X "- E. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X "- F. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X "- G, Amount of new vehicle trips per day by the project? 0 DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION: ' '. 6 a YES NO MAYBE The proposed number of vehicle trips senerated per day will not be changing from the existing number of trips. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas? A. Fire Protection? B. Police protection? X ”- X ” C. Schools? X ”- D. Parks or other recreational facilities? E. Maintenance of public facilities X ” including roads? X ” F. Other governmental services? X ” DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC SERVICES EVALUATION: This project will not result in any change in the need for public services in the area, nor will it alter current requirements because of its consistency with the City’s General Plan. 15, ENERGY: Will the proposal result in: A. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?- X- X ”- B. Substantial increase in demand upon DISCUSSION OF ENERGY EVALUATIPN: New energy-efficient motors are being installed and the less efficient control devices are being replaced with more efficient variables. Routine implementation Of the Uniform Building Code requirements and State regulations concerning energy conservation will mitigate any negative impacts that may be generated. 16, UTILITTES: will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? A. Power or natural gas? B. Communications systems? C. Potable water supply? X x x ”- ”- ”- ” 7 m a YES NO MAYBE D. Sewer or septic tanks? F. Solid waste and disposal? X X ” ” DISCUSSION OF UTILITIES EVALUATroN: New enecgy-efficient motors are being installed and the less efficient control devices.are being replaced with more efficient variables. No new services or substantial expansion will be required. Incremental impacts will be mitigated by routine compliance with the Uniform Building, fire and zoning codes. 17. HWAN HEALTH: Will the proposal result in: A. Creation of any health hazard or Poten- tial health hazard (excluding mental health)? X ” B. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X ” DISCUSSION OF’ HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION: The proposed modification will improve the existing site from any potential health hazard. Routine application of the Uniform Building Code and fire codes within the project area will minimize any potential health hazards that may be associated with this development. 18. AESTHETICS: Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X ” DISCUSSION OF AESTHETIC EVALUATION: Routine implementation of the General Plan and the Zoning Code within the project area will minimize any adverse aesthetic impacts upon the general public. 19. RECREATION: Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exis- ting recreational opportunities? ”- x- DISCUSSION OF RECREATION EVALUATION: The project is consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General plan, and will not negatively impact recreational.opporties. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES: A. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or destruction of a prehistoric or X ”- ” ” historic archaeological site? ,. 8 6 a m YES NO MAYBE a. Are there any areas on the project site that have soil discolorations not caused by natural agencies? X within the project site? " X b. Are there any granitic outcrops " B. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a pre- historic or historic building, structure, or object? " X a. Are there any rock walls, structures or rock art within the project site? X b. Are there any stone items within the project site that do not appear " naturally shaped? " x C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic, cultural values? " X D. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? " X DISCUSSION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION: The project site has been compLetely developed and subject to extensive urban activities, and has moderately low potential to contain significant cultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary for the project . 21, MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE, A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment, 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 com- munity, reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered plant. or animal or eliminate important examples df the major periods of California history or prehistory? 8. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of Long-term, environmental goals? (a short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). x "- X "- ". 9 0 YES NO MAYSE C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid- erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is significant). X D. Does the project have environmental. effects which will cause substantial adverse indirectly? X ”- effect on human beings either directly or “- IV. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City Planner) On the basis of this initial evaluation: The City Planner finds the proposed project will NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. , .m” 7 1992 SIGNATURE ‘ . ‘ 10