HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/01/13 (2)
Planning Commission
Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993
Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: A.
GPA-92-02 - 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. GP A-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
1. 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, induding 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
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.
Page 2
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
Page 3
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
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 Adoption 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 and 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.
Planning Commission
Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993
Each of the jurisdictions in the San Diego Region were to adopt the COHWMP as
a policy and decision making guide through the establishment of local hazardous
waste management policies and provisions consistent with the COHWMP.
Page 4
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 are appropriate for considering facility
applications. Those areas removed include Montgomery, Eastlake and
Rancho Del Rey Business Parks, 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 separate 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-92-02)
3. During the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing adoption
proceedings in June 1992, letters were received from Greenfield 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 consideration of further clarifying amendments to the Public Facilities
Element under GPA-92-02A also gives occasion to respond to Greenfield's prior
request, although not legally required, 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 are contained in
Planning Commission
Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993
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 amendments again highlighted on
colored paper.
Page 6
Additional Proposed General Plan Amendments (GPA-92-02A)
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 its waste treatment needs
through either siting facilities within its borders, and/or establishing
intergovernmental agreements for treatment capacity at facilities in other counties.
In order to assure that no one local jurisdiction or subregional area becomes
excessively burdened for county-wide or multi-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
Planning Commission
Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993
Page 7
City, staff has developed a four-tiered approach which accommodates increasingly
larger sized facilities provided certain conditions are demonstrated by the applicant.
In overview, those tiers are:
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
area 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 Environmental (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 several 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, 1992 letter, and indicated that the matters would be heard
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 GP A-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 Zoning 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.
12. Those provisions of State law delineate unique procedural requirements for local
consideration of hazardous waste facility proposals which, in summary, include the
following:
Planning Commission
Agenda Item for the Meeting of January 13, 1993
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 Board, 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.
Page 9
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 consistency 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 final.
Planning Commission
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 conditional uses in the City's I-R, I-L, and I zones
respectively, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.178 previously outlined.
Page 10
(hwordpc''1't)
ATIACHMENT 1
Page 1
A TT ACHMENT 1
LETTER FROM LATHAM & WATKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RECEIVED IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE
DECEMBER 16, 1992 AT 5:30 P.M.
AND
RESPONSES TO THAT LETTER
NOTE: The Latham and Watkins letter is shown in small, bold print, with City staff
responses in larger print.
December 16, 1992
BY HAND DELIVERY
Members of the City Planning Commission
Planning Department
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Citv !mDlementation of the Countv of San Die20 Hazardous Waste Mana2ement 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 ll, Inc. ("Aptecll).
As a threshold matter, the Tanner Act requires the City to consider and act Dpon the Proposed
Amendments within 180 days of the County's written notification that its COHWMP had been approved by the
state. Ca!. Health & Safety Code ~ 25I35.7(c). The County informed the City of this approval on January 6,
1992. The ISO-day period lapsed on July 4, 1992. Therefore, the City now lacks jurisdiction to effect any
modifications to the COHWMP's application in the City.
The City has already recognized this limitation on it, authority. In its report supporting the
Planning Commission's June 30, 1992 meeting on this matter, the City acknowledged that its authority for taking
action regarding the COHWMP would expire on July 4, 1992.
Due to this defieiency, Aptec, in a December 4,1992 letter to Mr. Ed Batchelder, urged the City
to remove consideration of the Proposed Amendments from the Planning Commission's agenda for December 16,
1992. Mr. Batchelder responded by letter dated
Members of the City Planning Commission
December 16, 1992
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2
December 10, 1992, in which he stated that consideration of the Proposed Amendments will remain on the
Planning Commission's agenda for December 16, 1992 and asserted the City's authority to act on this matter. We
renew our request that the Commission take no 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." City of Sausalito v. County of Marin (1970) 12
Cal.App.3d 550, 563-64, 90 Cal.Rptr. 843, 852. In addition, where a statute prescribes
deadlines but does not provide for enforcement, these deadlines are usually directory.
Lindbor!.!/Dahl Investors v. Garden Grove (1986) 225 Cal.Rptr. 154, 179 Cal.App.3d 956,960,
n. 2; Anderson v. Pitten!.!er (1961) 17 Cal.Rptr. 54, 197 Cal.App.2d 188, 194; 58 Cal.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
sub serves 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.
In the event that the Commission decides to proceed with this matter, we submit the following
comments.
1. The ProDosed Amendments Are PreemDted Bv Federal Law
The City's actions have been aimed at effecting de iure and de facto baRS on hazardous waste
facilities in the City. On their face, the Proposed Amendments represent an attempt by the City to firmly establish
those bans. The Proposed Amendments are, therefore, preempted by the comprehensive legislation addressing
hazardous waste management which the United States Congress has enacted. See Ol!den Environmental Services
v. City of San Die~o, 687 F. Supp. 1436 (S.D. Cal. 1988) (city's ban on hazardous waste facilities held preempted
by federal legislation). Therefore, we urge the Planning Commission to revise the Proposed Amendments in order
to bring them 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 are
specifically authorized under the Tanner Act, Health & Safety Code ~ 25135.7(c)(2).
The case cited for this proposition, Ogden Environmental Services v. City of San Diego,
687 F. Supp. 1436 (S.D. Cal. 1988), is easily distinguishable. In O!.!den, the court struck down
the City of San Diego's CUP process where it failed to contain any standards for evaluating
Members of the City Planning Commi~sion
December 16, 1992
ATIACHMENT I
Page 3
hazardous waste facilities. Here, we are attempting to establish such standards in accordance
with the procedure established by the State.
2. The Proposed Amendments Violate The Commerce Clause Of The United States
Constitution
The Commerce Clause prohibits local governments from interfering with the flow of interstate
commerce. The intent of the Proposed Amendments is to limit the flow of hazardous waste into the City. While
this result may appear attractive to the City, it is precisely the sort of parochial protectionist measure which
unconstitutionally impedes the flow of interstate commerce. Measures much like the Proposed Amendments have
been repeatedly struck down by the United States Supreme Court and lower courts as violative 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 Pro nosed Amendments Are Preemnted Bv 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 treaOOent,
storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, and establishes priorities in managing hazardous waste
in California. Since the Proposed Amendments would serve to institute de iure and de facto 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 statepwide strategy for the management of hazardous waste, the California
legislature enacted the Tanner Act, whose goal is to facilitate the siting of hazardous waste facilities
notwithstanding frequent local opposition. The Tanner Act requires each county to prepare a hazardous waste
management plan. This plan must then he implemented hy all cities within the county.
The City may not take action which is inconsistent with the COHWMP. The City's Proposed
Amendments are inconsistent with the COHWl\1P siting criteria and fair share principles.
The proposed amendments are not preempted by state law, nor do they violate the Tanner Act,
because they are specifically authorized 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
Members of the City Planning Commission
December 16, 1992
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4
City modified or made more stringent certain of the COHWMP'S requirements and criteria, does
not of itself constitute inconsistency, 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 welfare of its citizens and environment.
For example, City criteria Nos. 1 and 2 change the definition of "proximity to populations" so
as to significantly increase the required buffer zone. Moveover, City criterion No.1 explicitly states that the "active
portion of the facility shall be subject to additional setbacks and buffering. II
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 through 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 boundary to the "active portion" of a facility as required by
the underlying industrial zone. Such zoning setbacks, which are 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 similar to that at the Otay Landfill, where a facility is set within a substantially
larger property. In such particular instances however, it would not the City's intent to
unreasonably apply the criteria, but rather to recognize that a smaller faciIty 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 require a bealth risk assessment ("HRA "), determine its scope, and
use it to decide whether a CUP should be issued. This is contrary to the terms of the COHWMP, which pennits
a city to require an HRA only when a facility handling ignitable, volatile or reactive wastes proposes to 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 Planning 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
adequately 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 HRA, 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 HRA's is a standard practice in evaluating certain potential siting impacts of
hazardous waste facilities.
The City's criteria correctly recognize that there is no particular 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 HRA. 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 regarding facility siting.
In addition, while the COHWMP allows the siting of hazardous waste facilities in certain hazard
areas as long as those facilities are "designed, constructed, operated, and maintainedtl to address the hazard, the
City flatly refuses to permit such siting except "at the discretion of the City Council. n (See City criteria Nos. 4,
5,7,8.)
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 similarly
prohibiting facilities in certain hazard areas (floodplains, faults, geologic/soil instability, etc.)
except where satisfactory design and other controls are 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 are 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 COHWMP is in the area of fair 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
enviromnentally safe wallte management impossible.
Members of the City Planning Commission
December 16, 1992
ATTACHMENT I
Page 6
The City, in addition to requiring an applicant to meet all of its siting criteria and the
COHWl\1P'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, existing treatment facilities, and intergovermnental agreements. The City also
reserved for itself the authority to "survey the efforts put forth by the communities from within which the involved
wastes are being generated, to recognize treatment respolLliiibilities and reduce their off-site treatment needs
through promoting on-site treatment and waste 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 a four-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 share determinations is
dynamic, and subsequently calIs 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 share 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 may 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 COHWMP is by no means exhaustive,
but is offered to illustrate the onerous nature of the City's siting criteria and fair share requirements. The City
has, in effect, refused to implement the COHWMP as it is required to do by tbe Tanner 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 require the City
to draft amendments which are consistent with the COHWMP.
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 are "more stringent" than those of
the COHWMP. While the City has adopted such provisions, they are 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 Citv Cannot Relv On It, June 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 the notice provisions of Ca!. Gov't Code ~~ 65090 and 65091. To the extent that the
Proposed Amendments are dependent on the June 30, 1992 amendments, they are barred by the lack of proper
notice in the enactment of those amendments, and for the other reasons alleged in Aptec's federal lawsuit.
Members of the City Planning Commission
December 16, 1992
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 7
The City has consistently encouraged Aptes's participation and comments on our amendments.
In response to Aptec's alleged notice objections, the City Planning Commission continued its
hearing on June 24, 1992 to June 29, 1992 to provide Aptec with more than the required 10
days in the Government Code and City Charter to comment on these amendments. To
accommodate Aptec's request for even more time to comment, and in an overabundance of
caution, the City is also now entertaining reconsideration to provide for further comment by
Aptec, eventhough the City is not required to do so. The City has consistently responded to
Aptec's objections, and has provided Aptec with far more notice and time to comment than is
required by law.
6. The City's Reliance On An EIR Addendum To Support The Proposed Amendments Violates CEOA
The proposed "Addendum To The County of San Diego Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Environmental Impact Report" ("Em Addendum ") appears to violate both procedural and substantive
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Notice of today's Planning Commission
hearing indicates that the Em Addendum "previously prepared by the City under Em-92-03, and considered in
conjunction with the June 1992 amendments. . . shall be reconsidered. II Aptec objected to the City's reliance on
this Em Addendum in enacting the June 30, 1992 amendments and, since the City proposes to rely on the same
Em Addendum for the Proposed Amendments to be considered today, Aptec renews its objection on the same
grounds.
CEQA procedural standards do not allow the City to proceed by an Em Addendum with respect
to the Proposed Amendments because those amendments constitute a separate project. However, even if the
amendments are considered to be part of the same project, an Em Addendum is inadequate because the
amendments have the potential for new significant environmental impacts which are not accounted for in the Em
prepared for the COHWMP. We urge the Planning Commission to require the City to perform the environmental
review mandated by CEQA.
Finally, the proposed Em Addendum is substantively inadequate because it completely lacks any
substantive discussion of the environmental impact of modifying siting and other requirements for hazardous waste
facilities in Chula Vista. For example, the Em Addendum fails to discuss the significance of the environmental
impact of "implement[ing] more restrictive hazardous waste regulations." This enactment can have a substantial
impact on the rest of the Southern California region.
The City's issuance of an Addendum to the COHWMP EIR in adopting the June 30, 1992
amendments was appropriate under CEQA. An Addendum to an EIR is authorized for projects
which "do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment"
(CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15164). The City Staff analyzed the potential for significant, new
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that were not analyzed in the
COHWMP EIR. As a result, the City concluded that its proposed amendments to the
COHWMP would not require major modifications to the COHWMP EIR, since the City's
amendments represented minor technical changes. Furthermore, those amendments would not
create significant, new environmental impacts, since the amendments favored protection of public
health and the environment with respect to the location and siting of hazardous waste facilities.
The use of an Addendum to the COHWMP EIR is deemed to be adequate under CEQA.
Furthermore, it should be clarified that reconsideration of said Addendum would only occur in
conjunction with the City's reconsideration of its prior approval of the June 30, 1992 General
Plan Amendments. It is currently staff's recommendation that said reconsideration be denied.
In addition, the currently proposed additional General Plan Amendments (GPA 92-02A) and
Members of the City Planning Commission
December 16, 1992
AITACHMENT 1
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 Ne2ative Declaration To Suooort The Imnlementin2
Ordinances And Associated Revisions Violates CEOA
A oegative declaration is appropriate only if "[tlhere is no substantial evidenee" that the project
in question wiD have a significant adverse impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15070, subd. (a).
Because the Proposed Amendments would cause hazardous waste facilities to be sited outside of the City's
boundaries, a signirlCant adverse impact on other areas in the Southern California region may well occur.
The negative declaration prepared by the City expressly relies on an initial study conducted by
the City. Aptec has already objected to the complete failure of the City to comply with CEQA requirements for
conducting 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 oftbe Proposed Amendments from the Planning Commission's agenda for today, December 16, 1992.
IT, however, the Planning 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 consonant 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, 9 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
cc: Tom Vernon, Esq.
Mr. Kelly McGregor
B:\hwpcrpt.att
.
~~ll~t~;t~gjii~;i;mt;i!~!;;~4~t'llI~
shall be located outside the lOO-year floodplain,. or areas
subject to flash floods and debris flows. The risk assessment
and environmental review shall analyze such hazards. ABy
"JPcceptions BaGed en prepesed eagineering and dnsigR
respenses Ghall m~Y be ~t~4 at the diseretien ef ~y the
l~ili~li~RI.'i11~1I.'~I~I~11
5. Areas subject to tsunamis, seiches, and storm surges
. Areas subject to tsunamis, seiches, and storm surges are
dermed as areas bordering oceans, bays, inlets, estuaries 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.
. .~",ll faeilitie6, iRehuliBg Residual repositories, shall be
prohibited from locating in areas subject to (lee ding (reM
these occurrences. The risk assessment and environmental
review shall analyze such hazards.
· ~1j)~W!~8!!~!f~~~~~PfIRg!!!~!!~rfiW~!WJ~w
1~1~lli'pli~re~.III._T~llIa
iY~!~~i!!!@!!mt~iM@1:iM~!m>>yt!W~~#~tt~~~4!!i
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 11,000 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 to 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
3-47
association with youthful major mountain scarps or
ranges
correlation with strong geophysical anomalies
. All facilities are required to have a minimum 2OO-foot
setback from a known active or potentially active fault.
. All facilities regardless of proximity to faults, shall ........
minimum sta,ula,d, be constructed to seismic zone 4 building
code standards., stmjeet t8 fequirem8Rts iB eneess as
eetermiRsa Beeessary hy the City te ~f8teet ~uBlie health
aREI safety.
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 are expressly prohibited in areas of
potential slope instability.
. All other facilities shall be prohibited in areas of potential
slope instability or rapid geologic change. Except!JjimiAAylm
!!!I~~t!~~!!!~~!~~~?!!!!6 it~~~;~i
~!imm~!.~~~~iifi~!!mt!!iPyt~\!4AA#Wi1iI:\~#~i:AAi, . and Ul'88
81'1'<s':;81. eftJ1sCity Ce"..eiCThe;.;sk assessment and
environmental 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 the surface materials that develop
liquid properties upon being physically disturbed.
. All faeilities, iftcluaing Residual repositories, shall be
prohibited from locating in areas subject to these
disturbances.-aad The risk assessment and environmental
review shall include an analysis of such potential
disturbances.
· ~~i\m!iJ1i!i~~ifWi~lj~1~~4~!iij!ijli(l!ig~~#1U@j)t!i
~~!1~.rmi#iiii~~i'i!!9imW;!1~m;~~~~!!W~
lil~Mjll~II1_I~lj~I~I~III~BH~W>>
3-48
RESOLUTION NO. GPA~92-02(A)/PCA-92-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON IS-93-14; ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE
CITY GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS RELATED
TO THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES, AND THE
SITING AND PERMITTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES,
WITHIN THE CITY; AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING TITLE 19 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; AND MAKING
NECESSARY FINDINGS
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, staff has found it necessary to make additional revisions in order to
clarify certain aspects of those amendments, particularly the City's hazardous waste facility
fair share concepts; and
WHEREAS, the majority of those additional amendments are minor in nature and
considered technical clean up; and
WHEREAS, the single substantive amendment involving hazardous waste facility fair
share concepts is intended to consistently translate the Fair Share Principles of the
COHWMP into more succinctly stated concepts which can be readily understood and
applied by staff in evaluating specific facility proposals within the City; and
WHEREAS, that translation is represented in a four-tiered concept which
accommodates increasingly larger sized facilities provided certain conditions are
demonstrated by the applicant; 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 under Resolution No. 16794 to complete said ordinance
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance amendments define hazardous 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 Zoning Ordinance 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 Zoning Ordinance 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 share" 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 Zoning Ordinance amendments provide for a public hearing 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 both the
additional amendments to the Public Facilities Element and the Zoning Ordinance
amendments will result in no significant impacts upon the environment, and has issued a
Negative Declaration under IS-93-14; and
WHEREAS, the required Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration was filed with
the County Clerk's Office for a minimum of 30 days in advance of hearing date specified
herein in compliance with the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1976 as amended; and
WHEREAS, the City provided adequate opportunity for review and comment
regarding the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments by distributing
copies to interested parties, including Greenfield Environmental, for initial comment
between the period of October 12, 1992 and October 27, 1992, and again for final comment
between the period of November 18, 1992 and December 4, 1992; and
WHEREAS, no comments were received during the initial or final comment periods
indicated above; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow additional opportunity for any interested or affected
parties, and the Planning Commission, to review and comment on the complete set of Public
Facilities Element amendments regarding hazardous waste, the June 30, 1992 amendments
adopted under Resolution No. 16794 (GPA-92-02) are being entertained for reconsideration
along with the currently proposed additional revisions under GPA-92-02(A); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for the public hearing
on said Amendments and the Negative Declaration, and notice of said hearing, together
with its purpose, was given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City,
and by mailing to interested parties, at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held the public hearing as noticed at 7:00
p.m. on December 16, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, to consider the
amendments to the General Plan Public Facilities Element, and the amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, at that hearing the Planning Commission was presented with a letter
recieved at 5:30 p.m. from Latham & Watkins on behalf of APTEC, objecting to the
proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow staff the opportunity to review and comment on the
merits of the objections raised in that letter, the Planning Commission continued the hearing
to its next regular business meeting of January 13, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held said continued public hearing at 7:00
p.m. on January 13, 1993, and heard and considered all evidence and testimony offered by
all interested parties concerning the amendments, including staffs responses to Latham &
Watkins December 16, 1992 letter, and considered the Negative Declaration issued under
IS-93-14; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments were
determined to be consistent with the intent and provisions of the "COHWMP" and State
law;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista finds,
determines, and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. That in the exercise of its independent judgement, finds that no fair
arguments were presented that the project may have an adverse impact upon the
environment, and adopts the Negative Declaration under IS-93-14, which was prepared in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures.
SECTION 2. Finds that the amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the City
General Plan, a copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the amendments to
Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, a copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit
C, are consistent with Articles 3.5 ("Hazardous Waste Management Plans") and 8.7
("Procedures for the Approval of New Facilities") of Chapter 6.5 ("Hazardous Waste
Control") of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing at Sections 25135, et
seq., and 25199 et seq. respectively, and with the COHWMP.
SECTION 3. Recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution
which adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-93-14, and approves the amendments to the
Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan (GPA-92-02A), a copy of which are
attached hereto as Exhibits Band D respectively. (Exhibit A omitted).
SECTION 4. Recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the
attached draft ordinance (Exhibit C), which amends various portions of Title 19 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code to implement the General Plan Amendments approved in Section 3,
above.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHUrA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of January, 1993, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Attest:
Susan Fuller, Chair
Planning Commission
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(hwordpc.rso)
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE CITY GENERAL PLAN (GPA-92-02A)
TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES, AND THE SITING AND PERMITTING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, WITHIN THE CITY.
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
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, those amendments incorporated applicable portions of the approved San
Diego County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (nCOHWMpn) pursuant to the course
of action prescribed under Health and Safety Code Section 25135.7(c)(2); and,
WHEREAS, in order to fully implement the provisions of the amended Public
Facilities Element it was necessary to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance, and staff was
directed by the City Council under Resolution No. 16794 to complete said ordinance
amendments; and
WHEREAS, in the course of preparing said Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and
based principally upon the input of the County Hazardous Materials Management Division,
staff found it necessary to make additional revisions to the June 3D, 1992 General Plan
amendments referenced above in order to clarify certain aspects of those amendments,
particularly the City's hazardous waste facility fair share concepts; and
WHEREAS, the majority of those additional amendments are minor in nature and
considered technical clean up; and
WHEREAS, the single substantive amendment involving hazardous waste facility fair
share concepts is intended to consistently translate the Fair Share Principles of the
COHWMP into more succinctly stated concepts which can be readily understood and
applied by staff in evaluating specific facility proposals within the City; and
WHEREAS, that translation is represented in a four-tiered concept which
accommodates increasingly larger sized facilities provided certain conditions are
demonstrated by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City provided adequate opportunity for review and comment
regarding the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments by distributing
j ~~AF1
copies to interested parties, including Greenfield Environmental, for initial comment
between the period of October 12, 1992 and October 27, 1992, and again for final comment
between the period of November 18, 1992 and December 4, 1992; and
WHEREAS, no comments were received during the initial or final comment periods
indicated above; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow additional opportunity for any interested or affected
parties, and the City Council, to review and comment on the complete set of Public
Facilities Element Amendments regarding hazardous waste, the June 30, 1992 amendments
adopted under Resolution No. 16794 (GPA-92-02) are being entertained for reconsideration
along with the currently proposed additional revisions under GPA-92-02(A); and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
additional amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan (GPA-92-02A)
will result in no significant impacts upon the environment, and has issued a Negative
Declaration under IS-93-14; and
WHEREAS, the required Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration was filed with
the County Clerk's Office for a minimum of 30 days in advance of the Planning
Commission's hearing on December 16, 1992, in compliance with the regulations of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1976 as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on said
Amendments and the Negative Declaration on IS-93-14, on December 16, 1992, and a
continuation of that hearing on January 13, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Negative
Declaration, and approval of the General Plan Amendment (GPA-92-02A); and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 1993, the City Council considered the recommendation
of the Planning Commission at a public hearing, for which a notice of said hearing, together
with its purpose, was given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City,
and by mailing to interested parties, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and heard and
considered all evidence and testimony offered by all interested parties concerning the
General Plan Amendment (GPA-92-02A), and considered the Negative Declaration on IS-
93-14; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined and recommended that the City
Council find the proposed General Plan Amendment to be consistent with the intent and
provisions of the "COHWMP".
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds, determines,
and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1.
Finds that the Negative Declaration on IS-93-14 was prepared
DRAFf
in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, and the guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and with the City of Chula Vista
Environmental Review Procedures, and is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2.
Finds that the amendments to the Public Facilities Element of
the City General Plan (GPA-92-02A), a copy of which are
attached hereto as Exhibit B, are consistent with Article 3.5
("Hazardous Waste Management Plans") of Chapter 6.5
("Hazardous Waste Control") of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code, commencing at Section 25135, et seq., and with
the COHWMP.
SECTION 3.
That the amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the
City General Plan, a copy of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit B, are hereby adopted into and hereby made a part of
the City's General Plan and the Public Facilities Element
thereof. (Exhibit A omitted).
Presented By
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 2nd day of February, 1993 by the following vote:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly A. Authlet, City Clerk
(hwgpacc.rso )
EXHIBIT A
I,
I
I
Section
1.
2.
3.
~
J.k
H
4.
4d
4,{j
+.7-
5.
g
~
6.
CHAPTER 3
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
3-1
Goals and Objectives
3-2
Inventory of Existing Public Facilities
3-6
3.1 Water Facilities Inventory
3.2 Wastewater Facilities Inventory
3.3 Drainage and Flood Control Facilities Inventory
3.4 Solid aRa Hazardslls Waste Collection and Disposal
Facilities Inventory .
3.5 Hazardous Waste. Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities Inventorv
3.6 Secondary Schools Inventory
3.7 Elementary Schools Inventory
3.8 Library Inventory
3-6
3-8
3-9
3-13
3-20
3-20
3-21
Public Facilities Plan
4.1 Water Distribution Network
4.2 Wastewater Collection and Disposal System
4.3 Drainage and Flood Control System
4.4 Solid and Hazardslls Waste Collection and Disposal System
4.5 Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage and Disposal Svstem
4.6 Secondary School System
4.7 Elementary School System
4.8 Library system
3-21
3-23
3-24
3-27
3-30
3-31
3-35
3-35
3-35
Policies and Guidelines
5.1 Water Supply Policies
5.2 Wastewater Service Policies
5.3 Drainage and Flood Control Policies
5.4 Solid and HazarilslIs Waste Control Policies
5.5 Hazardous Waste Control Policies
5.6 School Development Policies
5.7 Library Development Policies
3-36
3-36
3-37
3-38
3-49
3-40
3-60
3-61
References
3-62
1. INTRODUCTION
The public facilities element of the Chula Vista General Plan focuses on the facilities and
services that are 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-obligatorv facilities provided bv 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 general 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 hazardous 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 Califomia. In recent
years, below average rainfall throughout California coupled with a court decision reducing
California's share of Colorado River Water, has increased the 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.
Objectiye 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 to encourage
water conservation.
Objective 4. Actively participate in the agency planning for providing adequate emergency
storage and supply facilities for Chula Vista and neighboring communities.
WPC F:\HOME'PlANNING\D324P
3-1
GOAL 2. W ASTEW A TER 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 area. 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
that 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 part 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 requirement for additional space for
larger facilities.
WPC F:\HOMIN'LA.NNINCNB24P
3-2
GOAL 4. SOLID ANI> HI.V.RDOUS 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 10 percent per year since 1982. Similarly, hazardells
waste production has also inereased ...,ith the addition ef new indllstries and teclmolegy. If this
trend continues as more development occurs, and based on the availability of suitable disposal
sites, Chula Vista could experience a solid and hazar-dolls 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 and hazardolls 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.
Objeetive 15 Eneourage development of low hazardous wasle producing indllslries.
Objective ~ 15. 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 qualitv-of-life and economic stabilitv may be largelv
dependent upon these products and services. we are also threatened bv the mismanagement of
their chemical remains or the hazardous waste generated.
Past practice has seen much of the County's hazardous waste generated disposed of in off-site
hazardous waste landfills without pre-treatment. A wareness 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 volume of
hazardous waste produced requiring treatment and disposal. Assembly Bill 2948. 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 a
\VPC F:\HOME'PlANNING\lI324P
3-3
comprehensive and systematic approach. and reauires 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 iurisdictions and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
and approved bv 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 the following management hierarchy:
.L. Encourage and support hazardous waste reduction and minimization at its source through
methods such as alteration of manufacturing processes and/or material substitutions,
b Encourage recycling and on-site treatment.
1:. 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 adeauate 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 to adopt necessary provisions to implement the
COHWMP. Therefore, the following related sections of the Public Facilities Element of the
Chula Vista General Plan incorporate the COHWMP bv reference as if set forth herein. and as
provided bv 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 welfare. and
environmental resources within the City of Chula Vista.
Obiective 17: Develop effective screening processes for new and existing local businesses
using hazardous materials and generating hazardous waste to encourage waste minimization.
Obiective 18: Promote recycling and alternative technologies for industrial. small
business. and household hazardous wastes in cooperation with the County and other agencies.
WPC F:\JIOMJN>L\NNING"D324P
3-4
Obiective 19: Establish effective hazardous waste management planning within the City
through involvement of the public. environmental groups. civic associations. waste generators.
and the waste management industry in decisions on local waste issues and facility proposals.
Obiective 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.
GOAL & Q. SCHOOLS
As growth occurs in the City, particularly 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 the
goal of the City to facilitate the districts' provision of school services.
Objective t.8 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 1.1) 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 ;W 23. Provide the school districts with the development thresholds as proposed
by the growth management committee for the agencies' review and comment.
Objective ;M 24. To site new school land use designations in a central location within
residential neighborhoods.
GOAL {; 1. LIBRARY
As growth occurs in the City, particularly residential development, increased demand for library
service will occur. It is the goal of the 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.
WPC F:\HOMlN'LANNING'D324P
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 turn 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 following facilities:
Water
Wastewater
Drainage and Flood Control
Solid and Hazardous Waste Control
Generally, the City of Chula Vista is being adequately served by its public works infrastructure.
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 primarily by two major
water agencies. These will be discussed below and are shown on Figure 3-1.
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 ftre 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.
WPC F:\HOME'J'LANNING\D324P
3-6
:e
w
...
o
>-
o
CJ
z
-
.......
10
M-
><
.w
..
~ I
aI
-:e
II.W
...
o
>-
o
a:
w
...
;
n:
>
....
L
I
en
~
<C
:IE
z
52
en
!!!
:IE
en
z
<C
a:
....
....
!!!
..''1
~
~
\
\
\
\
'-,
., .
.'
.'
.'
.
~?"
.~~I I
a: ....
e Q
~;
=>' Q
<I
ffil
...
~
...
W
W
~
o
en
~
<C
:IE
z
o
;:
::>
!!!
a:
....
en
is
....
en
)(
W
"
Otay Water District
The easterly portion of the general plan area is served by the Otay Water District Otay refers
to this area as the Central Area which encompasses three Improvement Districts including I.D.
No.5; I.D. No. 10; and I.D. No. 22. Improvement Districts are 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
I.D. No. 10, February 11, 1963 by Resolution No. 265
J.D. 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 to 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.
WPC F:'HOMIN'UNNING'lJ324P
3-7
(II
I
CO) :E
. w
.. ...
::I CI)
!:!~
II. CI)
II:
W
i
w
...
CI)
;
CJ
Z
-
...
...
w
CI)
CJ
z
-
...
CI)
-
><
W
I
I
~
\
\
\.
\.
'-,
::E
w
..
CD
>
II)
o
a:
..
w
::E
..,
...
>
..
a:
w
it
w
CD
"
z
:>
. ~
..
~
..
~
)(
w
-
..:
>
..
~;
..g
w..
::Eu
.w
..z
CDZ
-0
1;ju
"
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 the 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, 10 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.
Central Chula Vista transports its wastewater flows to Metro via two major trunk sewers. The
first major line being the "G" Street trunk sewer, which receives tributary flows from the area
bounded by "D" Street south to "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 near 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 at this 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. Obstructions of this nature have historically caused stream blockage and remote flooding
if left unattended.
WPC F:\HOME\PlANNING'DJ24P
3-9
..:
>
....
z
0;
'"'
ID
...
~
Z ~
CJ <
z IS
- .
t- .
t- .
W .
.
(/) . .
.
CJ .
Z . .
- ... .... .
t- .
..
(/) . .
x . .
.
W .
....
I .
.
... -
(/) . ..:
w >
....
-
t- II)
- ...
.... . I ...
- . I z
C') ~ . z
i '"'
I . :r
C') I&. . U
. i
.... > . 0
. 0 ... . ...
... ... . i >
~ a:: ... . 0
!?! t- > '"' . ! '"
... > IL
I&. Z ... . . :!
... ... '" '" . .
0 '"' 0 ... '" .
Z > .... ~ ....
CJ .... '" '"' Z II)
'" ... ~ >
::I g > ... U )(
C '" '"' ... ... "- ...
U ....
0 U 0 ::I ~ ~ ...
0 0 '" g i
'" IL II) U
....
I&. 0 ... N C')..."
CI) ... ... ... ... ... ...
C
Z
C Z
z
W > >
~ U ~ (,)
Ie III % -
II) Z ... z !!! 0 IL ..:
Z z ... > Z 0; C >
'"' > '" U > > '" '" ....
- ::I 0 U U 0
C c; '"' CI .
0 c:J ~ ... ... ID ... . II)
a:: ... z CI Q :> ~ ... , . ...
c i g '"' 0 :r ... . . ...
II) IL '" U % .... . Z
. ~
.
N C').. ."CO"'" CD . :r
... . U
.
. 0
. ...
0 >
Z 0
'"
... IL
::I
CI Z
... :>
... ,.:
!!
)(
...
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 primarily 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 channels
which have been developed over the years. Initially, runoff was directed into the natural, or
possibly improved channels, or into storm drain trunk 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.
Palm Canyon is located in southeast Chula Vista and drains to 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 to 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 the
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 area and is in good
condition. Sections of the downstream portion below Hilltop A venue 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 area is not subject to substantial
new development so runoff should not be increased greatly in the future. However, this channel
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.
WPC F:\J-IOME'PLANNING"D324P
3-12
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 f.NI> JU.U.RDOUS WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
INVENTORY
~:IHRieipal SaHel ~'aste
Control of the solid and hazardous waste collection and disposal for the general 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 future waste 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 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
J amul 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 the long range needs of Chula Vista area.
American Trash Service provides collection 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 the Bonita community.
WPC F:\HOME\l'IAN1\'INCNJ324P
3-13
For waste disposal, there are currently nine landfills in San Diego County. These are shown in
Table 3-1. Figure 3-4 depicts the existing solid aHd hazardells waste disposal sites within the
general plan area. Wastes collected in the Chula Vista area (approximately 131,000 tons per year
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 landfilling the region to close.
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 lbs/CY minimum
Property size - 515.64 acres
Cut slope - 1:1 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 detennine 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 additionallandfilling in the area.
3.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
INVENTORY
Jlazard8HS ':t.'aste
The San Diego Ceunty Hazardees Waste ManagerneHt Plan is the primary planHiHg docllment
providing the overall pelky directioH teward the effective management of the County's hazardeus
waste of which the geHeral plan area is part. This plan was published by the CellHty ef Sail
Diege iH draft form on March 31,1988 and is cerrently ,mdergeiAg an e"teHsive review process.
TIle fJlaR establisHes programs to manage Hazar-dous waste saf-ely witHiR tHe COURt)' aRa is tile
gllide f-er local decisions regardiHg hazardous waste issees. The plan was prepared pllrGuant Ie
~tale .^.ssembly Eill 2948 (Tanner, 1986) wl1icH autHorizes local government to develop
comprehensive hazardolls waSle managemeAt plaAs, streamlines the pennitting precess f-er
hazar-dolls waste treatmeAt facilities and prehibits the disposal of IIntreated hazardous waste iH
landfills as ef May 8, 1990.
WPC F:'lHOMBPI.J\NNINQ\()324P
3-14
'~nn.nn.a* nnnn.:~~~~~~~ uo.~"r;;7~.nn. : . . ~~~~~ uu.u~"~.=~.. ... . = . u~.~~.UUUU",=::: .. =~nO~
TABLE 3-1
EXISTING LANDFILLS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REMAINING EXPECTED
C~ACITY CLOSURE
LANDFILL LOCATION yd /tons) DATE
Borrego Landfill Northeast Co. 510,000/ 2005
306,000
Ota y 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 2010
Ysidora Basin LF Camp Pendleton 12,000,000 2099
Source: "San Diego County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan", 1986.
....................... ..........
...:$i::::::... .::::.....
. ::."J:::"::......:"::.. . ....
.... ....... ....... ..... ..
'"
~
'"
w
.,
w
",'"
w>- >-
...<
...... '"
::>0 C
..
z
::>
0
.
... ..
...
... ii
u:
.. ...
CI z z
C w
Z ... i!
- w
.... ... c
.... .. ..
W c '"
. ...
CI) ..
.. ...
CI ::; ..
Z 0 ;
- ..
.... ~ ..
CI) i! ::>
- 0 0
>C ..
W .: '"
c
.. N
I ii c
w Z
W =
. ....
I CI) u
CO') J ...
.
..
:lei)
,gI::::I
u.O
0
II:
c(
N
c(
X
0
Z
c(
0
-
...I
0 -
eI) w ..
~ ...
.. ii
105 ... ...
,..~~ C C
.. ..
"",~ Cl2 0
,...~~ ..
z!! !!
~'fI"''I !I io 0
w.. ..
""f. ..... ...
z.. ..
Wc ;
"'.
.... ~..
c::> C::>
So "'0
e"''I 00 0..
... ...
O\f.GO "'c ...c
!!N "N
~ MC MC
IIZ "Z
Collection, transporting, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes are the responsibility of the
generators of such wastes. Hazardous waste generators incur both fmancial 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 State. County and local
government whose responsibility it is to regulate generators and transporters. and to safelv 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 safetv. and the environment.
Chapters III and IV of the COHWMP provide general information regarding waste generation,
transportation. treatment. and facility operation. including a legislative historv. Chapter VII
provides a comprehensive inventorv. of existing TSDF's within San Diego County. including the
APTEC II facility located within the General Planning Area at Otay Landfill. Figure 3-5 depicts
the location of existing TSDF's within the County. A copv of the COHWMP. as may be
amended or revised from time to time. is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
TraHsperters
There are seyeralliceHsed hazardous waste transporters operatiAg iA SaH Diege CellAty. These
agencies are liceAsed by BPI. and are issued identificatioA numbers. Table 3 2 shows a list sf
haz<H'dells waste haulers aloAg the services they provide.
Disposal
There are very few fully operatieAal hazardolls waste disposal facilities if! Sellthern California.
Most facilities are eperating IInder permit status and are Aet flllly permitted, while some facilities
are He IOAger accepting hazardous wastes.
l\t present, there are t'/\'o majer hazardous .....aste landfills iA California Kettleman Hills Landfill
Hear Kettleman City, and Casmalia Resources Landfill near Santa Maria, The BKK Landfill iH
'Nest Coyina, OACe a hazardolls waste disposal facility, AO longer accepts hazardous wastes as
ef 1984.
The Kettleman Hills Hazardolls Waste Facility is ewm,d and eperated by Chemical Waste
Management, IHc. The facility currently eperates fi'le sIJrface impellf!dments and OAe landfill
(211 acres) which are beif!g eJll'anded to 263 acres. Solyents are l'ennitted te be landfilled
accor-ding to the 1984 reglllations and are sent elsewhere to be incinerated. Chemical Waste
MaRagement is in the process of permitting a hazardolls waste incinerator for this facility which
is e"pected te be eR liRe by 1989. l.lse, twe additioAallandfills are proposed as well as ads
nelltralizatieA at Kettleman Hills.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNINQ\D324P
3-17
The Casmalia Resollrees facility is located 10 miles selltH ef Santa Maria, Califernia, aRB is
owned and eperated by Hllnter Resollrces, Ine. THis facility censists af a 200 aere Hazamells
waste landfill, slIrface sterage, an air treatment unit and aeid/aYcaline treatment f-er metals
remaval. The facility ewners ellrrently awn 1,300 acres on the site, and it is likely that the
present facility '.vill be expanded.
Even with the aceessibility af these facilities, same hazardous wastes generated in this area are
transparted te ather states sllch as Texas and Lellisiana fer dispesal. Bases en 1981 estimates
by the Department ef Health Services, traRsperting ef wastes to other states fer dispasal san be
cast effeetive. If this cantinues te be t-fie trend, it appears that disposal af hazar-deus wastes
Ollt ef state cOllld be a feasible alternative fer meeting fllture hazardells '.vaste dispesal needs.
THere are presently twe nen actiye hazardous waste dispesal sites within the General Plan .\rea.
Tllese are t-fie elesed (hazardolls waste) dispesal sites at the Otay Landfill and the Omar
Rendering facility both leeated on Otay 'l alley Road. The Otay Landfill hazardous waste
dispesal site eeellpies appreximately 22 aeres and received wastes ranging frem acids to selyents
aRd pestieides. The Otay Landfill faeility is currently undergoing preliminary site inyestigations
for determining the potential for release of hazardous substanees, and a c10sllre plan is being
fermulated. The Omar Renderings site has been designated as a State Superfllnd site and is
sehedllled for a Remedial Investigation Feasibility Stlldy in late 1988.
Tile areas located adjacent Ie a Aazardous waste site are classified as "border zone preperty", and
are defined as any preperty wllich is within 2,000 feet of a significant hazardolls waste disposal
site. The land surrounding t-fie aforementioned disposal sites .....ill be sllbject Ie land IIse
restrictions as "border zane property".
f,ecer-ding to the regulatiens, after a land is designated a "hazardolls waste property", no
censtrlletion can eeem en the land without a specific varianee approved in writing by the State
ef California Department ef Health Services. Further evaluation of these sites '.vill be cempleted
by tHe Department of HealtH Services in tHe next five years.
WPC F:'HOME\PlANNING'il324P
3-18
,. Appropriate Technologies
Chull Vilta
2. PRC
San Diego
3. Baron-Blakeslee
San Diego
.. NAS North Island
Coronado
5. "'pper Oil
National City
e. Safety Klein
San Diego
7. Triad Marine
San Diego
FIGURE 3-.
EXISTING OFF-SITE FACILITIES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
JUNE 1992
8
EXISTING OFF-SITE
HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT' STORAGE
FACILITIES
CD
,
,.
". _ _........ by 1M
~s.n 111<.....
.\...."')(.L-\TIO:l; OF
(j()\'EK....M!'-\-n;
3.e ~ 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 are located in the
City.
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.' Z 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 year 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
that this school will house 650 students and be in operation in 1989. A second new school will
be located on the Windrose Way near the Terra Nova Center. Additionally, a school site located
within the Sunbow development is planned.
WPC F:\HOMBPLANNINQ\lJ324P
3-20
3.+ ~ 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.
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 he high
quality of public utilities 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 and Hazardous 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 are shown in Figure 3-~ Q and are discussed below.
Sweetwater Authority
In 1985, a Water Master Plan Update was prepared which reviewed the adequacy of the total
system, including Chula Vista, at build out 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:
(1) 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.
WPC F:\HOME\PL\NNING\D324P
3-21
.:
>-
~
'"
.., ~
II. <
>- ~
~ z
'" 2
~ '"
!!1
< ~
~ '"
z z
<
0 a:
>= ~
~
.. ~
ii: !!!
~
!!!
CI l
.,
a:
~
~
~ i
... \
\
\
\
\
'!
z
c(
...
CL.
CO ::!
I W -
CO) ~ .:
II en , >-
~
.. >
:Sen '"
CI I z
u. a:: .j/lrr <
w ~
~ z
~ I ~ 0
>=
>1 ~ ~
., . !!!
.' ~ :i a:
.' ~
.'
0 a::. ~ '"
01 ~ c
Et- ; ~
CD
::>: Q )(
<I .,
a::i
u.,..-
~
I ==
. \ ~
w
w
==
CJ)
(2) A comprehensive study needs to be initiated to review the long-term water supply of the
Sweetwater Authority.
(3) The existing water transmission mains will need bolstering for buildout condition. Due
to the lack of interconnecting pipelines between National City and Chula Vista, Chula
Vista is dependent on a single 36-inch pipeline under the 1-805 freeway for supply.
Should line fail, stored water in Chula Vista would soon be expended and supply
curtailed. The Authority is in the process of implementing a series of interconnections
which will help to alleviate this problem.
(4) Approximately 63 percent of the required ultimate storage volume is presently in place.
An additional 18 millions gallons of storage will need constructing prior to buildout.
(5) Numerous pump station expansions will be required in order to meet future system
requirements.
(6) Within the City of Chula Vista, the existing water distribution system will require only
a nominal amount of improvements in order to accommodate buildout.
(7) Sweetwater's main water supply, the Sweetwater Reservoir, will require improvements
in order to protect the water quality from the degradation effects of urban runoff. The
Authority is currently in the first phase of implementing a runoff protection system for
the reservoir.
(8) The ongoing cast iron water main replacement program should be continued and the old
steel water mains, which are approaching their expected life span, should be added to the
pro gram.
It was concluded by the Water Master Plan Update that future master plan updates should be
conducted at five-year intervals or whenever land use designations are modified.
Otay Water District
In 1987, Otay Water District prepared the Central Area Water Master Plan Update which
evaluated the system requirements at buildout conditions. Limited land use data was available
for the majority of the service area. However. conservative land use assumptions were used in
conjunction with specific plan development proposals for definitive projects sucp as EI Rancho
del Rey and EastLake as the basis for future water demand projections. The land use data used
in that report differs from the general plan designations particularly in the easterly and southerly
areas of the service area. The system evaluation prepared by an outside consultant, subsequent
to the Otay report, used the general plan land use information and resulted in conclusions and
recommendations very similar to the Otay report. The following presents the required future
system improvements based on the previous analyses:
(1) The projected ultimate average daily water demand for the general plan service area
within the Otay Water District is 45.5 mgd.
WPC F:\J-IOMBPLANNING'D324P
3-23
(2) The water supply connections to the SDCW A aqueduct system should be adequate for
ultimate conditions although they will require further analysis at a later date as water
demands on the 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) paralleling 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 the 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 the system would b necessary to accommodate the projected future sewage
flows. The recommended major facility improvements are shown on Figure 3.6 and are reviewed
below.
WPC F:\HOME'J>LANNING\D324P
3-24
Based on that study, the average daily wastewater flow at buildout conditions is estimated to be
29.6 mgd. For the year 2005, the projected average daily wastewater flow is approximately 25.0
mgd. The following presents the 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 that
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 that 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 the 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 the 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 particularly receive close scrutiny.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'il324P
3-25
(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 12.0 mgd and contract capacity 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 that their best interests are
being addressed.
Chula Vista has several options available to them 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 cost 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 preferred
method of treatment and disposal. This will be evaluated in greater detail in an
upcoming study presently authorized by the City.
WPC F:\HOMPPLANNING\D324P
3-26
(5) Reclamation should be reviewed in significant detail during the upcoming study already
authorized by the City. Although reclamation did not appear to be cost 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
plant were to be located in closer proximity to Chula Vista, the cost to provide
reclamation facilities would be reduced. Presently there appears 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 1.0 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 it 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 Califomia, 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, facility sizing 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: I) 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 lOG-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, the County of San Diego and most other State and Federal agencies.
WPC F:\HOME'PLANNING'D324P
3-27
z
.C(
....
A.
::E
W
.... ....
I en
C') >-
. en
... a:
::J
QW
u. !c
:c:
W
....
en
~
!
L,
i
..:
>
...
II:
w
:t
w
'"
'"
z
;;)
II:
...
o
W
'"
o
...
o
II:
...
\
\
\
\
\
L,
i
!
i
I
..:
>
...
II:
w
:t
w
'"
'"
z
;;)
II:
...
..:
!!?
x
~
w
...
'"
>
'"
o
II:
...
w
~
...
!!?
x
w
L
..:
>
...
~~r
o
::!
w-
~t
.w
...z
!!?z
xO
we.>
(2) Sediment Control and Grading. The City of Chula Vista has no standard 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 large volumes of sediment. If there is no control over the sediment,
it is likely that 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 are proposed.
The following presents the 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 the 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 are 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 the 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.
WPC F:\HOMBPLANNINCNJ324P
3-29
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
that 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 cost effective development of overall system up to the year 2005 and beyond. Chula Vista
is currently proceeding with this recommendation.
4.4 SOLID f.ND H.'.ZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
In 1987, Chula Vista retained an outside consultant to evaluate the solid aAd hazardells 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 cUl1"ently 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 build out. It is estimated that in excess of 400,000 tons per
year 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 1988 if no new landfills were added to the region. The most
optimistic ("Best Case") scenario indicates closure of alllandfiUs by the year 2011. This scenario
WPC F:\HOMIN>L4.NN1NG\D324P
3-30
..:
>
...
"- ....
> au
... Z
Z
Z <
u; :I:
< t.)
III Q
au au
0 >
< 0
z I 8:
< !
'" ~
Q Q
au
i . en
0
. "-
0 0
0 '"
0 0 "-
0
0
0 0
z ... .... 0
0
of( 00
... 0
A. .
0
0
... ....
0 0
0
a:: 0.0
0
I- ..:
z >
0 ...
(,) en
CO ....
au
I C z
('I) 0 z
<
. 0 :I:
... ... t.)
::J >
at &L. au Q
.... au
- .... >
&L. C > < 0
Z au > '"
.... "-
of( .... au '" '" !
< Q au II:
W Z > II: ... f z
... < ...
CJ 2 II: au ~ > en
0 > au t.) t.)
of( '" ... < au .... ><
t.) ... ... 3 au
z t.) 0 2 ~ ~ ....
- 0 II: g i ~
of( II: "- en t.)
a::
c en 0... NM"II)
... ... ~.....-...
i
>
t.) < Q
:II: au au
CD au i ... Q >-
Z Z au > i ~ ;; 0":
< > II: t.) > > II: "'>
2 t.) t.) t.) < 0 ......
Q 0 ~ 15 au .... III 2-
.... z 0 g ;:) ~ Z~
i g < 0 :I: ;:)au
en ... II: t.) :I:
.z
NM., II) CO"" CO ;i
... ><:1:
aut.)
Q
Z
au
c:I
au
....
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 to prevent 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 the 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 are 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 residual from
processing. This policy promotes the use of alternatives 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, it was concluded that the solid waste master planning and long range goals, as
administered by San Diego County and updated regularly in the Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan, are considered adequate in addressing the future disposal needs of the County
(including the 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 alternative 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 area.
4.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Hazardells waste collection and disposal is the responsibility of the generator as was identified
preyiously. Hazardous waste generation for the planning area is centered mainly in the Bayfrent
and Central Chula Vista areas. :\pproximately 9,000 tons of hazardous 'oyastes are generated per
year in these areas alone. The estimated hazardous 'Naste generatien fer the remaining
communities in the planning area is about 500 tons per year.
Present and future zoning in tl1e planning area could greatly impact tl1e rate ef l1azardolls waste
generatien fer tl1e area. The specific land IIse designations and acreages for the general plan area
are centained in the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan.
WPC F;'J{OME'PLANNINCND24P
3-31
Hazardous waste collection serviees for the planning area are adequate. However, there are very
f-e..... dicposal facilities available f-or hazardolls wastes in SOllthern California causing generators
to transport thek wastes to other areas and states for disposal. This may be a facter in deterring
industrial grewth ill the planning area. There are currently two fully eperational hazardells waste
EClass I) landfills in California. These are the Kettleman Hills Facility near Kettleman City in
Kings Ceunty and the Casmalia Reseurces landfill in Santa Maria, California.
f.s ".Viti! mllnicipallandfills, in erder te maximize the capacities ef these sites, ':elllmlJ reGllction
activities such as recycling of solvents and incineratien sllellld be emphasizes. ."Iso, some
hazardeus wastes can be rendered non hazardous by chemical treatment and sent to mllnicipal
landfills or to the mllnicipal sewer system for disposal. Within the general plaR area there exists
a hazardolls wacte sterage and transfer facility which treats wastes in this fasllien.
."pprepriate Tecllnologies II (,^.PTEC II) is a flllly pennitted hazardolls waste treatment facility
located ...:itllin the City bOllndaries as shown on Figure 3 &. The facility is permitted to receives
all lIazardous wastes for treatment, with the eKception of explosives, radieactive waste and
PCB's. The wastes, v:hicll are treated on site, are neutralized in a tetally endesed system.
Suspended solids are remeved tllrough a settling processing which reslllts in a sevierable water
and f1lter cake material. Tile water is tested to determine if it meets indllstrial discharge
standards. If so, it is discharged inte the City of San Diego sewer system. If not, the treatment
centinlles IIntil it meets all specifications for industrial discharge. The filter cal~e material is then
transported te an appropriate appreved facility. It is imperative that processes sucll as tllese be
IItilized if future hazardells waste disposal needs are to be met.
The proposed eKpansion of the Kettleman Hills Landfill and t~le addition of cllemical treatment
processes (incineration, acid nelltralization) ,,,,,ill greatly benefit the region's hazar-dells waste
generators. Similar efforts of e)[pansion and addition of state ef tile art treatment technelegies
at other lIazardells waste facilities will assure adequate treatment and disposal capabilities f-er
accemmodating the flltllre demands of the regieR.
4.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Pursuant to requirements of the Tanner Act. the COHWMP contains an evaluation of current and
proiected hazardous waste generation and treatment needs within San Diego Countv. Such an
evaluation enables a comparison of needs to existing facility capacities. and a determination of
treatment surpluses and shortfalls upon which facilitv 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.
the 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.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\0324P
3-33
z
.c
a!
w
...
en
~
CD 0
I :I
C') 0
o
41 a:
~ .c
CDN
-.c
\I.:c
o
Z
.c
o
-
..I
~
'"
~
'"
w
.,
w
",'"
~?c
...>-
::00
.J
>
'"
w
. .,
I cz:~
.w
:t?c
0>-
.....0
II:
..
Q
II:
~
...
...
iL
Q
Z
oC
...
..
~
at
;
CI
~
o
at
~
~
o
~..~~
~~"S
,'io
e05
..
~
Ii
~
z
..
:I
~
oC
III
II:
~
..
~
..
;
at
::I
o
Q
II:
oC
N
oC
Z
-
-
u
..
>-
...
oC
~.
OIf.GP
."'1
Chapters VII and VIII of the COHWMP present a comprehensive inventorv and evaluation of
current and proiected 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 depending upon the particular GTM.
Treatment capacity shortfalls are indicated for the Oil Recyling, Stabilization. Solvent Recoverv.
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 Recoverv.
Incineration, and Other GTM's in and of themselves are not. There are two possible courses of
action for addressing shortfalls. the first being continuation of the existing practice of contracting
for needed treatment capacitv outside the region, the second is to site a facility within the region
of an economicallv viable size which would address these shortfalls, and provide capacity to
adiacent regions experiencing identical circumstances. Proiected 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 TreatmentlMetals
is anticipated through on-site activities proposed by General Dynamics and Rohr Industries. With
the excePtion of these on-site operations. those surplus capacities will continue to be utilized bv
generators outside the region.
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 II)
receives a variety of hazardous wastes for treatment. and was approved by the City under a
Conditional Use Permit 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 (fSDF's) within the San Diego Region, providing Aqueous TreatmentlMetals,
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 mayor may not be consistent with operating levels authorized
by the City's 198] use permit. APTEC II's total annual treatment capacity equates to
approximately 26% of the Region's entire treatment needs, varying by GTM as follows:
GTM
APTEC II Capacity as
% of Regional Need
Aqueous Treatment/Metals
Aqueous Treatment/Organics
Solvent Recoverv
Oil Recoverv
Oil/Water Separation
Incineration
Stabilization
Other
53%
52%
13%
0%
]%
0%
50%
75%
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\DJ24P
3-34
The City is committed to participating in the necessary treatment of hazardous waste at a level
eauivalent to waste generation within the City of Chula Vista. and a fair share of the San Diego
Region's waste treatment needs. The City recognizes that while APTEC II's total capacity far
exceeds Chula Vista's proiected total waste treatment needs. not all of the Citv's treatment needs
are met bv APTEC II. Some local wastes reauire treatments not provided at APTEC 11, and as
in the case of incineration. not within San Diego County. Additionally, selection of waste
treatment facilities is open to 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 at APTEC 11. Similar conditions exist for all cities within
the region. and 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 commitment shall take into account the efforts of all iurisdictions to effectivelv
reduce their needs for off-site treatment, through on-site treatment and waste minimization efforts.
These hazardous waste management concepts are intended to reflect the Fair Share Principles of
the COHWMP. which while recognizing that locally sited facilities will exceed local needs. are
intended to ensure that the responsibilities for waste management are equitably recognized and
addressed within San Diego County and neighboring regions.
4.~ Q 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.
4.6 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SYSTEM
The Master Plan for the Chula Vista City School District is anticipated for completion in 1989.
The plan will include the 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.=7- ~ LIBRARY SYSTEM
The City has prepared a master plan for the Chula Vista Library system. The basic role of the
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, governmental, practical and
enjoyment.
'WPC F:\HOMIN'LANN1N(N)324P
3-35
The projected growth of the City will require more library space. The master plan calls for the
Central Library to continue to serve the Central Chula Vista and Bayfront areas at its present
size. In addition, the plans calls for the construction of two new full service libraries. The first
is to be in the Montgomery area to serve the approximately 50,000 existing residents. At the
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 SweetwaterlBonita 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 Eastern Territories. This
will serve the population of this 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 area 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 Eastern 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 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 land
to other uses will place ever-increasing demands on these supplies. Potential limitations on the
availability of both supplies highlights the need to combine long-term planning for water supply
with long-tenn planning for community development in Chula Vista.
(1) The City shall actively participate in the water master planning process by the Otay Water
District and Sweetwater Authority. The City shall use the master plan to assist in
assigning the highest priorities to projects that will alleviate existing water supply
problems such as insufficient transmission capacity or storage.
WPC F:\HOME\f'LANNING'D324P
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 conceming 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 to assure adequate water supply to 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.
(1) 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 to 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 City standards and dedicated to the City. This policy does not preclude
WPC F:\HOf\.fE\l>lANNINCNJ324P
3-37
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 to 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
least 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 not 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 the
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 there is
adequate downstream stormwater drainage capacity to accommodate the runoff generated
by future development within the project's drainage basin.
WPC F:\HOMBPlANNINCM324P
3-38
(4) The City shall mandate the development of on-site detention of stormwater 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 landforms and encourage the maximum
use of natural drainage ways 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 f.ND JEU.RDOUS 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 are not
employed. The City's Hazardous .....aste is presently disposed of elltside tHe gtmeral plan area in
other parts of California. It is critical that the City continue to participate in and support efforts
to extend the life of existing solid waste landfiJls and to locate and develop new landfills. and
deyelop new technologies related to treating and disposing of hazardous wastes.
(I) 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 coJlected from individual collection routes are
transferred into larger trucks for disposal, should be pennitted 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) The City shall continlle to SlI1"1"ort efforts by the San Diego County Hazardolls Waste
Management Division te maintain er establisH adequate facilities fer Hazar-dolls v.aste and
disposal.
WPC F:\HOMIN'U\NNING\0324P
3-39
5.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL POLICIES
Effective and safe management of hazardous wastes within the City of Chula Vista, in accordance
with provisions of the 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 regulatorv 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 of
citizens, and environmental resources.
As a rapidly growing. mixed-use communitv characterized bv the integration of industrial.
business and technological areas within a predominantlv residential land use fabric, the Citv of
Chula Vita has special concerns with respect to local hazardous waste management. particularlv
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 to site new, or expand existing, hazardous waste treatment facilities.
Furthermore, as provided bv Section 25135.7(d) ofthe Health and Safetv 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.
ill 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.
00
ill The City shall encourage the development of Ie'll Ilamr-dells waste predlleiRg industries
within the general plan area which are negligible or minimal hazardous waste-producing,
and shall properly screen and identify new or proposed development that will be using
hazardous materials and generating hazardous wastes.
ill Prior to the issuance or renewal of a business license for businesses usin g hazardous
materials and generating hazardous waste. the City shall require proof that the licensee
has prepared and submitted an acceptable Business Plan 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.
WPC F:'JiOM:lN'I..ANNINCNJ324P
340
ill In cooperation with the County HMMD, the City sha1l 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.
ill The City shall establish a program to recognize industries or businesses that effectively
eliminate or minimize hazardous wastes.
i2l The City sha1l 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 CHHWE) as a component of county-wide integrated waste management
plans. Consistent with Chapter V of the COHWMP. the HHWE addresses the safe collection.
recvcling. treatment and disposal of househoJd hazardous waste within the City over both the
short term (1991-1995) and mid-tenn (1996-2000).
{e}
(I) 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.
fR
(2) The City sha1l encourage the safe disposal of household hazardous wastes by working
with the County in providing convenient disposal altematives to the residents of Chula
Vista. including support and sponsorship of community co1lection events. and
establishment of specialized criteria for evaluating the siting of temporary and permanent
collection centers.
General Areas
The Tanner Act CAB 2948) requires the mapping of "general areas" within which hazardous
waste facilities might be established, subiect 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
desi gnated herein.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNINCNJ324P
3-41
Existing industrial areas. and future industrial areas designated in the Chu]a Vista General Plan
were included as "general areas" in Chapter IX and Appendix IX-B of the COHWMP. These
areas do not necessarilv 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
facilitv 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 subiect to review and amendment from time-to-time as necessitated by changing land
use and other local conditions. For clarification. the following prescribes those industrially
designated and zoned areas which have presently been removed from the COHWMP's "general
areas" inventory:
Montgomerv/Otav Communitv: Bounded bv L Street on the north. Interstate
5 on the west. Otav River on the south. and Interstate 805 on the east. much of
the communitv'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 iurisdiction 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
coniunction with preparation 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 Rey Business Parks: These industrially
designated areas in Eastern Chub Vista are integrated components of
predominantly residential mixed-use master planned communities, Reflective of
this setting. they are intended as emplovment areas comprised of light industrial
uses such as warehousing and distribution. and would be inappropriate for
hazardous waste facilities. Furthennore, principal access to these areas is by way
of East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road which transect large residential areas
and serve as principal travel routes carrying in excess of 35.000 ADT. presenting
substantial transportation risks.
Otay Vallev Road: The portion of the Otay Vallev 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.
WPC F:\HOME\Pl.ANNIN(]\lJ324P
3-42
The following po1icies 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:
ill Proposals for hazardous waste facilities shaIl be accepted for review only if they are
within a designated "general area" as herein established at the time the application is
accepted as complete.
ill 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. subiect to
required risk assessments. environmental reviews and other applicable codes. ordinances.
and requirements.
ill "General Areas" shall be limited to existing developed industrial land. and land designated
for future industrial development in the present General Plan. except as herein restricted.
ill The City shall evaluate any future general plan revisions involving the estab1ishment of
industrial land use designations for the appropriateness of their inclusion as a "general
area" within the City of Chula Vista.
ill The City may from time to time. as changes to local plans. policies. and conditions
warrant. determine that certain industrial land use designations or zoning districts are not
appropriate for inclusion as "general areas". as long as the abilitv to accept applications
and potentially site faci1ities is not significantly restricted.
iQl "General Areas" for household hazardous waste collection facilities shall be restricted to
lands designated for industria] use. AIl lands designated for industrial use within the
Planning Area shall be deemed included for accePting applications for such facilities
regardless of their possible exclusion from refined "general areas" for all other types of
transfer or treatment faci1ities.
ill Military lands should also be considered as part of the "general areas." It 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 iurisdiction and military hazardous waste issues and needs can
be cooperativelv addressed. The Memorandum of Agreement that currently exists
between the U.S. Navv and the SANDAG should be the basis for this relationship.
ill 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 subiect to local government general
plan designation and zoning. AIl of the general area policies and other policies would
apply to this transferred land.
WPC F:'J{OME\PLANNING'D324P
3-44
ill Indian land is not subiect 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 to use Indian land can be obtained.
Sitinl!: Criteria
Under the Tanner Act (AB 2948). local government is required to 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 to ensure the sufficient protection of public health. safety and
welfare. and environmental resources.
The criteria are designed somewhat genericallv in that thev apply to evaluation of a broad range
of hazardous waste facilities and management technologies which can varv 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. it also necessitates that facilitv
review be conducted carefullv and thoroughlv. As a result. all local facility application reviews
shall include an environmental review and health risk assessment. and anv approvals shall be
through a conditional use permit.
Recognizing the influence of more specific local conditions on the development and application
of siting criteria. Section 25135.7(d) of the 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 VISTA
.1. Proximity to populations
~
Proximity to populations is defined as the distance from the boundary of the site
upon which the facilitv is proposed to dwellings used bv one or more persons as
a permanent place of residence. or to dwellings inhabited by persons temporarily
for purposes of work (e.g.. migrant workers. construction camps).
WPC F:'JIOM:PJ>lANN1NCM324P
3-45
ce
III
II:
ce
CJ
z
-
z
z
ce
...
A-
ce
~
(I)' ,
-
>
ce
...
:::I
:z:
u
0111
...:z:
I~
(')
i~
~
.
(I)
ce
III
II:~
ce
...
ce
II:
III
Z
III
CJ
.
Q
III
Z ~~'O
ii: ,...-<.
III
II:
II)
<
tJJ
'a:
<
~
a:
tJJ
z
tJJ
CJ
C
~.
ijj.
0: '1
N
at
at
...
III
Z
:::I
~
80S
O\IOGO
~
For a residuals repository. the proximity of the facility to populations must be a
minimum of 2.000 feet. subiect to increase pursuant to the required risk
assessments and environmental review.
~
The active portion of a facilitv shaH be subiect to additional setbacks and
buffering from the property boundarv as 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 1)(-28 through -33 of the COHWMP.
shall be prepared under the direction of the Citv. the Local Assessment Committee
(LAC). and anv Ad Hoc Technical Committees which mav be created to advise
the Citv and the LAC on such matters.
~
With respect to 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 uItimately determining the
appropriate location and distance for a particular hazardous waste facility in
relation to any existing and proposed SUD'ounding residential development or other
sensitive receptors.
~
The Citv shaH establish a screening process to determine the scope and content
of each HRA. and the need for. and type of. anv additional technical studies. It
is the intent of the Citv in developing this scope. that the HRA recognize the
alternative sites presented through the environmental review and provide
comparative evaluation of these sites so as to enable comprehensive 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 areas designated in Genera] Plan for future residential development
regardless of their density. as well as existing residences.
~
Setback or buffer areas shall be precluded from future residential uses through
property restrictions such as easements or covenants. and where appropriate.
through general planning and zoning.
WPC F:\HO~LANNING\D324P
3-46
2. Proximitv to immobile populations
~
Proximity to immobile populations is defined as the distance from the boundary
of the site upon which the facility is located to areas where persons who cannot
or should not be moved are located.
~
The definition of immobile populations includes childcare facilities and K-12
schools as well as hospitals. convalescent homes and prisons.
~
Hazardous waste facilities shall not be located within one mile of anv of these
populations unless the reQuired risk assessment satisfactorilv indicates that the
attendant health and safetv risks are not appreciably increased. and then only at
the discretion of the City Council.
J... 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 those 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 Citv may require additional facilitv design features and/or on-site emergency
services at the facility based on the type of wastes handled or the location of the
facility.
~
Pursuant to the requirements of State law. and subiect to the satisfaction and
approval of the Citv Council. facilities mav provide their own emergencv response
capability .
ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF THE FACILITY
4. Flood hazard areas
~
Flood hazard areas are defined as areas which are prone to inundation by 100-year
frequency floods. and by flash floods and debris flows resulting from maior storm
events. Flood hazard areas can be determined by checking Federal Emergency
Management Agencv flood insurance maps or with local flood control districts.
~
Residuals repositories are expresslv prohibited in areas subiect to inundation bv
floods with a l00-vear return frequency. and should not be located in areas subiect
to flash floods and debris flows.
WPC F:\HOME\PI.ANNING'il324P
347
~
All facilities and accesses to such facilities shall be located outside the 100-year
floodplain. or areas subiect to flash floods and debris flows. The risk assessment
and environmental review shall analyze such hazards. Any exceptions based on
proposed engineering and design responses shall be at the discretion of the City
Council.
5. Areas subject to tsunamis. seiches. and stonn surges
~
Areas subject to tsunamis. seiches. and storm surges are defined as areas bordering
oceans. bays. inlets. estuaries 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.
~
All facilities. including residual repositories. shall be prohibited from locating in
areas subject to flooding from these occurrences. The risk assessment and
Environmental review shall analyze such hazards.
6. Proximity to active and potentially active faults
~
An active fauJt is defined as a fault along which surface displacement has
occurred during Holocene time (about the last 11,000 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 fauJt is defined as a fault showing evidence of surface
displacement during Ouaternary time (from the last 11.000 years to about the last
2 to 3 milIion years, and is characterized bv the following:
considerable length
association with an alignment of numerous earthquake epicenters
continuity with fauJts having historic displacement association with
youthful maior mountain scarps or ranges
correlation with strong geophysical anomalies
~
All facilities are required to have a minimum 200-foot setback from a known
active or potentially active fault.
~
All facilities regardless of proximitv to faults, shall as a minimum standard. be
constructed to seismic zone 4 building code standards. subiect to requirements in
excess as determined necessary by the City to protect public health and safety.
WPC F\HOMlN'tANNING'D324P
3-48
L. 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 awav from
the facilitv. or inundate the facility.
~
Residuals repositories are expressly prohibited III areas of potential slope
instabilitv.
~
All other facilities shall be prohibited in areas of potential slope instability or
rapid geologic change. except as authorized bv satisfactorv engineering and design
solutions. and upon approval of the City Council. The risk assessment and
environmental review shall include an analysis of such hazards.
~ Subsidencelliquefaction
~
Subsidence is defined as a sinking of the land surface following the removal of
so]id mineral matter or fluids (e.g.. water or oil) from the subsurface.
~
Liquefaction refers to the surface materials that develop liquid properties upon
being physically disturbed.
~
All facilities. including residual repositories, shall be prohibited from locating in
areas subiect to these disturbances. and the risk assessment and environmental
review shall include an analvsis of such potential disturbances.
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 bv the dam structure 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 qualitv requirements, administered
bv the State and Regional Water Ouality Control Boards.
10. Aqueducts and reservoirs
~
Aqueducts are defined as conduits for conveying drinking water supplies.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANN!N(]\(J324P
3-49
~
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 a state-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 OUAUTY
Residuals repositories:
Current State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulations. as implemented bv the
Regional Water Oualitv Control Board. including:
~
Immediately underlain by natural geologic materials with permeability of not more than
lXlO-7 cm/sec (1.24 in/yr)'.
~
Natural material shall be of sufficient thickness to prevent vertical movement of fluid,
including waste and leachate. to waters of the state for as long as thev pose a threat to
water qualitv.
~
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 at 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.
!
The interpretation of this requirement by Regional Water Ouality Control Boards needs
to be clarified and standardized.
WPC F:\HOMBPLANNING'D324P
3-50
"
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 regulalions reQuire double containment for
underground storage. In addition. the following criteria (Nos. 12 to 18) apply to non-repositorv
facilities.
12. Proximity to supply wells and well fields
Proximitv 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 bv pumping
well or well field 90 days unless an effective hvdrogeologic barrier to vertical flow exists.
13. Depth to Groundwater
Depth to groundwater is defined as the minimal seasonal depth to the highest anticipated
elevation of underlving groundwater from the bottom of anv 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 dependabilitv of a scientificallv
designed monitoring program to measure. observe. and evaluate groundwater Qualitv and
flow.
Where the risk assessment and/or environmental review have identified anv potential
impacts to groundwater. in addition to reQuired mitigation measures. a reliable
groundwater monitoring program shall be reQuired as specified bv the Citv.
WPC F:\HOM:(N)L\.NNIN(N)324P
3-51
15. Maior aquifer recharge areas
Maior aquifer recharge areas are defined as regions of principal recharge to maior
regional aquifers. as identified in the existing literature or bv hvdrogeological experts
familiar with the San Diego region. Such recharge areas are typicallv found in:
~
Outcrop or subcrop areas of maior water-yielding facies of confined aquifers.
~
Outcrop or subcrop areas of confining units that >upply maior 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 zone 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.
17. Existing groundwater qualitv
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 Standards and. for constituents with no standards. to guidelines suggested
by research reported in the literature.
The Environmental Protection Agencv 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 to contamination and characterized
by being irreplaceable (no reasonable alternative source of drinking water is
available) or ecologicallv vital (if polluted. would destrov a unique habitat).
These are designed as Special Groundwaters.
~
Class II: Current or potential sources of drinking water and waters having other
beneficial uses.
WPC F:\HOME'PLANNING'lI324P
3-52
.
Class III: Groundwaters not considered potential sources of drinking water and
of limited beneficial use (waters heavily saline rTDA levels 10.000 ppml) or
otherwise contaminated bevond levels that allow cleanup using reasonably
employed treatment methods).
Facilities located in areas where existing groundwater qualitv 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 anv portion of such basin(s) 5 miles or more
down-elevation from the boundaries of the subiect community(ies ).
PROTECT AIR OUAUTY
Current San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations implementing federal. state
and local air qualitv regulations including Rules 20.2 and 20.3 governing new source review. the
APCD's standard 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 qualitv issues.
.
The City shall involve the APCD in the screening and scoping process 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 ENVIRONMENT ALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
19. Wetlands
Facilities shall not be located in wetlands such as saltwater. fresh water, and brackish
marshes. swamps and bogs inundated bv surface or groundwater with a frequencv 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. Proximitv to habitats of threatened and endangered species
Habitats of threatened and endangered species are defined as areas known to be inhabited
permanentlv or seasonally or known to be critical at anv 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
California.
WPC F:\HOME\PI.ANNINCNl324P
3-53
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 lands of local. regional. state. or national significance.
All facilities shall avoid locating in. or near these areas. The risk assessment and
environmental review shall identifv these resources proximate to the facilitv and its maior
transportation routes. Pursuant to demonstrated necessity. and at the discretion of the City
Council. some facility operations or transportation routes mav be allowed within unused
or compatible portions of certain public lands.
22. Prime agricultural lands
Prime agricultural lands. under Califomia 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 Citv 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 roOD) bases and installations are located. In particular. these
lands would include highway maintenance and storage areas. 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.
WPC F;\HOMBPlANNIN(N)324P
3-54
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 (Miramar Landfill).
Therefore. military lands are 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. Militarv land may
be considered for lease or sale for public hazardous waste facilities. at the discretion of
the militarv.
SAFE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
~
The Citv 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 all factors addressed in items #25 to #29. and consider both existing and
projected land use and circulatorv conditions pursuant to the General Plan.
25.
Proximity to areas of waste generation
Proximitv to areas of waste generation is defined as the travel time from the maior market
areas of waste generation to the proposed facilitv.
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 maior market
areas beyond a one-wav travel time of one dav (including loading and unloading).
For the residuals repositorv. one-wav transportation time. including loading and unloading.
from any maior market areas would not exceed one day. with the maiority of the driving
time spent on maior 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 maior area of waste generation to
encourage maximum use.
Alternate transportation by rail may be evaluated in regard to specific locations for
feasibility and efficiency.
In comparison with multiple small facilities. economies of scale for a single centralized
facility may offset the additional transportation cost.
WPC F:\J-IOME\PI.ANNING\lI324P
3-55
26. Distance from major route
Distance from a major route is defined as the distance along a minor route (citv street.
boulevard. or undivided highwav) 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 maior route.
,
Only locations adiacent 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 the 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 anv minor routes from the major route (state or
interstate divided highwav) to the facilitv are used primarilv by trucks. and the number
of non-industrial structures (homes. hospitals. schools. etc. is minimal.
The facilitv developer shall evaluate the "population at risk" based on the Federal
Highwav Administration's Guidelines for Applving 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.
Specific highway segments may be scheduled for CALTRANS improvement
Transportation could be curtailed during peak use by automobiles, school traffic, etc.
28. Highwav accident rate
The highway accident rate is defined as the occurrence of minor to fatal accidents per
vehicle miles traveled. as recorded bv the California DeDartment of TransDortation.
The minimum time path from major market 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. countv. and city transportation planners.
WPC F:\HOME\PI.ANNIN(N)324P
3-56
Specific highway segments mav be scheduled for CALTRANS improvements which may
decrease highwav 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 altemate routes.
29. Capacity versus AADT of access roads
Capacity versus average annual dailv traffic (AADn of access roads is defined as the
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 maior and minor routes expected
to service the facility.
Facility developer mav propose to upgrade the road(s) to provide additional capacity.
PROTECT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GOALS
30. Consistencv with General Plan
~
Consistencv with the General Plan is defined as consistencv of the proposed
facilitv with the goals, obiectives and policies of the Citv as expressed by the
General Plan. Specific Plans. implementing ordinances. and other applicable
programs.
~
As provided by Section 25199.5 of the Califomia Health and Safety Code. the
consistency of any proposal with the 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 zonin g ordinances in effect. and shall not take
into consideration anv mitigation measures proposed by the proponent to further
community goals which are not proiect specific and directly related to identified
public health and safety. and environmental concerns.
~
Developer mav petition for an amendment to the General Plan.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\0324P
3-57
31. Direct revenue to the City
Direct revenue to the Citv is defmed as the present worth of the dollar amount of annual
property tax revenue and anv other direct pavments (e.g.. local usage and per capita taxes.
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 Citv mav 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
iobs resulting from the construction and operation of the facilitv. including the number
of each type of iob expected to be followed by local residents.
If this clearly is an issue causing disagreement between the facility developer and the
Citv. then the developer shall fund an independent study of the issue.
The developer and the Citv shall agree beforehand on the scope of the studv and who will
conduct it. The sophistication of the study methods shall be appropriate to the nature and
size of the facilitv and the City's degree of concern with the particular issue.
If the number of jobs accounts for a significant portion of employment in the area. 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 government siting issues in Southern California through
its Regional Action Plan. which is in part founded upon the 10 Fair Share Principals and Fair
Share Formula discussed on pages IX-35 to -37 of the COHWMP. Those principles and formula
are designed to recognize that the minimum size. for an economicallv viable hazardous waste
facilitv willlikelv exceed the needs of anv local jurisdiction in which it is located. and in some
instances the county-wide needs for certain waste streams. As this situation exists in all counties.
regional cooperation js necessary to address the siting of needed hazardous waste facilities both
between and within counties. Through the establishment of inter-governmental agreements.
assurances can be made that all cities and counties 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 bv local iurisdictions in making
facility siting decisions.
WPC F;\HOMPJ>LANNJNG'lI324P
3-58
At present. however. there does not exist clear direction as to how a local iurisdiction is to
consider and applv fair share principles to specific facilitv siting proposals. The principles
contained in the COHWMP. as derived from SCHWMA's Regional Action Plan, focus on
whether county-wide needs for waste treatment and disposal are being met through either facility
capacity within the county. and/or effective inter-governmental agreements with other counties.
In such context. employment of fair share considerations at the local level in evaluating new or
expanded facilitv proposals may be significantlv impacted if County-wide needs. which the
jurisdiction has no direct authoritv over. are not being fully addressed. This situation does not
recognize jurisdictions within the County which are already host to hazardous waste facilities.
nor does it prescribe how a County may acceptably develop internal fair share policies which
define when a local jurisdiction has met its reasonable fair share of regional responsibilities. As
the fair share concepts are somewhat new. further efforts are necessary to develop more specific
fair share policies within San Diego County to c1arifv CQuitable facilitv siting and other waste
management responsibilities among the Recion' s iurisdictions. Such policies might also take into
consideration the type and amount of other regjonal facilities to which a iurisdiction is host.
The City recognizes its responsibility for the management of hazardous waste. and the
COHWMP's fair share principles, and will apply an interim fair share concept in the local
regulatorv process for hazardous waste facilities which addresses the Citv's involvement in an
amount proportionate to waste generated within the Citv. and a reasonable fair share of overall
needs within San Diego Countv. The Citv's intent is to recognize other communities' needs to
accept responsibility for. and/or site. an eauitable share of needed facilities, especially if the
generation of waste is from communities which are not actively undertaking efforts to achieve
on-site treatment and waste minimization.
In conjunction with the aforementioned. when reviewing applications for new or expanded
hazardous waste facilities, the City will consider the following in the fair share evaluative
process:
11 The City shall reauire the proponent to identify the location of waste sources. and
the respective volumes of the particular waste stream(s) from each of those
sources it will serve. including those specifically known at the time of application.
as well as those estimated in the future. The City shall also reauire the proponent
to submit data with respect to countv-wide waste needs. existing facilitv
capacities. and intergovernmental agreements. so as to provide a complete
comparative base.
II The City shall evaluate and consider the minimum waste stream necessary to
ensure the economic feasibility of the proposed facility.
1l The Citv will review the efforts put forth bv the communities generating the
involved wastes to reduce their off-site treatment needs through on-site treatment
and waste minimization techniaues.
~ Based on an analysis of this data. considering waste generated by the City, other
South bay Communities, the remainder of San Diego County. and other
jurisdictions outside the Region. the City shall identify any concerns with respect
to fair share concepts. and as appropriate shall reauire mitigation through
WPC F:\HOME\PlANNING'lI324P
3-59
conditions of use limiting the volumes or types of wastes received. and/or by
requiring compensation/incentive programS to be established.
Processinl! and Permittinl!
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 prepared which will set forth all applicable procedural
requirements including. but not limited to. pre-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. facilitv operational
controls such as emergencv contingency plans and monitoring programs, and local enforcement
provisions.
5.& 6 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
In 1987, with the passage of Assembly Bill 2926, the State of California declared 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 to accommodate inflation if authorized by the State of California 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
4. District's share of Redevelopment Funds
5. Sale of Surplus Land
6. Developer fee programs.
All new school related deyelopment 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:
1. The new senior high schools shall be constructed to accommodate approximately
2,400 students and shall be designed to allow for a four-year curriculum.
2. New junior high/middle schools shall be constructed to accommodate
approximately 1,400 students.
WPC F:\JIOMm'l.ANNIN<JID324P
3-60
3. New elementary schools shall be constructed to 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 parks 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 to 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 the student population.
9. School development is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(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.
5.6 LmRARY 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:
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 vehicular 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:
1. One level structure of the required size to meet the service standards.
WPC F:\HOMBPLANN!NG'D324P
3-61
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
gnidelines.
1. Library space of .5 to .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 Element:
1. P&D Technologies. Chula Vista General 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 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.
10. Engineering-Science, Inc. Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Feasibility Study. May
1987.
11. County of San Diego, Division of Hazardous Waste. Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
May 1989.
WPC F:'JIOMPPLANNING'0324P
3-62
. EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
CONTENTS
Section
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................3-1
2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................3-1
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 are 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 general 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 hazardous 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
the 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.
Objeetive 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 to 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 WASfEWATER FAClUTY 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 area. 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 that may result from changes in the adopted land use.
Objective 6.
appropriate.
Promote low wastewater generating development where
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
downstrcam 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 FACIIJTY 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 part 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
requirement for additional space for larger facilities.
3-2
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 10 percent per year since
1982. If this trend continues as more development occurs, and based on the
availability of suitable disposal sites, Chula 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.
Objcctivc 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 15. 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 WA!.'TE 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 CSHRt)"S hazardous waste generated ~
$@!?iM9BP.i!WY disposed of in off-site hazardous waste landftlls without
p~e~t~eat~en't".' )\ ~areness of the inherent public and envirohmental 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 volume of hazardous waste produced requiring
treatment and disposal. Assembly Bill 2948, State Government Code Sections
25135 e1. seq. and 25199 e1. seq. (Tanner, 1986), referred to as the Tanner
Act, represents a significant move toward the management of hazardous waste
in a comprehensive and systematic approach, and requires every County to
formulate and adopt a Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
3-3
The San Diego County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (COHWMP) was
prepared in cooperation with local jurisdictions and the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG), and approved by the State Department of
Health Services (DHS) in October 1991. Its principal goal is to "estJlblish a
system for managing hazardous materials, including wastes, to prokd publU:
health, safety and welfare, and maintain the economi<: 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 the following management hierarchy:
1. Encourage and support hazardous waste reduction and minimization
at its source through methods such as alteration of manufacturing
processes and/or materia] 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
residua! 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 bazardous waste treatment facilities. As such, each City within the
County is required to adopt necessary provisions to implement the
COHWMP. Therefore, the following related sections of the Public Facilities
Element of the 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 welfare, 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.
Objcctive 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
associations, waste generators. and the waste management industry in
decisions on local waste issues and facility proposals.
3-4
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
~##4;~~~9~~i{,I~[i#~~i~~#J;l!i~i~g~i~~~~lt!1~~I~~~~~iW~9t
GOAL 6. SCHOOLS
As growth occurs in the City, particularly 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 the
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 the 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? liBRARY
As growth occurs in the City, particularly residential development, increased
demand for library service will occur. It is the goal of the 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.
that adequate
development.
Coordinate the review of development proposals to ensure
library facilities are available to meet the needs of new
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 Z7. 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 turn 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 following facilities:
Water
Wastewater
Drainage and Flood Control
Solid aRa Hazaraeus Waste Control
H;iiMdQ4$Wil$l~ciiiim.i1
Generally, the City of Chula Vista is being adequately served by its public
works infrastructure. 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 primarily
by two major water agencies. These will be discussed below and are shown
on Figure 3-1.
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
.
::E
w
t-
m
>
m
CJ
z
-t-
1m
C':Ix
CDW
~
:I I
c:II
-::E
.....w
t-
m
>
m
a:
w
t-
~
..,--,
I
L--,
~
L.]
I
~
i
000
00
00
00
o
11.
>-
....
'"
z
<
~
z
52
'"
'"
~
'"
z
<
a:
....
....
!!1
.r~
I <
. c
. z
>1 ::>
t-. 0
~:
0' So!
:d-::
~1 '"
:;), c
<I
ffi.l
t-
<I:
3:
t-
W
w
3:
m
'"
z
;(
~
z
o
;::
::>
!!!
a:
....
'"
c
....
!!1
)(
w
Otay Water District
The easterly portion of the general plan area is served by the Otay Water
~istrict. Otay refers to this area as the Central Area which encompasses
three Improvement ~istricts including 1.0. No.5; 1.0. No. 10; and 1.0. No.
22. Improvement ~istricts are 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:
1.D. No.5, November 28, 1%0 by Resolution No. 123
1.0. No. 10, February 11, 1963 by Resolution No. 265
1.0. 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 to the San Diego County Water
Authority filtercd 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.
32 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 the 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, 10 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.
3-8
tII
I
C')
CD
..
::::I
!1}
LL
."'-'
.I
.L--,
~
L'l
CJ
z
-
l-
I-
W
e/)
CJ
Z
-
l-
e/)
><
W
I
::iE
w
l-
e/)
>-
e/)
a:
w
~
==
W
l-
e/)
cC
==
I
L,
i
\.
\
\
\
\~
...,
Q.
>
....
::I!
w
....
V>
>
V>
o
'"
....
w
::I!
'"
w
~
w
V>
'"
z
::>
'"
....
....
V>
X
w
Q.
>
....
0;
"'0
....-
w....
::I! 0
w
";Z
V>z
-0
~O
,
Central Chula Vista transports its wastewater flows to Metro via two major
trunk sewers. The first major line being the "G" Street trunk sewer, which
receives tributary flows from the area bounded by "D" Street south to "R"
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
Ccntral Chula Vista from "R" Street south to Naples Street is located in "J"
Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. This line begins in the east on Otay
Lakes Road near 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 at this time.
33 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. Obstructions 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 primarily 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 channels which have been developed over the years. Initially,
runoff was directed into the natural, or possibly improved channels, or into
storm drain trunk 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 thc runoff adequately. The problems and
constraints of the major drainage courses are described briefly.
3-10
"-
>-
....
1!:
'"
<
ID
W
CJ
<
z !
CJ ;:
II: L,
Z c
- .
l- i .
l- .
UJ .
.
r/) . .
CJ .
. .
Z . .
- ... .... .
l- .
..
r/) . .
- . .
)( .
UJ .
.- ..
I .
.
...
r/) . ..:
UJ >-
....
-
I- '"
..I .....
w
- z
CO) 0 Z
C( <
I :<:
CO) II. t.>
..I >- C
4D 0 w w
.. ..... >
~ a: ..... 0
~ I- >- < II:
W > "-
II. Z ..... II: . :!
..... >< .
0 < W W II:
Z > Q .... ~ ....
0 .... II: < Z '"
II: W ;= >-
::E ~ > w t.> )(
0 .... ..... W
>< t.> < w .... ...
0 t.> 0 ::E ~ '" ..J
0 0 II: g < ~
II: "- '" t.>
..I
II. 0)0 ... C'I CO)..,. II)
0 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Z
C(
z z .1
UJ >- >-
t.> .,
~ t.> < II) t.
>< .... w :!:
'" w Z C ... ..:
z i !!! 0; "- ,.
Z w >- z < >-
< >- II: t.> >- > II: II: ....
- ::E t.> t.> t.> 0
C( < " .
c " !:i " w ..... ID W . '"
a: ..... z " !:2 ::;) ~ ..... , . .....
0 g < 0 :<: w . . W
;= '" "- II: t.> :<: .... . Z
Z
. <
.
C'I CO)..,. 11)"'.... co . :<:
... . t.>
.
. Q
. W
Q >
Z 0
II:
W "-
::E
" Z
w ::;)
..... ,..:
'"
)(
W
Palm Canyon is located in southeast Chula Vista and drains to 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 to 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 [or substantially increased flows in this basin due to the availability
of undeveloped land in the upper canyon.
Telegraph Canyon is located in Central Chula Vista and drains to San Diego
Bay. The portion o[ channel above Hilltop Drive has been lined through the
developed area 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 [or 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 [ew areas o[ lining but nothing significant.
This area is not subject to substantial new development so runoff should not
be increased greatly in the future. However, this channel appears too small
to eonvey 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 rain[all, however, the Corps of Engineers proiect
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 adequatc 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 SOUD WASTE COLLECnON AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
INVENTORY
Control of solid waste collection and disposal for the general 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 o[ the Department o[ 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 [uture collection and disposal needs. This document is the
major planning tool for the County and includes solid waste planning for all
3-12
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
J amul 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 the
long range needs of Chula Vista area.
American Trash Scrvice provides collcction 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 tbe Bonita
community.
For waste disposal, there are currently nine landfills in San Diego County.
Tbese are sbown 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 year 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,
1m pc rial 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.
3-13
i(~;'{.:;X~='.-..s:::.-=::::=.(*::--=::;:~:::::::--=:'{.:::;:::=."'?::::::::*::::::=>>'v.s.:~*f.i.:=."'?::,*:::::::..o>;.O:::::::::::-J...~~:~::,*::~~':!;;.'*~~.~~,*::::~~*^~::~~
TABLE 3-1
EXISTING LANDFILLS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REMAINING EXPECTED
C~ACITY CLOSURE
LANDFILL LOCATION yd /tons) DATE
Borrego Landfill Northeast Co. 510,000/ 2005
306,000
Otay Landfill South Chula 25, &000,00/
Vista 15,4&0,000
Ramona Landfill Central Co. 104,000/ 19&&
62,400
San Marcos LF San Marcos 7,000,000/ 1991
4,200,000
Sycamore Landfill Santee 36,400,000/ 1997
21,&40,000
West Miramor LF North of 29,400,000/ 1995
Clairemont Mesa 17,640,000
Montgomery LF Kearny Mesa area 273,000(1 ) 19&9
City of San Diego
Las Pulgas LF Camp Pendleton 2,600,000 2010
Ysidora Basin LF Camp Pendleton 12,000,000 2099
Source: "San Diego County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan", 1986.
S:::X'.nnnnnn~'";~,*,n1.r$:~'"-'k.'~~~~~~::OO'.:.' WJ~~.!;,!to.. ..;:~(~~~.M~. ~.. ...=.:~. ~g. :~~-:::
CJ
z
t=
...
1&1
(/)
CJ
Z
...
(/)
-
><
1&1
I
1&1
.,...
I(/)
M~
a>>:::
...
:S(/)
.21::1
11..0
Q
a:
CC
N
CC
::E:
Q
Z
CC
Q
-
..I
o
(/)
~
~
'-i
\~
~
"
~t-~~
~~~'O
,yo
805
..
~
II>
-'
C
II>
el2
z'"
ita
....
01-
ZII>
..c
"'~
"'",
c::>
::Eo
00
.",
I-c
!!N
MC
..%
"",f-f-'II"'! f>
'0,,\'1
Qlf-GO
~
'"
C
o
Z
::>
o
III
-' ..
-' ~
... '"
o I-
Z Z
C ..
-'
.. i!
I- C
II> ..
; ~
e ~
-' II>
o C
II> ~
~ II>
~ ::>
o g
. '"
I- C
.!! N
M C
.. %
=
u
",
o
..
II>
g
U
..
~
II>
-'
e
II>
o
...
!!
o
..
l-
II>
;
~'"
~::>
og
.",
I-C
!!N
Me
..%
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 lbs/CY minimum
Property size - 515.64 acres
Cut slope - 1:1 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 additionallandfilling in the area.
35 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 (TSDFs) with utmost scrutiny. Similar scrutiny applies to !:1im~r%
State, County and local government whose responsibility it is to .regulate
generators and transporters, and to safely site, license, and monitor TSDFs
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 at 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 are located in the City.
3-16
1. Appropriate Technologies
Chula Vista
2. PRC
San Diego
3. Baron-Blakeslee
San Diego
.. NAS North Island
Coronado
5. Pe~per Oil
National City
6. Safety Kleen
San Diego
7. Triad Marine
San Diego
FIGURE 3-5
EXISTING OFF-SITE FACILITIES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
JUNE 1992
B
EXISTING OFF-SITE
HAZAROOUS WASTE
TREATMENT'STORAGE
FACiliTIES
CD
.
,.
"'__~brt1\e
~San J)ic~"
.-\',';I:K'L-\TIO:-; 01'
(j()\'EK."~I1X~
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
trailcrs 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 year 1985. Based on
these projections, the district will require a minimum of seven new elementary
facilities to meet the increased demand.
A new clementary school will be located in the EastLake Planned Community.
It is anticipated that this school will house 650 students and be in operation
in 1989. A second new school will be located on the Windrose 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
"P' 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.
3-18
4. PUBUC 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 utilities 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 aRd Ha,anlsus Waste Control
HiJi~i9ijiJ,$Wii~hiG9Q(i91
4.1 WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
The rccommended future system improvements that will be required in order
to accommodate the planned growth for the general plan area are 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 the 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
rcport concluded the following:
(1) 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.
3-19
z
cr:
...I
a.
~:!E
C")w
CD~
...(/)
~>
~(/)
1&.1:1:
W
~
~
I
.~~
I II:
. <
>i ~
1-. ::>
, 0
~ II>
0' ~
:J-!.1
~-T ~
::I' '"
<i C
c:i
UJ"'-
~
I-
W
w
3:
en
0..
>-
~
.,:
>-
~
'"
~
<
~
:z
!2
'"
!!!
~
'"
z
<
II:
~
'"
!:
<
::Ii
:z
o
i=
::>
!!
II:
~
!!!
Q
..
II:
::>
..
::>
...
!
L,
i
~.
\
..:
\ !!!
. ',)(
. \ w
.~
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
~~,J~ J
~ r~~
)"
\
\
\.
\
\.
'i
!
.,:
>-
~
'"
z
:<
~
z
o
i=
::>
II>
it
~
!!2
Q
..:
'"
;:c
w
(3) The existing water transmISsIOn mains will need bolstering for
buildout condition. Due to the lack of interconnecting pipelines
between National City and Chula Vista, Chula Vista is dependent on
a single 36-inch pipeline under the I-80S freeway for supply. Should
line fail, stored water in Chula Vista would soon be expended and
supply curtailed. The Authority is in the process of implementing a
series of interconnections which will help to alleviate this problem.
(4) Approximately 63 percent of the required ultimate storage volume is
presently in place. An additional 18 millions gallons of storage will
need constructing prior to buildout.
(5) Numerous pump station expansions will be required in order to meet
future system requirements.
(6) Within the City of Chula Vista, the existing water distribution system
will require only a nominal amount of improvements in order to
accommodate build out.
(7) Sweetwater's main water supply, the Sweetwater Reservoir, will
require improvements in order to protect the water quality from tbe
degradation effects of urban runoff. The Authority is currently in the
first phase of implementing a runoff protection system for the
reservoir.
(8) The ongoing cast iron water main replacement program should be
continued and the old steel water mains, which are approaching their
expected life span, should be added to the program.
It was concluded by the Water Master Plan Update that future master plan
updates should be conducted at five-year intervals or whenever land use
designations are modified.
Otay Watcr District
In 1987, Otay Water District prepared the Central Area Water Master Plan
Update which evaluated the system requirements at buildout conditions.
Limited land use data was available for the majority of the service area.
However, conservative land use assumptions were used in conjunction with
specific plan development proposals for definitive projects such as EI Rancho
del Rey and EastLake as the basis for future water demand projections. The
land use data used in that report differs from the general plan designations
particularly in the easterly and southerly areas of the service area. The system
evaluation prepared by an outside consultant, subsequent to the Otay report,
used the general plan land use information and resulted in conclusions and
recommendations very similar to the Otay report. The following presents the
required future system improvements based on the previous analyses:
(1) The projected ultimate average daily water demand for the general
plan service area within the Otay Water District is 45.5 mgd.
3-21
(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 the 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) paralleling
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 the 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 COLLECfION 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 the 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 year 2005, the projected average daily
wastewater flow is approximately 25.0 mgd. The following presents the
3-22
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 that 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 that 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 the 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 the 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 particularly 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 12.0 mgd and contract
3-23
capacity 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 Lorna 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 that their best interests are being
addressed.
Chula Vista has several options available to them 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 cost 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 preferred method of treatment and disposal.
This will be evaluated in greater detail in an upcoming study
presently authorized by the City.
3-24
Z
,00<<
...I
D.
:i:
w
..... l-
I CI)
(')>
GI CI)
... a::
:s
.~ W
LL ;
W
I-
CI)
~
a:
>-
....
!
L,
i
a:
w
~
w
en
'"
Z
=>
a:
....
o
w
en
o
11.
o
a:
11.
\
\
\
\
\
'!
i
i
i
i
i
a:
>-
....
a:
w
~
w
en
'"
Z
=>
a:
....
,.:
en
x
w
~
w
....
en
>-
en
o
a:
....
w
~
,.:
!:'!
X
w
a:
>-
....
~
/~'i!..r
o
a:Z
....0
w-
~ ;:;
.w
....z
!:'!z
xO
wt)
(5) Reclamation should be reviewed in significant detail during the
upcoming study already authorized by the City. Although
reclamation did not appear to be cost 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 plant were to be located in closer proximity
to Chula Vista, the cost to provide reclamation facilities would be
reduced. Presently there appears 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 1.0 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 it 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 estimatcs, 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, facility sizing
and location and overall systcm 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 fan 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 freqnency 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, the County of San Diego and most other State and
3-26
Federal agencies.
(2) Sediment Control and Grading. The City of Chula Vista has no
standard 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 large volumes of sediment. If
there is no control over the sediment, it is likely that problems will
result in the lower canyon areas as the sediment falls out and reduced
cross-sectional areas of culverts and channels.
(3) Dctention 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 arc proposed.
The following presents the 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 the 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 are 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 the 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.
3-27
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 that 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 cost effeclive development of overall system up to
the year 2005 and beyond. Chula Vista is currently proceeding with this
recommendation.
3-28
co
I
CO)
CD
...
:J
CI
-
II.
z
c(
..J
11.
..J
o
a:
...
z
o
o
c
o
o
..J
II.
C
Z
c(
W
CJ
c(
Z
-
c(
a:
c
..
>-
....
..
>-
....
..J
W
Z
Z
<
:r
t)
o
w
>
o
It
..
~
o
w
'"
o
..
o
It
..
:!:
'"
<
'"
w
o
<
z
;:
It
o
!
L,
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
...
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
....
.
.
...
.
..:
>-
....
'"
..J
W
Z
Z
<
:r
t)
o
w
>
o
It
..
~
>-
W
..J
..J W '"
<
> 0 It
Z It if z
.... It W >-
~ 12 > w t)
'" ..J
t) < .... ...
t) 0 ~ '" ..J
0 It 0 < ~
It .. ..J t)
CI) O...N CO)o:/'lt)
... ... ... ... ... ...
z :i
>- >-
t) < t)
" w
'" W Z .... 0 X
z z w >- z !!1 ., ..
< >- It t) > <
~ t) >- It It
t) C; t) < 0 0
0 0 ~ W ..J II> W
..J Z I:) 50? :> It ..J
;= 9 < 0 X < w
'" .. It t) X ....
... N CO) 0:/' It) COt-. CD
0
z
w
I:)
W
..J
....
'"
)(
w
.1 0
.,
It) T. w
>
... .. 0 ~
~ It >-
.. ....
. ~
. z '"
:> ..J
w
..: z
z
~ <
)( X
w t)
4.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
In 1987, Chula Vista retained an outside consultant to 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 year 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 defmed. 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 1988 if no new landftlls
were added to the 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 the 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 are 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 landftlling is the
preferred disposal method only for wastes that cannot be recycled or
processed and for the residual from processing. This policy promotes the use
of alternatives 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.
3-30
In summary, it was concluded that the solid waste master planning and long
range goals, as administered by San Diego County and updated regularly in
the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, are considered adequate in
addressing the future disposal needs of the County (including the Chula Vista
sphere of influence). Plans for site enhancement projects at existing landftlls,
waste volume reduction and waste-ta-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 alternative disposal methods should be
required fOT 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 area.
45 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, the 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.
Chapters VB and VIIl 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 depending upon the particular GTM. As these i:opd)/ionsw,1Jbe
ronlinua!lychanging, Policy VI1I-C of the COHWMPiillS tor tJj<i$tate
Depmment of Health. Services and (he Courrty. Hawdou$ . Miiiiiriit!$
Management Division to provide periodic updates to local jUrisdictJQJjSf~ru$~
in hazardous waste management decision making.
3-31
z
cC
...
a.
w
I-
U)
;
(J) U)
:;)
J, 0
t) 0
... a::
::J cC
C)N
-<
1I.::c
o
Z
<
o
-
...
~
a:
~
a:
w
'"
w
a: a:
~?(
......
::>0
/11
0:
w
a
0:
o
..
...
=
...
a
z
C
...
III
...
III
;
a
::;
o
III
>-
j!
o
~...~...
~...,,'i>
,,,,
805
III
...
;;;
..
z
w
i!
c
III
0:
..
III
..
III
C
~
III
::>
g
0:
C
N
C
:z:
=
t>\IOGO
U
III
..
IL
C
~
t>\IOGO
~~~99iim~!'iQIDY~'~~Q$9f1~t~!)#$~;+treatment capacity shortfalls are
indicated for the Oil Recyling, Siabilization, 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 !we !~riiii possible courses of action for
addressing (1i~~I*!!# shortfalls, the first being continuation of the existing
practice of co.ntra.cting for needed treatment capacity outside the region, the
second is to site a 9#i# facility\\i1; within the region of an economically viable
size which would address these shortfalls, and provide capacity to adjacent
regions experiencing identical circumstances;~#4~#!,*!1*.tli##AA~!i!if
#*~\i98;{~pm#~Wji!i\9tl1#r#gi9iii Projected. capacity surpluses..occm-.ij].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 Treatment/Metals is anticipated
through on-site activities proposed by General Dynamics and Rohr Industries.
\\lith.. .the . ~~~~gti?n.. ?f .~... ~~R!i. .?n:~i~: 0~~~~ti?~~'.~e~it!9ij~l#~Ji*~W'f9f
Hj~~q..HM!m~N~.~!iq1!!~W)t....Ij~..gqq9q~..i#jm"'...f!#.r~~!q% these AAi!~Wig
su~pius capacities will con'tinue to be utilized"by generators outside'the re~'on:
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 II) receives a variety of hazardous
wastes for treatment, and was approved by the City under a Conditional Use
Permit 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
mayor may not be consistent with operating levels authorized by the City's
1981 use permit, APTEC II's 'l.Q$6 total annual treatment capacity equates to
approximately 26% of the Region's entire treatment needs, varying by GTM
as follows:
GTM
APTEC II Capacity as
% of Recional Need
Aqueous Treatment/Metals
Aqueous Treatment/Organics
Solvent Recovery
Oil Recovery
Oil/Water Separation
Incineration
Stabilization
Other
53%
52%
13%
0%
1%
0%
50%
75%
3-33
The City is e0mmittea t8 f3artieif3atiHg iN the Beeessary treatmeNt afh1~nMElsQS
'xaste at a level eElHi\'alsBt ts 1.':a5t6 geBsrati88 'sithiN the City ef ChaIa Vista,
aHB a fair sHare ee tae SaR Diege RegioR's \':85t6 treatmeDt Beeas. The City
recognizes that while APTEC II's total capacity far exceeds Cbula Vista's
projected total waste treatment needs, not all of the City's treatment needs are
met by APTEC II. Some local wastes require treatments not provided at
APTEC II, and as in the case of incineration, not witbin San Diego County.
Additionally, selection of waste treatment facilities is open to 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 at APTEC II. The City recognizes that
~ ~!jjii'Bf c?nditions exist for all cities within the $im~ij1g~ Region, m
*i:;i~1J9i.j{j!Jj;{~W1~; and that attempts to directly regulate the geographic
generatio"n and . treatment of wastes presents tremendous complexities.
Understanding that some cities may not be host to a facility, Chula Vista's
es",,,,it,,,eRt p!ifii;ij:!#!i*#.!ii!h~.ii#%iAA~iY~fu#iir*fft#@#liiW!~~shall
take into account the efforts of all jurisdictions !9#iN!i~1?~yi#~!1@~i!!~
tr#~\fuiiiiil#~P9@\\im!#W#J)# to effectively reduce their needs for off-site
treatment, through on-site treatment and waste minimization efforts. These
hazardous waste management concepts are intended to reflect the Fair Share
Principles of the COHWMP, which while recognizing that locally sited
facilities will exceed local needs, are intended to ensure that the
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 the 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 the 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, governmental, practical and enjoyment.
The projected growth of the City will require more library space. The master
3-34
plan calls for the Central Library to continue to serve the Central Chula Vista
and Bayfront areas at its present size. In addition, the plans callsfor the
construction of two new full service libraries. The first is to be in the
Montgomery area to serve the approximately 50,000 existing residents. At the
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 JBonita 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
Eastern Territories. This will serve the population of this 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
area 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 Eastern 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 construct cd 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 land to other uses
will place ever-increasing demands on these supplies. Potential limitations on
the availability of both supplies highlights the need to combine long-term
planning for water supply with long-term planning for community development
in Chula Vista.
(1) The City shall actively partIcipate in the water master planning
process by the Otay Watcr District and Sweetwater Authority. The
City shall use the master plan to assist in assigning the highest
priorities to projects that will alleviate existing water supply problems
such as insufficient transmission capacity or storage.
3-35
(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 to assure
adequate water supply to 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.
(1) 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 to 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
3-36
be financed by the developer. Facilities shall be constructed to City
standards and dedicated to the City. This policy does not preclude
the use of assessment districts or similar mechanisms to fmance
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 to 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 least 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
implemcnting a phased reclamation program to promote drinking
water conservation. The study should address participating in the
Metro reclamation program or establishing an independent program.
53 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL POUCIES
Collecting and conveying storm water 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 not
properly regulated.
(1) The City shall use the Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan as
a guide to thc future stormwater facility development.
(2) If improvements are necessary to accommodate new development, it
shall be the 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 fmancing 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 there is adequate downstream storm water drainage
capacity to accommodate thc runoff generated by future development
within the project's drainage basin.
3-37
(4) The City shall mandate the development of on-site detention of
storm water 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 landforms 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 POUCIES
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 are 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.
55 HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL POUCIES
Effective and safe management of hazardous wastes within the City of Chula
Vista, in accordance with provisions of the COHWMP, requires the
deveJopment of policies and irn plementation 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 revicw of applications for new or expanded
hazardous waste facilities among involved agencies, parties and the public, and
to set forth location ai, siting, and permitting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities which will ensure the protection of public health and safety, and
environmental resources.
3-38
As a rapidly growing, mixed-use community characterized 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 to 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 Minimi7;:1tion
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 minimal 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
igygly;pg t!5if!g hazardous materials andZ9r generating hazardous
waste, the City shall require proof that the licensee has prepared and
su b.~littcd.. .an..a.~c7Ptabl.7.... ... B ~sin7ss Plan;##4~*fM~#i91:!!1#1
ff~y~n9!'!lgf8gmm~i!j)PJi9!!J!~, 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.
3-39
(6) The City shall prepare periodic reports on the progress of hazardous
waste minimization efforts in the City.
Houschold 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 the 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.
Gcncral Areas
The Tanner Act (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
3-40
by changing land use and other local conditions. For clarification, the
following prescribes those industrially designated and zoned areas which have
presently been removed from the COHWMP's "general areas" inventory:
Montgomerv/Otav Communitv: 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 armexation 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 preparation 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 intendcd 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 transect large
residential areas and serve as principal travel routes carrying in excess
of 35,000 ADT, presenting substantial transportation risks.
Otav Vallcv Road: The portion of the Otay Valley Road industrial
arca 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 Lowcr Olay Reservoir's Savage Dam.
Thc 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 the time the application is accepted as complete.
(2) The review and evaluation of applications accepted pursuant to (1)
above shall be based upon thc policies and siting criteria set forth in
the City's Gencral Plan, subject to required risk assessments,
environmental rcviews 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
3-41
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 their inclusion as a "general area" within the City
of Chula Vista.
(5) The City may, from time to time, as changes to local plans, policies,
~~.d..c?nd:.ti?~~....war~~~tp9~~~~$?~(~~f~3~~~~
~?n!}?~R.~g\9!.~e\i\)~Pt~~~IIS?7~~~,~~f9i:~~9.#~I(*f#;1!ij.#~~
~!!y\mrim~n!, determine t9~9jjiiliJ:l!!~f.Y#.1iH\\\9* that certaiDindustrial
land use designations or zoning districts are not appropriate for
inclusion as "general areas", as long as the ability to 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 tfteif !bos~~i~~$ possible exclusion from refmed
"general areas" for all other types of transfer or treatment facilities.
(7) Military lands should also be considered as part of the "general
areas." It is the Department of Defense policy to avoid siting of
commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities on
military land. Siting on a ease-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 general 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 pJanning 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 to use Indian land can be obtained.
3-42
Q
W
Z ~",~t. 808
ii: \~",t.~
W
a:
c
W
a:
c
CJ
Z
-
Z
Z
C
..J
'"
C
....
U)
-
>
C
..J
:)
:I:
U
OW
'P"%
~....
;~
~
.
U)
C
W
a:
C
..J
C
a:
w
z
W
CJ
.
0:
i5
>
0:
W
'"
W
0:0:
~?c
...>-
::>0
(II
oa
oa
'P"
w
Z
:)
.,
en
<(
w
-a:
<(
~
a:
w
z
w
CJ
C
!;!!
.it
a:
f",""..,...."
OI"GO
9"'''
~
Siting Criteria
Under the Tanner Act (AB 2948), local government is required to 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 to ensure the sufficient
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 teclmologies
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, it also
necessitates that facility review be conducted carefully and thoroughly. As a
result, all local facility application reviews shall include an environmental
review and health risk assessment, and any approvals shall be through a
conditional use permit.
Recognizing the influence of more specific local conditions on the
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 VISTA
I. Proximity to 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
temporarily for purposes of work (e.g., migrant workers,
construction 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
3-44
setbacks and buffering from the property boundary as
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 prepared 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 to 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
~~~!;t~~..:t@;;~;i:;ljfl~i~~~~I~i~11~1~..1
m?tl~t>j the appropriate location and distance for the
particular hazardous waste facility in relation to any existing
and proposed surrounding residentia) 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
alLernative sites presented through the environmental review
and provide corn parative evaluation of these sites se--as to
enable e8m~reheR5i'le 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 areas designated in
General Plan for future residential development regardless
of their density, as well as existing residences.
. Setback or buffer areas 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
3-45
from the boundary of the site upon which the facility is
located to areas where persons who cannot or should not be
moved are located.
. The definition of immobile populations includes childcare
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,: Me II.". m.ly
at the diserelien ef tAB City CeHBeH. .
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 those 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 timcs 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 at 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 areas 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 are 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.
3-46
.
~~#:~~#~~1~#t;~~#~;li(g~#I;~~~~~~~rjl!l)
shall be located outside the 100-year floodplain, or areas
subject to flash floods and debris flows. The risk assessment
and environmental review shall analyze such hazards. Any
exceptions based on proposed engineering and design
responses shall be at the discretion of the City Council.
5. Areas subject to tsunamis, seiches, and storm surges
. Areas subject to tsunamis, seiches, and storm surges are
defined as areas bordering oceans, bays, inlets, estuaries 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.
. All facilities, including residual repositories, shall be
prohibited from locating in areas subject to flooding from
these occurrences. The risk assessment and Environmental
review shall analyze 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 11,000 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 to 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
association with youthful major mountain scarps or
ranges
correlation with strong geophysical anomalies
. All facilities are required to have a minimum 2OO-foot
setback from a known active or potentially active fault.
. All facilities regardless of proximity to faults, shall .........
3-47
lRiRilRHIR staReanl, be constructed to seismic zone 4 building
code standards., subjeet te reE}u.iremeats iB BKeeS& as
8stermiRea asesssary by the City te peerset puelie heatf:.B
aRe safety.
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 are expressly prohibited in areas of
potential slope instability.
. All other facilities shall be prohibited in areas of potential
slope instability or rapid geologic change, except as
authorized by satisfactory engineering and design solutions,
and upon approval of the City Council. The risk assessment
and environmental 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 the surface materials that develop
liquid properties upon being physically disturbed.
. All facilities, including rcsidual repositories, shall be
prohibited from locating in areas subject to these
disturbances, and the risk assessment and environmental
review shall include an analysis of such potential
disturbances.
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 creatcd by the dam structure if it were to fail.
. All hazardous waste management facilities shall be
prohibited from locating within dam failure inundation areas.
3-48
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 a state-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:
Current State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) reguJations, as
implemented by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, including:
. Immediately underlain by natural geologic materials with permeability
of not marc than lxlO-7 cm/scc (1.24 in/yr)l.
. Natural material shall be of sufficient thickness to prevent vertical
movement of fluid, including waste and leachate, to waters of the
state for as long as they pose a threat to water quality.
lThe interpretation of this requirement by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards needs to be clarified and standardized.
3-49
. 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 at 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 to 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.
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.
3-50
14. Groundwater monitoring reliability
Groundwater monitoring reliability is defined as the dependability of
a scientificalIy designed monitoring program to 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 sl'eeiHeElAA49Y~f~~~~ 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 zone
and mitigation measures.
16. Permeability of surficial materials
Permcability of surficial matcrials 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.
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 Standards
and, for constituents with no standards, to guidelines suggested by
research reported in the literature.
The Environmental 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 arc:
3-51
. Class I: Groundwater that is highly vulnerable to
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 II: Current or potential sources of drinking water and
waters having other beneficial uses.
. Class 1lI: 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 11 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(ics).
PROTECT AIR QUALITY
Current 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 standard 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 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
3-52
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 are 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 California.
Facilities shall not be located within critical habitat areas, as defmed
in local, regional, state or federal plans.
21. Natural, recreational, cultural, and aesthetic resources
Natural, recreational, cultural, and aesthetic resources are defmed 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 lands of local, regional,
state, or national significance.
All facilities shall avoid locating in, or near these areas. The risk
assessment and environmental review shaH 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
allowcd within unused or compatible portions of certain public lands.
22. Prime agricult ural 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 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 fcderal, state, county, or local governments on which facilities used
to supply public services and Department of Defense (DOD) bases
3-53
and installations are located. In particular, these lands would include
highway maintenance and storage areas, 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 consinered 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
managemcnt functions (Miramar Landfill).
Therefore, military lands are 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 hazardous 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 all factors addressed in items
#25 to #29, and consider both existing and projected land use and
circulatory conditions pursuant to the General Plan.
25. Proximity to areas of waste gcneration
Proximity to areas of waste generation is defined as the travel time
from the major market areas of waste generation to the 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 a one-way travel
time of one day (including loading and unloading).
For the residuals repository, one-way transportation time, including
loading and unloading, from any major market areas 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 to encourage maximum use.
Alternate transportation by rail may be evaluated in regard to specific
3-54
locations for feasibility and efficiency.
In 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 rout~ 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 the 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) to 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.
Specific highway segments may be scheduled for CAL TRANS
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
California Department of Transportation.
3-55
The minimum time path from major market 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 the 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 25199.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code, the consistency of any proposal with the
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, Spccific 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
3-56
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 taxes, 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 considcr compensation programs which could offset
projected losses either directly or indirectly.
32. Changes in em ployment
Changes in em ploymcnt are defined as the total number of
permanent full- and part-time jobs resulting from the construction
and opcration of thc facility, including the number of each type of job
expected to be followed by local residents.
If this clearly is an issue causing disagrcement between the facility
developer and the ~qmm@1\y, then the developer shall fund an
independent study of the issue.
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 appropriatc to the nature and size of the facility and
the City's degree of concern with the particular issue.
If the number of jobs accounts for a signifiCant portion of
employment in the area, 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) providcs oversight and coordination toward resolving local
government siting issues in Southern California through its Regional Action
Plan, which is in part founded upon the l1J (Fair Share "Principles") and (Fair
3-57
Share "Formula") discussed on pages 1X-35 to -37 of the COHWMP{J!ii(j.\iS
maybeamen(ied from time .!o time. Those Principles and Formula are
designed to reeogRize that thB miaifHl:iffi Si!lB t:er an eeeB8mieally -;ial31e
hazardeHs waste faeilit)' willlil:ely eneeea the aeeas Bf aHY laeal jw-isdietiBR
ia 'Naieh it is loeatea, aHa iB seffle iastaaees the taMat)' ",,,.iae Reeds fer eertam
waste streams.reqiIiie each County 10 fully 1!.,ldre$$ it~ \va* tre;jini~ii~
~i:r:~ei~~~~la~!~~e:~~~~~e~o;~~:O:~:t.~~~~~~~. :~~1~it!t~~
.,-
Southern California counties, regional cooperation is necessary to address the
siting of needed hazardous waste facilities both between and within counties.
In order to assure that no one local juiiSdictionorsu~r6gioi1;111itealS
excessively burdened with respoMibUily f"r county-wide or .mi!Iii:~c>i!tl&
treadnent needs, the Principles and Formula encourage facilitysitin,!iwliete
there is a substantial unmetneed for the. type of treatment which .thel'a1;11J&
""auld provide. The F(}rmula provides an allocation of needed large a1)d ~lDiill
facilitie$ among Southern California counties based on their Wa5tegetljitiltion,
\viththcintent thal sites besought as close lo the major getlerating$ciiirees
as possible. Through the establisRmeRt ef iater g8\'erRmeftlal agree"'entG;
;.ppucation of these fair share concepts, assurances can be made that all cities
and counties equitahly share in the rcsponsibility for proper treatment and
disposal of their entire waste stream. The Fair Share Principles and Formula
have been adoptcd as part of the COHWMP, and are to be considered by
local jurisdictions in making facility siling decisions,
.^.t fJfeSeflt, HeV,f;:\er, there aees RBt c::mist dear aireetieR a5 ta B8':: a lsMl
j~rissieti~ft is Ie eeftsiser aRs apply !=air sRare priReipl.s te sp.eili. facility
siliftg prepesals. TR. priReiples eeBtaiR.s ift tRe COIIWMP, as so.i'c.s frem
SCII\I/M.^:s R.gieR"! .^.etieR FlaR, fBeHS eR '"hether .euftty wiae B.eas fer
wasl. treatm.Rt aBs sispes"1 are beiBg met tlueugh .ither facility eapacity
witfiiR the E01;lRty, BArd/sr effeeli',e iater gEr:ernFRBntal agreem0ats '.'\'ith ether
eSl:i8ties, ]8 slieh eBnteHl, emf!lB) FHBRt Bf f,air share feRsiaeratieBs at the leeaJ.
level iR .'..al~atiRg Re..... er e"panaee facililj' prepesals may be sigaifieafttly
iffifJaetecl if CBliRty v,'iae Reeas, v,hieR the jlirisaietisH Bas H0 direst 8HtBSfi~
eyer, are R8t eeiRg f,Hlly aear6ssea. TRis situati0R sees Rat reeegaiz:e
juriseietiens \', ithiR lAB CeHRl)' v:kieh are alreaey 80st t8 haiCaf"asoo ",\'aste
faeilili.s, fter ae.s il prescribe RBW a C~~flly may aeeel'lably a."'8181' iBlefBaI
fair SHare flalieies whieh aefiHe '.dU~R a leeRl jHrisaietis8 Bas met its
reaseRa131e fair share ef regieftal respeftsibilities. .'\s the fair shar8 eeBeopls
are 5eme'Naai Re",', fl:lrtlier ef,f-ert5 are fleee5Sar} La ae':elsfJ mere sfJeei.fi.e fair
share pelieies l'..ilRiB SaR Diege CeUftly te .!arify e~uital3le faeilily sitiftg lIBa
ether '::a5te maaagemeRt resfJoRsil:Jilities ameRg the RegieR's jHrisElietieBs.
SueR pelieies migRt alse tal,e iRte 6eRsideratieft the tY1'e aRs amelHlt ef elher
regieRal faeilities te v:hieh a jurisdietieft is Rest.
The City reeegRi2e5 its respeBsibility fBr tR. manag.meRt ef h"""raeus .....ast.,
aRa the COH'N.MP's f'iiir snare fJriREifJles, aHa v:ill afJfJJy an iRterim fair saare
3-58
eOReefJt iR tl:i.e leeaI regHIat8c)' preeess [13r hacard8H5 "::8st6 faeil:itiea -:,'hieh
aeeresses the City's ia":81";smsat ill aft Bffi81::1St I3repertieaate t8 l.";&5te
geReratee Ti';ithiR the City, aae a reas8Ra13le fair share sf s",'eraU Beeds "!;itftis.
8aR Diego COI:lRty. The City's iRteat is to reeegRize ether eeeUBl:lBitiea' Beea.s
te aeespt respoasilailit)' fer, BReI/8r site, aft 8Ej,Hita13le share efBeeaea faeilities,
6speeially if the geRsratiea Elf Vlaste is frem eeffimHRities "shieh tie Bet
aetive!y HftaertahiRg efforts te aehie':e 8ft site treatment aaa 1.;&5t8
miaimizatioRT
IR 6sRjusetisR '.vita tae afBrem6RtisRBB, The CityrecQgiUi~thc~Q~~
fair SharePriricipldsiuid Formula.andwiU.applyil\~jj\ itt~Ja4:~1:I~t~
(,v~lu>itive proc~when ~eViewing.ppiic.tiom fo~oew o~ exP.oded hawdous
waste facilitiesrt tHe City T;;il1 eSf1&ider the felle\T;iRg ia the fair sRafe e':all:lati-le
preee,,; his. the Fair Share Prindple()fib~>City<>fChil)jjYi!ita~hat,
iIS,uming ali other criteria for the sitirig iuid~i<ling Q(~bauidD1iii*asie
facility bave.be<:;n satiofiw, including coniplianee.witb the<;:QHW.Mi';~.P~
~~:~:r~m~~I~~~1ti~~uJsa~c~h: <i~~1i~~O~~d ag;~p~~~~:~th7n~
juriodictiou if the applicant subinits evideuce convincmg t~ilwCitycii~~\steilt
with onc of thefo1!qwing: . .... ... . ....... . . .
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) .
· . the. fJldlity' is necessary to treath~7J\rard<iiis \\iasteii\Jiji
;unount, and of it type and health psk; which . i(m
approximately proportional relatiori$hip to thi;aiiioiIDi',typ~
and health risk of hazardous waste gerieraledWitbiii a
reasonable servicc area "ftbe proposed facility, b~sed!m the
location of the generating sources proposw tobi: served in
comparison 10 substantially unmet neeuswilhinsiilib1egii
County and its subregious('Service ArtaGei\eratii>lI~); at
.:,-C,:-;,'-.' :.'c.:.:.'.:.'.:.,' '-',-:-',-,:',',,:,-;:,-, ,,-.,,- " ,-,.'-'..":';", ";":.,":<"':':<.'.",_.,',_:';_":''';':'..:_.":':':_::'.-;...;...;-;...;.;.,.:.;...;..".;.....:.....:....x.;...:_:.:_:~
. . the facuity is necessary to .be sited and sizedinth~ maiiliei
prcpos<:;d in order to attain a minimum leVeLtifecon(lmij;
viability {"Minimum Economically Viable Siie'},eYelit!ioug\!
the facility pr9poses to treat waste in~ess~f thi;$eryi<;io
m~t;~___9~-~.~.:r:~~iPfl~,'Y!~
. the facililyis neceosary 10 be sited and sizw irithemit!mer
proposw because there are rio other 10catloni(:W\ihi*t!ie
county-wide area Capable of ptrrniltini the iitmgoLthe
facility, and/or thc use ofintergovemmeotalageem~riti<iii
"ddreoo all or a portion of the amount of Wastes i>io!icisedto
l;Je treal<:;d is ihfcasible {"Abs~n.ce (If Feasible 1\1~J;i~I1~t~a::>,
liven though thefaciijty proposes t()trt~t was~i~ exceSi6f
the Service Area Gencration and i$ targer ihari ih~ M:il!4t!1JJi!
EconomicaUy Viable SiZe; or
. . Regardlf.'Os "fthe fact that the facilitylirOjjOiies ~Qttei\t
wastes in excess of the Service AreaGCntirJitioti~lsj;i~ger
than the Minimum Economically Yiable SlZe,Mittlwre Is
not an Abscnce of Feasible Alternates; the OiywilI siie the
facility within its borders, unless the Cityfuiiiilii:.idji
accepted a fair and rcasonable share of othetrwon~
3-59
~~r;;~~:~e~d :~rf:O~:~~j~~~i=~I~4ve~1\~~~~~
otherwise ei!sting WiI.hiJi ~Iw County;
..:.:.,.,.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:,,-:-:-:.:.:-:.:-,-,,:-,-:,;.;':'i;':';',.,:':':-";':-;-;-:-'-;':-."-:-."-"_-'-'.;.:.,.;-,,_,:.:.:.:.;.:.;.:_:_:.;_:.,,;.;
1n Qrder te. facmtate the fair share iv~I'uaii()n; the (:itYi>~~mq\iire
sub\Oission of the foJlowing inforlrul(ion:
~3)
4)
1)
The proponent shall identify the location of waste sources,
a~~ th." r"sp""tiv":-:ol~~,,~?fth,,p~rticul~r waste stream(s);
pi&~B~H!~lI\r~~Im~H!m~\~QlI(f~Mcf}; from each of
those sources it will j@iiiBi~@Q serve, including those
specifically known at the time of application, as well as those
estimated in the future. The City shall aIse feljUire lite
flrofJ0Hi3Bt to SH6mit eata '::ita respeet t8 eeuBty ':;iss ":;aste
Reeas, tmistiag faeility eafJaeities, aRe iRter-gsy:erRmsatal
agreemeRts, 58 as 10 13f8viae a EBffifl1ete SSR1.parati'lB ease.
2)
~o: p~~~:~~~~J;a~i~~e'tu~:d ~O~::it~~:t:~~~~
a. current existing iuidprojected CQiuitY:~~S\e
~encratiQn, and /.Teatment needs1:iYOrM,\by
~ubrcgion. The subregiCJns ~hal! beUjQ$# ~~
identified in the respective .Co\Jnt1s~~i~'~1Iii
Waste Management PI~n.
b.an inv~n1 ory of existing treatment faclliti!i$ai1iith~ii'
Capacities by G TM. Said iqventory shOuld. Uidk~te
wh~thcr any of th~t capac1Jy iUlj!j)l1j~"~~
",citing /.Teatment volumes. .
c. all existing effective and pending interg()~jiiitiiJ
agreements wlth othercounti~, >in4udingjh~
amount and type of wastes involved, by !iii(:1'I:M:;1i
the affected lre~tment faciJities: . . .... . .. ..... ..
The GiIy p\9I>9p4ii! shaH iii9!f#tRIW~~iifi"fu\m# e';aIaate
aRe eSflsiaer the minimum f~giJtt~):~k#iJ?y, ~aste_ strearnj
necessary to ensure the economic feaslsilii); ~!!!tY of the
proposed facility. . .
. . In such case as it facility is proposed p.>irsWUit t~ Ujfgity~
fourth fair share scenlu-io, the proponeni5Iia115iihliilt~in;ap
indicating the current location and distributiorilViililij.SiiJi
DiegQ County of those regionally serving lan\l$~gencrany
cousidered adverse, including but not )imit.;M~ !lIbs~~~~
In addition, the City will may survey the efforts put forth by the communities
from within which gefleratiHg the involved wastes arebcinggCri~ij(id; to
t.ecognize treatment responsibilities and reduce their off-site treatment needs
through W9P:m-Qpg on~site' 't~ea'tment and waste minimization. teeD.aiEftles.
3-60
Based on an analysis of HHs \h~Aq9Y#i#!i!#jj,9f9fi\i~t!9ij eata, eellSideriflg
'.\'aste geReratee BY the City, etHer. SeHta bay Ceffiffil!fiities, thB remaiaaer ef
SaR Diege CeliHty, aRd 8ther jarisdicti8R5 8lilside the RegieR, the City shall
identify any concerns with respect to fair share concepts, and as appropriate
shall require mitigation through conditions of use limiting the volumes or
types of wastes ~g!# 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 prepared which will set forth all applicable procedural
requirements including, but not limited to, j>>'e-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 1987, with the passage of Assembly Bill 2926, the State of California
declared 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 commcrcial/industrial development was approved.
The levy may be increased annually to accommodate inflation if authorized by
thc State of California State Allocation Board.
Fees collcctcd 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 Grecn 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
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:
1. The new senior high schools shall be constructed to
accommodate approximately 2,400 students and shall be
3-61
designed to allow for a four-year curriculum.
2. New junior high/mictdle schools shall be constructed to
accommodate approximately 1,400 students.
3. New elementary schools shall be constructed to
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 parks 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 to 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 the
student population.
9. School development is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (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 LmRARY 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:
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 vehicular control.
4. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character.
3-62
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:
1. One level structure of the required size to 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 to .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 Element:
1. P&D Technologies. Chula Vista General 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. Watcr Feasibility Study. May 1987.
5. Engineering-Sciencc, Inc. Wastewater Feasibility Study. May 1987.
6. San Diego County Water Authority. Water MarKet Assessment.
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.
3-63
10. Engineering-Science, Inc. Solid and Hazardous Waste Control
Feasibility Study. May 1987.
11. County of San Diego, Division of Hazardous Waste. Hazardous
Waste Management Plan. May 1989.
3-64
EXHIBIT D
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 ofChula vista
CASE NUMBER: IS 93-14
A, proiect settinq
The proposed Hazardous Waste ManQgement 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
facilities as required by state Law, and are intended to
comprise the City's regulatory provisions regarding hazardous
waste management and hazardous waste facilities,
C. Compatibilitv with Zoninq 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 I s provisions pertaining to the
siting and permitting of proposed hazardous waste facilities.
Implementation of the proposed project, city-wide, will ensure
that proposed hazardous waste facilities are safely sited, and
compatible with underlying land use designations and zoning,
as well as surrounding land uses.
~{~
-.-
~.-..,;~~
....... - -
city of chula vista planning department CTTY OF
environmental review secllon. CHULA VISTA
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 provisoins, and not a
specific development proposal for which a measure of
Fire/EMS response would otherwise appiy.
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 ameasure 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 1-805
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
The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation
is 3 acres/1,000 population. The proposed project is
city 01
chura vlata planning department
environmental review .ectlon
~(~
-~-
r___~
-::. --.....;;-
CITY OF
. CHUlA VISTA
-3-
exempt from this Threshold Policy, as the proj ect is
comprised of policy and regulatory provisions, and not a
specific development proposal for which a measurement of
parks and recreational impacts would apply.
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water
flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provided necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City
Engineering Standards. 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 drainage
impacts would apply.
6. Sewer
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows
and volumes not exceed city Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards. 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 sewer impacts would
apply.
7. Water
The Threshold/standards Policy requires that adequate
storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are
constructed concurrently with planned growth and
construction, 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 water impacts would
apply.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study (IS 93-14) conducted by the city of Chula
vista determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will not be required, A
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
section 15070 of the state CEQA Guidelines.
City 01
chula vista planning depertment
environmental review section.
~(~
-~-
p---~
-:::. -....0:-
ON Of
CHUlA VISTA
-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 sensi ti ve receptors. sensi ti ve 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 amendments to the Public Facilities Element of the General
Plan clarify previously adopted hazardous waste policies
pertaining to the siting and permitting of hazardous waste
facilities. These policies will ensure that proposed
facilities are safely sited and compatible with underlying
land use designations and zoning, as well as surrounding land
uses.
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.
city of
chula vl.ta planning department
environmental review .ectlon
~(~
-.-
r_ ___
----
--
erN Of
CHUIA VISTA
-5-
Risk of Upset
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 af 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
city at
chuta vlala planning depertment
environmental revlaw .actlon
~ (f.?
-~-
~-----
--
- -....;:-
CllY Of
(HULA VISTA
-6-
implemented for hazardous waste facilities. Presently,
emergency releases of hazardous materials into the environment
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.
Transportation/Circulation
The transportation of hazardous waste is regulated by Federal
agencies, s~ch 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 tr.ansport.
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
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
City 01
chula vl.ta planning department
environmental review .ectlon
~\(f?
-,-
~---~
~-.--;:-
CITY Of
. CHULA VlsrA
-7-
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 is 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
city 01
chula vlata planning d.partm.nt
.nvl,onm.ntal r.vi.... ..ctlon
~{f?
-,-
r....__~
~----..
CITY Of
. CHUlA VISTA
-8-
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
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
facili ties wi thin the City, and the encouragement of safe
treatment and disposal practices. 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. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant 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. Mandatorv Findinqs of Siqnificance
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.
1. 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.
city 01
~(f?
-t-
F___~
chula vlata planning depertment ~nY Of -
environmental review .ectlon. CHUlA VISfA
-9-
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
proposed project will not degrade the quality of the
environment, adversely affect fish or wildlife species,
or eliminate cultural or paleontological resources.
2. The proj ect has the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
The proposed project will strengthen long-term
environmental goals associated with effective hazardous
waste management planning, and the appropriate siting,
permitting and operation of hazardous waste facilities,
through the establishment of local policies and criteria.
Therefore, both short-term and long-term environmental
goals will be maintained.
3. The project has possible effects which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the
subsection, "cumulatively co-nsiderable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.
The proposed project is not anticipated to have
cumulative impacts. Adoption of the Implementing
Ordinance and associated amendments to the Public
Facilities Element of the General Plan will provide
appropriate siting criteria to ensure that cumulative
hazardous waste management impacts are reduced to a level
below significance.
4.
The environmental effects of
substantial, adverse effects
directly' or indirectly.
a project will
on human beings,
cause
either
The protection of human health will be upheld through the
adoption of the Implementing Ordinance and associated
documents. Human hea 1 th wi 11- be protected through
compliance with the criteria set forth by the proposed
project.
City 01
chula vl.ta planning department
environmental review .ectlon_
~(~
=--r-
----;:'
~---..-
CITY Of
CHULA VISTA
-10-
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Orqanizations
City of Chula vista:
Roger Daoust, 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 ErR
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations et.seq).
Chula Vista, city of, 1987. -Municipal Code.
Chula Vista, City of, 1989a. General Plan Update.
Chula Vista, city of, 1989b. General Plan Update EIR.
County of San Diego, 1989. Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Hazardous Waste Manaqement Plan.
County of San Diego, 1989. Hazardous Waste Manaqement
Plan.
3. Initial Studv:
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.
~{UUZ ~.~~
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
city 0'
chura vlala planning department
environmental review 18ctlon.
~\(f?
~f-
~~-~
----.;;-
CllY Of
CHULA VISTA
EXHIBIT C
FKII/I3IT C.
ORDINANCE NO.
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 CONDmONAL
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 hazardous waste facilities as conditional uses in the
City's industrial wne 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 share" 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 hearing 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.
THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as
follows:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION I: That Section 19.04.107 is hereby added to the CYMC read as follows:
Chapter 19.04
DEFINITIONS
19.04.107 H~7~rdous Waste Facility
A "H~7~rdous Waste Facility" means. as IIPplicable. a h~7~rdous waste facility proiect.
specified h~7~rdous waste facility. specified h~7~rdous waste facility pTQject. or land disoosal
facility as defined in Section 25199.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. and shall include
any structures. other !\p'purtenances. and improvements on the land. and all contil!UOus land.
used for the treatment. transfer. stOTal!e. resource recovery. disoosal. or recyclin~ ofh~7~rdous
waste.
SECTION II: That Section 19.14.070 of the CVMC is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Chapter 19.14
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDffiONAL 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 hearing 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.
It. In the case of h~7~rdous waste facilities as defined in Section 19.04.107. ~plications for
conditional use permits or modifications thereto shall be made pursuant to Section 19.58.178.
and shall be considered by the Planninl! Commission with a recommendation to be forwarded
to the City Council for final review and action. The reQuirements of Section 19.14.090 shall
IU>ply to both the Plannin~ Commission recommendation and the Ci\y Council resolution with
the followinl1 modifications:
Ordinance No.
Page 3
1.. The written findin2s. in addition to the 1'eQuirements of Section 19.14.080. shall address
those matters as set forth in Section 19.58.178K.
2. The decision of the Plannin2 Commission shall constitute a recommendation only. and
shall not become final or subject to Iij)J)eal as provided in Sections 19.14.100 to
19.14.130.
3... The City Council's decision shall be considered final. and the City Clerk shall transmit
a co'py of the resolution as provided by Section 19.14.130. .
SECTION ill: That Section 19.42.040 of the CYMC 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 pharmaceuticals, 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.
Q.. H~7"Tdous waste facilities. subiect to the provisions of Section 19.58.178
Ordinance No.
Page 4
SECTION IV: That Section 19.44.040 of the CYMC 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 yards, 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, warehouse-type sale
of goods and, retail uses which are 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 standards set forth in Section 19.30.040.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
O. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.340.
f... H.7~rdous waste facilities. subiect to the provisions of Section 19.58.178.
SECTION V: That Section 19.46.040 of the CYMC 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, warehouse-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 yards 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.
1. 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.. H~7~rdous waste facilities. subiect to the provisions of Section 19.58.178
SECTION VI: That Section 19.58.178 is hereby added to the CVMC to read as follows:
Chapter 19.58
USES
19.58.178 H~7",rdous waste facilities
A h~7""dous waste facility as defined in Section 19.04.107 of this title may be considered for
permittine: 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 area approjlriate for the
acc<:Ptance and consideration of an application for such a facility. A h~7",rdous waste facility
may be allowed within a location as indicated above uoon the issuance of a conditional use
permit. subiect to the followin~ standards and ~uidelines:
A.. PURPOSE AND INTENT
It is the intent of this section to establish and clarify local requirements and procedures
for the review and aoproval of conditional use permit apolications for a h~7",Tdous waste
facility. consistent with the provisions of Section 25199 et sea. of the California Health
and Safety Code (Tanner Act). and with the obiectives. policies. and criteria of the
Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan ree:ardin~ h~7",Tdous waste
manae:ement plannin~. and the sitin~ and permittin~ of h~7",Tdous waste facilities.
Ordinance No.
Page 7
Ih APPLICABILITY
Any conditional use permit ~ranted for a h~7>1rdous waste facility Dursuant to Sections
19.14.070 throul!h .130 shall comply with the ~plicable provisions of this section which
are supplementary to. and in the event of conflict shall supersede the reiulations set forth
in Sections 19.14.070 throueh .130. Subsections D. E. F. G. H. I. J. and K of this
section shall &pply to all h~7Mdous waste facilities as defined in Section 19.04.107. and.
as herein defined.
c.. DEFINITIONS
1... "H~7>1rdous waste" shall mean a waste. or combination of wastes. which because
of its Quantity. concentration. or physical. chemical. or infectious characteristics
may either:
a.. Cause or sivnificantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase
in serious irreversible. or incapacitatine reversible. illness.
Ih Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when impro.,perly treated. stored. tran~rted. disoosed of. or
otherwise manaved.
In addition. h~7>1rdous waste shall include the folIowin~:
ib. Any waste identified as a h~7>1rdous waste by the State De.partment of
Toxic Substances Control.
Ih Any waste identified as a h"7Mdous waste under the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act. as amended. 42 D.S.C. 6S 6901 et 5eQ. and
any reiulations promuleated thereunder.
k... Extremely or acutely b"7>1rdous waste. which includes any b"7>1Tdous
waste or mixture of h"7>1rdous wastes which. if human exposure should
occur. may likely result in death. disablin~ personal injut:)' or serious
ilIness caused by the hazardous waste or mixture of b~7;!TtiOUS wastes
because of its auantity. concentration. or chemical characteristics.
2.. .H~7>1rdous waste facility" means any facility used for the storal!e. transfer.
treatment. recyclin~. and/or di~saI of b"7"rdous wastes or associated residuals
as defined in Section 19.04.107.
Ordinance No.
PageS
l.. "I.and use decision" shall mean a discretionary decision of the City concernin~
a h~7"rdous waste facility proiect. includin~ the issuance of a land use permit or
a conditional use permit. the irantin~ of a variance. the subdivision of proJ!erty.
or the modification of existin!! DroJ!eTty lines pursuant to Title 7 (commencin~
with Section 65(00) of the California Governme'l: 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(a)
and (b). at least ninety (90) days before filin~ an aDDlication for a conditional use
permit for a h~7"Tdous waste facility. the IIPplicant shall file with the Plannin~
De.,partment and with the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of
Plannin~ and Research. a Notice of Intent ("N.O.I.") to make the IIPplication.
The N.O.!. shall be on such form as ap.,proved by the Director of Plannin~. and
shall specify the proiect location to which it 1IP.,plies. and contain a complete
descriDtion of the nature. function. and scone of the proiect.
2... The Planning De.,partment shall Drovide public notice of the IIPPlicant's intent to
1IP"ply for a conditional use permit. pursuant to the noticin~ procedure in Section
19.12.070. and by postin~ notices in the location where the proposed proiect is
located.
l.. Costs incurred by the City in processin!! said public notice shall be paid by the
proiect proponent throu~h establishment of a deposit account for such PUl:POseS
with the Plannin~ De,partment at the time the N.O.I. is filed.
~ The N.O.!. 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 ~ified in the N.O.!.. and in such instance the
pro,ponent pro,poses to chanie the Droiect location. a new N.O.I. shall be
pre.pared. and the procedure shall be~in a~ain for the new location.
5... Within 30 days of the filin~ of the N.O.I.. the applicant shall schedule a
Dre-aDDlication conference with the Plannin~ DeDartment to be held not later than
45 days thereafter. at which the 1IP"plicant and the Plannin~ De.partment shall
discuss information and materials necessary to evaluate the application. Within
30 days after this meetin!!. the Director of Plannin~ shall inform the applicant.
in writin~. of all submittals necessary in order to deem the conditional use permit
aDDlication complete.
Ordinance No.
Page 9
.6... The IIP'plicant may not file an aDolication for a conditional use permit unless the
IIP'plicant has first complied with the above items. and presented the TeQ.llired
IIP'plication fee. Furthermore. said IIP'plication 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 IIP'plication as set forth ~y the Director of
Planninl! pursuant to Item 5 above have been received and a~ted as to content.
1... An IIP'plication is not deemed to be complete until the P1annin~ Dc:,partment
notifies the IIP'plicant. in writin~. that the ap.plication is complete. Said
notification of completeness. or incompleteness. shall be provided within 30 days
of the IIP'plication submittal. or resubmittal as IIP'plicable. After an aoplication is
determined to be complete. the Plannin~ Department may reqllest additional
information where necessary to clarify. modify. or suoolement previously
submitted materials. or where resultinl! from conditions which were not known.
and could not reasonably have been known at the time the IIP'plication was
received.
R. The Plannin~ Department shall notify the Office of Permit Assistance in the State
Office of Planninl! and Research within ten (1m days after an aoolication for a
conditional use permit is acceoted as complete by the Plannin~ Deoartment.
&.. PRE-APPLICA nON PUBLIC MEETING
L. Within ninety (90) days after a Notice of Intent is filed with the Plannini
Deoartment and Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of Plannin~ and
Research oursuant to subsection D.l. the Office of Permit Assistance will. in
coo.,peration with the Planninl! Department. convene a public meetinl! ("Pre-
Applicaton Meetin~") in the City of Chula Vista for the express pUIJ>Ose of
informin~ the public on the nature. function. and sco.,pe of the pro.posed proiect
and the procedures that are required for aoorovini IIPplications for the proiect.
2.... The City shall arranie a meetin~ location in a Dublic facility near the prooosed
proiect site. and shall ~ive notice of said meetin~ pursuant to the noticin~
procedures in Section 19.12.070 and by postini at the prooosed proiect site.
~ All affected ai:encies. includin~ but not limited to the State Deoartment of Health
Services/Toxic Substance Control Pro~ram. Re~ional Water Ouality Control
Board. County Department of Health Services- H~7~rdous Materials Mana~ement
Division. and the Air Pollution Control District. shall send a representative who
will explain to the public their al!ency's mocedures for aDprovinl! permit
applications for the mQject. and outline the public's o'p.portunities for review and
comment on those ap'plications.
Ordinance No.
Page 10
E.. LOCAL ASSESSMENT COMMITIEE: FORMATION AND ROLE
1... At any time after filin~ of the N.O.I.. but not later than 30 days after an
lij>nlication for a land use decision has been acce.pted as complete. the City
Council shall ~'point a seven member Local Assessment Committee ("LAC") to
advise the City in considerin~ the h~7"rdous waste facility pro'posal.
2.. The membershin of the LAC shall be broadly constituted to reflect the makeup
of the City. and shall include three re.presentatives of the City at larl:e. two
re.presentatives of environmental or public interest ~roups. and two rc:presentatives
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 prooosed project.
.3... The LAC is solely an advisory committee. and is not empowered with any
decision making authority relative to the nrooosed proiect. nor with the legal
standim! to assert ~ific project conditions. Rather. the LAC provides a
mechanism for direct input on matters of concern to the ~eneral nublic into the
environmental review process. and presents the o'p.,portunity for framin~ 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.
~ As such. the LAC shall. within the time period prescribed by the City Council.
advise the City of the terms and conditions under which the pro'posed h~7"rdous
waste facility nroject may be acce.ptable to the community. as follows:
iL. Adont rules and urocedures which are necessary to perform its duties.
12.. Enter into a dialogue with the project proponent to reach an understanding
Qn.;.
ill the su!!!!ested terms. provisions and conditions for proiect annroval
and facility o.peration which would ensure protection of public
health. safety and welfare. and the environment of the City of
Chula Vista and adjacent communities. and
ill the ~ial benefits and remuneration the prQponent will provide
the City as compensation for all local costs and impacts associated
with the facility and its o.,peration. Such discussions shall address
"fair share" concc:pts as set forth in Section 5.5 of the General
Plan Public Facilities Element. includin~ the consideration of
establishing inter-~overnmental agreements. and/or other
compensation and incentive pro!!rams.
Ordinance No.
Page 11
Said dialo~ue shall be re!iPOnsive to the issues and concerns identified at
the meetinl! described in subsection G .1.
k. With rel!ard to subsection 'b.' above. any resultins: prQpOsed mitil!ation
measures not already defmed in the environmental review or permittin~
process would be subject to the ne~otiation process with the proJ)Onent.
with the ne~otiation results forwarded as recommended terms of 8.Pproval
to the Planninl! Commission and City Council.
Q.. Re.present I!enerally. in meetinl!s with the project awlicant. the interest of
the residents of the City of Chula Vista and the interests of adjacent
communities. as principally made known throu~h the Post-Ap.plication
Meetin~.
~ Receive and expend. subject to the approval of the City Mana~er and
authorization of the City Council. any technical assistance ~rants made
available as described in Subsection J.
f... Advise the Plannin~ De.partment. Plannin~ Commission. and the City
Council of the terms. provisions. and conditions for proiect aDproval
which have been successfully ne~otiated by the committee and the
proponent. and any additional information which the committee deems
ap.proDriate. The Plannin~ De.partment. Plannin~ Commission. and City
Council may use this advice for their indeJ}endent consideration of the
proiect.
~ The City shall allocate staff resources to assist the LAC in rerformin~ its duties.
and the proiect pro.,ponent shall be re!iPOnsible to pa,y the City's costs in
establishin~. convenin~. and staffins: the LAC. throul!h establishment of a deoosit
account for such pUl:poseS with the Planninl! Department at the time of filin~ an
application for a land use decision.
~ The LAC shall cease to exist after final administrative action by state and local
a.~encies has been taken on the rermit !\p'plications for the proiect for which the
Committee was convened.
G.. NOTICE OF PERMIT APPLICATION: POST-APPLICATION MEETING
1.. Within sixty (60) days after receivinl: the notice of a complete awlication as
required by subsection D.8. the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office
of Plannin~ and Research will convene a ("Post-Application Meetinl!") in the City
Ordinance No.
Page 12
of Chula Vista of the lead and resoonsible a~encies for the proiect. the proponent.
the LAC. and the interested public for the PUl::POse of determinin~ the issues
which concern the a~encies that are reQuired to lIP'prove the proiect. and the
issues which concern the public. The Planninl! De,partment shall provide notice
to the public of the date. time. and place of the meetin~.
2.. The issues of concern raised at the Post-ADDlication Meetin~ must include all
environmental and permittin~ issues which will nPM! to be addressed in the
environmental document to ensure the document's adeoua<;y in sunoortinl! the
actions of all permittin~ and responsible a~encies for the project.
.3... The Post-Application Meetini should be held as soon as an environmental initial
study or notice of pre.varation is available for review and comment. so that
adequate onoortuniw is provided for meetini innut to be employed in the sco.vini
of subsequent environmental review activities.
lL.... ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS
l.. All hazardous waste facility nro.posals shall be required to under~o an
environmental review and health risk assessment re~ardless of facility type. size.
or nroximity to ponulations or immobile oopulations.
2.. As hazardous waste facilities may vary ~reatly in their potential public health and
safety. and environmental risks. the de.vth 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 identifyini community and involved aiency concerns. and providini:
data to be used by the LAC and the City in neiotiatin~ nroiect conditions. As
such. within 30 days followin~ the Post-Ap.vlication Meetin~. the City shall:
iL. create an ad-hoc technical committee to advise the City and the LAC on
technical issues re~ardin~ the sco.pinl! and preparation of the
environmental review and health risk assessment. The membership should
consist of staff from each of the involved permittin~ or re:u;>onsible
aeencies. an ~idemiolo~ist. a toxicolo~ist. and any other technical experts
deemed necessary or desirable.
h.. convene a meetin~ of involved City staff. the environmental document
preparer. the LAC. ad-hoc technical committee. and the prciject prQponent
to establish the scoj)e and content for the environmental document and
health risk assessment. and the "PM! for any other technical studies. The
Ordinance No.
Page 13
City Council shaH review the meetin~ outcome. and aDDrove a final SCQpe
for the environmental review and health risk assessment prior to the
commencement of work.
~ A traffic/transportation study shall be TeQJlired as part of the environmental
review for all h~7"rdous waste facility pro'posals. and at minimum shall account
for all factors addressed under the Safe Tran&portation sitin~ criteria contained in
Section 5.5 of the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan.
~ lJpon selection of a reasonable ranl!e of proiect alternatives under the California
Environmental Ouality Act. Public Resources Code Sections 21000et seq.. the
City. upon the advice of the LAC and ad-hoc technical committee. shall establish
a preferred hierarchy amon~ those alternatives for the DUI:POSe of determininl! the
level of Qualitative and Quantitative analysis that should be rerrormed for the
health risk assessment on those alternatives. In determininl! this preferred
hierarchy and associated level of health risk assessment. consideration shall be
eiven to the relative feasibility of each alternative to attain the stated proiect
obiectives. and the relative merits of each alternative.
~ The health risk assessment shall serve as an evaluative and decision-makin~ tool.
and shall not be construed as Drovidin~ definitive answers re~ardin~ facility
sitin~.
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 acce.ptable levels of risk. and/or to determine the
extent and type of related conditions and mitil!ation measures which should be
aDDlied to the Droiect.
.8.,. The LAC shall not finalize its recommendations for forwardinl! for Plannin2
Commission and City Council consideration until after the Dublic review period
for the draft environmental document has closed. and the LAC has had sufficient
time to review any comments received.
2. Any costs associated to the formation or work of the ad-hoc technical committee.
in addition to any other consultant(s) the LAC deems necessary. inc1udine costs
incurred in the pre.Pafation of any technical studies. shall be paid for throul!h
technical assistance ~rants as described in subsection J.
I. INITIAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
.L. At the request of the IIPPlicant. the City Council shall. within sixty (60) days after
Ordinance No.
Page 14
the Plannin~ Denartment has determined that an aPJ'lication for a conditional use
permit is complete and after a noticed public hearin~. issu~ an in~~ wri~n
determination on whether the proposed proiect is consist~n with of e
followin~:
iL.
The aoolicable provisions of the City General Plan and Zonin~ Ordinances
in effect at the time the ClPplication was acceoted as complete.
h..
The county h~7~rdous waste mana\!"ement plan authorized 'J: Z::;c~: ~~~
(commencin~ with Section 25135) of the California Heal 1;
Code. if such olan is in effect at the time of ~'plication.
2.. The PlanninL! Department shall send to the CIP'plicant a co'py of the written
determination made pursuant to item ] above.
.l. The determination reQuired by item 1 above does not prohibit the City from
makinL! a different determination when the final decision to aO'prove or ~en~ the
conditional use oermit is made. if the final determination is ba~ on inf~rm_tion
which was not considered at the time the initial determination was made.
L. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS: LOCAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
NEGOTIATIONS
1..
1..
Followin!! the Post-Ap.plication Meetin!!. the LAC and the propon;n~h~l m~t
and confer on the proiect proposal pursuant to the provisions of s b ti n F
Given that the rules. re!!ulations. and conditions relative to h~7",rdous waste
facility oroiects are extremely technical in nature. as are the associ~
asse~sment~ ofpo~ential oubli7 health and env~ronmental risks. :e.;A; m~;:::
that It reqUIres assIstance and mdeoendent advIse to adeauately VI w pr
Droiect and make recommendations. In such instance. the LAC m~y r~~e:~
technical assistance ~rants from the City to enable the hirin~ of a cons ltan s
do any. or all. of the followinL!:
i..
h..
assist the LAC in the review and evaluation of the prQject I\PJ)lication.
environmental documents. technical studies. and/or any other documen=~
materials and information required in connection with the oroi
aoplication.
intemret the potential public health and safety and environmental risks
associated with the proiect. and help to define acce.ptable miti~ation
measures to substantially minimize or eliminate those risks.
Ordinance No.
Page 15
k... advise the LAC in its meetin~s and discussions with the prooonent to seek
~reement on the terms and conditions under which the nroject will be
accentable to the community.
:i.. The proponent shall be required to PI\Y a fee equal to the amount of any technical
assistance ~rant authorized for the LAC. Said fee(s) shall be paid to the City.
and dc;posited in an account to be used exclusively for the purooses set forth in
subsection J.2.
4... If the local assessment committee and the 8P'plicant cannot resolve any differences
throu~h the meetinl!s. the Office of Permit Assistance in the State Office of
Planning and Research may be called upon to mediate disputes.
l.. The proponent shall pay one-half of the costs of any mediation process which may
be recommended or undertaken by the Office of Permit Assistance in the State
Office of Plannin~ and Research. The remaininl! costs will be paid. upon
aDpropriation by the lel!islature. from the State General Fund.
K. ADDmONAL FINDINGS REOUIRED FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
Before any conditional use permit for a hn"rdous waste facili\y may be granted or
modified. in addition to the findings required by Section 19.14.080. it shall be found that
the proposed facility is in compliance with the following:
.L. The "General Areas" policies of Section 5.5 of the Public Facilities Element of
the City General Plan.
2.. The "siting criteria" as set forth in Section 5.5 of the Public Facilities Element
of the City General Plan.
:i.. The "fair share" princinles established in Section 5.5 of the Public Facilities
Element of the City General Plan
~ The County of San Diego H"7"Tdous Waste Manal!ement 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
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney