HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 2860I e e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14 I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2860
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARL CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PLP
PROGRAM AND EXPLORE REVISIONS TO CARLSBAD'S MUNICIPAL COI
ADDRESS RECYCLING..
APPLICANT: COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO APPROVE A NINE-MONTH PILOT REC\
CASE NO.: PCD 89-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of May,
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider sa
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, t
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declart
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning COI
f 01 1 ows :
1 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, t
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative
according to Exhibit "ND", dated April 19, 1989 and "PII", 1 4, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on th findings:
Fi ndi nqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial eviden
temporary pilot project may have a significant impact on the e
2. The sites for the pilot program have been previously develop
to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic genera proposed project.
4. The nine-month pi1 ot program will produce valuable inforn
regard to recycling programs, Recycling programs have the PO
significant environmental benefits.
////
////
28
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AVES: Chai rrnan Hal 1, Commissioners: Erwin, McFadden 8. Mi
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Holmes, Schramm, Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
~
~
~
PC RES0 NO. 2680 -2-
e e CXnlDlI "i
City
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Various small locations throughout Carlsbad,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A nine-month pilot recycling program for the Carl sbad.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above dt project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Cal Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of t
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (decl that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) i: issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on filt P1 anni ng Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file P1 anni ng Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Cc from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: April 19, 1989
CASE NO: PCD 89-2
1,: 4 ,f 1, ,\
t, I, I,;,/-[: :.k {! & \',* !.qe7:,!,*j+ C'f &" '1-
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director
APPLICANT: COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLISH DATE: April 19, 1989
LBS: af
2075 Las Palmas Drive 0 Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (61 9) 438- -. -. . - - . - - - " -__. _". . - . -. - - . - - -
0' 0 txn
EWIRONdENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PCD 89-2
DATE : April 4, 19
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Coast Waste Manasement
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5960 El Camino :
Carlsbad, CA 92(
~~
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be writter
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluatior
YES MAY BE
1. Earth - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of. soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
of beach sands, or changes in
e'
2. & - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,'dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
-2-
e
" YES MAY RE - NO
x
X .-
x
2
2
2
2
2
X
X
X
0' 0
.- YES MAY BE
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of
animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly
increase existing noise levels?
7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal Sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration'of the present or planned land use of an area?
-3-
w
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
10. Risk of Umet - Does the proposal involve a significant 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?
11. Powlation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the
buman population of an area?
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in!
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
-4-
1 4
w
YES MAY BE - NO
2
J
2
2
2
x
2
x
2
x
J
0 c YS MAY BE
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have
a significant effect upon, or have signif-
altered governmental services .in any of
the following areas:
icant results in the need for new or
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of.energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard.or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
a e
18.
19.
20.
21.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
9)
YES MAY BE - K
Aesthetics - Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view?
public, or will the proposal result in
-
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? -
Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or
building? -
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the sit e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-, nate sites for the proposed, and 9) no project alternative.
The project is a 9 month pilot project. Phasing is not possible.
See a above. No alternative site designs are possible.
See a above.
See a above. The nine-month pilot project proposes an alternate
management of existing trash pick-up for land uses at various
sites.
See a above. A test program is needed at this time to determine
the appropriate recycling method prior to a recycling and land
fill crisis.
See a above. The test program proposes alternative sites that
will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
See a above. The no project alternative would leave recycling
efforts at their present state. This may not be environmentally
beneficial given the increase in the solid waste stream.
-6-
a'
22. Mandatory findinqs of siqnificance -
a. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
B YS MAYBE
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage 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.)
c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (IICumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project is a 9 month pilot recycling program that has four c(
One component is a pilot curbside program for a 1,000 homes within The second component is a buy-back center that is presently in (
The third component is for manned mobile neighborhood collectic
that would be operated on Saturdays. The fourth component is a
community recycling bins spaced throughout the community. The pilc is to explore the most efficient and productive means to divert 1 materials from the waste stream. Environmental impact associated
pilot program would be similar to present trash management servi
-7-
w W DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
The project has significant potential environmental benefits.
knowledge gained from the test program, the City and Coast Waste Manag( should be able to effectively respond to recycling needs within
community.
-8-
IV. DETERMINATION (To be Completed By The Planning Department) 0' 0
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effel the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signif
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant eff
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attz sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re i;'"". '1
APRIL 4, 1989 . /-c c, ' 1 1. .,". Date \ Signatare '+
///
\ -l ' ,, .I
4./4 I P Ci [ 1 \;!,16; i-()f:j /:y .-&$Jd@
I Date Plannidg D'iGector
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-9-
MITIGATING MEASURES (Coatinued) 0 0
VI* APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
TH1S 1s TO CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURI
AND CONCUR l"H THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-10-