Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1993/02/08February 3, 1993 T0: Members of the Resource Conservation Commission FROM: Maryann C. Miller ~V~V'u RE: Negative Declaration for the Hazardous Waste Management Plan Implementing Ordinance and Amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan (IS 93-14) Attached you will find a copy of IS 93-14, which includes minor, technical corrections that have been made, as a result of comments from your meeting of January 25, 1993. These minor changes have been brought back to your Commission for your review. As you can see, the additions and corrections have been highlighted for your convenience. Please review these changes, and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (619) 476-5330. Staff will also be present at the RCC meeting of February 8, 1993. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Hazardous Waste Management Plan Implementing Ordinance and Amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NUMBER: IS 93-14 A. Proiect Setting The proposed Hazardous Waste Management Plan Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the Chula. Vista General Plan would be applied city-wide, therefore there is no specific site within the city which corresponds to the proposed project. B. Proiect Description The proposed project consists of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan Implementing Ordinance and associated revisions to the recently amended Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. These proposed amendments to the City's Zoning ordinance, and the Chula Vista General Plan,,. incorporate provisions for the management of hazardous waste,'. and thy. siti.r~g artd permittitg€ of hazardous' waste facilities,- as required by State Law.~Q These amendments are intended to comprise the City's policy altid regulatory provisions regarding hazardous waste management and hazardous waste facilities. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed project consists of amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan to clarify previously adopted hazardous waste policies, and Zoning Ordinance amendments to establish a Conditional Use Permit process to implement the General Plan's provisions pertaining to the siting and permitting of proposed hazardous waste facilities. Implementation of the proposed amendments. (which constitute the.projectj,, city-wide, will ensure-that hazardous wastes are wr, ~.~ city of Chula vista planning department Cf1Y OF environmental review section CHULA VISTA 2 prop~rlg managed, ;and that proposed hazardous waste facilities are safely sited and compatible with underlying land use designations and zoning, as well as w3t2~ surrounding land uses. D. Compliance with Threshold/Standards Policies 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85$ of. the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75$ of the cases. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measure of Fire/EMS response would otherwise apply. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84$ of the Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.1 $ of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measure of Police response would otherwise apply. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project is exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the project is comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a specific development proposal for which a measurement of direct traffic impacts would apply. 4. Parks/Recreation -4- The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant: Land Use Adoption of the Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan would not create direct land use impacts. Together, the Implementing Ordinance and General Plan amendments provide policy clarification and direction regarding the planning, siting, and permitting review of proposed hazardous waste facilities and, therefore, do not relate to a specific geographic site or project. Indirect land use impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are the potential for future land use compatibility impacts associated with the siting and operation of hazardous waste facilities within the City. Indirect land use compatibility impacts could occur between future, proposed hazardous waste facilities and other types of land uses, particularly sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include residential land uses, as well as uses associated with immobile populations, such as congregate care facilities, schools, hospitals and jails which could not easily be mobilized for evacuation in the event of upset conditions. The Implementing Ordinance establishes a process which would ensure that potential land use impacts associated with proposed facilities are considered and that the "General Areas" policies, siting criteria and fair share principles of the General Plan and the County Hazardous Waste management Plan are complied with. Therefore, through compliance with the criteria set forth in the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, and adherence to the conditional use permit procedures outlined in the Implementing Ordinance, the City will ensure that potential land use impacts associated with future applications for hazardous waste facilities are adequately addressed and analyzed. Therefore, land use impacts are deemed to be less than significant. -5- Risk of Unset Potential risk of upset impacts could occur if hazardous waste facilities are not appropriately sited relative to sensitive receptors and immobile populations, and with respect to the protection of environmental resources. Implementation of the proposed project would reduce potential risk of upset impacts caused by inadequate planning and siting of such facilities by setting forth appropriate criteria for storage, transportation, disposal, and siting associated with hazardous waste facilities and businesses generating such wastes. Releases of hazardous materials or waste via air, land, or water exposure pathways could occur during upset conditions, such as an earthquake or other natural disaster. The potential prevention of risk of upset impacts associated with geotechnical conditions require compliance with federal, state, and local agencies. Locally, site feasibility and suitability issues are regulated through compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, and Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance which requires that a geotechnical report be prepared prior to any grading or development. Site feasibility and suitability will be further addressed by the siting criteria contained in the amended General Plan Public Facilities Element. At the state level, releases to groundwater resources are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Suspected releases to groundwater would require site specific analysis to determine appropriate mitigation and remediation. In addition, site specific environmental review for any proposed hazardous waste facility would be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address potential risk of upset impacts on a case by case basis. Risk of upset impacts could also occur through releases and spills during the transport of hazardous waste or hazardous materials to and from hazardous waste facilities, and the businesses using such materials and generating such wastes. Risk of upset impacts associated with traffic safety can be mitigated by compliance with Federal, State, and local agency routing requirements and other appropriate conditions of use. Appropriate traffic safety standards are discussed further under "Transportation/Circulation." These requirements shall be ensured through the adoption of the Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the General Plan. The County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) mandates that emergency response plans be implemented for hazardous waste facilities. Presently, emergency releases of hazardous materials into the environment -6- are handled jointly by the Chula Vista Fire Department and the County Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) through a mutual aid agreement. The proposed project will require intimate involvement of HMMD in the local management of hazardous materials and wastes, and in the siting and permitting of proposed hazardous waste facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would reduce potential risk of upset impacts by setting forth appropriate criteria for the comprehensive management of hazardous materials and wastes, the siting and permitting of hazardous waste facilities, and the licensing review of businesses using such materials and generating such wastes. With compliance to the criteria established through the amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, and through processes set forth in the Implementing Ordinance, as well as to federal, state, and local regulatory criteria already in place, risk of upset impacts are deemed to be below a level of significance. Trans ortation Circulation The transportation of hazardous waste is regulated by Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). State and local laws require that producers, transporters, and receivers of hazardous waste materials follow specific monitoring and tracking procedures and enlist specific emergency response systems in case of a hazardous material or waste release during transport. The State Department of Health Services (DHS) is in charge of tracking hazardous waste through the State in accordance with the Federal manifest system. DHS requires that transporters have valid vehicle registration with their agency, and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) annually inspects each vehicle for compliance with the California Vehicle Code. The CHP also determines whether the construction, design, equipment, and safety features of the vehicles are in compliance with the standards established by the DHS for the safe transportation of hazardous wastes. Federal routing regulations state that a vehicle containing ~eporCabie ~uaritit~es o~ hazardous materials must be operated over routes `which do not traverse heavily populated areas, places where crowds of people assemble, tunnels, narrow streets, or alleys. State routing regulations specify that transportation be limited to State or interstate highways offering the least overall transit time and that vehicles transporting hazardous materials may use highways providing necessary access to local pickup or delivery points, consistent with safe vehicle operation. The CHP has the -~- authority to determine routing requirements, safe stopping places and inspection stops for the transportation of hazardous wastes. The Federal, State, and local regulations already in place provide the regulatory framework for addressing potential traffic safety impacts. Project-specific analysis should be conducted for a proposed hazardous waste facility site, however, to determine if the surrounding circulation network can safely and adequately handle the potential traffic safety impacts associated with the transport of hazardous waste. As set forth in the proposed Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the General Plan, a traffic study will be required for any future, proposed hazardous waste facilities in order to comprehensively address compliance with the criteria established in the General Plan for the safe transportation of wastes. By requiring compliance to the criteria and process set forth by amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, and by the Implementing Ordinance, as well as the existing federal, state and local regulations already in place, future transportation/circulation impacts associated with future applications for hazardous waste facilities will be adequately addressed and analyzed. Transportation/circulation impacts are therefore, at this time, deemed to be below a level of significance. Public Services/Facilities Because the proposed project consists of policy and regulatory provisions, !end is therefore' not site specific, it is difficult to'ascertain direct impacts to public services and facilities, at this time. However, the Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan set forth criteria to ensure that potential, future impacts to public services and facilities associated with future applications for hazardous waste facilities are addressed and analyzed. Emergency situations associated with the release of hazardous waste or materials into the environment require specially trained personnel capable of containing the release and preventing human exposure, as well as releases into the environment. The County Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) currently provides hazardous materials emergency response capabilities to the City, in association with a mutual aid agreement with the Chula Vista Fire Department. As such, impacts to public services and facilities within the City and to special districts would be positive in that the -8- establishment of planning and siting criteria would ensure that hazardous waste facilities are located in areas where adequate public services and facilities are available and are capable of being provided in the future. Therefore, potential public services and facilities impacts are deemed to be below a level of significance. Human Health The criteria set forth in the amendments to the General Plan Public Facilities Element and the Implementing Ordinance are directed at ensuring the accountability of hazardous waste facilities within the City, a-A~ the encouragement of safe treatment and disposal practices, ~~~' the pt'Oitto'k~.t]tl of ~~~,~ minimization. In addition, the proposed project will ensure the adequate training of facility employees and safe work practices. Therefore, potential human health impacts are deemed to be below a level of significance. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid sianificant effects The proposed project is not associated with any significant environmental impacts, therefore no further mitigation is necessary. With compliance to the criteria set forth in the proposed Implementing ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, potential environmental impacts will be below a level of significance. G. Mandator Findin s of Si nificance Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. i. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Implementation of the proposed project will ensure that potential impacts to fish or wildlife species through an accidental release of hazardous waste or materials will be reduced through compliance with the Implementing Ordinance and General Plan amendments, as well as the federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the -10- H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Dauust, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Garry Williams, Planning Ken Larsen, Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Department Cptn. Keith Hawkins, Police Marti Schmidt, Parks & Rec. Maryann Miller, Planning Ed Batchelder, Planning Chula Vista Elem. School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva 2. References California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code 21000 et.seq) and the State EIR Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations et.seq). Chula Vista, City of, 1987 Chula Vista, City of, 1989a Chula Vista, City of, 1989b. Munici al Code. General Plan Update. General Plan Update EIR. County of San Diego, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. County of San Diego, 1989 Plan. Initial Studv• Hazardous Waste Management This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. r~~.i:~ ~~~~.~ l (_.. ii ~ t. ENVIRONMENTAL ~ : 1 ~? ~.c.CE `L REVIEW COORDINATOR Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: A. GPA-92-U2 -Entertaining reconsideration of City- initiated amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan previously adopted in June 1992, which implement and supplement the approved County of San Diego Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (Continued from the meeting of December 16, 1992) B. GPA-92-02A -Consideration of additional City-initiated amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan refining portions of the June 1992 amendments, and re-stating the City's "fair share" concepts regarding hazardous waste facilities. (Continued from the meeting of December 16, 1992) C. PCA-92-02 -Consideration of City-initiated amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to define hazardous waste facilities as conditional uses in the City's industrial zones, and to establish a specific review procedure for conditional use permit applications for such facilities consistent with State law. (Continued from the meeting of December 16, 1992) A. BACKGROUND On January 6, 1992, the City received written notification from the Board of Supervisors that the County of San Diego Hazardous Waste Management Plan (COHWMP) had been approved by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control. Pursuant to provisions of State law under which the COHWMP was prepared (AB 2948 (Tanner, 1986)), it was incumbent upon the City to take one of the following actions to establish local hazardous waste management provisions consistent with the COHWMP, in order to retain maximum local control over hazardous waste management issues, including facility siting: incorporate the County plan, including any local refinements, by reference, into the City's General Plan, or adopt an ordinance implementing the County plan, or prepare our own Hazardous Waste Management Plan. %- / Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Page 2 2. Staff elected the first option as providing the City appropriate control over local hazardous waste management planning. As the existing Public Facilities Element of the General Plan contained discussion and policies related to hazardous waste, revisions were made to those discussions to incorporate the COHWMP by reference, and to establish those more specific hazardous waste management provisions particular to Chula Vista, and designed to ensure public health and safety, and environmental protection. 3. On June 30, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16794 approving the amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan, incorporating the necessary provisions related to the management of hazardous waste and the siting and permitting of hazardous waste facilities within the City, consistent with the COHWMP and the requirements of State law. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption to the City Council under Resolution GPA-92- 02 subsequent to a public hearing held June 24, 1992, and a continuation hearing held June 29,1992. Those amendments are attached for reference as Exhibit A. 4. In order to implement the provisions of the amended Public Facilities Element, it is necessary to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to establish appropriate conditional use permit review procedures for hazardous waste facilities, and staff was directed by the City Council to prepare such amendments for consideration by Resolution No. 16794. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are attached as Exhibit C. 5. In the course of preparing the Zoning Ordinance amendments, staff found it necessary to make additional revisions to the Public Facilities Element to clarify certain aspects of the June 1992 amendments, particularly the City's hazardous waste facility "fair share" concepts. These additional amendments are attached as Exhibit B. 6. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the both the additional proposed amendments to the Public Facilities Element (GPA-92-02A), and the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments will not result in significant impacts upon the environment, and has issued a Negative Declaration under IS-93-14. (Please see Exhibit D). 7. At the December 16, 1992 public hearing on the above noticed matters, the Planning Commission was presented with a letter from Latham and Watkins objecting to the proposed amendments. The Commission continued the hearing to January 13, 1993 to allow staff sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the merits of those objections. Staffs responses to that letter are contained in Attachment 1, and summarized under item #10 on page 8 of this staff report. ~~~ Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 B. RECObfIvIENDATIONS Page 3 1. Entertain a motion to reconsider the Planning Commission's prior approval of the June 30, 1992 Public Facilities Element amendments under Resolution GPA-92-02, take public testimony, and if no satisfactory reason appears evident from that testimony, approve a motion denying reconsideration. 2. Approve the attached Planning Commission Resolution which: a. Adopts the Negative Declaration prepared under IS-93-14. b. Recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared under IS-93-14. c. Recommends that the City Council approve the attached Draft City Council Resolution, approving the General Plan Amendments currently proposed under GPA-92-02A and contained in Exhibit B. d. Recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached Draft City Council Ordinance implementing the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as contained in Exhibit C. C. DISCUSSION Overview of Requirements and Prior A~pption Actions 1. The San Diego County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (COHWMP) was prepared pursuant to State Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner, 1986). This legislation, commonly referred to as the Tanner Act, sets forth the framework for local implementation of changes in federal and state laws governing the way hazardous wastes should be managed. As required by the Tanner Act, the COHWMP establishes comprehensive provisions for the safe and effective management of industrial, small business and household hazardous wastes within the San Diego Region. It is predicated upon a management hierarchy which focuses on the need to reduce the volume of wastes produced which require treatment, and prescribes various planning, processing, siting and permitting requirements to be applied in evaluating proposals for needed hazardous waste treatment facilities to ensure the protection of public health 2nd safety, and the environment. It also contains comprehensive background information on waste management, and existing and projected waste generation and treatment facility needs within the San Diego Region. The COHWMP serves as the primary planning document providing overall policy direction for the effective management of 100% of the Region's hazardous waste stream, and is the guide for local decisions regarding hazardous waste issues. /-3 Planning Commission Page 4 Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Each of the jurisdiMions in the San Diego Region were to adopt the COHWMP as a policy and decision making guide through the establishment of local hazazdous waste management policies and provisions consistent with the COHWMP. 2. The Public Facilities Element Amendments adopted on June 30, 1992 under Resolution No. 16794 brought the City into compliance with these requirements, and as allowed by law, set forth those more specific or stringent planning requirements and siting criteria which shall be applied in Chula Vista in-lieu of the more general provisions of the COHWMP. Those refinements have been designed to reflect those more specific local conditions and concerns regarding hazardous waste management and facility siting proposals, in ensuring the utmost protection of the health and welfare of citizens, and environmental resources within Chula Vista. The nature of those refinements is as follows: a. strong local emphasis on pollution prevention and waste minimization through source reduction, re-use and recycling of industrial, small business and household hazardous waste to lessen the need for new or expanded hazardous waste facilities. - screening processes for local businesses using hazardous materials and generating hazardous wastes to ensure commitments to waste minimization. - active promotion of recycling and alternative technologies through the City's conservation coordinator in cooperation with the County. b. development of an overall strategy regarding equitable facility siting responsibilities which recognizes the City's waste management commitments and existing facilities in relation to those of other jurisdictions in a "fair share" setting. (Please refer to the further fair share discussions on page 6 of this report). c. emphasis of the foremost protection of local public health and safety, and the environment through the refinement of locational, siting and permitting requirements for considering hazardous waste facility proposals. the removal of certain industrial areas from the "general areas" inventory of lands which aze appropriate for considering facility applications. Those azeas removed include Montgomery, Eastlake and Rancho Del Rey Business Pazks, and a portion of the Otay Valley Rd. area. , / -'{ Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Page 5 requirements for preparation of a Health Risk Assessment and any related technical studies at the discretion of the City for all facility proposals regardless of their type, size or proximity to existing and future populations. refinement of the siting criteria addressing 32 sepazate subject areas, and which must be satisfied for a facility to be sited. The criteria are arranged under the following eight objectives: Protect the Residents of Chula Vista Ensure the Structural Stability of the Facility Protect Surface Water Quality Protect Groundwater Quality Protect Air Quality Protect Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ensure Safe Transportation of Hazardous Waste Protect Social and Economic Goals Staff believes the above referenced refinements provide the City the level of discretion and control over hazardous waste management issues within the City which will ensure the protection of local residents, the environment, and economic stability. Reconsideration of the June 30 1992 Amendments (GPA-92-021 3. During the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing adoption proceedings in June 1992, letters were received from Gree~eld Environmental (the parent company of the APTEC II hazardous waste treatment facility at Otay Landfill) requesting the opportunity to provide additional comment on the amendments. The Planning Commission did, at that time, provide for a continuation of the hearing from June 24, 1992 to June 29, 1992, however, Greenfield continued to hold the position that this additional time was insufficient. 4. The current wnsideration of further clarifying amendments to the Public Facilities Element under GPA-92-02A also gives occasion to respond to Greenf~eld's prior request, although not legally requued, for additional opportunity to review and comment on the June 1992 amendments. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission entertain reconsideration of those amendments at this time, along with consideration of the currently proposed clarifying amendments. Such an approach emphasizes the City's willingness to accommodate desired input, and allows all parties to review and understand the full scope of General Plan's provisions regarding hazardous waste management within the City. For ease of reference, the amendments adopted in June 1992 aze wntained in / -S Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Page 6 Exhibit A, with amended pages highlighted on colored paper. The currently proposed additional clarifying amendments being considered under GPA-92-02A are contained in Exhibit B, with pages involving amendmenu again highlighted on colored paper. i i n I Proposed General Plan A_7nendments (GPA-92-02 5. As called for by Resolution 16974, staff was to prepare amendments to the Zoning Ordinance necessary to implement the provisions of the June 30, 1992 Public Facilities Element amendments. During the course of preparing the implementing ordinance, and based principally upon input from the County Department of Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Division, staff found it necessary to further clarify certain provisions of the prior amendments, most of which are minor in nature and considered technical clean up. (Please refer to Exhibit B which indicates amended pages on colored paper for ease of reference). 6. The single substantive amendment involves a restatement of the City's "fair share" provisions regarding the review and approval of hazardous waste facility proposals, and is contained on pages 3-57 to 3-61 of Exhibit B. Simply stated, "fair share" relates to the fact that the minimum economically viable size for any hazardous waste treatment facility will likely result in its providing services to an area beyond the jurisdiction in which it is located, and in some instances beyond the county in which it is located depending on the type of waste treated. This effectively means that not all jurisdictions will be facility hosts. Therefore, the issue arises of how to ensure that no one jurisdiction becomes an unfair "dumping ground" for regional or multi- regional treatment facility needs, and that all jurisdictions equitably recognize treatment responsibilities as they all generate hazardous wastes. 7. The COHWMP addresses these issues through Fair Share Principles and a Fair Share Formula which require each county to fully address iu waste treatment needs through either siting facilities within iu borders, and/or establishing intergovernmental agreements for treatment capacity at facilities in other counties. Tn order to assure that no one local jurisdiction or subregional area becomes excessively burdened for county-wide ormulti-county treatment needs, the Principles and Formula encourage facility siting where there is a substantial unmet need for the type(s) of treatment which the facility would provide. The Formula provides an allocation of needed small and large facilities among Southern California counties based on their waste generation, with the intent that sites be sought as close to the major generating sources as possible. 8. In order to consistently translate these more general, geographically broad based principles of the COHWMP into more succinctly stated concepts which can be readily understood and applied in evaluating specific facility proposals within the /-H Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Page 7 City, staff has developed afour-tiered approach which accommodates increasingly larger sized facilities provided certain conditions aze demonstrated by the applicant. In overview, those tiers aze: a. relates facility size to unmet treatment needs within a reasonable service area of the proposed facility, based on the location of the generating sources in comparison to county-wide treatment needs. b. allows a facility size beyond that determined by reasonable service azea needs, if such increased size is necessary for minimum economic viability. c. allows a facility size beyond both of the above if there are no other locations in the county capable of permitting the siting of a facility, and/or the use of intergovernmental agreements to handle all or a portion of the proposed facility capacity are infeasible. d. allows a facility size beyond, and regardless of, the above unless the City has already accepted a fair and reasonable share of other regional serving land uses generally considered adverse, including but not limited to prisons, landfills; and power plants, etc. 9. To ensure that adequate opportunity was provided for interested parties, including Greenfield Environmenta] (the parent company of the APTEC II hazardous waste treatment facility at Otay Landfill), to review and comment on the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments, staff distributed a cover letter and copies for initial input between the period of October 12 to 27, 1992, and for final input between the period of November 18, 1992 and December 4, 1992. The latter routing asked for comment submittal no later than December 4. No comments were received during either of these review periods. However, on Monday, December 7, 1992 the Planning Department received a letter dated December 4,1992 from Latham & Watkins (Attorneys for APTEC II), stating on behalf of APTEC II their belief that, due to time prescriptions in the Tanner Act, the City was effectively without jurisdiction to effectuate the currently. proposed General Plan Amendments, and that the item should be removed from the Planning Commission agenda. While the letter very briefly stated their belief "...that Proposed Amendments are deficient in sCveral respects...", no substantive discussion whatsoever was provided as to those alleged deficiencies. The letter did go on to state that should the City decide to proceed in this matter, APTEC will submit additional comments at or prior to the hearing. ~~~ Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Page 8 10. In a letter dated December 10, 1992, the Planning Department responded to Latham & Watkins' December 4, 19921etter, and indicated that the matters would be heazd as scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on December 16, 1992. At 5:30 p.m. on December 16, 1992, the Planning Department received a letter of response from Latham & Watkins, attorneys for APTEC, reiterating many of their and Greenfield Environmental's previous claims, but in addition more substantive comments were provided for the first time on specific portions of the June 30, 1992 General Plan Amendments (GPA-92-02), and on the currently proposed additional amendments (GPA-92-02A). That letter was presented to the Planning Commission at the 7:00 p.m. hearing. Given the inability to adequately review and respond to the letter's claims, the Commission granted staffs request to continue the hearing to the next regular business meeting of January 13, 1993. Staff has since reviewed the December 16, 1992 letter, and has provided responses for the Commission's consideration which are contained in Attachment 1 to this report. For clarity, that Attachment inserts staff responses at appropriate points within the body of the letter. Based on review of the above letter, the Tanner Act, the COHWMP, and the City's General Plan provisions, staff has found that reconsideration of the June 30, 1992 General Plan amendments under GPA-92-02 are not warranted, and that the currently proposed additional amendments and Implementing Ordinance are consistent with the provisions of State law and the COHWMP. Staff did however, make minor revisions to criteria nos. 4, 5, 7, and 8 on pages 3-47 and -48 of Exhibit B, to clarify the City's intent in response to Latham & Watkins letter. Furthermore, it is the advice of the City Attorney that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear the matters as scheduled. Proposed Implementing Amendments to the ZoninE Ordinance 11. As previously noted, Resolution No. 16794 called for the preparation of Zoning ordinance amendments necessary to implement provisions of the amended Public Facilities Element. The focus of the Zoning Ordinance amendments is to define hazardous waste facilities, and to establish a specialized conditional use permit application and review procedure consistent with the provisions of the Tanner Act contained in Section 25199 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code. f 12. Those provisions of State law delineate unique procedural requirements for local consideration of hazardous waste facility proposals which, in summary, include the following: l-~ Planning Commission Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 Page 9 a. a 90 day pre-application period. b. ongoing coordination with the State Office of Permit Assistance (OPR), affected agencies such as the State and County Departments of Health Services, Regional Water Quality Control Boazd, and the Air Pollution Control District, and the public and affected local jurisdictions. c. a particular series of public notification and input meetings. d. Appointment by the City of a Local Assessment Committee whose membership is specifically structured, and whose role is to serve in an advisory capacity to the City with respect to identifying the terms and conditions under which a proposed facility may be acceptable to the community. e. role and relation of environmental documents and health risk assessments in the review process. e. time frames for various portions of the review process. f. the creation of Technical Assistance Grants which may be used by the LAC to commission consultants or studies necessary to assist in the review of the project and related technical documents, and in formulation of their recommendations. g. an appeal process for local project decisions through the State Governor's Office. 13. Pursuant to the above, following is a summary of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments contained in Exhibit C: a. Adds Section 19.04.107 defining hazardous waste facilities. b. Adds Section 19.58.178 adding further definitions, setting forth the specific conditional use permit application and review procedures unique to hazardous waste facility proposals, defining the LAC formation process and their role in decision making, prescribing the required series of public information and input meetings, indicating the role and preparation requirements for environmental and health risk assessments, prescribing the process for initial General Plan wnsistency determinations, outlining the process and guidelines for obtaining and using Technical Assistance Grants, and delineating additional findings required for the issuance of a conditional use permit for a hazardous waste facility. c. Amends Section 19.14.070 modifying the conditional use permit administrative procedure to require the additional findings, and requiring consideration of the use permit by both the Planning Commission and City Council, with the Planning Commission's action forming a recommendation rather than a decision subject to appeal, and making the City Council's action fmal. ~~9 Planning Commission Page 10 Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993 d. Amends Sections 19.42.040, 19.44:040, and 19.46.040 to establish hazardous waste facilities as wnditional uses in the City's I-R, I-I,, and I zones respectively, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.178 previously outlined. (hwoMpc.ryt) /-/ls ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1 LETTER FROM LATHAM & WATKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW RECEIVED IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE 16, 1992 AT 5:30 P.M. AND TO THAT LETTER NOTE: The Latham and Watkins letter is shown in small, bold print, with City staff responses in larger print. December ]ti, 1992 BY RAND DELIVERY Members of the City Planning Commission Planning Department Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: City Implementation of the County of San Dieeo Hazardous Waste 11lanaeement Plan Ladies/Gentlemen: I write to comment on the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zoning Ordinances (the "Proposed Amendments") regarding the City of Chula Vista's (the "City") implementation of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (the "COHWMP"), item 5 on this evening's agenda. I submit the following comments on behalf of Appropriate Technologies II, Inc. ("Aptec"). As a threshold matter, the Tamer Act requires the City to consider and act upon the Proposed Amendments within 180 days of the County's written notificatim that its COHWMP bad been approved by the state. Cal. Health & Safety Code 5 25135.7(c). The County informed the City of this approval oo January 6, 1992. The 186-day period lapsed m July 4, 1992. Therefore, the City now lacks jurisdictim W effect any modifications to the COHWMP's application in the City. The City has already recognized this limitation on its authority. In its report supporting the Planing Commission's Jme 30,1992 meeting on this matter, the City acknowledged that its authority for taking action regarding the COHR7vIP would expire on July 4, 1992. Due W this deficiency, ApteC; in a December 4, 19921etter to Mr. Ed Batchelder, urged the City to remove coosideratim of the Proposed Amendments from the Planing Commicsim's agenda for December 16, 1992. Mr. Batchelder responded by letter dated ~~I / Members of the Cky Planwng Commission ATTACHMENT 1 December 16, 1992 Page 2 December 10, 1992, in which he stated that consideration of the Proposed Amendments will remain on the Plamiog Commission's agenda for December 16, 1992 and asserted the City's authority W act on this matter. We recew our request that the Commission take tw action. As outlined in that December 10, 1992 letter, the City adopted amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan incorporating applicable provisions of the COHWMP on June 30, 1992 as required by law, and prior to the statutory deadline provided for in the Tanner Act. The amendments currently being proposed consist of Zoning Ordinance Amendments necessary to implement the provisions of the June 30, 1992 General Plan Amendments, along with additional clarifying amendments to the Public Facilities Element found necessary during the course of preparing the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. In addition, the City will also be entertaining reconsideration of the June 30, 1992 amendments as a procedural courtesy to ensure that all parties are provided sufficient opportunity to comment on the City's entire hazardous waste management provisions. As the City has already adopted provisions, it is an invalid claim that the City does not have authority to amend those provisions because the July 4, 1992 deadline has past. Under such a theory the City could never amend our HWMP absent permission from the State Legislature. Courts have held, however, that "[t]he power to legislate includes by necessary implication the power to amend existing legislation." Citv of Sausalito v. County of Morin (1970) 12 Ca1.App.3d 550, 563-64, 90 Ca1.Rptr. 843, 852. In addition, where a statute prescribes deadlines but does not provide for enforcement, these deadlines are usually directory. LindborQ/Dahl Investors v. Garden Grove (1986) 225 Ca1.Rptr. 154, 179 Ca1.App.3d 956, 960, n. 2; Anderson v. Pittenger (1961) 17 Ca1.Rptr. 54, 197 Ca1.App.2d 188, 194; 58 Ca1.Jur. (3rd ed. 1980) Statutes § 150, pp. 546-48. Nothing in the Tanner Act indicates that the time requirements are intended to act as a limitation on the City to act. Furthermore, the Tanner Act subserves a public purpose for the location of hazardous waste facilities, and legislative findings stress the importance of having a local procedure for considering such facilities. comments. Ia the event that the Commission decides to proceed with this matter, we submit the following 1. 'Ilse Proposed Amendments Are Preemnted By Federal Lew ILe City's actions have been aimed at effecting ~g,iure and de facto bans on bazardous waste facilities io the City. On their face, the Proposed Amendments represent eo attempt by the Ci[y to fu~mly establish those bans. 'Ibe Proposed Amendments are, therefore, preempted by the comprebensive legislation addressing harerdous waste mamgement which the United States Congress has enacted. See Oeden Environmental Services v. City of San Dieeo, 687 F. Supp. 1436 ($.D. Cal. 1988) (city's bsn on hazardous waste facilities held preempted by federal legislation). 1Lerefore, we urge the Planning Commission to revise the Proposed Amendments in order to bring Nem within the requirements of federal law. The "de jure and de facto ban" theory is currently being challenged by the City in federal court. The proposed amendments do not constitute a "de facto ban" because the regulations aze specifically authorized under the Tanner Act, Health & Safety Code § 25135.7(c)(2). The case cited for this proposition, Ogden Environmental Service v ity of San Dieeo, 687 F. Supp. 1436 (S.D. Cal. 1988), is easily distinguishable. In d n, the court struck down the City of San Diego's CUP process where it failed to contain Fyn standards for evaluating -/y'~ Members of the City Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 December 16, 1992 Page 3 hazardous waste facilities. Here, we are attempting to establish such standards in accordance with the procedure established by the State. 2, 'n. v. a • dments Vialate The Commerce Clause Ot The United States Constitution The Commerce Clause prohibits local govermneats from interfering with the now of interstate commerce. The intent of the Proposed Amendments is to limit the now of hazardous waste into the City. While this result may appear attractive W the City, it is precisely the tort of parochial protectionist measure which unconstitutionally impedes the flow of interstate commerce. Measures much like the Proposed Amendmeuts have beau repeatedly struck dowv by the Uuited States Supreme Court and bwer courts as valative of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause does not restrict all local regulation, only such regulation as unduly burdens interstate commerce. The intent of the proposed amendments is to establish provisions for the comprehensive management of hazardous wastes, including criteria for the proper siting of hazardous waste facilities within the City as authorized by the State in the Tanner Act, Gov. Code § 25135.7(c). The development of siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities is critical in protecting the health and safety of the City's residents and businesses and is not a violation of the Commerce Clause. 3. The Proposed Amendments Are Preempted By State Law Much like Congress, the California legislature has enacted legislation to address the challenges posed by hazardous waste management. This legislation provides comprehensive regulation of the treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, and establishes priorities in mamging hazardous waste in California. Since the Proposed Amendments would serve to institute e ' r end f ct bans on hazardous waste facilities in the City, they are also preempted by state law. Consequently, we urge the Planning Commission to reject the Proposed Amendments in favor of amendments not violative of applicable state laws. 4. The Proposed Amendments Violate The Tanner Act To foster a cohesive state-wide strategy for the management of hazardous waste, the California kgislature enacted the Tanner Act, whose goal is to facilitate the siting of hazardous waste facilities notwithstanding frequent kcal opposition. The Teener AM requ'ves each county to prepare a hazardous waste mttmgement plan. Yhis plea must then be implemented by all cities within the county. The City may not take action which is inconsistent with the COfiWMP. The City'a Proposed Amendments ere inconsistent with the COHWMP siting criteria and fa'v share principles. The proposed amendments are not preempted by state law, nor do they violate the Tanner Act, because they are specifically authorised under the Tanner Act, Health & Safety Code § 25135.7(c). In addition to requiring local jurisdictions to adopt provisions consistent with the County hazardous waste management plan, Health and Safety Code §25135.7(d) (Tanner Act) expressly provides, in reference to § 25135.7(c), that 'This section does not limit the authority of any city to attach appropriate conditions to the issuance of any land use approval for a hazardous waste facility in order to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, and does not limit the authority of a city to establish more stringent planning requirements or siting criteria Than those specified in the county hazardous waste management plan. " To the extent that the / -/3 Members of the City Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 December 16, 1992 Page 4 City modified or made more stringent certain of the COHWMP'S requiremenu and criteria, does not of itself constitute inwnsistency, or amount to the claimed "de jure and de facto bans" on hazardous waste facilities within the City previously rebutted under item #1. The COHWMP itself indicates that its provisions are more broadly based given the document's county-wide scope, and that local jurisdictions may find the need to refine them based on more specific local conditions. Accordingly, the City has modified the COHWMP's General Areas inventory and siting criteria to ensure the utmost recognition for, and protection of, the health, safety and welfaze of its citizens and environment. For example, City criteria Nos. 1 and 2 change the definition o[ "proximity to populations" so as to significantly increase the required buffer zone. Moveover, City criterion No.l explicitly states that the "active portion of the facility shall be subject to additional setbacks and buffering." It should be noted that the above comments pertain to the General Plan provisions adopted on June 30, 1992. The above sited criteria changes do not significantly increase the required buffer zone because they merely involve tying the measurement of a facility's separation from populations to a more fixed and recognizable feature, i.e. the property boundary on which the facility is sited, rather than from the more ambiguous "active portion of the facility" as stated in the COHWMP. Given this change, the City also added a qualifying criteria stating that "The active portion of a facility shall be subject to additional setbacks and buffering from the property boundary as required by the underlying zone, or [hrough conditions established by the associated use permit(s). " In practical application, the only increase in buffering created by these changes would be the setback distance from the property boundazy to the "active portion" of a facility as required by the underlying industrial zone. Such inning setbacks, which aze normally less than 50 feet, would by comparison to the COHWMP's recommended minimum distance to populations of 2000 feet, not amount to a significant increase. Perhaps Latham & Watkins' perception arises from a situation similaz to that at the Otay Landfill, where a facility is set within a substantially lazger property. In such particulaz instances however, it would not the City's intent to unreasonably apply the criteria, but rather to recognize that a smaller facilty site or "property" exists. Additionally, eventhough the City's changes do not amount to a significant increase, such refinement of the COHWMP's criteria is authorized by the Tanner Act as discussed in the previous responses. .. the City criteria also mandate that the City requve a 6ealN rick assessment ("HRA"l, determine its scope, and use it W decide whether a Ct7P should be issued. 1Lis is contrary to the terms of the COHWMP, which permits a city to require an H1tA only when a facility 6aadling ignitable, volatile or reactive wastes proposes W locate within 2,000 feet of a residential development. The COHWMP contains no such prohibition on the ability of a city to require preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA)..The terms of the COHWMP referenced read as follows: /- /~/ Members of the City Planing Commission December 16, 1992 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 "For facilities handling ignitable, volatile, or reactive waste, the minimum distance of 2000 feet should be required unless the facility developer can show that the public is adequatey protected in the event of an accident. (Risk Assessment) " This criteria simply indicates that a minimum 2000 foot buffer to populations should always be required unless the applicant can demonstrate, through the H1tA, that the public can be adequately protected at a lesser distance. Not that a city's ability to call for an HRA is limited. Preparation of H1tA's is a standazd practice in evaluating certain potential siting impacts of hazardous waste facilities. The City's criteria correctly recognize that there is no particulaz distance which is automatically assumed to be safe, and simply call for an HRA to assess specific circumstances, and demonstrate if the facility can safely operate at the proposed distance. In recognition that each hazardous waste facility proposal will be unique in its potential health risks, the City's criteria call for a screening process to determine an appropriate scope and depth for each H1tA. That screening process is designed to be objective, and as set forth in Section 19.58.178H of the proposed Implementing Ordinance, involves the Local Assessment Committee, an Ad Hoc Technical Committee experts in the waste field, and the proponent, not solely City staff. Implementing Ordinance Section 19.58.178H(6) further clarifies that the HRA is an evaluative tool, and is not to be construed as providing definitive answers regazding facility siting. Ia addition, while the COHWIi1P allows the siting of hazardous waste facilities in certain hazard areas as long as those facilities are "designed, constructed, operated, and maintained" to address the hazard, the City flatly refuses to permit such siting except "at the discretion of the City Council." (,£eg City criteria Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8J It should be noted that the above comment pertains to the General Plan provisions adopted on June 30, 1992. The noted City criteria are intended to implement those of the COHWMP by similazly prohibiting facilities in certain hazard aeeas (floodplains, faults, geologidsoil instability, etc.) except where satisfactory design and other controls aze provided. The effective difference is that the City's criteria require that the proposed design and other controls be reviewed and approved by the City Council, in order to provide the City's decision makers the ability to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the public and the environment will be adequately protected. In reviewing the criteria, staff felt that the current wording may have been slightly ambiguous in conveying that intent, and has thereby made clarifying revisions. In addition, it was discovered that criterias No. 5 and 8 did not contain the same Council approval provision, and therefore it was added. These revisions aze reflected on pages 3-47 and 3-48 of Exhibit B, and will thereby be included in your action on GPA-92-02(A). Perhaps the City's most telling deviation from the COHWI~~IP b is the area of ta'v share guidelines. In drafting the COHWMP, the County recognized that without cooperation and regard for county- and state-wide needs, hazardous waste facilities would not be sited in Southern California at all, which would make eoviroameotally safe waste management impossible. _ ~.~ Members of Ne City Planning Commission December 16, 1992 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 The City, io addition to requ'viog an applicant to meet all of its siting criteria and the COITwMP's fair share guidelines, would require the applicant to "submit evidence convincing to the City consistent with" one of four standards. The applicant must also submit extensive data regarding currently existing and projected waste generation, exiling treatment facilities, and intergovernmental agreements. The City also reserved for itself the authority W "survey the efforts put forth by the communities from within which the involved wastes are being generated, to recognize treatment responsibilities and reduce the'v oR-site treatment needs through promoting on-site treatment and wale minimization. " As stated in the second paragraph above, the City's provisions require the COHWMP's fair share guidelines to be met, and further, establish afour-tiered approach which translates those guidelines into more succinctly stated concepts which can be readily applied by City staff in the local evaluation of specific facility proposals. Therefore, rather than a "telling deviation from the COHWMP", the City's fair share provisions implement the COHWMP's. Furthermore, the COHWMP expressly recognizes that the basis for fair shaze determinations is dynamic, and subsequently calls for waste generation and treatment data to be updated annually, or whenever a new facility is sited or an existing facility expanded or restricted. The City's requirement for the applicant's submittal of such data is consistent with the COHWMP's provisions, and is necessary to create an accurate basis for fair shaze evaluations. The City's intent in providing for the possible survey of other community's efforts , is to ensure that those jurisdictions which are large waste generators, but do not provide treatment facilities, at least actively recognize treatment responsibilities and promote waste minimization. Such a provision may also provide the basis upon which future compensation/incentive programs could be established. In this regard, the City's provisions indicate we Ln~y survey the efforts, but in no way indicated that such a survey would form the sole basis for facility approval or denial. The preceding sample of the City's efforts to supplant the COIIWMP is by no means exhaustive, but ii offered to illustrate Ne onerous nature of the City's siting criteria and fav share requirements. The Cuy has, in effect, refused to implement the C013WMP as it is required to do by the Tamer Act. The City's actions, therefore, have violated the Tanner Act and have undermined the state-wide strategy for hazardous waste management. We urge the Planning Commission to reexamine the Proposed Amendments and requ've the City W draft amendments which are consistent with the COAN'hfP. As delineated throughout the preceding responses, the City's adoption hazardous waste management provisions is intended to implement, not supplant, the COHWMP. The Tanner Act expressly provides that the City may adopt provisions which aze "more stringent" than those of the COHWMP. While the City has adopted such provisions, they aze not materially more "onerous" than those of the COHWMP, and are entirely consistent with the intent of the COHWMP, and provisions of the Tanner Act. 5. The City Cannot Rely On Its Lune 30. 1992 Amendments Aptec has challenged, in federal court, the City's enactment of the June 30, 1992 amendments due to the City's failure to comply with We notice provisions of Cal. Gov't Code §;i 65090 and 65091. To the extent that the Proposed Amendments are dependent on the ]une 30, 1992 amendments, they are barred by the lack of proper notice w the enactment of those amendments, and for the other reasons alleged in Aptec's federal lawsuit. ~' l(.~ Members of the City Flaming Commission ATTACHMENT 1 December 16, 1992 Page 8 Implementing Ordinance have been separately evaluated under CEQA (IS 93-14), and it was determined that the proposed projects would not create significant environmental effects. As a result, a negative declaration was issued for these proposed amendments. 7. The Citv's Reliance On A Ne¢ative Declarption To Sumort The Imolementin¢ Ordinances And Associated Revisions Violates CEQA A negative declaration is appropriate only if "[t]here is no substantial evidence" that the project in question will Gave a signi(~cant adverse impact on the environment. CEQA GuideUnes, 5 15070, subd. (a). Because the Proposed Amendments would cause 6arardous waste facilities to be sited outside of the City's bomdaries, a aigoifrant adverse impact on other areas in the Southern California region may well occur. The negative declaratim prepared by the City expressly relies on as initial study conducted by fhe City. Aptec has already objected to the complete failure of the City to comply with CEQA requ'vements for cmducting initial studies. Aptec's letter voicing this objection is attached to these comments as Exhibit A. In light of the jurisdictional considerations discussed above, Aptec urges the City to remove consideration of the Proposed Amendments from the Planning Commission's agenda for today, December 16, 1992. If, however, the Flaming Commission does proceed to consider this item, Aptec urges it to reject the Proposed Amendments due to the considerations discussed above in favor of amendments which are consomat with federal and state laws. The City conducted an initial study to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Implementing Ordinance and amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, pursuant to CEQA. The initial study analyzed the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of local siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities located within the City of Chula Vista. As a result of the initial study, the City determined that there was no substantial evidence that the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and a negative declaration was issued pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, § 15070. Furthermore, the City previously responded to the issue concerning CEQA compliance in conducting the initial study, as raised by Latham & Watkins in a letter dated October 16, 1992. Clarification was provided to demonstrate that the initial study packet that was distributed to the public was complete, in a response letter from the City's Environmental Review Coordinator dated November 19, 1992. Very truly yours, Roman Lifson of LATHAM & WATKINS Enclosure a: Tom Vernon, Esq. Mr. Kelly McGregor 6: Wwperyt."n /-~ 'Xf~/B/T g CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT CONTENTS Section Page ]. INTRODUCTION ...................................3-] 2. GOALS AND OB7ECTIVES ............................ 3-] 3. INVENTORY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES .......... 3-6 3.1 WATER FACILITIES INVENTORY ............... 3-6 3.2 WASTEWATER FACILITIES INVENTORY ......... 3-8 3.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES INVENTORY ............................3-10 3.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES INVENTORY .................. 3-12 3.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES INVENTORY ..... 3-16 3.6 SECONDARY SCHOOLS INVENTORY ........... 3-16 3.7 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS INVENTORY .......... 3-18 3.8 LIBRARY INVENTORY ....................... 3-18 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN ......................... . 3-19 4.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK ........... . 3-19 4.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM .............................. .3-22 4.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM .... . 3-26 4.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM .............................. .3-30 4.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM ................. . 3-31 4.6 SECONDARY SCHOOL SYSTEM ............... . 3-34 4.7 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SYSTEM ............. . 3-34 4.8 LIBRARY SYSTEM ......................... . 3-34 5. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ....................... .. 3-35 5.1 WATER SUPPLY POLICIES ................. .. 3-35 5.2 WASTEWATER SERVICE POLICIES .......... .. 3-36 5.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL POLICIES .. .. 3-37 5.4 SOLID WASTE CONTROL POLICIES .......... .. 3-38 5.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL POLICIES .... .. 3-38 5.6 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES .......... .. 3-61 5.7 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ......... .. 3-62 6. REFERENCES .....................................3-63 1. INTRODUCTION The public facilities element of the Chula Vista General Plan focuses on the facilities and services that aze controlled by the City through direct administration or contractual agreement, and facilities provided as obligatory services by other public agencies. In the case of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal, non-obligatory facilities provided by the private sector and not necessarily under the City's control through direct administration or contractual agreement, are also addressed. Excluded are public facilities that fall directly within the scope of other elements of the plan such as Parks and Recreation, Circulation and others. 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The general objective and goal of the City of Chula Vista, as it relates to the infrastructure requirements of the genera] plan, is to promote an adequate and efficient range of public facilities and services. This will be accomplished by identifying key issues that should be addressed by the Public Facilities Element and establishing the goals and objectives in response to each issue. Issues are statements of either opportunities or problems the City will encounter in providing adequate infrastructure requirements. Goals and objectives are statements of value regarding what should or should not take place during the course of the City's development. The issues, goals and objectives which are applicable to the water, wastewater, drainage and flood control and solid and hazazdous waste facility requirements are discussed in this section. GOAL 1. WATER FACILITY PLANNING As in many other areas of Southern California, Chula Vista has experienced significant growth over the past two decades. This growth has placed an increased demand on the water distribution and supply facilities for the area. Chula Vista is highly dependent on imported water supplies from the Colorado River Basin and State Project Water from Northern California. In recent. years, below average rainfall throughout California coupled with a court decision reducing California's share of Colorado River Water, has increased [he importance of proper water management and conservation. It is the goal of Chula Vista take actions, appropriate to its population and resources, to control the growth in demand for water and promote water conservation. Objective 1. Promote water conservation through increased efficiency in essential uses and use of low water demand landscaping. Objective 2. Encourage, where safe and feasible, wastewater reclamation and use of reclaimed water for irrigation and other uses. Objective 3. Encourage suppliers to adopt a graduated rate structure designed [o encourage water conservation. Objective 4. Actively participate in the agency planning for providing 3-1 adequate emergency storage and supply facilities for Chula Vista and neighboring communities. GOAL 2. WASTEWATER FACILITY PLANNING Chula Vista relies on the City of San Diego Metropolitan (Metro) Sewage System for treating and disposing of the wastewater generated within the general plan azea. The City of San Diego has been mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency to upgrade the Metro system to secondary treatment levels. This mandate, coupled with the increased demand on Metro, will result in significant expansion to the existing system of which Chula Vista is part. It is the goal of the City to participate in the regional decision-making process regarding this expansion and to control the growth in demand for wastewater treatment within the general plan area. Objective 5. Continually monitor wastewater flows and anticipate future wastewater increases [hat may result from changes in the adopted land use. Objective 6. Promote low wastewater generating development where appropriate. Objective 7. Actively participate in the Metro expansion planning process, and where appropriate, evaluate reasonable alternatives to eliminating Chula Vista's dependence on Metro. Objective 8. Assure that new development meets or exceeds a standard of high quality in wastewater facility planning and design and that existing downstream facilities are not adversely impacted by the addition of new development upstream. Objective 9. Resist the addition of permanent new pump stations where gravity flow is at all possible. GOAL 3. DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITY PLANNING As growth occurs in the future, the proportional amount of rainfall runoff from each drainage area will increase. As a result, existing drainage and flood control facilities downstream will begin to experience higher flow rates than they have been experiencing or were designed for. It is the goal of the City to properly regulate design of future facilities such that the effectiveness of the existing drainage facilities are not degraded. Objective 10. Required development of on-site detention of storm water flows such that where practical, existing downstream structures will not be overloaded. Objective 11. Assure that new development incorporates a high degree of sediment control as pan of their project. Objective 12. Preserve the existing drainage structures in Central Chula Vista where possible to minimize the disruption to the public and the 3-2 requirement for additional space for larger facilities. GOAL 4. SOLID WASTE CONTROL PLANNING The production of solid wastes in San Diego County, including Chula Vista, has steadily increased on a per capita basis at about ]0 percent per year since 1982. If this trend continues as more development occurs, and based on [he availability of suitable disposal sites, Chu]a Vista could experience a solid waste disposal problem. This could mean at minimum a significant cost increase for transporting materials great distances to available disposal sites and the possibility of increasing the number of waste transfer sites within the City. While control and siting of disposal sites falls under the jurisdiction of agencies other than Chula Vista, including the County of San Diego and State of California, the City has the ability to control waste production within its general plan area. It is the goal of Chula Vista to take action appropriate to its population and resources, to promote reductions in solid waste production and plan for adequate disposal. Objective 13. Promote recycling of any material which has a reusable nature. Provide public facilities to handle recycling of materials such as paper, glass and others. Objective 14. Support waste reduction legislation. Objective I5. Support the County Public Information and Education Program regarding solid waste reduction and recycling. Objective 16. Participate in regional planning and evaluation of solid waste disposal sites and alternative methods of solid waste disposal. GOAL 5. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING Coupled with population growth in San Diego County is a growth in the need for consumer goods and services, and the industries that produce them, in order to maintain economic stability. However, many of those goods and services contain chemicals or use chemicals in their manufacture and/or packaging. While our quality-of--life and economic stability may be largely dependent upon these products and services, we are also threatened by the mismanagement of their chemical remains or the hazardous waste generated. .............. Past practice has seen much of the hazardous waste generated within Sat I3iega CBttttty disposed of in off-site hazardous waste landfills without pre-treatment. Awazeness of the inherent public and environmental dangers of such practices has been heightened by recent federal and state legislation regarding the management and disposal of hazardous wastes. The focus of this legislation has been toward increasing public and environmental safety by reducing the hazard inherent in disposal through adequate waste treatment, and toward reducing the vo]ume of hazardous waste produced requiring treatment and disposal. Assembly Bi112948, State Government Code Sections 25135 et. seq, and 25199 et. seq. (Tanner, 1986), referred to as the Tanner Act, represents a significant move toward the management of hazardous waste in 3-3 a comprehensive and systematic approach, and requires every County to formulate and adopt a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The San Diego County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (COHWMP) was prepared in cooperation with local jurisdictions and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL), and approved by the State Department of Health Services (DHS) in October 1991. Its principal goal is to "establish a system for managing hazardous materials, including wastes, to protect public health, safety and welfare, and maintain the economic viability of San Diego County." The COHWMP serves as the primary planning document providing overall policy direction toward the effective management of hazardous waste within San Diego County, including that within the City's General Planning Area, through establishment of goals, policies, and implementation measures predicated upon [he following management hierazchy: Encourage and support hazardous waste reduction and minimization at its source through methods such as alteration of manufacturing processes and/or material substitutions, 2. Encourage recycling and on-site treatment, 3. Provide for adequate off-site multi-user facilities to physically or chemically eliminate or diminish hazardous properties, or reduce residual volumes requiring disposal, in a manner which protects public health, safety, and welfare, and 4. Provide for adequate disposal facilities for treatment residuals The COHWMP functions as a guide for local decisions regarding hazardous waste issues, and in addition to waste reduction strategies, it sets forth siting, permitting and processing requirements for local review of applications for off-site hazardous waste treatment facilities. As such, each City within the County is required [o adopt necessary provisions to implement the COHWMP. Therefore, the following related sections of the Public Facilities Element of [he Chula Vista General Plan incorporate the COHWMP by reference as if set forth herein, and as provided by law, prescribe those more specific, or stringent, planning requirements and siting criteria reflective of local conditions which shall prevail over the more general provisions of the COHWMP in favor of ensuring the utmost protection of public health, safety and welfaze, and environmental resources within the City of Chula Vista. Objective 17: Develop effective screening processes for new and existing local businesses using hazardous materials and generating hazardous waste to encourage waste minimization. Objective 18: Promote recycling and alternative technologies for industrial, small business, and household hazardous wastes in cooperation with the County and other agencies. Objective 19: Establish effective hazardous waste management planning within the City through involvement of the public, environmental groups, civic 3-4 associations, waste generators, and the waste management industry in decisions on local waste issues and facility proposals. Objective 20: Ensure the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Chula Vista residents and the integrity of the City's environmental resources, through establishment of effective processing procedures, and siting and permitting criteria for hazardous waste facilities, and businesses using tsr GOAL 6. SCHOOLS As growth occurs in the City, paricularly new residential development, increased demands for school services and facilities will be placed on the school districts servicing the Chula Vista Community. While the control and siting of school sites falls under the jurisdiction of the local school districts, Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vita City Schools, it is [he goal of the City to facilitate the districts' provision of school services. Objective 21. Coordinate the review of development proposals with the local school districts to ensure that adequate school facilities are available to meet the needs required by the development. Objective 22. Coordinate with local school districts during the review of land use issues which required discretionary approval such as tentative subdivision maps, planned unit developments, zoning ordinance and general plan revisions and amendments. Objective 23. Provide the school districts with the development thresholds as proposed by [he growth management committee for the agencies' review and comment. Objective 24. To site new school land use designations in a central location within residential neighborhoods. GOAL 7. LIBRARY As growth occurs in the City, particularly residential development, increased demand for library service will occur. It is the goal of [he City to provide for the expansion of the library system into the newly developing areas and areas not adequately served by existing library facilities. Objective 25. Coordinate the review of development proposals to ensure that adequate library facilities are available to meet the needs of new development. Objective 26. Continue the process of planning and site selection to ensure that new facilities are built in existing area that are not currently served by an adequate library. Objective 27. To site new library facilities in a central location to conveniently serve the surrounding community. 3-5 3. INVENTORY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES The public utilities and service system is one of the most important considerations in urban development. Urban development and growth is dependent upon the availability of public utilities and services. Conversely, expansion of these is dependent upon thorough planning which in tum is an extension of appropriate and well-reasoned land use analysis and proposal. The facilities and networks which make up the public works "infrastructure" are generally considered as the foundations upon which activity areas are facilitated and maintained. In the case of Chula Vista, the infrastructure may be one of the primary criteria for determining future growth of activity areas. The infrastructure addressed in this element consists of the fo]lowing facilities: Water Wastewater Drainage and Flood Control Solid ~ Waste Control Hazai'daus Waste!' Corrtral Generally, the City of Chula Vista is being adequately served by its public works infrastrucwre. Certain facilities, however, are in need of improvement and upgrading. The following sections discussed in greater detail each of the infrastructure systems and the agencies controlling them. 3.1 WATER FACILITIES INVENTORY The City of Chula Vista's general plan area is provided water service primazily by two major water agencies. These will be discussed below and are shown on Figure 3-l. Sweetwater Authority Central Chula Vista is served by the Sweetwater Authority whose service area within the City is bounded by Interstate 805 and Sweetwater Reservoir to the east, San Diego By to the west, the Otay River Valley to the south and SR 54 Bonita Road to the north. Approximately sixty percent of Sweetwater's system is supplied by gravity from the Sweetwater Filtration Plant. The remainder of the system is comprised of pumped pressure zones at the higher elevations. Source supply for the City's portion of the system is largely from surface water runoff and collection at Sweetwater Reservoir augmented by the San Diego County Water Authority aqueduct system when necessary. Transmission and distribution pipelines ranging in size from 6 inches to 42 inches, deliver water to Chula Vista with a normal operating pressure range of 40 to 90 pounds per square inch (psi). Daily and seasonal peak flow requirements, including fire flows, are offset by operational storage reservoirs located throughout the City. Total operational storage for Sweetwater is approximately 38 millions gallons with an average daily demand of about 24 million gallons per day. 3-6 ~1a~nK 3-7 W H N } N t7 2 T Ilwn Y' X • W ~ ~ ~ ~ W F~ N } W Q 3 u ..•.... ~~~• • l•• • •• •• •• t~ ;. ~ ~ •~ l~ •~)~ •, a y Z 2 O y ~t N \ y 2 f '\ N • \ X . W •~ 1• • • U • ~ ~• ~ ~_ •~ O ~~ • 2 • • W • • }- • . M • . • •• ~ •• • ~ ~• O 'I _~• • • • ..- 1.. •• W W 3 6 ! y 1 o o ~ z ~ ~ m 0 m S2 y S O r ~ _y y O K W Otay Water District The easterly portion of the general plan azea is served by the Otay Water District. Otay refers to this area as the Central Area which encompasses three Improvement Districts including LD. No. 5; LD. No. 10; and LD. No. 22. Improvement Districts aze defined as areas which are assessed fees in relation to the benefit received for constructing water or sewer facilities for that area. These districts were formed on the following dates: I.D. No. 5, November 28, 1960 by Resolution No. 123 LD. No. ]Q February l 1, 1963 by Resolution No. 265 LD. No. 22, July 3, 1972 by Resolution No. 986 This portion of the general plan area is bounded by Interstate 805 to the west, the Otay River Valley to the south the Lower Otay Reservoir to the east and the area known as Bonita to the north. Approximately 39 percent of this area is served by gravity while the remainder requires pumping. The system is comprised of five pressure zones (service areas), two water booster pump stations, six reservoirs and two connections [o the San Diego County Water Authority filtered water aqueduct system. The aqueduct system supplied by Colorado River Water and State Project Water provides the only supply source to this area. Pipelines range in size from 6 inches to 30 inches and current total storage volume is approximately 32 million gallons. The average daily demand for the system is about 4.5 million gallons per day. 3.2 WASTEWATER FACILITIES INVENTORY As a member of the City of San Diego Metropolitan Sewage System, Chula Vista currently has contracted for capacity rights equaling 17.1 mgd average daily flow. Including the 2.0 mgd metro capacity rights that were acquired when Chula Vista over [he operation of the Montgomery Sanitation District brings the total contract capacity to 19.1 mgd for Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista operates and maintains its own sanitary sewer system. This system consists of approximately 270 miles of sewers ranging in size from 6 inches to 36 inches, ]0 raw sewage pump stations and. three independent metered connections to the City of San Diego Metropolitan Sewer System (Metro). Figure 3-2 illustrates the major components of the existing wastewater system. The northern portion of the City gravity flows into the Spring Valley Interceptor which is generally located in Sweetwater Road. This line is owned and operated by the County of San Diego. This line is owned and operated by the County of San Diego, which leases 11.4 million gallons per day (mgd) to Chula Vista. Presently, the City contributes 1.4 mgd to this line, which terminates at a connection to Metro near Sea Vale Street. 3-9 z W N C7 Z F N X W N ~ 1 t7 ~ m W 7 ~ Q1 N LL } N W a 3 W H N 3 W H !q N O w H X W • • .• • i~ • \ " ~ • ~• • • • • • ~ • • • • • • ~ i • .. .. ... • • • ~ • ~ • • i •• i O f W f ~ U . W ~ 2 M = X O W V a w 3 w w Y 2 f N x W Central Chula Vista transports its wastewater flaws to Metro via two major trunk sewers. The first major line being the "G" Street tmnk sewer, which receives tributary flows from the azea bounded by "D" Street south [o "H" Street. This trunk sewer terminates at a metered connection to Metro located off "G" Street just west of Bay Boulevard. Existing wastewater flows in this line represent approximately 2.6 mgd. The second trunk sewer serving Central Chula Vista from "H" Street south to Naples Street is located in "J" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. This line begins in the east on Otay Lakes Road neat Eastlake Drive and terminates at a metered connection to Metro located at the end of "J" Street west of Bay Boulevard. This trunk sewer currently transports 3.9 mgd of Chula Vista wastewater flows to Metro. The southern portion of Chula Vista is served by the Main Street and Faivre Street trunk sewers. These lines generally parallel each other beginning on the easterly side of the Interstate 805, and ending at a single connection to Metro at the end of Faivre Street. The two lines join in Industrial Boulevard prior to making the Metro connection. Presently, 4.1 mgd worth of flow is being metered at this last connection. The total Chula Vista wastewater flow into Metro is therefore 12.0 mgd a[ [his time. 3.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES INVENTORY The City of Chula Vista operates and maintains its own drainage and flood control facilities. This system, as shown in Figure 3-3, is made up of improved and unimproved flood control channels, storm drains, bridge crossings, detention basins and various other facilities. These facilities range in age from recently constructed to in excess of 30 years old. In general, the existing structures are in good condition and free of debris and sediment. The single, largest maintenance problem the City has experienced over the years has been maintaining the unimproved channels in a clear condition, free of vegetation and other debris such as shopping carts. Obstmctions of this nature have historically caused stream blockage and remote flooding if left unattended. As in all systems of this nature, the existing drainage and flood control facilities have their limitations. Development of the system by the City has been guided, over the years, by the use of numerous studies and reports including primazily the 1964 drainage master plan report prepared by Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith. The most significant hydraulic problem with drainage in Chula Vista is the downstream portions of the numerous natural drainage chancels which have been developed over th_ a yeazs. Initially, runoff was directed into the natural, or possibly improved channels, or into storm drain tmnk line. As the upstream portions of the drainage areas developed, the load on the downstream system increased. In some instances this has resulted in occasional downstream flooding because the existing systems are not able to convey the runoff adequately. The problems and constraints of the major drainage courses are described briefly. 3-ll m x w N C 2 9 S 0 m 0 A Z Z Z m N v m x H N 9 O m 0 n x i Z m r N N t 9 ~u r m p m - 2 r.~ v • ;' '. O V OI i71 AWN •+ i • r ~ ' r 9 G n 0 ~ 2 ~ ~ m m r m p y p O D • • 1 a ~~ o o n Z • f •' 1 N • = m w 2~ Z w < t m • ~ • • z • 0 •• i i i i i i m ~• • N AW N-+O ~ .. i • ~ ~ i i •.N ~ ~ ~ ~ H G a p r Q ~.i ` • ~ ~~ W • •• ~ ; '~ r ~ ~ ~ O ~ • j O m ~ < O ; •_ ~ ~ z i i a< i ~ () • . n - i m m ~ Q • • I ~ s r Z 'TI O ~ N • ~ < m • • i •• M • ~ < ~ C • . . • m Q '~ 1 • • . ~ • -•J a ~ f7 w • • • • ~ ,V • • • o • •, r • '• • ~ • . ' • • • • • i o • m N • • .A •.• • • ~ •~.• i . ~ • • ~. •• • • m • ~• ~ . ; • • N \ • • -~ • \ • . Z ~ • • ~ ' Q • . • ip • ~ . • ' ~ . • N ~ ~ ~ / m ~~ •. ••. W ~. • .• . • • ~ ~ ~ ~• ''•••.. .• •• $ Z .. • ....... ~ . ~ > G) ' o = ~ '• _ I s p m m m z Palm Canyon is located in southeast Chula Vista and drains [o the Otay River. The upstream portion has been lined through the developed area and is in good condition. The downstream section, with outfall to Otay River, is heavily vegetated and there are significant flow constrictions at several culverts. Poggi Canyon also is located in southeast Chula Vista and drains to Otay River. The upstream portion has been lined through the developed areas. The downstream portion and outfall [o Otay River are heavily covered by brush. Sediment deposition in a box culvert at Otay Valley Road if left unattended will reduce the effective hydraulic capacity of this facility. There is potential for substantially increased flows in this basin due to the availability of undeveloped land in [he upper canyon. Telegraph Canyon is located in Central Chula Vista and drains to San Diego Bay. The portion of channel above Hilltop Drive has been lined through the developed azea and is in good condition. Sections of the downstream portion below Hilltop Avenue appear undersized as evidenced by recent high waters through the channel. There is a potential for substantially increased flows in this channel due to new development in the upper canyon. Central Area Basin is located in north Central Chula Vista and drains to San Diego Bay. The channel has a few areas of lining but nothing significant. This azea is not subject to substantial new development so runoff should not be increased greatly in the future. However, this channe] appears too small to convey 100-year storm flows. Lower Sweetwater is located in norther Chula Vista and drains to San Diego Bay. This is an area that will be channelized as part of the Corps of Engineers flood control program. This area has historically experienced flooding during significant rainfall, however, the Corps of Engineers project should alleviate this problem. Upper Bonita Long Canyon is located in northeast Chula Vista and drains to Sweetwater River. The channel has been lined in the upstream areas and appears adequate for existing development. There is a potential for substantially increased runoff due to the availability of land in the upper canyon. The lower canyon development has encroached into the flood. plain, and increased runoff from developing areas in upper canyon may cause future problems. 3.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES INVENTORY Control of solid waste collection and disposal for the genera] plan area fall under several jurisdictions. Regional planning and management for San Diego County's solid wastes are administered by the San Diego County Solid Waste Division of the Department of Public Works. This agency is responsible for revising and updating the "Regional Solid Waste Management Plan" (RSWMP) which reviews current solid waste collection and disposal practices, predicts futurewaste generation trends and reviews the possible means for accommodating future collection and disposal needs. This document is the major planning tool for the County and includes solid waste planning for all 3-13 of the cities within the County. Collection and disposal of solid wastes are the responsibility of each city for its residents. The City of Chula Vista and the communities in the sphere of influence contract private collection agencies to assume collection and disposal responsibilities for their residents. The following collection agencies services the sphere of influence at present: Chula Vista Sanitary Service American Trash Service Jamul Services EDCO Disposal Corporation Chula Vista Sanitary Service collects municipal refuse from Central Chula Vista, Bayfront, Montgomery/Otay, Telegraph Canyon/Lakes, Sunnyside and Bonita within the planning area. This agency as a 17-year contract with the City of Chula Vista and has the ability to expand their operation to meet [he long range needs of Chula Vista area. American Trash Service provides wllection service for the South Bay area. Within the General Plan Area, American Trash Service collects municipal refuse from the Bonita community. This agency also services the communities of Sweetwater, Dulzura, Jamul, Spring Valley, and Casa de Oro. Jamul Services collects wastes in the Bonita, Jamul, Casa de Oro, and Dulzura areas. EDCO Disposal Corporation also provides collection service for [he Bonita community. For waste disposal, there aze currently nine landfills in San Diego County. These are shown in Table 3-1. Figure 3-4 depicts the existing solid waste disposal sites within the general plan area. Wastes collected in the Chula Vista area (approximately 131,000 tons per yeaz in 1985) are disposed of at the Otay Landfill. This facility is located north of Otay Valley Road on the south side of Chula Vista and serves the Cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, and San Diego. Otay Landfill was opened in February of 1966, and the expected worst-case closure date is 1999. The worst-case scenario, according to the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, assumes that no new facilities are added to the region's existing disposal system, and average annual waste generation increases by 5%per year. Under this plan, Otay Landfill will be the last landfill in the region to close. 3-14 i~`C'^ii2iS^xV`t~`A:fii:iK~Y'$:??2~:~.C::::Ri^ :{TT:>'^'-010at"ri:GA~~2'^w"' '`v.~: +~ TABLE 3-1 EXISTING LANDFILLS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY REMAINING EXPECTED CAjPACITY CLOSURE LANDFILL LOCATION yd /tons) DATE Borrego Landfill Northeast Co. 510,000/ 2005 306,000 Otay Landfill South Chula 25,8000,00/ Vista 15,480,000 Ramona Landfill Central Co. 104,000/ 1988 62,400 San Marcos LF San Marcos 7,000,000/ 1991 4,200,000 Sycamore Landfill Santee 36,400,000/ 1997 21,840,000 West Miramor LF North of 29,400,000/ 1995 Clairemont Mesa 17,640,000 Montgomery LF Kearny Mesa area 273,000(1) 1989 City of San Diego Las Pulgas LF Camp Pendleton 2,600,000 _ 201G Ysidora Basin LF Camp Pendleton 12,000,000 2099 Source: "San Diego County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan", 1986. ROB' "24SRRf0A ~ ~' V H F W y Z X a¢ W W <~ ;W Wy W Lu w a N yC ~"~ 4 m3 7 y ~ ~ 1i 0 O a N Q S D 2 Q O J N ~E eos yL, m s~ S~,N 0 7 Q W Ol W ¢a W > d< d~ ~O ~~E60 e~y 0 W N W ¢a W 0 ~ J Q Y a O Z O r 6` ,~ W f Z W w O `m J W ~~ 5 ~ < HOVE 1 j ; F d W o ~ J tll t ~ b 'T. 6 Z ~ ~ `~ c o° o a r i an x i W = ~ _ , 0 = 0 0 ~ _ ~ W W ~ ~ a m J J t ~ ~ ~ °g S : ao n W W O f W F. / i 0 7 > W t ~ p Op p a ~i ~ a r:i N hN K< X< WS WS Specific data pertaining to the Otay Landfill design are as follows: Landfill size - 294 acres Tons received per day (1986) - 1,380 tons/day Remaining volume - 25,800,000 CY or 15,480,000 tons In-place density of compacted trash - 1,200 Ibs/CY minimum Property size - 515.64 acres Cut slope - 1 a or 1.5:1 Fill slope - 3:1 Existing disposal operations at each of the County's landfills are reviewed continually by the County and the City of San Diego to determine if operation or design changes would allow extended use of the site. Such changes may include height and slope modifications for active work areas, increased in-place density of compacted trash and acquisition of additional acreage to expand existing site capacity. There are at present no plans for expansion of the Otay Landfill due to public resistance to additional landfilling in the azea. 3.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES INVENTORY Collection, transporting, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes are the responsibility of the generators of such wastes. Hazardous waste generators incur both financial and environmental liability due to collection, transporting, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes generated. Therefore, hazardous waste generators must select transporters and treatment/storage/disposal facilities (TSDF's) with utmost scrutiny. Similar scrutiny applies to Federal,:- State, County and local government whose responsibility it is to regulate generators and transporters, and to safely site, license, and monitor TSDF's to ensure adequate capacity is available to handle the waste stream in a manner which protects public health and safety, and the environment. Chapters III and IV of the COHWMP provide general information regarding waste generation, transportation, treatment, and facility operation, including a legislative history. Chapter VII provides a comprehensive inventory of existing TSDF's within San Diego County, including the APTEC II facility located within the General Planning Area a[ Otay Landfill. Figure 3-5 depicts the location of existing TSDF's within the County. A copy of the COHWMP, as may be amended or revised from time to time, is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 3.6 SECONDARY SCHOOLS INVENTORY Secondary school facilities within the City of Chula Vista are provided by the Sweetwater Union High School District. The district operates senior high schools, junior/middle high schools, adult education schools and a continuing education school. Ten of these facilities aze located in the City. 3-17 FIGURE 3-5 EXISTING OFF-SITE FACILITIES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY EXIS 11AZ THE fAC 1. / 2. I a. e ~. n S. P 6. S 7. T nr roe roam w u. tiro I11ck~i The California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) enrollment prepared for the 1988-89 school year showed that the district has an enrollment of 26,845. The schools in operation for the 1988-89 year have been designed and constructed to house a total of 22,648 students. To mitigate overcrowded conditions, the district houses students in temporary classrooms such as trailers and relocatable structures. Through the use of previous CBEDS enrollments and demographic analysis, the district projects an enrollment in excess of 35,377 by the year 1993. Based on these projections, the district will require a minimum of seven new secondary facilities to meet the increased demand. A new senior high school will be located in the Eastlake Planned Community. It is anticipated that this school will house 2,400 students. Additionally, a middle school site is anticipated to be located within the Rancho Del Rey Phase III development. That school should house approximately 1,400 students. 3.7 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS INVENTORY Elementary school facilities within the City of Chula Vista are provided by the Chula Vista City School District. The district is currently operating 30 schools. Ten of these facilities are on year-round schedules with the remainder on the traditional school calendar. CBEDS enrollment prepared for the 1988-89 school year showed District enrollment at 16,179. Existing schools have been designed to house a total of 600 students each. To mitigate overcrowded conditions, the district currently utilizes relocatable classrooms. Through the use of previous CBEDS enrollments and demographic analysis, an enrollment in excess of 20,800 is projected by the yeaz 1985. Based on these projections, the district will require a minimum of seven new elementary facilities to meet the increased demand. A new elementary school will be located in the Eastlake Planned Community. It is anticipated [hat this school will house 650 students and be in operation in 1989. A second new school will be located on the Windrow Way near the Terra Nova Center. Additionally, a school site located within the Sunbow development is planned. 3.8 LIBRARY INVENTORY The City of Chula Vista currently operates the Civic Center Public Library on "F" Street in Central Chula Vista and two neighborhood branch libraries in the Montgomery area. The City has adopted a standard of 0.5 to 0.7 square feet of library space per capita. 3-19 Z a J a m ~ ~ W ~ IFw V v, I~w Y, W H 3 a ~_ N 2 f 2 O H _m Q r N 0 W Q f '~ LL :,~: • l•• `~ • • • 1~~ • ~"~ U 2 • ~ ~ • to O • r a M ~ ~ • • • `} •• r • O • • .. .. . •. ~ • ~y~~~• ~.~~'~- ,...~f1 L'~-'~~ ~~ a ~_ H Z Z H _y N Z r Ol X W 0 H Q Q W W 3 d ~ W 2 1 o o ~ z ~ ~ m 0 m ~ ~_ N O ~ F h ~ O K W 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN The required public facilities necessary to provide adequate service for the proposed land use is discussed in this section. Recommended improvements presented herein were the results of numerous studies and reports prepared by the control agencies and outside consultants. These facilities would require implementation as development occurs in order to guarantee that the high quality of public ~ tilities and services continues to be the standard that Chula Vista enjoys today. The infrastructure addressed in this element consists of the following facilities: Water Wastewater Drainage and Flood Control Solid ~ Waste Control 4.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK The recommended future system improvements that will be required in order to accommodate the planned growth for the general plan area aze shown in Figure 3-6 and are discussed below. Sweetwater Authority In 1985, a Water Master Plan Update was prepared which reviewed the adequacy of [he total system, including Chula Vista, at buildout conditions. This report used the then current Chula Vista General Plan for plotting various land use categories for the service area. Based on this data, in conjunction with historic water usage data per land use category, ultimate water demands were projected and hydraulic analyses were performed. The report concluded the following: (]) The supply facilities will require expansion to meet future requirements. The supply facilities are defined as the water treatment plant, the raw water pump station to supply the treatment plant, the aqueduct service connection (filtered water) and the local wells. Recommendations include treatment plant expansion to 45.4 mgd (30 mgd currently) and a connection of the Water Authority's raw water aqueduct system to Sweetwater Reservoir for off-peak storage. (2) A comprehensive study needs to be initiated to review the long-term water supply of the Sweetwater Authority. 3-20 (2) The water supply connections to the SDCWA aqueduct system should be adequate for ultimate conditions although they will require further analysis at a later date as water demands on [he aqueduct system increase. (3) Numerous water transmission and distribution pipelines will be required in the future to provide adequate service. These generally fall into two categories including: a) pazalleling existing lines, and b) installing new lines into areas that previously had none. (4) Approximately 70 percent of the required operational storage is presently in place. An additional 14 million gallons of storage will require construction prior to buildout. (5) The service area is seriously deficient of emergency storage in the event of an aqueduct failure. Approximately 163 million gallons of storage will require construction in the future to accommodate anticipated growth. The District is currently pursuing the first phase of this objective. (6) The two existing pump stations will require expansion in [he future. In addition, a new pump station will need to be built in the highest pressure zone to service the upper elevations. (7) The area within the Otay Ranch, east of Medical Center Drive, north of the Otay River, west of Lower Otay Reservoir and south of Telegraph Canyon Road should be served by separate facilities as determined at the time development plans are proposed. (8) A comprehensive study needs to be undertaken to review the long term water supply and storage alternatives for the general plan area and the San Diego County as a whole. 4.2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM In 1987, the City retained an outside consultant to evaluate the adequacy of the existing wastewater system for the year 2005 and buildout conditions. The proposed land use information and population densities contained in the general plan were used to estimate future wastewater flows for the city. Based on these flows, each of the major wastewater facilities were examined for deficiencies. In general, the study concluded that a major modification to the existing system was not required at this time. However, the results did indicate that certain additions and improvements to [he system would b necessary to accommodate the projected future sewage flows. The recommended major facility improvements are shown on Figure 3-7 and are reviewed below. Based on that study, the average daily wastewater flow at buildout conditions is estimated to be 29.6 mgd. For the yeaz 2005, the projected average daily wastewater flow is approximately 25.0 mgd. The following presents the 3-23 conclusions and recommendations of the facility analyses based on these flow rates: (1) Numerous interceptor and trunk sewer improvements will be required in the future to provide adequate service. The improvements generally fall into two categories including: a) paralleling or replacing existing sewers, or b) installing new lines into areas [hat previously had none. The Central Chula Vista and Bayfront planning areas will require the least amount of new lines. The exception in this area would be the southerly portion of the main Street and Faivre Trunk Sewers which will require almost complete paralleling to accommodate future flows. This is largely the result of having to provide transmission capacity for flows generated in the Eastern Territories planning areas of Salt Creek, Wolf Canyon and Poggi Canyon. The Sweetwater planning area will require new sewers in the areas of Proctor Valley and Wild Mans Canyon. The existing sewers east of~ Interstate 805 generally appear to have adequate capacity for future growth. The Eastern Territories planning area will require the highest amount of improvements largely resulting from the predominantly undeveloped nature of the area. The majority of the recommended sewers in this are would be categorized as new lines for service areas that previously had none. Drainage basins to be improved include Telegraph Canyon, Poggi Canyon, Wolf Canyon, Salt Creek and the Otay Valley Area. (2) Several pump stations will require expansion prior to ultimate flow conditions. In addition, it is likely [ha[ new temporary pump stations will be constructed by developers in Eastern Territories planning area as an interim measure for providing wastewater service to areas that currently have no sewer system available. These temporary pump stations should be avoided when reasonably feasible and should be taken out of service as quickly as gravity service becomes available to the general area. (3) Ground water or storm water infiltration to [he sewer system was not seen as being a significant problem during the study period. However, the winter of 1987 was below average in rainfall (11.6 inches as compared to [he eleven year average of 16.0 inches) and as such the results were considered non-conclusive. Infiltration should be further analyzed in subsequent studies during periods of normal or above normal rainfall conditions to properly evaluate this potential. The low lying areas of the Sweetwater River Valley and Otay River Valley should particulazly receive close scrutiny. (4) The City of Chula Vista has adequate capacity rights in the City of San Diego Metro Sewer System to accommodate future growth. With a present total flow to Metro of about ]2.0 mgd and contract capacity 3-24 of 19.1 mgd, 7.1 mgd is currently available for future development. However, Chula Vista will require additional treatment capacity in order to accommodate the ultimate buildout flow rate of 29.6 mgd. The City of San Diego's Metro Sewer System is currently undergoing major changes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has mandated that San Diego convert their existing advanced primary treatment facility at Point Loma to secondary treatment. The net effect of this conversion is a significant reduction in that plant's treatment capacity. With that reduction and without other system changes, it is likely that San Diego would not be handle their contract flow rates from the member agencies including Chula Vista. With this in mind, San Diego is in the planning process of upgrading the overall Metro System which includes interceptors, pump stations and new treatment plants. Chula Vista is an active member of this planning process to guarantee [hat their best interests are being addressed. Chula Vista has several options available to [hem for obtaining the necessary future treatment capacity. They can continue to contract with San Diego for capacity in metro, as they have in the recent past, including increasing the contract capacity to accommodate the anticipated future flows. The required Metro upgrades will come out of the planning process are likely to be quite expensive. These costs will be passed on, in part, to the member agencies which will increase the cos[ of treatment to Chula Vista. Although no definitive numbers are available at this time, it is thought that the cost San Diego would have to charge member agencies for treatment could be between three to four times as great as it is now. Another option available to Chula Vista for obtaining the required treatment capacity would be to construct their own treatment facility. Although this alternative would have many obstacles in its way prior to being implemented such as environmental considerations, land availability, and general acceptance by the Chula Vista citizenry, it may prove to be the most cost effective method of wastewater treatment and disposal available to Chula Vista. Still another available alternative would be a blend of both above alternatives where Chula Vista would treat a portion of their wastewater and divert the other part to Metro. Due to the uncertainty with respect to the outcome of the Metro planning process, no reasonable decision can be made at this time for directing Chula Vista's future preferzed method of treatment and disposal. This will be evaluated in greater detail in an upcoming study presently authorized by the City. 3-25 Z ,Q J a W h ~ ~N ~~ N m ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ 3 W H N Q 3 W f w r y 6 f W F N X W •• r' • \ I a r ~_ W 3 W i/1 Y 2 O W h O o. O n • • ~ • • \/ • • ~ • ~ • M~~• S ••. . • ~. . . ~,~~. ~~ . ~ i .••' •• •~ A • ...~.. a O W f ~ O . W F = h = X O W U a Y ~_ W W O1 Y 2 6 r N X W (5) Reclamation should be reviewed in significant detail during the upcoming study already authorized by the City. Although reclamation did not appear to be cos[ effective during the most recent study, this conclusion could be significantly affected by the outcome of the ongoing Metro planning process. If Chula Vista were to construct their own treatment plant or the City of San Diego's new plan[ were to be located in closer proximity to Chula Vista, the cost to provide reclamation facilities would be reduced. Presently there appeazs to be about 0.35 mgd worth of demand for reclaimed water within Chula Vista including greenbelt areas, freeway landscaping and others. At ultimate this demand could be in excess of I.0 mgd for for similar areas in newly developed portions of the general plan area. Conversely, if the use of reclaimed water was mandated by the City for developments that could use i[ in an effort to lower the drinking water demand, reclamation would not have to be completely cost effective to be implemented. With the scarcity of water in Southern' California, many agencies are approaching reclamation from this standpoint. Chula Vista is currently reviewing their reclamation opportunities and long range planning. 4.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM In 1987, the City retained an outside consultant to evaluate the adequacy of the existing drainage and flood control facilities at the General Plan buildout conditions. The proposed land use information contained in the General Plan was used to estimate future runoff volumes based on the 100-year flood conditions. Based on these estimates, each of the major basin and sub-basin drainage and flood control facilities were examined for deficiencies. The level of effort expended in these analyses was not intended to produce a comprehensive master plan, but to provide the initial studies leading into a detailed master plan which Chula Vista has subsequently authorized. The results of the initial study were sufficiently detailed to provide specific proposed improvements as to the required hydraulic capacities, facilitysizing and location and overall system configuration. In general, the study concluded that a major modification to the existing system configuration was not required. However, the results did indicate that certain additions and improvements to the system would be necessary to accommodate the 100-year Flood conditions (shown in Figure 3-7). The proposed improvements fall into two general categories including: 1) drainage and flood control facility design criteria for use in guiding developer improvements, and 2) specific basin improvements. The proposed design criteria and overall system philosophy included the following: (1) Hydrology. The City should use a 100-year return frequency storm as a basis of design. This is because the 100-year event is the accepted standard for most municipalities for new development, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the California Coastal Commission, [he County of San Diego and most other State and 3-27 Federal agencies. (2) Sediment Control and Grading. The City of Chula Vista has no standazd for sediment control. Consideration should be given to instituting requirements for sediment control, especially since Chula Vista is experiencing a significant amount of new development. Much of this development is taking place in the upper canyon areas. These areas have a high potential for lazge volumes of sediment. If there is no control over the sediment, it is likely [hat problems will result in the lower canyon areas as the sediment falls out and reduced cross-sectional areas of culverts and channels. (3) Detention Basins. Chula Vista is somewhat constrained by the existing storm drainage facilities in the lower canyons and in the metropolitan area. Some of these facilities were adequate for the initial development phase, but as the upstream areas of the drainage basins have developed there has been an increased load on the facilities, Because of the cost and difficulty in increasing the capacity of the existing drainage facilities, use of detention basins as an alternative means for flood control should be considered. This should be determined on a case by case basis. These detention basins can be constructed within the newly developing areas and serve to detain the runoff peaks long enough to reduce the load on the downstream channels and storm drains. (4) Hydraulics. The existing City criteria establishes minimum criteria for both open channels and closed conduits. This criteria is consistent with similar requirements throughout San Diego County and so no changes aze proposed. The following presents [he proposed general drainage and flood control improvements for the thirteen basins within the Chula Vista General Plan Area: (5) Central Area and Judson Basins. For basins with peak storm flows approximately equal to those in the Fogg Report, no new recommendations are made. Recommendations included in the Fogg Report are considered still valid, especially for the Central area and Judson basins. This includes channel lining, culvert installation and other general improvements. (6) Telegraph and Poggi Canyon Basins. These two basins will experience [he highest level of new development based on general plan. Both canyons have severely limited downstream capacities and will require significant improvements. For the most part, the downstream capacities of the canyons aze limited by the culverts and to a lesser, but still significant extent, channel conditions. The options considered in the improvement of the channel conditions were cleaning and maintaining [he natural channels, lining the channels with rock riprap or lining the channels with concrete. The proposed channel improvements for this basin were a combination of all three. 3-28 The options used for increasing culvert capacity included larger box culverts and bridge structures. The bridge structure resulted in a more cost effective solution for increasing the capacity at crossing structures. (7) Salt Creek Basin. Salt Creek Basin and Use development is proposed to occur around the perimeter of the basin, with a large open area in the center. This open space would incorporate the existing drainage path of the Salt Creek Basin. The proposed improvements for this basin include requiring the developers to detain excess flows so [hat the peak runoff and velocities do not exceed existing conditions. This would allow the existing, natural channel to remain unchanged. Miscellaneous culverts and channel outlets would be required. (8) All Remaining Basins. For remaining basins including Palm Road Basin, Sunnyside Basin, Wolf Canyon Basin, Rice Canyon Basin, Glenn Abbey Basin, Otay Lakes Road Basin, Long Canyon Basin and Harborside Basin, proposed improvements included detention basins,' culverts, bridge structures, grade control structures and lined channels. The City should prepare a comprehensive master plan to assist Chula Vista in guiding the orderly and cos[ effective development of overall system up to the year 2005 and beyond. Chula Vista is currently proceeding with this recommendation. 3-29 1 '. 4 > ~ 4 > i J W F Z ~ Z < % S < ~ U m ` O W j ~ < \ ~ • < ~ ~ • ~ f p ~ • •••.. •..... • ~• •' • G • • •~ • • S • •' • •~ Of • O • • • , •~ d • • • • a ., .~ '~ J a ~ • •. • •. . •.• ~ ..• 1 ; ; • • r • •. \ O • . • . •. .• .. O '~ d ~ • r • > O • - ,` V ~ • J ~ Q ti' • W O • 2 pJ LL W • ••• • ~ O 1L O J • • • r • ~ W > > N • I Z ~ H • a Q J W 6 ¢ • • ~ ~ < W • • ~ > ~ U • ` ~• % ~ Y O U< W W U ~ W • r ~ ~• ~• W Z V O ~ W ~ % J J • • ~ ~ y p Q a • ~ Y Q 6 6 J U S N •. ~ Q r ~ ~ Q O Or rr N r Nf~1f1 r r • • ' r ••• : • • '' , ~ • ~ • z i r m • O < V / A •: O % W 2 m O S ~ O t j. < i W> ~ Z > %< ~ ¢ `~ ~ r i• ~ O i ~ V V v ¢ ~pp • 4 ~ • O 2 W 1~ ~_ _ J O ~ O S J • / _% ~ ~ Z W • ~ • ~ W a i c c i x • • ~ Z ~- • % r N ~'! Q I[f t0 P m : x S • W U O j ~ Z W O r~ 4.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM In 1987, Chula Vista retained an outside consultant [o evaluate the solid waste control requirements for the general plan area. Future waste projections for the planning area were developed based on the general plan land use information and appropriate waste generation factors. The results indicated that Chula Vista's needs are being well planned for although there exists a few long range shortcomings. The conclusions and recommendations of that study are presented below. Solid waste collection by the private agencies is currently being handled satisfactorily. Each company has the ability and inclination to expand their operations to meet the solid waste needs of the general plan area at 2005 or at buildout. It is estimated that in excess of 400,000 tons per yeaz of solid waste could be generated within the planning area by the year 2005. Expansion of these operations will impact the roads and highways within the planning area which is discussed in the Circulation Element of the general plan. Solid waste disposal by the County of San Diego for the general plan area presents no immediate problem. However, long range solid waste control planning for Chula Vista and the overall County is less defined. The Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (RSWMP) was recently revised (1986) and the revised version evaluates seven waste generation/disposal scenarios. The worst-case scenario ("Do Nothing" alternative) indicated that there will be no landfills remaining in San Diego County after the year ]988 if no new landfills were added to [he region. The most optimistic ("Best Case") scenario indicates closure of all landfills by the year 2011. This scenario assumes extensive volume reduction and recycling projects. It is clear from the scenarios evaluated in the RSWMP that new landfills must be sited in conjunction with developing and using various waste reduction methods toprevent a serious crisis in solid waste management in the next decade. The Department of Public Works is presently engaged in numerous studies to locate landfill sites in [he County. The selection process requires much analysis and public input and more will be known within the next five years. In addition to siting new landfill facilities, waste reduction and recovery projects aze underway by San Diego County. The County Board of Supervisors, as the agency responsible for regional solid waste management, has adopted a policy to reduce waste quantities to the landfills and promote alternative disposal methods. The policy establishes that landfilling is the preferred disposal method only for wastes that cannot be recycled or processed and for the residua] from processing. This policy promotes the use of altema[ives such as resource recovery to produce energy or animal food sources and seeks funding for such projects. The policy also encourages lifestyle changes to reduce per capita waste generation and increase recycling, and it encourages the use of additional volume reduction methods such as shredding. The city is currently applying for a grant to fund a recycling feasibility study. In summary, i[ was concluded that the solid waste master planning and long 3-31 range goals, as administered by San Diego County and updated regularly in the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, are considered adequate in addressing the fumre disposal needs of the County (including [he Chula Vista sphere of influence). Plans for site enhancement projects at existing landfills, waste volume reduction and waste-to-energy projects, as well as the current studies to locate new landfill sites in the County will benefit the planning area in the future by providing additional landfill capacity. If these plans are implemented, capacity at the Otay Landfill should be adequate for meeting future solid waste demands, and no a]ternative disposal methods should be required for accommodating the planning area requirements in the next twenty years. Figure 3-9 depicts the current and proposed solid waste disposal site within the general plan azea. 4.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM Pursuant to requirements of the Tanner Act, the COHWMP contains an evaluation of current and projected hazardous waste generation and treatment needs within San Diego County. Such an evaluation enables a comparison of needs to existing facility capacities, and a determination of treatment surpluses and shortfalls upon which facility planning strategies can be developed. Accurate forecasting and planning is difficult in that the volume of hazardous waste that will be produced and require off-site treatment and disposal will be largely affected by regional growth, [he identification and clean-up of hazardous waste contaminated sites, legislative and regulatory changes regarding the definition and handling of wastes, and the effectiveness of on-site treatment and waste minimization efforts including reuse, recycling, and promotion of safe substitutes. 3-32 Chapters V^ and VII] of the COHWMP present a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of current and projected hazardous waste generation and facility needs, by each of the eight generalized treatment methods (GTMs), from the base year 1986 through the year 2000. The results of that evaluation, indicate both surplus and shortfalls in fully addressing the region's treatment needs Z a J a W F ¢¢ N ~o 3 ~ ;~ ~¢ W Wy ~¢ M ~ ~ Q ~ N or Q li _ O 2 Q ~_ J 605 '1 L m Sy 7 O .~ 6 6 W y W Q W N 6 < d ~ ~ 0 o,EpO 9 ~,V x Y Q W y W ¢Q W 3< ~~ J 0 p0~~ Based rsn ttte;CpHWSvI1P°s 146 data base,Til•eatment capacity shortfalls are indicated for the Oil Recyling, Stabilization, Solvent Recovery, Incineration and Other GTM's. Those shortfalls in the Oil Recycling and Stabilization GTM's are large enough to support new facilities within the region, while those in the Solvent Recovery, Incineration, and Other GTM's in and of themselves are not. There are twe fhxee possible courses of action for addressing these latttC7. shortfalls, [he first being continuation of the existing practice of contracting for needed treatment capacity outside the region, the second is to site a qe<c facility~ieS'. within the region of an economically viable size which would address these shortfalls, and provide capacity to adjacent regions experiencing identical circumstances, and the third is dae exgatssion UI ex#sting faeiii£es wifhin the region< Projected capacity surpluses occur in the Aqueous Treatment/Organics, Aqueous Treatment/Metals, and Oil/Water Separation GTM's, and are based principally upon already existing capacities available at facilities within the San Diego Region, although some 3,000 tons of additional annual capacity for Aqueous TreatmenUMetals is anticipated •through on-site activities proposed by General Dynamics and Rohr Industries. With the exception of these suc)~; on-site operations, additional sap~city fay surplus capacities will continue to be utilized by generators outside There currently exists within the City a multi-user hazardous waste treatment facility located within the Otay Landfill as depicted on Figure 3-9. Appropriate Technologies II (APTEC ll) receives a vaziety of hazardous wastes for treatment, and was approved by the City under a Conditional Use Perini[ issued in 1981, with operating levels set forth in that permit. As indicated in COHWMP Table VII-4, APTEC II is one of the largest Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF's) within the San Diego Region, providing Aqueous Treatment/Metals, Aqueous Treatment/Organics, Solvent Recovery, Oil/Water Separation, Stabilization, and Other GTM's. Its combined estimated annual treatment capacity for all GTM's is approximately 32,000 tons, greatly exceeding the City's hazardous waste generation rate, which was last comprehensively estimated in 1986 at 3,776 tons annually (COHWMP, Figure VII-C). According to figures in the COHWMP, which may or may not be consistent with operating levels authorized by the City's 1981 use permit, APTEC 11's 198fi! total annual treatment capacity equates to approximately 26% of the Region's entire treatment needs, varying by GTM as follows: APTEC II Capacity as GTM % of Regional Need Aqueous TreatmenUMetals 53% Aqueous TreatmenUOrganics 52% Solvent Recovery 13% Oil Recovery 0% Oil/Water Separation 1% Incineration 0% Stabilization 50% Other 75% 3-34 ~..,+ .. a,:_ ..~..,_ ,.r.t,e c., n~ The City recognizes that while APTEC II's total capacity far exceeds Chula Vista's projected total waste treatment needs, not all of the City's treatment needs aze met by APTEC II. Some local wastes require treatments not provided at APTEC II, and as in the case of incineration, not within San Diego County. Additionally, selection of waste treatment facilities is open [~ the generator, and as a result, wastes generated within the City may actually be treated elsewhere in the County, or outside the region entirely even though necessary processes and capacity are available a[ APTEC ll. The City recognizes that t}tesa similai conditions exist for all cities within the San S3iegq Region, and'. neighboring regions, and that attempts to directly regulate the geographic generation and treatment of wastes presents tremendous complexities. Understanding that some cities may not be host to a facility, Chula Vista's seatte+taaeat paricipation in the necessary treatment of hazardous waste shall take into account the efforts of all jurisdictions £o egtiitati{y Yec4gnize waste area€ment resppnsibilites, ;anti to effectively reduce [heir needs for off-site treatment, through on-site treatment and waste minimization efforts. These hazardous waste management concepts are intended [o reflect the Fair Share Principles of the COHWMP, which while recognizing that locally sited facilities will exceed local needs, are intended to ensure that [he responsibilities for waste management are equitably recognized and addressed within San Diego County and neighboring regions. 4.6 SECONDARY SCHOOL SYSTEM The Sweetwater Union High School District has prepared a master plan for the expansion of its facilities. The plan includes the district's population composition, demographic profile, enrollment history and facilities inventory. From this plan, the district establishes student generation factors and development standards for the construction of new schools. The Sweetwater Union High School District Master plan is a public document and available for review and/or reproduction at the district offices. 4.7 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SYSTEM The Master Plan for the Chula Vista City School District is anticipated for completion in 1989. The plan will include [he district's population composition, demographic profile, enrollment history and facilities inventory. Based on this plan, the district will establish student generation factors and project facility needs. 4.8 LIBRARY SYSTEM The City has prepared a master plan for the Chula Vista Library system. The basic role of [he Chula Vista Public Library will continue as a service and cultural center for people, a source of information in the community for purposes of business, social, governmemal, practical and enjoyment. The projected growth of the City will require more library space. The master 3-35 plan calls for the Central Library to continue to serve [he Central Chula Vista and Bayfront areas at its present size. in addition, the plans callsfor the construction of two new full service librazies. The first is to be in the Montgomery area to serve the approximately 50,000 existing residents. At [he time the new library is constructed, one or both of the small neighborhood branches are expected to be closed. The second new library will be in the Sweetwater/Bonita area and will also be a full service facility. This library is planned to be built in two phases as population increases. The fourth library of the master plan system is a smaller library for the Eastem Territories. This will serve the population of [his newly developing area and will be built as is warranted. The master plan evaluated a total of seven sites in the Montgomery area. With little vacant land available all alternatives to new construction should be thoroughly explored such as renovation of exiting buildings. In the Sweetwater azea a site has been set aside for a future library and five other sites have been evaluated. An interim library and five other sites have been evaluated. An interim library facility for Eastem Territories will be provided in the Eastlake Village Shopping Center when it is constructed. The location is available on a five-year rent free basis. The permanent facility is expected to be constructed on a site in Eastlake. The total master planned library system at buildout will include three full service libraries and one library in Eastern Territories that will be sized in accordance with demand. 5. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES Providing for adequate infrastructure development within the general plan area as it grows, requires the application of certain policies and guidelines. Those policies and guidelines, as contained in this section, will assist the user in interpreting the goals and objectives of Public Services Plan which will assure that the quality of life in Chula Vista in maintained or enhanced in future years. 5.1 WATER SUPPLY POLICIES Water supply for the general plan area comes primarily from two sources: local water derived from precipitation and stored in Sweetwater Reservoir, and imported water transported by the San Diego County Water Authority. Proposed future development and conversion of now vacant ]and to other uses will place ever-increasing demands on these supplies. Potential limitations on the availability of both supplies highlights [he need to combine long-term planning for water supply with long-term planning for community development in Chula Vista. (1) The Ciry shall actively participate in the water master planning process by the Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority. The City shall use the master plan [o assist in assigning the highest priorities to projects that will alleviate existing water supply problems such as insufficient transmission capacity or storage. 3-36 (2) Prior to approval of development applications, the City shall determine that there is adequate water to accommodate the demand generated by the proposed development. (3) The City shall encourage and monitor water conservation techniques and programs and shall educate the community with respect to the importance of these efforts. This shall include the following: • Mandate the use of water conservation devices in new development including low water use toilets, shower fixture and other amenities. Promote low water usage landscaping that is drought tolerant. Mandate the use of reclaimed wastewater for all reasonable applications except in severe hardship cases. • Establish, in concert with the water agencies, a public information program to educate the community concerning water conservation and the use of reclaimed wastewater. • Establish a water conservation monitoring program. (4) The city shall strongly encourage the San Diego County Water Authority to make the necessary improvements required [o assure adequate water supply [o Chula Vista. 5.2 WASTEWATER SERVICE POLICIES The collection and disposal of wastewater generated within the general plan area will require much study and planning in the future. With the Metro system undergoing significant change coupled with the need to implement an effective reclamation program, the City will be faced with major decisions regarding the ultimate wastewater system configuration. An up-to-date Wastewater Master Plan, administered by the City, will ensure the adequacy of future facilities to meet the demands imposed by future development. The extension of wastewater service and the availability of capacity will greatly influence how much and where Chula Vista grows. The City shall use the Wastewater Master Plan as a guide to the future wastewater collection and treatment facility requirements. (2) Proposed facilities shall conform [o this general plan's policies for land use, development location and timing. (3) Prior to approval of development applications, the City shall determine that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed development. (4) Costs of improvements which are necessary to serve new development, such as extensions of service and pump facilities, shall be financed by the developer. Facilities shall be constructed to Ciry 3-37 standards and dedicated to the City. This policy does not preclude the use of assessment districts or similar mechanisms to finance improvements. Existing residents should not have to pay for improvements necessitated only by new development. However, if existing residents benefit by increasing their property's housing density, they shall be required [o participate in the required improvements. (5) New development to be served by septic systems in the City and in the County shall be reviewed by the County Health Department to ensure the adequacy of the design, the suitability of the soils to accommodate on-site disposal systems and the protection of nearby surface and groundwater systems. Septic systems shall be permitted only as a last resort if gravity flow to the City's sewer system is not possible and only on parcels at ]east one acre in size, provided that the City is satisfied that the above criteria are met. (6) Actively participate in the Metro expansion planning process and,' where appropriate, evaluate reasonable alternatives which will eliminate Chula Vista's dependence on Metro. (7) The City shall authorize a feasibility study with respect to implementing a phased reclamation program to promote drinking water conservation. The study should address participating in the Metro reclamation program or establishing an independent program. 5.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL POLICIES Collecting and conveying stormwater from present and future developed area is essential to protecting lives and property. Development of the largely undeveloped Eastern Territories could significantly affect the existing downstream drainage and flood control facilities in Central Chula Vista if no[ properly regulated. (1) The City shall use the Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan as a guide to the future stormwater facility development. (2) If improvements are necessary to accommodate new development, it shall be [he developer's responsibility to bear the costs of such improvements, to construct the facilities to City standards and to dedicate them to the City. As an alternative, the City may establish and the developer shall pay drainage basin fees for financing the required facilities necessary to preclude a negative impact on the downstream facilities. (3) Prior to approval of a development application, the City shall determine that [here is adequate downstream stormwater drainage capacity to accommodate the runoff generated by future development within the project's drainage basin. (4) The City shall mandate the development of on-site detention of 3-38 stotmwater flows such that, where practical, existing downstream structures will not be overloaded. (5) The City shall require the development of on-site sediment control a part of each project. (6) The City shall discourage disruption of the natural landfotms and encourage the maximum use of natural drainageways in new development. Where possible, non-structural flood protection methods, such as natural channels or improved channels which simulate natural channels should be considered as an alternative to constructing concrete channels to protect and stabilize land areas. 5.4 SOLID WASTE CONTROL POLICIES The City's solid waste is disposed of in the Otay Landfill located within the general plan area. The site is expected to close in the foreseeable future if waste reduction technologies aze not employed. It is critical that the City continue to participate in and support efforts to extend the life of existing solid waste landfills and to locate and develop new landfills. (1) The City shall continue to support efforts by the San Diego County Solid Waste Division of Public Works to maintain adequate facilities for solid waste disposal. (2) The City shall encourage efforts to recycle waste materials. Small collection facilities should be permitted or provided in commercial and industrial areas. Provided adverse circulation, parking and visual impacts can be mitigated. (3) Sites for transfer stations, where garbage collected from individual collection routes are transferred into larger trucks for disposal, should be permitted within areas designated for general industrial, provided circulation, visual and noise impacts do not adversely affect adjacent uses. (4) The City shall support waste reduction legislation and the County Public Information and Education Program. 5.5 'HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL POLICIES Effective and safe management of hazardous wastes within the City of Chula Vista, in accordance with provisions of [he COHWMP, requires the development of policies and implementation measures which recognize not only the need for adequate waste treatment capacity, but also the need to reduce the volume of wastes produced, to establish a local regulatory framework to coordinate the review of applications for new or expanded hazardous waste facilities among involved agencies, parties and the public, and to set forth locational, siting, and permitting criteria for hazardous waste facilities which will ensure the protection of public health and safety, and environmental resources. 3-39 As a rapidly growing, mixed-use community chazacterized by the integration of industrial, business and technological areas within a predominantly residential land use fabric, the City of Chula Vista has special concerns with respect to local hazardous waste management, particularly the safe siting or expansion of off-site hazardous waste treatment facilities. Based on particular local conditions creating these concerns, as further indicated in the following sections, it is the City's intent to actively participate in, and promote efforts to reduce the volume of waste adding to the necessity [o site new, or expand existing, hazardous waste treatment facilities. Furthermore, as provided by Section 25135.7(d) of the Health and Safety Code, the following sets forth those planning and siting criteria, and other provisions intended to prevail over those of the COHWMP, where their application is more stringent or restrictive in favor of the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, and environmental resources within the City of Chula Vista. Hazardous Waste Minimization Consistent with the provisions of Chapter VI of the COHWMP, (1) The City shall continue to participate in and support the efforts of the County Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) and other involved agencies to meet the goal of a 30% reduction in county-wide hazardous waste generation over the next five years through source reduction, reuse, and recycling approaches. This shall include the exploration of funding and grant sources. (2) The City shall encourage the development of industries within the general plan area which are negligible or minima] hazardous waste-producing, and shall properly screen and identify new or proposed development that will be using hazardous materials and generating hazardous wastes. (3) Prior to the issuance or renewal of a business license for businesses involving using hazardous materials andlor generating hazardous waste, [he City shall require proof that the licensee has prepared and submitted an acceptable Business Plan, and ;Disk Management:'. Prevention Progam as applicable;: with the County HMMD, and obtained all necessary licenses and permits. In cooperation with HMMD's Pollution Prevention Program, the City shall also consider the establishment of a local screening process to ensure those businesses participation in waste minimization efforts. (4) In cooperation with the County HMMD, the City shall work to enhance community awareness and public relations regarding hazardous waste management and minimization through dissemination of literature, and the sponsoring of educational workshops and forums with hazardous material and waste industry leaders, product and business associations, and local waste generators. (5) The City shall establish a program to recognize industries or businesses that effectively eliminate or minimize hazardous wastes. 3-40 (6) The City shall prepare periodic reports on the progress of hazardous waste minimization efforts in the City. Household Hazardous Waste Pursuant to the requirements of AB 939, the City has prepared for adoption a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) as a component of county-wide integrated waste management plans. Consistent with Chapter V of [he COHWMP, the HHWE addresses the safe collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of household hazardous waste within the City over both the short term (1991-1995) and mid-term (1996-2000). (1) The City shall work with the County to encourage, through community education, a reduction in household hazardous waste generation by promoting safe substitutes and recycling. (2) The City shall encourage the safe disposal of household hazardous wastes by working with the County in providing convenient disposal alternatives to the residents of Chula Vista, including support and sponsorship of community collection events, and establishment of specialized criteria for evaluating the siting of temporary and permanent collection centers. General Areas The Tanner Ac[ (AB 2948) requires the mapping of "general areas" within which hazardous waste facilities might be established, subject to evaluation based on the siting criteria set forth in the subsequent section. "General areas" are intended to illustrate the extent and distribution of potential siting opportunities within Chula Vista and as such, are designed along with the siting criteria as first step in analyzing the appropriateness of a particular site for a hazardous waste facility. The "general areas" ARE NOT recommended locations for such facilities, nor are they intended as a specific guide to locations where facility siting applications are encouraged. However, facility proposals should be considered only if they are within the general areas designated herein. Existing industrial areas, and future industrial areas designated in the Chula Vista General Plan were included as "general areas" in Chapter IX and Appendix IX-B of the COHWMP. These areas do not necessarily represent all the available locations for facilities, as additional land designated as industrial through future General Plan amendments and rezonings should also be considered for possible inclusion as a "general area". Likewise, application of siting criteria to more specific local conditions may prove some of the identified generalized areas as unacceptable. Based on a review of more specific local land use conditions in relation to several prominent siting criteria, Figure 3-10 depicts a refinement of "general areas" within which hazardous waste facility proposals would be considered in the Chula Vista Planning Area. These refined "general areas" shall prevail over the "general areas" described in the COHWMP and its appendices, and shall be subject to review and amendment from time-to-time as necessitated 3-41 by changing land use and other local conditions. For clazification, the following prescribes those industrially designated and zoned areas which have presently been removed from the COHWMP's "general areas" inventory: MontROmerv/Otay Community: Bounded by L Street on the north, Interstate 5 on the west, Otay River on the south, and Interstate 805 on the east. Much of the community's industrial areas are juxtaposed with residential uses and immobile populations such as schools, resulting from an historic lack of zoning regulation and enforcement under County jurisdiction prior to the area's annexation in 1985. Potential location of a hazardous waste facility in this land use setting would present substantial and unacceptable risks to public health and safety. In addition, the largest aggregate industrial area located along the Main Street corridor borders the environmentally sensitive Otay River Valley (recently inventoried in conjunction with prepaza[ion of the Otay River Resource Enhancement Plan), and is entirely within the dam failure inundation area for Lower Otay Reservoir's Savage Dam according to maps on file with the State Department of Water Resources. Eastlake and Rancho Del Rev Business Parks: These industrially designated areas in Eastern Chula Vista are integrated components of predominantly residential mixed-use master planned communities. Reflective of this setting, they are intended as employment areas comprised of light industrial uses such as warehousing and distribution, and would be inappropriate for hazardous waste facilities. Furthermore, principal access to these areas is by way of East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road which transec[ large residential areas and serve as principal travel routes carrying in excess of 35,000 ADT, presenting substantial transportation risks. Otay Valley Road: The portion of the Otay Valley Road industrial area east of Interstate 805 and south of Otay Valley Road borders the Otay River Valley, and is entirely within the dam failure inundation area for Lower Otay Reservoir's Savage Dam. The following policies regarding General Areas in the Chula Vista Planning Area shall prevail over the seven General Area policies set forth on pages IX-46 and IX-47 of the COHWMP: (1) Proposals for hazardous waste facilities shall be accepted for review only if they are within a designated "general area" as herein established at [he time the application is accepted as complete. (2) The review and evaluation of applications accepted pursuant to (1) above shall be based upon the policies and siting criteria set forth in the City's General Plan, subject to required risk assessments, environmental reviews and other applicable codes, ordinances, and requirements. (3) "General Areas" shall be limited to existing developed industrial land, and land designated for future industrial development in the present 3-42 General Plan, except as herein restricted. (4) The City shall evaluate any future general plan revisions involving the establishment of industrial land use designations for the appropriateness of [heir inclusion as a "general area" within the City of Chula Vista. (5) The City may, from time [o time, as changes to local plans, policies, and conditions :.~.a.,T pose sigrtifrcant conserna t'eRattiitifi the land use designations or zoning districts are not appropriate for inclusion as "general areas", as long as the ability [o accept applications and potentially site facilities is not significantly restricted. (6) "General Areas" for household hazardous waste collection facilities shall be restricted to lands designated for industrial use. All lands designated for industrial use within the Planning Area shall be deemed included for accepting applications for such facilities regardless of theif those areas possible exclusion from refined "general areas" for all other types of transfer or treatment facilities. (7) Military lands should also be considered as part of the "general areas." I[ is the Department of Defense policy to avoid siting of commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities on military land. Siting on a case-by-case basis could be considered in special circumstances. A relationship should be developed with the military in which common local jurisdiction and military hazardous waste issues and needs can be cooperatively addressed. The Memorandum of Agreement that currently exists between the U.S. Navy and the SANDAG should be the basis for this relationship. (8) Land currently under the control of the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the potential to be acquired by local government or by private parties. BLM land transferred from federal to non-federal ownership is subject to local government general plan designation and zoning. All of the genera] area policies and other policies would apply to this transferred land. (9) Indian land is not subject to any federal, state and local environmental, health, safety and planning requirements. Therefore, Indian lands should not be considered potential "general areas" unless _ these lands can meet all siting criteria as set forth herein, and permission [o use Indian land can be obtained. 3-43 ~,~e c z m m m N ~ptl a~ Or >~ <m x~ m N T 9 O s oo~~o oc <m ~' m m 9 `o s a o~ ~i yy_ m ~1+15~~yN` m sos G Z m a 7s ~ r z o m ~ ~ '~< m RI Z s m ~9~~ ~ N `y~~, a ~ a v, z ~ ~w q = J ~ N~ m a~ A < _ yT C 9 r a <_ N r z z z D m a Siting Criteria Under the Tanner Act (AB 2948), local government is required [o adopt "siting criteria" to be applied in evaluating hazardous waste facility proposals within the previously established "general areas". Siting criteria are those operational, financial, land use and transportation conditions which must be met if a hazardous waste management facility is to be permitted at a specific site. Siting criteria are both qualitative and quantitative in nature, and as the focus of the siting process are primarily intended [o ensure the suf5cien[ protection of public health, safety and welfare, and environmental resources. The criteria are designed somewhat generically in that they apply to evaluation of a broad range of hazardous waste facilities and management technologies which can vary greatly in their size, volume, and type of waste stream(s) handled, and which inherently may differ substantially in their potential land use, environmental, and public health impacts. While this generic nature of the criteria provides needed flexibility in the local review process, i[ also necessitates that facility review be conducted carefully and thoroughly. As a result, all local facility application reviews shall include an anvironmental review and health risk assessment, and any approvals shall be through a conditional use permit. Recognizing the influence of more specific local conditions on [he development and application of siting criteria, Section 25135.7(d) of the California Health and Safety Code allows cities to establish more stringent planning requirements or siting criteria than those in the COHWMP. In order to assure that hazardous waste facilities are considered with the highest regard for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista, and the continued preservation and protection of its natural resources, the following modified siting criteria shall be employed in the evaluation of hazardous waste facility proposals within the City's General Planning Area, and shall prevail over the siting criteria contained in Appendix IX-A of the COHWMP: PROTECT THE RESIDENTS OF CHULA V[STA Proximity [o populations Proximity to populations is defined as the distance from the boundary of the site upon which the facility is proposed to dwellings used by one or more persons as a permanent place of residence, or to dwellings inhabited by persons temporazily for purposes of work (e.g, migrant workers, constmction camps). • For a residuals repository, the proximity of the facility to populations must be a minimum of 2,000 feet, subject to increase pursuant to the required risk assessments and environmental review. • The active portion of a facility shall be subject to additional setbacks and buffering from the property boundary as 3-45 required by the underlying zone, or through conditions established by the associated use permit(s). • All hazardous waste facility proposals shall be required to undergo an environmental review and prepare a health risk assessment regardless of their type, size, or proximity to populations or immobile populations. Said health risk assessment (HRA), as discussed on pages IX-28 through -33 of the COHWMP, shall be prepazed under the direction of the City, the Local Assessment Committee (LAC), and any Ad Hoc Technical Committees which may be created to advise the City and the LAC on such matters. • With respect [o hazardous waste treatment facilities, there is no stated distance from populations or immobile populations which is assumed to be safe. The required HRA shall serve as a fundamental mechanism to present data, evaluations and recommendations for use by the City Council in ~3` determining wheth. er a Conditional Use' #'errait should bd grantzd, taking into consideration, among other matters, the appropriate location and distance for the particular hazardous waste facility in relation to any existing and proposed surrounding residential development or other sensitive receptors. • The City shall establish a screening process to determine the scope and content of each HRA, and the need for, and type of, any additional technical studies. It is the intent of the City in developing this scope, that the HRA recognize the alternative sites presented through the environmental review and provide comparative evaluation of these sites seas [o enable semprehensive- consideration of the relative public health, safety and welfare risks, and environmental protection concerns in making siting decisions. • Existing hotels and motels shall also be considered residences. • Distance separation requirements for residuals repositories and other facilities shall include all azeas designated in General Plan for future residential development regardless of their density, as well as existing residences. • Setback or buffer azeas shall be precluded from future residential uses through property restrictions such as easements or covenants, and where appropriate, through general planning and zoning. 2. Proximity to immobile populations Proximity to immobile populations is defined as the distance from the boundary of the site upon which the facility is 3-46 located to aeeas where persons who cannot or should not be moved are located. • The definition of immobile populations includes childcaze facilities and K-12 schools as well as hospitals, convalescent homes and prisons. Hazardous waste facilities shall not be located within one mile of any of these populations unless the required risk assessment satisfactorily indicates that the attendant health and safety risks are not appreciably increased' °°a~ ~~„a,-e..°°'T 3. Capability of emergency services • Capability of emergency services is defined to include the extent of training and equipment of fire departments, police departments, and hospitals for handling industrial emergencies, particularly [hose involving hazardous materials and wastes. • All facilities shall be located in areas where fire departments are trained to deal with hazardous materials accidents, where mutual aid and immediate aid agreements are well-established, and where demonstrated emergency response times are the same or better than those recommended by the National Fire Prevention Association. • The City may require additional facility design features and/or on-site emergency services a[ the facility based on the type of wastes handled or the location of the facility. Pursuant to the requirements of State law, and subject to the satisfaction and approval of the City Council, facilities may provide their own emergency response capability. ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF THE FACILITY 4. Flood hazard areas Flood hazard aeeas are defined as areas which are prone to inundation by 100-year frequency floods, and by flash floods and debris flows resulting from major storm events. Flood hazard areas can be determined by checking Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance maps or with local flood control districts. Residuals repositories aze expressly prohibited in areas subject to inundation by floods with a 100-year return frequency, and should not be located in areas subject to flash floods and debris flows. 3-47 5. Areas subject [o tsunamis, seiches, and storm surges Areas subject to tsunamis, seiches, and storm surges are defined as areas bordering oceans, bays, inlets, estuazies or similar bodies of water which may flood due to tsunamis (commonly known as tidal waves), seiches (vertically oscillating standing waves usually occurring in enclosed bodies of water such as lakes, reservoirs, and harbors caused by seismic activity, violent winds, or changes in atmospheric pressure), or storm surges. • "" r °~'"~°° ~°°'~ a:^^ Residual repositories, shall be prohibited from locating in areas subject to "^.~.~-~^~ these occurrences. The risk assessment and environmental review shall analyze such hazazds. • All othdr facilities shall be Iticated oatsde azaas suhjeci it) these izccurances 'exceptions may 6e granted by the City Council if supported by engineering anti desigtt proposals. which eliminate w substantially reduce such hazards. 6. Proximity to active and potentially active faults • An active fault is defined as a fault along which surface displacement has occurred during Holocene time (about the last ] 1,000 years) and is associated with one or more of the following: - a recorded earthquake with surface rupture - fault creep slippage - displaced survey lines A potentially active fault is defined as a fault showing evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (from the last 11,000 years to about the last 2 [0 3 million years, and is characterized by the following: considerable length association with an alignment of numerous earthquake epicenters continuity with faults having historic displacement 3-48 association with youthful major mountain scarps or ranges correlation with strong geophysical anomalies All facilities aze required to have a minimum 200-foot setback from a known active or potentially active fault. All facilities regazdless of proximity to faults, shall as-a a~inimau~staAdar~ be constructed to seismic zone 4 building code standazds., " 7. Slope stability • Slope stability is defined as the relative degree to which the site will be vulnerable to the forces of gravity, such as landslide, soil creep, earth flow, or any other mass movement of earth material which might cause a breach, carry wastes away from the facility, or inundate the facility. Residuals repositories aze expressly prohibited in azeas of potential slope instability. All other facilities shall be prohibited in areas of potential slope instability or rapid geologic change. Exceptions may be granted by the Ciiyl;auncit ifsupgorted t+y °° °..~ ''~'^°' satistaster~ engineering and design seleEieas proposals whieh~! eliminate or substantially reduce such t~azatds„ "°^'"""' ^° "'° `'' ~ ~^°°^~' The risk assessment and environmemal review shall include an analysis of such hazards. 8. Subsidence/liquefaction • Subsidence is defined as a sinking of the land surface following the removal of solid mineral matter or fluids (e.g., water or oil) from the subsurface. • Liquefaction refers to [he surface materials that develop liquid properties upon being physically disturbed. eu a,,.n:«;°~ :....~..a:.,,, Residual repositories, shall be prohibited from locating in azeas subject to these disturbances. The risk assessment and environmental review shall include an analysis of such potential disturbances. 3-49 9. Dam failure inundation areas • Dam failure inundation areas are defined as the areas below a dam structure (i.e., reservoir dam, debris basin) which would be inundated by the flow of water from the impoundment created by the dam structwe if it were to fail. • All hazardous waste management facilities shall be prohibited from locating within dam failure inundation areas. PROTECT SURFACE WATER QUALITY All facilities will be required to meet federal and state water quality requirements, administered by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 10. Aqueducts and reservoirs Aqueducts are defined as conduits for conveying drinking water supplies. • Reservoirs are defined as impoundments for containing drinking water supplies. • All facilities shall be located in areas posing minimal threats to the contamination of drinking water supplies contained in reservoirs and aqueducts. Evaluation of such threats shall include airborne emissions potential to contaminate surface water. 11. Discharge of treated effluent • Discharge of treated effluent is defined as the availability of wastewater treatment facilities to accept treated wastewater (effluent), or the ability to discharge treated effluent directly into a stream, including a dry stream bed, or into the ocean through astate-permitted outfall. • Facilities generating wastewaters shall be located in areas with adequate sewer capacity to accommodate the expected wastewater discharge. If sewers are not available, sites should be evaluated for ease of connecting to a sewer, or for the feasibility of discharging directly into a stream or the ocean. PROTECT GROUNDWATER QUALITY Residuals repositories: 3-50 Current State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulations, as implemented by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, including: Immediately underlain by natural geologic materials with permeability of not more than 1x10-7 cm/sec (124 in/yr)'. Natural material shall be of sufficient thickness [o prevent vertical movement of fluid, including waste and leachate, to waters of the state for as long as they pose a threat [o water quality. • Lateral movement prevented by natural or artificial barriers. In addition to the preceding siting criteria, the current SWRCB regulations also include the following construction standards: • Compatibility of the wastes with construction materials. • Clay liner a[ least 2 feet thick (in addition to natural material and synthetic liner). • A leachate collection system adequate to collect and remove twice the maximum anticipated daily volume. • A cover adequate to prevent percolation of precipitation through the wastes. • Precipitation and drainage controls. • Seismic design. All other facilities: Current State Department of Health Services regulations require double containment for underground storage. In addition, the following criteria (Nos. 12 to 18) apply to non-repository facilities. 12. Proximity [o supply wells and well fields Proximity to supply wells and well fields is defined as the distance to areas used for extraction of groundwater for drinking water supplies by high-capacity production wells and identified by the presence of several wells that constitute a well field. Hazardous waste facilities shall locate outside the cone of depression created by pumping well or well field for 90 days unless an effective hydrogeologic barrier to vertical flow exists. 'The interpretation of this requirement by Regional Water Quality Control Boards needs to be clarified and standazdized. 3-51 13. Depth to Groundwater Depth to groundwater is defined as the minimal seasonal depth to the highest anticipated elevation of underlying groundwater from the bottom of any proposed waste-containing facility. The foundation of all containment structures at the facility must be capable of withstanding hydraulic pressure gradients to prevent failure due to settlement, compression, or uplift as certified by a registered civil engineer or engineering geologist registered in California. 14. Groundwater monitoring reliability Groundwater monitoring reliability is defined as the dependability of a scientifically designed monitoring program [o measure, observe, and evaluate groundwater quality and flow. Where the risk assessment and/or environmental review have identified any potential impacts to groundwater, in addition to required mitigation measures, a reliable groundwater monitoring program shall be required as-spesi€e~ and oyerseet1', by the City. 15. Major aquifer recharge areas Major aquifer recharge areas are defined as regions of principal recharge to major regional aquifers, as identified in the existing literature or by hydrogeological experts familiar with the San Diego region. Such recharge areas are typically found in: Outcrop or subcrop areas of major water-yielding facies of confined aquifers. • Outcrop or subcrop areas of confining units that supply major recharge to underlying regional aquifers. Facilities with surface or subsurface storage/treatment located within one-half mile of a potential drinking water source shall have a groundwater study conducted to determine appropriate buffer mne and mitigation measures. 16. Permeability of surficial materials Permeability of surficial materials is defined as the ability of geologic materials at the earth's surface to infiltrate and percolate water. Facilities locating in areas where surficial materials are principally highly permeable materials shall conduct an appropriate groundwater study, and provide for appropriate mitigation measures such as increased spill containment and an inspection program. 3-52 17. Existing groundwater quality Existing groundwater quality is defined as the chemical quality of the groundwater in comparison to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Interim Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standazds and, for constituents with no standazds, to guidelines suggested by research reported in [he literature. The Environmenta] Protection Agency has released guidelines defining protection policies for three classes of groundwater, based on their respective value and their vulnerability to contamination. The three classes are: Class I: Groundwater that is highly vulnerable [o contamination and characterized by being irreplaceable (no reasonable alternative source of drinking water is available) or ecologically vital (if polluted, would destroy a unique habitat). These are designed as Special Groundwaters. Class 11: Current or potential sources of drinking water and waters having other beneficial uses. Class III: Groundwaters not considered potential sources of drinking water and of limited beneficial use (waters heavily saline [TDA levels 10,000 ppm]) or otherwise contaminated beyond levels that allow cleanup using reasonably employed treatment methods). Facilities located in areas where existing groundwater quality is Class I or Class II shall conduct an appropriate groundwater impact study as part of the environmental review, and shall provide increased spill containment and inspection measures in addition to other identified mitigation. 18. Proximity to groundwater dependent communities Prohibit siting within groundwater drainage basin(s) within which groundwater dependent communities exist, except for any portion of such basin(s) 5 miles or more down-elevation from the boundaries of the subject community(ies). PROTECT AIR QUALITY Cuttent San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations implementing federal, state and local air quality regulations including Rules 20.2 and 20.3 governing new source review, the APCD's s[andazd prohibitions and Rule 51 covering public nuisances. Rule 51 would typically apply to all types of hazardous waste treatment facilities. The County of San Diego Department of Health Services implementation of response plans for acute and accidental hazards (pursuant to AB 3777) would also cover air quality issues. The City shall involve the APCD in the screening and scoping process 3-53 for the required Health Risk Assessment on all facilities, and the risk assessment shall address all potential emissions and indicate whether any have the potential to adversely affect human health and the environment, and to what extent. PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 19. Wetlands Facilities shall not be located in wetlands such as saltwater, fresh water, and brackish marshes, swamps and bogs inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency to support, under normal circumstances, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life which requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction, as defined by local, regional, state or federal plans and guidelines. 20. Proximity to habitats of threatened and endangered species Habitats of threatened and endangered species aze defined as areas known to be inhabited permanently or seasonally or known to be critical at any state in the life cycle of any species of wildlife or vegetation identified or being considered for identification as "endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Department of Interior or the State of Califomia. Facilities shall not be located within critical habitat areas, as defined in local, regional, state or federal plans. 21. Natural, recreational, cultural, and aesthetic resources Natural, recreational, cultural, and aesthetic resources are defined as public and private lands having local, regional, state, or national significance, value, or importance. These lands include national, state, regional, county, and local parks and recreation areas, historic resources, wild and scenic rivers, scenic highways, ecological preserves, public and private (e.g., Natural Conservancy Trust for Public Lands) preservation areas, and other ]ands of local, regional, state, or national significance. All facilities shall avoid locating in, or near these areas. The risk assessment and environmental review shall identify these resources proximate to the facility and its major transportation routes. Pursuant to demonstrated necessity, and at the discretion of the City Council, some facility operations or .transportation routes may be allowed within unused or compatible portions of certain public lands. 22. Prime agricultural lands Prime agricultural lands, under California law, may not be used for urban purposes unless an overriding public need is served. When siting hazardous waste management facilities in these areas, overriding public service needs must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 3-54 City Council. 23. Mineral deposits Facilities shall not be sited so as to preclude extraction of minerals necessary to sustain the economy of the State. 24. Public facilities and military reservations Public facilities and military reservations are defined as lands owned by federal, state, county, or local governments on which facilities used to supply public services and Department of Defense (DOD) bases and installations aze located. In particular, these lands would include highway maintenance and storage aeeas, airports, city or county corporation yards, waste disposal facilities, sewage treatment facilities, state school lands (lands deeded to the state when California was admitted to the Union), and military bases and installations. It is the policy of the Department of Defense that military land shall not be considered for public hazardous waste management facilities. However, the military currently has hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities located on military bases in the San Diego region and has in the past leased military land to public agencies for waste management functions (Miramaz Landfill). Therefore, military lands aze potentially available for the siting of new facilities for the handling of military hazardous waste (new facilities for the handling of military hazardous waste (new facilities are proposed in the U.S. Navy's 5-year budget. Military land may be considered for lease or sale for public hazazdous waste facilities, at the discretion of the military. SAFE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE • The City shall require preparation of a traffic/transportation study as part of the environmental review and risk assessment for all facility proposals, which study shall account for al] factors addressed in items #25 to #29, and consider both existing and projected land use and circulatory conditions pursuant to [he General Plan. 25. Proximity to aeeas of waste generation Proximity to aeeas of waste generation is defined as the travel time from the major market areas of waste generation to [he proposed facility. All facilities except residuals repositories by virtue of location, should minimize travel time for all market areas of waste generation, on a weighted basis, with no major market areas beyond aone-way travel time of one day (including loading and unloading). For the residuals repository, one-way transportation time, including 3-55 loading and unloading, from any major market azeas would not exceed one day, with the majority of the driving time spent on major routes (state and interstate divided highways). Total transportation costs for incineration facilities should represent a modest portion of the total cost of using such facilities including drop charges. Transfer facilities should be located within each major area of waste generation [o encourage maximum use. Alternate transportation by rail may be evaluated in regard to specific locations for feasibility and efficiency. [n comparison with multiple small facilities, economies of scale for a single centralized facility may offset the additional transportation cost. 26. Distance from major route Distance from a major route is defined as the distance along a minor route (city street, boulevard, or undivided highway) that a truck must travel to reach the facility after leaving the major route (state or interstate divided highway). Distance traveled on minor roads should be kept to a minimum. Facilities are best located near an exit of a major route. Only locations adjacent to major routes or accessed from major routes via routes used locally for truck traffic (e.g., truck routes) should be considered for transfer or treatment facilities. The facility developers may propose to build a direct access road to avoid [he minor route(s). 27. Structures fronting minor routes Structures fronting minor routes are defined as the number and type of residences, schools, hospitals, and shopping centers having primary access from the transportation route between the entrance of a facility and the nearest major route. Facilities should be located such that any minor routes from the major route (state or interstate divided highway) [o the facility are used primarily by trucks, and the number of non-industrial structures (homes, hospitals, schools, etc. is minimal. The facility developer shall evaluate the "population at risk" based on the Federal Highway Administration's Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials. The population at risk factor should not exceed that for existing facilities, and sites with lower factors should be preferred. 3-56 Specific highway segments may be scheduled for CALTRANS improvement. Transportation could be curtailed during peak use by automobiles, school traffic, etc. 28. Highway accident rate The highway accident rate is defined as the occurrence of minor to fatal accidents per vehicle miles traveled, as recorded by the Califomia Department of Transportation. The minimum time path from major mazket areas to a facility should follow highways with low to moderate average annual daily traffic and accident rates, as guided by the research and findings of state, regional, county, and city transportation planners. Specific highway segments may be scheduled for CALTRANS improvements which may decrease highway accident rates. Hazardous waste transportation could be curtailed during periods of greatest automobile traffic. The facility developer should work with the region, county, and city transportation planners in selecting alternate routes. 29. Capacity versus AADT of access roads Capacity versus average annual daily traffic (AADT) of access roads is defined as [he number of vehicles that the road is designed to handle versus the number of vehicles it does handle on a daily basis, averaged over a period of one year. The changes in the ratio of route capacity to average annual daily traffic should be negligible after calculating the number of trucks on the major and minor routes expected to service the facility. Facility developer may propose to upgrade the road(s) to provide additional capacity. PROTECT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GOALS 30. Consistency with General Plan Consistency with the General Plan is defined as consistency of the proposed facility with the goals, objectives and policies of the City as expressed by the General Plan, Specific Plans, implementing ordinances, and other applicable programs. As provided by Section 25]99.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, [he consistency of any proposal with the 3-57 General Plan, Specific Plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable programs shall be based on their provisions as in place at the time the associated application for a land use decision is accepted as complete. • The proposed facility should be sited at one of the most consistent locations within the City as reflected in the General Plan, Specific Plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable planning programs. • The evaluation of consistency shall be based directly upon the provisions of the General Plan, Specific Plans and zoning ordinances in effect, and shall not take into consideration any mitigation measures proposed by the proponent to further community goals which are not project specific and directly related to identified public health and safety, and environmental concerns. • Developer may petition for an amendment to the General Plan. 31. Direct revenue to the City Direct revenue to the City is defined as the present worth of the dollar amount of annual property tax revenue and any other direct payments (e.g., local usage and per capita [axes, hazardous waste taxes) that the facility will contribute to the City during the period of construction and the facility's operating life. The proposed facility's power for tax and revenue generation relative to both current site users and other reasonably prospective site users in terms of amount, stability, and cost to the City should not show a net loss. The City may consider compensation programs which could offset projected losses either directly or indirectly. 32. Changes in employment Changes in employment are defined as the total number of permanent full- and part-time jobs resulting from the construction and operation of the facility, including the number of each type of job expected to be followed by local residents. If this clearly is an issue causing disagreement between the facility developer and the ontmrmity then the developer shall fund an independent study of theissue. The developer and the City shall agree beforehand on the scope of the study and who will conduct it. The sophistication of the study methods shall be appropriate to the nature and size of the facility and the City's degree of concern with the particular issue. 3-58 If the number of jobs accounts for a significant portion of employment in the azea, then the developer should provide appropriate programs to address the socio-economic and public services impacts on the community. Fair Share The Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Authority (SCHWMA) provides oversight and coordination toward resolving local govemmen[ siting issues in Southem California through its Regional Action Plan, which is in part founded upon the k8 (Fair Shaze "Principles") and (Fair Share "Formula") discussed on pages IX-35 to -37 of the COHWMP, and as may be amended'. frutn time t6 ;tithe'. Those Principles and Formu]a are designed to fesegaiaa eoteepts; assurances can be made that all cities and counties equitably share in the responsibility for proper treatment and disposal of their entire waste stream. The Fair Share Principles and Formula have been adopted as part of the COHWMP, and are to be considered by local jurisdictions in making facility siting decisions. :. a:..N..« ... a.. ,. .:.l e. ....a .. ««L. Fes: .6.,.0 .. ..lo. a.... ..:A.. f nar.. ...ice Tl.e « :«I e. .. «a.J :., a6o (`llLl UlOAD ~ Ae.:..vA F..«. C!`Ll\i>AAA ~~ Do..:..«..1 A..a:..« D l.... F,...~ .... ...6va6e. ..,...«a.. ..,:Ae «ve.J.. F,.. .,«A .1:.......el ., Lam:«.. ... a6.......6 e:a6o. Q,..:I:a.. .. :a6:« a6e .. ... a. ....Al... eFF ~ti ..e a«a.,l :a6 ,.a6a. 9Y~Br ...e «..a 60:«.. A.11. ...LJ T~#f5-fi:a....a:.... A..o~ ....a .o........:«o .os5ed :...:~A:,.a:..«r ...:al.:« a6a !`....«r., . ...6:..6 .,.e .,l.o., A., 6....a •,. A.......A..«r ....,.ao 3-59 hazardous waste facilities both between and within counties. in order' oassure' new or i;3) #be facility is necessary to be:sited and sized in the';manne proposed because there are i!u other locations within the connty-wide areH capable of permitting the siting of the facihtyy;andlor the use o£ intergovernmental ageements to atldress alI or a potion of the amnnn[ of wastes proposed to 3-60 waste faC1i1t1e5- rho r:.. .:n ~;,~e. .~,o c n,... ~ ~, ~ ~, £2~ €he facility is necessary to besited and sued in themanner proposed in order to attaitt a°~ miai#tintit ilCVel of eeonlfrniG viability: £"Minimtim Economically Vabte Size'+), even: though the facility ;proposes fv treat waste in excess of the Service 4rea Cseneration; or I) The proponent shall identify the location of waste sources, and the respective volumes of the particular waste stream(s) by generalized treatment method {"GTlvf"); from each of those sources it ivi~l prapoSes to serve, including those specifically known at the time of application, as well as those estimated in the future. "TM° ~4'~ ^''^" ^'^° '° '° '~° 2} a, curreut existing and, pr~e<:ted c©unt~ wide waste. generation, and treatment needs by fiTM, by subregion. The subregions :sha[i be €ifase as identified.: in the respective L%onnty's 3azardous' Waste lt3anagement Alan. b, an invenioty of existing treatment facilitiesand their capacities by GTM. Said invetizory should indicate whether any of that', capacity ~s surplus based ou exiting tr>atment volumes. c, all existirg effecrive and pending. intergavemmental agreeruents with ether Counties, including the amount and type of vnstes involved, by L`rTM, and the affected treatment faciiitiesd ;?3) The 6iFy pragouent shall indicate and doeumeut evalaate-aad seaeideF the minimum facility siae, by waste stream;: necessary to ensure the economic feasibilKy- viability of the proposed facility. 3-61 be treatdd is iufeasible ("Ahseuce of )+easible Alternates")'. even thqugh the facility proposes to [teat was[es in excess of the Service Area Generation and is largerthaa the Minimuaa Eeanamically ~tiable Size; nc _ _ In addition, the City w+ll trey survey the efforts put forth by the communities from within which g the involved wastes are being generated,' to recOgttize ireament responSibil`sties 3n~! reduce their off-site treatment needs through promoting on-site treatment and waste minimization. ~teskaic}xes-Based on an analysis of tk+s ttte ~5oY8 notCtt tnforit'IatIO1S. n:o,.,. ~ ......... ....a ,..r.e_ :. _:~a:,.«:,...,. ,......:ao .~.e oo,.:,.., the City shall identify any concerns with respect to fair share concepts, and as appropriate shall require mitigation through conditions of use limiting [he volumes or types of wastes to be received, and/or by requiring compensation/incentive programs to be established. Processing and Permitting Application of the various policies and criteria to the review of hazardous waste facility proposals, and the necessary coordination for such proposals with involved Federal, State and Regional agencies, requires the establishment of specific implementation measures. A subsequent implementing ordinance(s) shall be prepazed which will set forth all applicable procedural requirements including, but not limited to, pxe-application processes, submittal requirements for environmental reviews, risk assessments and conditional use permits, coordination and involvement of State and local agencies and the Local Assessment Committee, facility operational controls such as emergency contingency plans and monitoring programs, and local enforcement provisions. 5.6 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES In ]987, with the passage of Assembly Bill 2926, the State of California declazed the issue of new school construction to be of statewide concern. That legislation authorized school districts to collect fees as a prerequisite for residential and commercial/industrial development. Fee collection of up to $1.50 per square foot of habitable area for residential development and $0.25 per square foot of new commercial/industrial development was approved. The levy may be increased annually [o accommodate inflation if authorized by the State of Califomia State Allocation Board. Fees collected pursuant to AB 2926 may only be used to provide temporary facilities and/or service the matching funds requirement should the district participate in the Leroy Green Lease-Purchase School Facilities Program. Additional revenue generating mechanisms, including financing for permanent facilities are: 1. General Obligation Bonds 2. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts 3. Certificates of Participation 3-62 4. District's share of Redevelopment Funds 5. Sale of Surplus Land 6. Developer fee programs. All new school related development must be approved by the State of California Office of State Architect prior to construction. To facilitate approval at the state level, the school districts use the following criteria: The new senior high schools shall be constructed to accommodate approximately 2,400 students and shall be designed to allow for afour-year curriculum. 2. New junior high/middle schools shall be constructed to accommodate approximately 1,400 students. 3. New elementary schools shall be constructed [o accommodate approximately 650 students. 4. A senior high school shall consist of at least 50 usable acres; a junior high/middle school site; 20 usable acres. The acreages may be reduced to encourage the joint use of community parks where appropriate. 5. An elementary school site shall consist of at least 10 usable acres. The district encourages joint use with pazks where appropriate. 6. School sites shall be located in proximity to major arterials, and primary ingress and egress to the site shall be controlled by a signalized intersection. 7. The proposed land uses adjacent [o a school site shall be planned in such a manner as to minimize noise impacts and maximize harmonious development between the two uses. 8. To further community development and enhance the quality of life, schools should be centrally located in residential neighborhoods in order to best serve the majority of [he student population. 9. School development is subject to the California Environmental Quality Ac[ (CEQA). Therefore, prior to accepting the dedication of a school site, the district will require an examination of the existing environmental conditions (seismology and geology, etc.) to determine its adequacy. 5.7 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES In order to serve the public in the most effective and efficient manner the selection of new library sites should be based on the following criteria: 3-63 1. Proximity to Community Activity Centers or neighborhood retail centers. 2. High visibility from the streets providing access. 3. Primary ingress and egress to the site controlled by a signalized intersection or other adequate vehiculaz control. 4. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character. 5. Minimum displacement of existing residents and businesses. 6. Minimum costs. In addition, site should be of sufficient size, shape and topography to provide for the development of a library facility that will meet the following criteria: ]. One level structure of the required size [o meet the service standards. 2. Public and staff parking in accordance with City standards. 3. Adequate allowances for landscaping and building setbacks requirements. The planning and design for the library buildings should be in accordance with the following guidelines. 1. Library space of .5 [o .7 gross square feet per resident. 2. Three books per capita, plus spoken word audio cassettes, video cassettes and compact disks. 6. REFERENCES The following reports and studies were used in the preparation of the Public Facilities Elemem: 1. P&D Technologies. Chula Vista Genera] Plan, Land Use Element. 2. Otay Water District. Central Area Water Master Plan Update. March 1987. 3. Sweetwater Authority. Water Master Plan Update, November 1985. 4. Engineering-Science, Inc. Water Feasibility Study. May 1987. 5. Engineering-Science, Inc. Wastewater Feasibility Study. May 1987. 6. San Diego County Water Authority. Water Market Assessment. 3-64 September 1988. 7. Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith. Drainage Master Plan Report. 1964. 8. Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. Drainage and Flood Control Summary Report. August 1987. 9. County of San Diego, Division of Solid Waste. Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. 1986. lo. Engineering-Science, Inc. Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Feasibility S[udy. May 1987. 11. County of San Diego, Division of Hazardous Waste. Hazardous Waste Management Plan. May 1989. 3-65 bFc~,r_f ~X~/rB/r' C ORDINANCE N0. ~DR,~~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADDING SECTIONS 19.04.107 AND 19.58.178 TO, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 19.14.070, 19.42.040, 19.44.040, AND 19.46.040 OF, THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEFINITIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES. WHEREAS, on June 30, 1992, the City Council adopted amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan incorporating provisions related to the management of hazardous wastes, and the siting and permitting of hazardous waste facilities as required by State law (Resolution No. 16794); and WHEREAS, in order to fully implement the provisions of the amended Public Facilities Element it is necessary to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance, and staff was directed by the City Council to complete said ordinance amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendments define hazazdous waste facilities as conditional uses in the City's industrial zone classifications, provided that the facility is also located within one of the "general areas" designated in the General Plan Public Facilities Element as an area appropriate for the consideration of such facilities; and WHEREAS, the amendments establish a specific review procedure for hazardous waste facility conditional use permit applications consistent with State law; and WHEREAS, in addition to the normal findings required for a conditional use permit, the amendments would require the Planning Commission and City Council to find that the proposed facility complies with the "General Areas" policies, siting criteria, and "fair shaze" principles of Section 5.5 of the General Plan Public Facilities Element, and with the County of San Diego Hazardous Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendments provide for a public heazing before both the Planning Commission and City Council, with the Planning Commission action forming a recommendation rather than a decision subject to appeal; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the amendments will result in no significant impacts upon the environment, and has issued a Negative Declaration under IS-93-14; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendments on December 16, 1992, and a continuation heazing on January 13, 1993, and recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public heazing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments on February 2, 1993. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 19.04.107 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS 19.04.107 Hazazdous Waste Facilitv A "Hazardous Waste Facilitv" means as applicable a hazardous waste facility proiect specified hazardous waste facility specified hazazdous waste facilityproject or land disposal facility as defined in Section 25199.1 of the California Health and Safetv Code and shall include anv structures, other appurtenances and improvements on the land and all contieuous land, used for the treatment, transfer, storage resource recovery disposal or recycling of hazardous waste. SECTION II: That Section 19.14.070 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 19.14 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONAL USES AND VARIANCES 19.14.070 Conditional use permit-Application-Fee-Public hearing. A. Applications for conditional use permits or modifications thereto shall be made to the Planning Commission in writing on a form prescribed by the Planning Commission and shall be accompanied by plans and data sufficient to show the detail of the proposed use or building. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the master fee schedule. The director of planning shall cause the matter to be set for hearing in the same manner as required for setting zoning matters for hearing. The director of planning or the Planning Commission shall have the discretion to include in the notice of the heazing on such application notice that the planning commission will consider classifications of other than that for which application is made an/or additional properties and/or uses. In those cases where the application conforms to the requirements of Section 19.14.030A, the application shall be directed to the zoning administrator. B. In the case of hazardous waste facilities as defined in Section 19 04 107 applications for conditional use permits or modifications thereto shall be made pursuant to Section 19.58_178, and shall be considered by the Plannine Commission with a recommendation to be Ordinance No. Page 3 forwarded to the Citv Council for final review and action The reouirements of Section 19.14.090 shall apply to both the Planning Commission recommendation and the Citv Council resolution with the followin modifications • 1. The written findines, in addition to the reouirements of Section 19 14 080 shall address those matters as set forth in Section 19 58 178K 2. The decision of the Plannine Commission shall constitute a recommendation only and shall not become final or subject to appeal as provided in Sections 19 14 100 to 19.14.130. 3. The Citv Council's decision shall be considered final and the Citv Clerk shall transmit a coot/ of the resolution as nrovided by Section 19 ]4 130 SECTION III: That Section 19.42.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 19.42 I-R -RESEARCH INDUSTRIAL ZONE 19.42.040 Conditional uses Conditional uses permitted in an I-R zone include: A. Retail commercial uses necessary to serve the I-R zone; B. Manufacture of phazmaceuticals, drugs and the like; C. Building height in excess of three and one-half stories or forty-five feet; D. Unclassified uses, as set forth in Chapter 19.54. E. Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standards set forth in Section 19.30.040. F. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section 13.58.340. G. Hazazdous waste facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 19 58 178 Ordinance No. Page 4 SECTION IV: That Section 19.44.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 19.44 I-L -LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONE 19.44.040 Conditional uses Conditional uses permitted in an I-L zone include: A. Machine shop and sheet metal shop; B. Service stations, subject to the conditions in Section 19.58.280; C. Steel fabrication; D. Restaurants, delicatessens and similar uses; E. Drive-in theaters, subject to the conditions of Section 19.58.120; F. Major auto repair, engine rebuilding and paint shops; G. Commercial parking lots and garages; H. Plastic and other synthetics manufacturing; I. Building heights exceeding three and one-half stories or forty-five feet; J. Unclassified uses as set forth in Chapter 19.54; K. Trucking yazds, terminals and distributing operations; L. The retail sale of such bulky items as furniture, carpets and other similar items; M. Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume, wazehouse-type sale of goods and, retail uses which aze related to and supportive of existing, on-site retail distribution centers of manufacturers' outlets. Conditional use permit applications for the establishment of retail commercial uses, covered by the provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the city council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission. N. Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standazds set forth in Section 19.30.040. Ordinance No. Page 5 O. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.340. P. Hazardous waste facilities. subiect to the nrovisions of Section 19 58 178 SECTION V: That Section 19.46.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 19.46 I -GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE 19.46.040 Conditional uses Conditional uses in an I district include: A. Motels; B. Restaurants; C. Service stations, subject to the provisions of Sections 19.58.280; D. The retail sale of such bulky items as furniture, carpets and other similar items; E. Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume, wazehouse-type sale of goods and, retail uses which are related to, and supportive of existing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers' outlets. Conditional use permit applications for the establishment of retail commercial uses, covered by the provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the city council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission; F. The following uses covered by this subsection, shall be considered by the city council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission: 1. Brewing or distilling of liquor, or perfume manufacture, 2. Meat packing, 3. Large scale bleaching, cleaning and dyeing establishments, 4. Railroad yazds and freight stations, Ordinance No. Page 6 5. Forges and foundries, 6. Automobile salvage and wrecking operations, and industrial metal and waste rag, glass or paper salvage operations; provided, that all operations are conducted within a solid screen not less than eight feet high, and that materials stored are not piled higher than said screen; G. Any other use which is determined by the commission to be of the same general character as the above uses; H. Unclassified uses, as provided in Chapter 19.54. Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standards set forth in Section 19.30.040. J. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.340. K. Hazardous waste facilities subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.178 SECTION VI: That Section 19.58.178 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 19.58 USES 19.58.178 Hazardous waste facilities A hazardous waste facility as defined in Section 19 04 107 of this title may be considered for permitting only within an industrial zone which is also located within a "General Area" identified in Section 5.5 of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan as an azea appropriate for the acceptance and consideration of an application for such a facility. A hazardous waste facility may be allowed within a location as indicated above upon the tssuance of a conditional use permit subiect to the following standazds and euidelines: A. PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intent of this section to establish and clarify local requirements and procedures for the review and approval of conditional use permit applications for a hazazdous waste facility consistent with the provisions of Section 25199 et sea. of the California Health and Safety Code (Tanner Actl and with the obiectives policies and criteria of the Public Facilities Element of the Citv General Plan reQazdine hazazdous waste mana eg ment planning and the siting and permitting of hazardous waste facilities. Ordinance No. Page 7 B. APPLICABILITY Anv conditional use Hermit eranted for a hazazdous waste facility pursuant to Sections 19.14.070 th~ouQh .130 shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section which are supplementary to and in the event of conflict shall supersede the regulations set forth in Sections 19.14.070 throuEh 130 Subsections D E F G H I J and K of this section shall apply to all hazazdous waste facilities as defined in Section 19 04 107 and. as herein defined C. DEFINITIONS 1. "Hazardous waste" shall mean a waste or combination of wastes which because of its auantity, concentration or physical chemical or infectious chazacteristics may either: a. Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase m serious irreversible or incapacitatine reversible illness b. Pose a substantial resent or otential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated stored transported disposed of or otherwise managed In addition, hazardous waste shall include the followin a. Anv waste identified as a hazardous waste by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control. b. Anv waste identified as a hazazdous waste under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act as amended 42 U S C §& 6901 et sea and anv reeulat~ons promuleated thereunder c. Extremely or acutely hazazdous waste which includes anv hazardous waste or mixture of hazardous wastes which if human exposure should occur, may likely result in death disabling personal injury or serious tllness caused by the hazazdous waste or mixture of hazardous wastes because of its auantity concentration or chemical chazacteristics ?. "Hazardous waste facility" means anv facility used for the storaee transfer treatment, recvcltne and/or disposal of hazardous wastes or associated residuals as defined m Section 19.04.107 Ordinance No. Page 8 3. "Land use decision" shall mean a discretionazv decision of the Citv concerning a hazardous waste facility project, includine the issuance of a land use permit or a conditional use Hermit, the eranting of a variance, the subdivision of Hropertv, or the modification of existing_pronertv lines Hursuant to Title 7 (commencing with Section 650001 of the California Government Code. D. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY; APPLICATION FOR A LAND USE DECISION: COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 25199.7(al and (b), at least ninety (90) days before filing an application for a conditional use permit for a hazazdous waste facility, the applicant shall file with the Planning Department and with the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of Planning and Research, a Notice of Intent ("N.O.L"1 to make the application. The N.O.I. shall be on such form as approved by the Director of Plannine, and shall specify the project location to which it applies, and contain a complete description of the nature, function, and scope of the proiect. 2. The Planning Department shall provide public notice of the applicant's intent to apply for a conditional use permit, pursuant to the noticing~rocedure in Section 19.12.070, and by posting notices in the location where the proposed proiect is located. 3. Costs incurred by the Citv in processing said public notice shall be paid by the proiect proponent through establishment of a deposit account for such purposes with the Planning Department at the time the N.O.I. is filed. 4. The N.O.I. shall remain in effect for one year from the date it is filed. unless it is withdrawn by the proponent. However, a N.O.I. is not transferable to a location other than that specified in the N.O.L, and in such instance the proponent proposes to chance the proiect location, anew N.O.I. shall be prepared, and the procedure shall be ig n again for the new location. 5. Within 30 days of the feline of the N.O.I.. the applicant shall schedule a pre-application conference with the Plannin¢ Department to be held not later than 45 days thereafter, at which the applicant and the Plannine Department shall discuss information and materials necessary to evaluate the application. Within 30 days after this meeting, the Director of Planning shall inform the applicant, in writine, of all submittals necessary in order to deem the conditional use permit application complete. Ordinance No. Page 9 6. The anplicant may not file an application for a conditional use permit unless the applicant has first complied with the above items and presented the reauired implication fee. Furthermore. said application shall not be considered and acted upon until it is deemed complete as provided by Section 19 14 070 and until all materials necessary to evaluate the application as set forth by the Director of Planning pursuant to Item 5 above have been received and accepted as to content. 7. An application is not deemed to be complete until the Plannine Department notifies the applicant, in writing that the application is complete Said notification of completeness, or incompleteness shall be provided within 30 davs of the application submittal or resubmittal as applicable After an application is determined to be complete the Planning Department may request additional information where necessary to clarify modify or supplement previously submitted materials, or where resulting from conditions which were not known, and could not reasonably have been known at the time the application was received 8. The Planning Department shall notify the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of Planning and Reseazch within ten (10) davs after an application for a conditional use permit is accepted as complete by the Planning Department. E. PRE-APPLICATION PUBLIC MEETING 1. Within ninety (901 davs after a Notice of Intent is filed with the Planning Department and Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subsection D.1 the Office of Permit Assistance will in cooperation with the Planning Department convene a public meetin (g 'Pre- Application Meeting") in the City of Chula Vista for the express puroose of informing the public on the nature. function and scope of the proposed project and the procedures that are required for approving applications for the proiect 2. The City shall arrange a meeting location in a public facility neaz the proposed proiect site, and shall give notice of said meeting pursuant to the noticine procedures in Section 19 12 070 and b~postin a~ t the proposed proiect site 3. All. affected as?encies, including? but not limited to the State Department of Health Services/Toxic Substance Control ProgJram Relrional Water Oualitv Control Board, County Department of Health Services- Hazazdous Materials Management Division, and the Air Pollution Control District shall send a representative who will explain to the public their agency's procedures for approving permit applications for the project and outline the public's Ordinance No. Page 10 opportunities for review and comment on those applications F. LOCAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE• FORMATION AND ROLE 1. At anv time after filing of the N O.I., but not later than 30 days after an application for a land use decision has been accented as complete the Cif Council shall appoint a seven member Local Assessment Committee ("LAC"1 to advise the Citv in considering the hazazdous waste facility proposal 2. The membership of the LAC shall be broadly_constituted to reflect the makeu of the Citv, and shall include three representatives of the Citv at lazge two representatives of environmental or public interest groups and two representatives of affected businesses and industries. Members of the LAC shall have no direct_ financial interest, as defined in Section 87103 of the California Government Code, in the proposed proiect 3. The LAC is solely an advisorv committee and is not empowered with anv decision making authority relative to the proposed project nor with the legal standing to assert specific proiect conditions Rather, the LAC provides a mechanism for direct input on matters of concern to the general public into the environmental review process and presents the opportunity for framing questions that should be addressed in that process, as well as in seeing that these questions are addressed as early in the process as possible. 4. As such, the LAC shalt, within the time period prescribed by the Citv Council advise the Citv of the terms and conditions under which the proposed hazazdous waste facility proiect may be acceptable to the community as follows• a. Adopt rules and procedures which are necessazv to perform its duties b. Enter into a dialogue with the project proponent to reach an understanding on: the suggested terms, provisions and conditions for proiect approval and facility operation which would ensure protection of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment of the City of Chula Vista and adiacent communities, and the special benefits and remuneration the proponent will provide the Citv as compensation for all local costs and impacts associated with the facility and its operation. Such discussions shall address "fair share" concepts as set forth in Section 5 5 of the General Plan Public Facilities Element including the Ordinance No. Page 11 consideration of establishing inter-governmental agreements, and/or other compensation and incentive programs. Said dialogue shall be responsive to the issues ant concerns identified at the meeting described in subsection G.1. c. With regazd to subsection 'b.' above, any resulting proposed mitigation measures not already defined in the environmental review or permitting process would be subiect to the negotiation process with the proponent, with the negotiation results forwazded as recommended terms of approval to the Plannine Commission and City Council. d. Represent generally, in meetings with the project applicant, the interest of the residents of the City of Chula Vista and the interests of adjacent communities, as principally made known through the Post-Application Meeting. e. Receive and expend, subiect to the approval of the City Mana eg r and authorization of the City Council, any technical assistance grants made available as described in Subsection J. f. Advise the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and the Cit Council of the terms, provisions, and conditions for proiect approval which have been successfully negotiated by the committee and the proponent, and any additional information which the committee deems appropriate. The Planning Department, Planning Commission, and Citv Council may use this advice for their independent consideration of the rp o~ect• 5. The Citv shall allocate staff resources to assist the LAC in performing its duties and the proiect proponent shall be responsible to pay the City's costs in establishing, convening, and staffing the LAC, through establishment of a die osit account for such purposes with the Planning Department at the time of filing an application for a land use decision. 6. The LAC shall cease to exist after final administrative action by state and local agencies has been taken on the permit applications for the proiect for which the Committee was convened. G. NOTICE OF PERMIT APPLICATION; POST-APPLICATION MEETING Ordinance No. Page 12 1. Within sixty (60) days after receiving the notice of a complete application as required by subsection D.8, the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of Plannine and Reseazch will convene a ("Post-Application Meeting") in the City of Chula Vista of the lead and responsible aeencies for the project, the proponent the LAC and the interested public for the purpose of determinine the issues which concern the agencies that aze required to approve the project and the issues which concern the public. The Planning Department shall provide notice to the public of the date, time, and place of the meeting_ 2. The issues of concern raised at the Post-Application Meeting must include all environmental and permittine issues which will need to be addressed in the environmental document to ensure the document's adequacy in supporting the actions of all permitting and responsible agencies for the proiect. 3. The Post-Application Meetine should be held as soon as an environmental initial study or notice of preparation is available for review and comment so that adequate opportunity is provided for meeting input to be employed in the scopine of subsequent environmental review activities. H. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS 1. All hazardous waste facility proposals shall be required to undergo an environmental review and health risk assessment reeardless of facility type size or proximity to populations or immobile populations. 2. As hazardous waste facilities may vary greatly in their potential public health and safety, and environmental risks. the depth and breadth of environmental review and health risk assessments must be tailored on a case-by-case basis. 3. The environmental review and health risk assessment shall serve as the primary vehicles for identifying community and involved asencv concerns and providing data to be used by the LAC and the Citv in negotiating project conditions As such, within 30 days following the Post-Application Meeting the Citv shall: a. create an ad-hoc technical committee to advise the Citv and the LAC on technical issues regazding the scoping and preparation of the environmental review and health risk assessment. The membership should consist of staff from each of the involved permitting or responsible aeencies, an epidemiologist, a toxicologist and any other technical experts deemed necessary or desirable. b. convene a meeting of involved Citv staff, the environmental document Ordinance No. Page 13 prepazer the LAC ad-hoc technical committee, and the proiect proponent to establish the scope and content for the environmental document and health risk assessment, and the need for any other technical studies. The City Council shall review the meeting outcome, and approve a final scope for the environmental review and health risk assessment prior to the commencement of work. 4. A traffic/transportation study shall be required as part of the environmental review for all hazazdous waste facilityproposals, and at minimum shall account for all factors addressed under the Safe Transportation siting criteria contained in Section 5 5 of the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan. 5. Upon selection of a reasonable range of proiect alternatives under the California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., the City upon the advice of the LAC and ad-hoc technical committee, shall establish a preferred hierazchy among those alternatives for the purpose of determining the level of qualitative and quantitative analysis that should be performed for the health risk assessment on those alternatives. In determining this preferred hierazchy and associated level of health risk assessment, consideration shall be given to the relative feasibility of each alternative to attain the stated proiect obiectives and the relative merits of each alternative. 6. The health risk assessment shall serve as an evaluative and decision-making tool, and shall not be construed as providing definitive answers regarding facility siting. 7. The ad-hoc technical committee shall remain in tact to assist, as requested, the City and the LAC in the evaluation of the final health risk assessment and any technical studies to determine acceptable levels of risk, and/or to determine the extent and type of related conditions and mitigation measures which should be applied to the proiect. 8. The LAC shall not finalize its recommendations for forwarding for Planning Commission and City Council consideration until after the public review period for the draft environmental document has closed, and the LAC has had sufficient time to review any comments received. 9. Anv costs associated to the formation or work of the ad-hoc technical committee in addition to any other consultant(sl the LAC deems necessary. including costs incurred in the preparation of any technical studies, shall be paid for throu4h technical assistance grants as described in subsection J. Ordinance No. Page 14 I. INITIAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 1. At the reauest of the anplicant the Citv Council shall within sixty (601 days after the Plannin¢ Department has determined that an application for a conditional use Hermit is complete and after a noticed public heazine issue an initial written determination on whether the proposed nroject is consistent with both of the followine: a. The anplicable provisions of the Citv General Plan and Zoning Ordinances in effect at the time the application was accepted as complete. b. The county hazazdous waste management nlan authorized by Article 3 5 (commencine with Section 251351 of the California Health and Safety Code, if such plan is in effect at the time of application 2. The Plannine Department shall send to the anplicant a copy of the written determination made pursuant to item 1 above 3. The determination reauired by item 1 above does not prohibit the Citv from makine a different determination when the final decision to approve or deny the conditional use permit is made, if the final determination is based on information which was not considered at the time the initial determination was made J. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS• LOCAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE NEGOTIATIONS I. Followine the Post-Application Meeting the LAC and the proponent shall meet and confer on the project proposal pursuant to the provisions of subsection F 2. Given that the rules. reeulations, and conditions relative to hazardous waste facility proiects are extremely technical in nature as aze the associated assessments of otential ublic health and environmental risks the LAC ma find that it requires assistance and independent advise to adequately review a proposed proiect and make recommendations In such instance the LAC may request technical assistance grants from the Citv to enable the hirine of a consultant(s) to do any, or all, of the followine• a. assist the LAC in the review and evaluation of the nroject application environmental documents, technical studies and/or any other documents materials and information reauired in connection with the proiect application. Ordinance No. Page 15 b. interoret the potential public health and safety and environmental risks associated with the project and help to define acceptable mitieation measures to substantially minimize or eliminate those risks c. advise the LAC in its meetinQS and discussions with the proponent to seek aereement on the terms and conditions under which the project will be acceptable to the community 3. The proponent shall be reuuired to pay a fee equal to the amount of any technical assistance Brant authorized for the LAC Said fee(sl shall be naid to the Citv. and deposited in an account to be used exclusively for the purposes set forth m subsection J.2. 4. If the local assessment committee and the applicant cannot resolve anv differences throu¢h the meetings the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of Plannine and Research may be called upon to mediate disputes 5. The ro onent shall a one-half of the costs of an mediation rocess which may be recommended or undertaken by the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of Plannine and Research The remainine costs will be naid upon appropriation by the leeislature from the State General Fund K. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES Before anv conditional use Hermit for a hazardous waste facility may be granted or modified, m addition to the findings required by Section 19 14 080 it shall be found that the proposed facility is in compliance with the followine• 1. The "General Areas" policies of Section 5 5 of the Public Facilities Element of the Citv General Plan. 2. The "sitine criteria" as set forth in Section 5 5 of the Public Facilities Element of the Cit General Plan. 3. The "fair shaze" principles established in Section 5 5 of the Public Facilities Element of the Citv General Plan 4. The County of San Diego Hazardous Waste Manaeement Plan SECTION VII: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Ordinance No. Page 16 Presented by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Approved as to form by Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney (P_UomeAplenningAhwmp-a.ord)