HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-05; Planning Commission; ; CUP 260B - PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION'e City of CARLSBAD Planning Departme'
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: March 5, 1997
Item No.
Application complete date: February 18, 1997
Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: CUP 260(B)-PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION -Request for a Conditional
Use Permit Amendment and Extension to modify the floor area of the trash
transfer facility, relocate some parking, provide several traffic/circulation system
improvements, and revise the operating characteristics of the facility on a site
located on the east side of El Camino Real approximately 1500 feet north of
Palomar Airport Road in the M Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone
5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4068
APPROVING CUP 260(B) based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application is a request to amend and extend the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP
260x2) for the Coast Waste Transfer Station. The proposed changes include both physical and
operational changes, including modification of the floor area to legalize a previous grading
violation, the addition of a new parking area at the western edge of the site, provision of several
traffic/circulation system improvements, an increase in processing capacity, and revised days and
hours of operation. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and supports the proposed
changes.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
The County of San Diego (Airports Division) owns the land containing the Palomar Transfer
Station. The FAA provided monies to use for the acquisition of the property because of its
proximity to Palomar Airport. In 1977 the City of Carlsbad approved a CUP (CUP 140) to allow
construction of a solid waste shredder and transfer facility on the site. (The EIR which was
prepared for that project analyzed an operating capacity of 800 tons of trash per day and 7 days
per week operations.) In 1981, the County requested approval to add a buy back/recycling
center. The City approved that request (CUP 140(A)) along with a Negative Declaration for the
project. The County constructed and operated the transfer station and the shredder facility until
an explosion of the shredder and other factors resulted in the County's closing the facility. The
cup 260(B)-COAST w1-IE TRANSFER STATION
MARCH 5, 1997
PAGE2
closure occurred sometime prior to 1984. In 1984 the City approved a new CUP (CUP 260) for
five years to allow Coast Waste Management to begin operating at the site when they relocated
from their previous facility on Ponto Drive. Coast Waste leased the site from the County, rebuilt
the facility and began operations. The design capacity of the facility remained at 800 tons per
day as approved in the original EIR. CUP 260 was extended for another five years in October,
1989 (CUP 260xl), and again in November, 1994 (CUP 260x2).
When the latest CUP extension was approved in 1994, the Planning Commission added a new
condition of approval to the CUP restricting the capacity of the facility to 400 tons per day. Prior
to this time the CUP had never included a limitation on the tonnage. (The EIR had assumed and
analyzed 800 tons per day, which constituted the project description.) However, in 1994, the
City of Carlsbad (along with 9 other cities) was involved in litigation with the County and the
Solid Waste Authority over a number of solid waste issues, and Carlsbad was actively pursuing
acquisition of the Palomar site through negotiations and litigation. The County had also
attempted to terminate Coast Waste's lease of the site and to evict Coast Waste from the property
during this time, which resulted in more litigation between the parties, including Carlsbad. The
400 ton capacity limitation, along with other 1994 conditions of approval, was added during this
time of uncertainty in an attempt to better protect Carlsbad. Currently, the "Ten Cities" litigation
has been resolved, and the litigation over the Palomar site and Coast Waste's lease has been
resolved by an interim one-year settlement agreement between Carlsbad, the County, Coast
Waste Management, and the Solid Waste Authority, which includes a one-year interim lease
granted to Coast Waste. This interim lease expires at the end of May, 1997. Since that
agreement was reached, the Solid Waste Authority has dissolved, and the County, Carlsbad, and
Coast Waste have continued negotiations towards an overall settlement governing the long-term
use and operations of the Palomar Transfer Station. The parties have reached a tentative
agreement, but operations at the site of 800 tons per day now requires approval of a CUP
Amendment (because of the 1994 condition of approval) which is part of this request.
Coast Waste continues to use the site as a transfer station where trucks bring in and unload trash
and then truck it to land fill sites. The facility also includes a recycling/buy back center open to the
general public. Storage and repair of the truck fleet also occurs onsite, incorporated into the
existing facilities as approved by CUP 260. There have been no complaints regarding the facility.
The San Marcos landfill is scheduled to close on March 12, 1997. Operation of the Palomar
Transfer Station at its original design capacity of 800 tons per day will facilitate the handling of
trash for coastal North County. It will reduce the number of miles driven, the amount of energy
consumed, air pollution, and other local and regional environmental effects when compared to a
"no project" scenario in which the current users of the San Marcos landfill would be required to
direct haul their trash to the Sycamore Landfill or to other distant disposal sites without the
efficiency of expanded operations at the Palomar Station.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project application involves physical and operational changes to the existing Palomar
Transfer Station. These changes include modification of the existing floor area to legalize some
construction work done previously without a grading permit, provision of additional parking in a
new parking area adjacent to the access road, various traffic/circulation system improvements,
CUP 260(B) -COAST WA,'E TRANSFER STATION •
MARCH 5, 1997
PAGE3
and revised conditions to allow the facility to operate at its design capacity (800 tons per day)
and revised hours of operation, including opening for self haul on the weekends. As a part of the
project design, the applicant and property owner are proposing several roadway improvements in
the general area of the facility to ensure that the expanded facility continues to function
compatibly with surrounding uses and the street system.
Physical Changes
The first physical change proposed is a modification to the tipping floor/load out area. This
modification will be necessary in order to legalize a small amount of construction undertaken
previously without the required permits. The work done consists primarily of some unpermitted
grading and construction of a retaining wall at the rear edge of the facility. This work was begun
with the intent of modifying the floor space of the facility. The Building Department stopped the
unpermitted work before it was complete. The applicant is proposing to amend the CUP plan to
include the unpermitted construction as part of the necessary corrective work to clear the grading
violation. The modification proposed involves only legalizing the work already done. No
further construction activities would be allowed as a part of this approval. Nothing in this CUP
approval relieves the applicant of his obligation to clear the violation through the normal
building permit process, including providing any required plans, obtaining inspections, and
payment of fees and fines.
The second physical change is the proposed relocation of the employee parking area to a newly
leased area at the western edge of the site immediately adjacent to the access road. The currently
approved site plan provides a total of 115 parking spaces for the total site (61 autos, 52 trucks,
and 2 handicapped spaces). All of these spaces were located on the northern and western
portions of the project site. The applicant has now arranged to lease an additional 2.115-acre
area located between the approved project site and the access road. By utilizing this newly
leased area, the applicant can increase the amount of parking provided to a total of 211 spaces
(139 auto spaces and 72 truck spaces) and improve circulation within the project site. This
additional parking area will bring the total site size up from approximately 6 acres to 8.4 acres.
Operational Changes
The first operational change requested is an increase in the allowed tonnage from the current 400
tons per day (per the current CUP) to 800 tons per day.
As discussed previously, the original certified EIR prepared for the existing transfer station
analyzed a capacity of 800 tons per day. The facility operated until November, 1994, with no
specific condition of approval regarding the maximum tonnage allowed. The limitation on
tonnage was added when the CUP was extended in November, 1994, for reasons not related to
environmental impacts. (See detailed discussion under Section V. Environmental Review of this
report.)
The second operational change requested is a change in the operating hours of the facility. The
current operating hours are:
CUP 260(B) -COAST W AE TRANSFER STATION
MARCH 5, 1997
PAGE4
a) Transfer Center operations
5:30 a.m. -8:00 p.m. Monday-Saturday
b) Recycling/Buy Back Facility
8:00 a.m. -4:30 p.m. Monday/Wednesday/Thursday/Friday/Saturday
c) Fleet Maintenance activities
5:30 a.m. -10:00 p.m. Monday -Saturday
The applicant is proposing to revise the operating hours to the following schedule.
a) Transfer Center commercial operations (collection and transport trucks, external
traffic to and from the station, and internal activities)
5:00 a.m. -8:00 p.m. 7 days/week
b) Transfer Center public operations (self-haulers)
7:30 a.m. -4:00 p.m. Saturday & Sunday
c) Recycling/Buy Back Center operations (public use)
7:00 a.m. -4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday and
7:30 a.m. -4:00 p.m. Saturday & Sunday
d) Fleet Maintenance activities
7:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. (midnight) 7 days/week
The change in hours will better accommodate the self haul and other public activities which
occur on the weekends. It may be necessary to make some minor adjustments to interior
circulation on the site to better accommodate these weekend activities. These changes are
expected to include some restriping, interior directional signs, and use of traffic cones or barriers.
The project has been conditioned to allow these interior adjustments subject to the approval of
the Planning Director.
Street Improvements
A number of roadway and intersection improvements are included as a part of the project design
by the applicant (Coast Waste) and property owner (County of San Diego). These are called out
in detail in the attached exhibit (Exhibit "X" -"Proposed Traffic/ Circulation Improvements").
Time Extension
The project also includes a request to extend the amended CUP for five years. Staff supports
this request.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. M (Industrial) Zone (Chapter 21.32 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
B. Conditional Uses (Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
CUP 260(B) -COAST WA,fE TRANSFER STATION
MARCH 5, 1997
PAGES
C. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport; and
D. Growth Management.
A. M (Industrial) Zone
The existing trash transfer station is still permitted in the M (Industrial) Zone subject to approval
of a Conditional Use Permit. Because there is no residentially zoned property adjacent to the
transfer station, there are no setback requirements or building placement requirements which
apply to the project. The transfer facility, as modified by this amendment, remains in compliance
with all applicable requirements of the M Zone.
B. Conditional Uses
Conditional uses such as the existing trash transfer facility possess unique and special
characteristics which make it impractical to include them as permitted uses "by right" in the
various zoning districts. The authority for the location and operation of these uses is subject to
Planning Commission review and the making of the findings necessary for approval of the
conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed the proposed CUP Amendment and has concluded
that the necessary findings can be made as discussed in detail below.
1. The requested use amendment is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the
General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in
which the existing use is located. The transfer station use provides a needed service for
the community by storing collected trash for more efficient transfer to disposal sites. The
use is located on a site designated by the General Plan for industrial (PI) uses and is in an
area designated by the General Plan as least desirable for residential uses (sites in the
general area of the flight path of the airport). The property is also zoned for industrial
uses (M zone). Therefore, the use is consistent with the General Plan. The project site is
surrounded by areas zoned for open space or industrial uses. Much of the surrounding
area is undeveloped. The developed sites contain industrial type uses ( e.g., the CMWD
office, Safety Center, etc.). Therefore, the facility is not detrimental to any existing uses
or permitted uses in the area. Staff recommends that this required finding can made.
2. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The proposed amended
use can still be accommodated within the existing site. The unpermitted
grading/construction activities already completed occurred within the interior portion of
the site. No extension of the site boundaries occurred as a result of those activities. The
proposed new parking area will be located to the west of the current leased portion of the
site. This new area (2.1 acres) is located between the existing facility and the access road
which serves the facility. This area has always been considered a part of the project site
generally, but the applicant was not able to utilize the area until a lease agreement could
be reached. The additional parking area will increase the number of parking spaces
provided from 115 to 211. This amount will significantly exceed the number of spaces
currently required (including the number which would be required as a result of the
cup 260(B)-COAST wAE TRANSFER STATION
MARCH 5, 1997
PAGE6
unpermitted construction) .. The increase in tonnage to 800 tons per day does not require
any expansion of the facility. Therefore, staff has concluded that the site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the amended use.
3. All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the amended use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained. The modifications to the facility occurred on the interior of the
site, thus requiring no additional adjustments. The new parking area will be enclosed by
a new chain link fence. Otherwise, no new yards, fences, or other features are needed to
accommodate the use to the area.
4. The street system serving the amended use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the use. The project design includes improvements to surrounding streets
and intersections, including the specific improvements called out on the attached Exhibit
"X" -"Proposed Traffic/Circulation Improvements". A traffic study was submitted with
the current project application. This study concluded that the improvements proposed are
sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the street system.
C. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport
The project site is located within the boundaries of the CLUP (airport influence area and flight
activity zone). The transfer station use is use is an allowed use under the CLUP and is consistent
with continued airport operations.
D. Growth Management
The proposed amended project complies with all applicable growth management requirements as
shown in the table below.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
City Administration n/a Yes
Library n/a Yes
Waste Water Treatment Yes
Parks n/a Yes
Drainage BPA Yes
Circulation 688ADT Yes
Fire Station #5 Yes
Open Space n/a Yes
Schools per CUSD Yes
Sewer Collection System n/a Yes
Water n/a Yes
cup 260(B)-COAST wAE TRANSFER STATION
MARCH 5, 1997
PAGE7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project includes physical and operational modifications to the approved CUP. The
project has been reviewed for compliance with all CEQA requirements. Based upon that review
the Planning Director has issued appropriate notices regarding environmental findings for the
project.
The minor improvements are exempt from review under CEQA. The increase in capacity to 800
tons per day has already been analyzed by the project EIR. The changed circumstances (air
quality and traffic/circulation) were analyzed in the MEIR prepared for the City's General Plan
Update. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially
significant effects have been analyzed adequately in earlier environmental documents and have
been voided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier environmental documents, including any
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a notice
of prior compliance has been issued.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4068
2. Planning_ Commission Resolution No. 3713, dated November 2, 1994
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment
6. Disclosure Statement
7. EIA Part II
8. Exhibit "X", "Proposed Traffic/Circulation Improvements", dated March 5, 1997
9. Revised Project Description letter from Coast Waste, dated February 27, 1997
10. Exhibit "A", dated March 5, 1997 (Proposed Site Plan)
11. Exhibit "A", dated November 2, 1994 (Approved Site Plan).
EB:bk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4068
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND
EXTENSION TO MODIFY THE FLOOR AREA OF THE
TRASH TRANSFER FACILITY, RELOCATE SOME
PARKING, AND REVISE THE OPERATING
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FACILITY ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL
CAMINO REAL APPROXIMATELY 1500 NORTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION
CASE NO.: CUP 260(B)
WHEREAS, Coast Waste Management, Inc., "Developer", has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by County of San Diego,
"Owner", described as
A portion of lot A and B of Rancho Agua Hedionda according
to Map 823 filed on November 16, 1986
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and Extension as shown on Exhibit "A" dated March 5, 1997, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department CUP 260(B) , as provided by the conditions of approval of CUP
260(B) and Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of March 1997, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to CUP 260(B).
WHEREAS, on November 2, 1994, the Planning Commission approved CUP
260x2, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3713.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 260(B) and Extension,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part II, this project was described
in EIR #EAD 77-7-34 and MEIR 93-01 as within their scope; AND there will be no
additional significant effect, not analyzed therein; AND that no new or additional
mitigation measures or alternatives are required; AND that therefore this project is within
the scope of the prior EIRs; and no new environmental document nor Public Resources
Code 21081 findings are required.
The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in EIR
#EAD 77-7-34 and MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project have been
incorporated into the design of this project.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections
1530l(c), 15301(e)(2), and 15311(b) of the state CEQA Guidelines and will not have any
adverse significant impact on the environment.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for CUP 260(B),
is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following:
a.
b.
Land Use -The project is an allowed use on the subject site which is
designated for industrial uses (Pl) by the General Plan and is in an area
designated by the General Plan as least desirable for residential uses (sites in
the general area of the flight path of the airport).
Circulation -The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the
proposed modification of the existing trash transfer facility is consistent with
the M (Industrial) zoning of the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the
General Plan and the project includes roadway improvements sufficient to
ensure the adequacy of the traffic/circulation system.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
PC RESO NO. 4068 -2-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
a.
b.
C.
e.
The proj-::ct has hccn conditioned lo ensure the building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is
available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project. All necessary public improvements have
been provided or are required as conditions of approval.
Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in
the Carlsbad Unified School District.
All necessary public improvements have been provided as elements of the project
design.
The Developer has agreed and is required by tbc inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditiom:d to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
:rvfcClellan-Palomar Atrport, dated April 1994, in that. i.e. as conditioned the applicant
shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise. The project is compatible with the
projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix
of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that the existing
transfer station, including the proposed modifications, is still an allowed use under
the Airport CLUP.
That the requested amended use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community in that the facility performs a needed service for the community by
storing collected trash for more efficient transfer to disposal sites, is essentially in
harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan in that the use is a
use allowed by the General Plan designation (PI) and the zoning (M) on the site, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located in that the use is surrounded by similar industrial type
developments and undeveloped areas zoned for open space and industrial
development.
PC RESO NO. 4068 -3-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
()
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
ll.
12.
13.
That the si le for the intended amended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use, in that the proposed floor area modifications can be accommodated within
the boundaries of the existing site, and the new parking area will be located
immediately adjacent to the current project site within an additional leased area.
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences. landscaping. and other features necessary to
adjust the requested amended use to existing or permitted future uses in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the new parking area will be
enclosed by a new chain link fence and no other additional yards, setbacks, walls,
fences, landscaping, or other features are required.
That the street system serving the proposed amended use is adequate to properly handle
all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the project is designed to include all
improvements, including improvements to nearby intersections and the widening of
the access road which serves the facility, necessary to accommodate the proposed
modifications.
All of the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3713 dated
November 2, 1994 (CUP 260x2) are included herein by reference.
Planning Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Plam1ing Commission does hereby APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for the project entitled Palomar Transfer Station (Exhibit "A" dated
March 5, 1997, on file in the Plam1ing Department and incorporated by this relercncc,
subject to the conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and directed to make, or
require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Conditional Use
Permit Amendment document(s), as necessary, to make them internally consistent and in
confom1ity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown in th.; approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from
this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. This exhibit supersedes all
prior exhibits in all prior approvals.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the
Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect the
conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of the approving resolution on a 24" x 36" blueline drawing.
Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development
Permit and signed approved site plan.
PC RESO NO. 4068 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfill the subdivider' s agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated March 5, 1997, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees to mitigate
conditions of overcrowding as part of the building permit application. The amount of
these fees shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit
application.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 260:x2), as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3713 except for Conditions No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 17,
which are superseded by conditions contained in this resolution.
9. This Conditional Use Permit is extended for a period of five (5) years to expire on
March 5, 2002. This Conditional Use Permit will remain in effect on the condition
that the City of Carlsbad is a user of the facility. This Conditional Use Permit shall be
reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this
permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on
surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director
determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall
recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity
to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative
effects. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that
the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public's
health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met, or if for any
reason the City of Carlsbad chooses not to use this facility, or is not allowed to have
full use of this facility at a reasonable cost, as determined by the City of Carlsbad.
10. The Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any
address change from that which is shown on the conditional use permit application.
11. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 260(B)) by Resolution No.
4068 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note
PC RESO NO. 4068 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all
conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in
the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record
an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of
good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In
such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the
Planning Director.
The allowed days and hours of operation of the Palomar Transfer Station facility
shall be as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Transfer Center commercial operations ( collection and transport trucks,
external traffic to and from the station, and internal activities)
5:00 a.m. -8:00 p.m. 7 days/week
Transfer Center public operations (self-haulers)
7:30 a.m. -4:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday
Except for holidays, when under agreement with the City, hours may be
adjusted to allow the day before or after.
Recycling/Buy Back Center operations (public use)
7:00 a.m. -4:30 p.m. Monday -Friday and
7:30 a.m. -4:00 p.m. Saturday & Sunday
Fleet Maintenance activities
7:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. (midnight) 7 days/week.
The maximum allowed capacity of the transfer station facility is 800 tons of trash
per day. No waste shall be processed in excess of that maximum without approval
of an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit.
Developer or Owner, as appropriate, shall provide or perform all proposed
traffic/circulation improvements as shown on "Exhibit "X" -Revised" dated March
5, 1997, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On-site modifications necessary to facilitate interior traffic circulation, including
but not limited to restriping, interior directional signage, cones, and barriers shall
require the approval of the Planning Director.
Engineering:
17. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
PC RESO NO. 4068 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
21.
22.
The developer shall pay all cun·ent fees and deposits required.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project appears to be required. (the developer must submit
and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior
to issuance of a building permit for the project.)
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State
Water Resources Control Board.
The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
a.
b.
C.
All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of
this Conditional Use Permit Amendment.
PC RESO NO. 4068 -7-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code Rcmimlers:
This project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited
to the following code requirements.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project \Vithin 18 months from the date of project approval.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditions, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view-and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly man::ed
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 4068 -8-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED At\D ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of March 1997, by the
following vote, to ,vit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons
KOES: '.'Jone
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ROBE-RT NIEL SEN;CY{m;vcrson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COJ\AMISSION
'
M~
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4068 -9-
1 • 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 • 15
,.16 ..
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• 27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3713
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TI-IE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A FIVE YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDmONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 260 TO ALLOW CONTINUED OPERATION
OF A TRASH TRANSFER STATION AND RECYCLING
FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENEIµLLY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL
APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET NORTH OF.PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD.
CASE NAME: COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT
CASE NO: CUP 260x2
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for extension of
CUP 260 as provided by that CUP and by Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning ·j
Commission did, on the 21st day of September, 1994, and on the 2nd day of November,
1994 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described
as:
A portion of lots "A" and "B" of Rancho Aqua Hedionda
according to map 823 filed November 16, 1896.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon . hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all pe~ons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the extension of CUP 260.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct .
....
' I
••
•
•
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"16 ,.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at -the public hearing~ the Commission
APPROVES the extension of CUP 260 (CUP 260x2), based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions: . .
Findin2s:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
• The requested u~e is still necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is still essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives
of the general plan, and is still not detrimental to existing uses or to uses
specifically permitted in the zone in which the use is located because the use
provides a needed service for the community and Is located In an area designated
for Industrial uses .. Periodic reviews of the operation have shown that the use Is
still operating in compliance with all conditions of approval placed on the use. ,, ,,
The site for the use is still adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use
because there is still adequate area to provide adequate operating space as well as
parking for all employees and customers.
All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary
to adjust the use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood have ~n
provided and will continue to be maintained because the required fencing and
landscaping are being maintained in a good condition.
The street system setving the use is still adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the use because the circulation on and adjacent to the site still
functions adequately.
The environmental impacts of this use have already been considered with the Initial
approval of CUP 260, and, therefore, the continued use of the facility Is exempt
from further environmental review under Section 1530l(b) of the California
EnvJronmental Quality Act.
Conditions:
Plannlne:
1.
2.
Approval of CUP 260x2, Planning Commission Resolution No. 3713, supersedes
CUP 260xl, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2927, dated October 4, 1989, and
on file in the Planning Department. The approved continued use ls subject to all
of the following conditions.
This conditional use permit is granted for a period of five years, from October 4,
1994 until October 4, 1999. This conditional use permit will remain In effect on the
condition that· the City of Carlsbad or the North County Solid Waste Management
Agency Is a primary user of the facility. This conditional use permit shall be
reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions
of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a significant
PC RESO NO. 3713 -2-
•
•
•
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
·11
12
13
14
15
.. 16 ..
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If
the Planning Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts,
the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after
providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to
mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This. permit may be revoked at any time
after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a significant detrimental affect
on surrounding land uses and the public's health aIJ.d welfare, or the conditions
imposed herein have not been met, or if for any reason the City of Carlsbad
chooses not to use this facility, or ls not allowed to have full use of this facility at
a reasonable cost, as determined by the City of Carlsbad. This permit may be
extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed five years upon written
application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date.
In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find that no substantial
adver,se affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare will result
.because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a substantial adverse affect on
surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare is found, the extension
shall be considered as an original application for a conditional use permit. There
is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant.
The allowed hours of operation of the transfer station are from 5:30 a.m. until 8:00
p.m., Monday through Saturday. •
The allowed hours of operation of the recycling facility are from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30
p.m., Monday through Saturday.
The maximu~ allowed capacity of the transfer station facility ls 400 tons of trash
per day. Any Increase to the amount of waste· processed shall require an
amendment to this Conditional Use Permit.
6. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone
5 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on August 4,
1989, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and any future
amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits.
7. Approval i~ granted for CUP 260x2, as shown on Exhibit "A", dated November 2,
1994, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions.
8. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in ~ffect at time of building
permit issuance.
9. Water shall be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
10. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
PC RESO NO. 3713
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-9
10
11·
12
13
14
15
.. 16 .,.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in conformance with the
City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
12. Odor emitting from the operation shall not be detectable outside the boundaries
of the site.
13. The applicant ~ be responsible for making sure that no trash or other materials
resulting from the operation of this facility spread beyond the confines of the
facility. If this type of problem does occur the Planning Director may direct _the
operator of this facility to perform appropriate clean-up procedures.
14. • Storag~ of petroleum products shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform
Fire Code.
15. Storage of newspapers, both loose· and in bales, shall conform to the requirements
of the Uniform Fire Code.
16. The operator shall maintain the landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition in
accordance with the detailed landscape plan previously approved.
En&fneerlng:
17. Plans, speclftcatlons and supporting documents for required Improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Plan check and Inspection
fees shall .. be paid to the City for the processing or those Improvements. The
applicant shall Install the following Improvements to City Standards to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer:
A)
B)
C)
Repair or replace the existing roadway serving the site, from El Camino
Real to Faraday Avenue. This roadway shall have 28 feet of pavement with
10 feet aggregate shoulders per the original permit approval. The center
line of the roadway shall be striped with a solid double yellow line.
The portion of the existing chain link fence which encroaches onto the
roadway pavement surface shall be removed.
The applicant shall comply with the City's requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant
shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas.
18. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding setvices to the project.
19. The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for this project. The
structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards
PC RESO NO. 3713 -4-
17
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
j6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,·.: .. ;/: ·"";'.
'·
based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected :
by the city, and the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be I,
paid prior to issuance of any building or grading permit for this project. 1
I
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the •
Planning Commission of the City of • Garlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of i
November, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: .
'
AYES: Chairpe.rson Savary, Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Erwin, ! , I Compas, Nielsen, and Monroy. • :
• I
A'iTEST:
.,"NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
~-~ iF •
PIANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3713
~~~ PEGG ~Y, Chairperso
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
-5-
•
• • PALOMAR AIRPORT
• PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION
CUP 260(8)
• BACKGROUND DATA SHEET •
CASE NO: CUP 260(B)
CASE NAME: Palomar Transfer Station
APPLICANT: Coast Waste Management, Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: An amendment to modify the floor area of the trash transfer
facility, relocate some parking, and revise the operating characteristics of the facility
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of lot A and B of Rancho Aqua Hedionda according
to Map 823 filed on November 16, 1986
APN: 209-050-25 Acres: 8.4 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: n/a
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: =-P=-I ________________________ _
Density Allowed: =n/'"""a'---------
Existing Zone: =-M=-----------
Density Proposed: =n/~a~----------
Proposed Zone: _n/~a ___________ _
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning
Site M
North OS
South M,M-Q
East M,OS
West M-Q
Land Use
trash transfer facility
undeveloped
undeveloped
undeveloped
access roadway
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): """n/::..;a=------------------
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: N=-=o-'-v=em=b=er:....:2=7'-"--=1-=-9-=-84-'---------------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
D Negative Declaration, issued ____________________ _
D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ______________ _
~ Other, Prior Compliance and Exemptions
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Palomar Transfer Station -CUP 260(B)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2 GENERAL PLAN: ~PI _______ _
ZONING:M ~---------------------------
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Coast Waste Management, Inc.
ADDRESS: 5960 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 947, Carlsbad, CA 92018
PHONE NO.: (619)929-9400 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: =20=9---=-0=5-=-0-=25:;__ _____ _
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): ~8._4~a~c _____ _
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: =n/-=a ________________ _
A.
B.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Demand in Square Footage= =n/-=a _____ _
Demand in Square Footage= =n/-=a _____ _
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Park:
Drainage:
Demand in Acreage =
Demand in CFS =
n/a
n/a
Identify Drainage Basin= _B_P A _____ _
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 688*
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 5
Open Space: Acreage Provided = n/a
Schools: perCUSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU s n/a
Identify Sub Basin = BSM/5c
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = n/a
* Based upon the Palomar Transfer Station Traffic Assessment report (Linscott, Law &
Greenspan;February, 1997)
{
-·· .'
• City of Carlsbad
-:;;&1 ■i ■11 ,hl•l§•Ei#h,t4,ii
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSUME OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
(Please Print)
The following information must l:}e disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Coast Waste Management, Inc.
5960 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 947
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
County of San Die~o
/ !Ept of Public Works -Ai!EQ;rt~
1960 Joe Crosson Drive
El Cajon, CA 92020-1236
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ,
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partners
4.
•
interest in the partnership. •
Arie de Jong
622 East Mission Road,.
San Marcos, CA 92069
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ,
addresses of any person serving as ~fficer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or benefic:
of the trust.
Tom Garibay
Director of Public Works
5555 Overland Avenue MS-0309
San Diego, CA' 92123-1295
?n7c:. I ::H:; Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161
• (Over)
esclosure Statement Page 2
s. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Beare
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
•
•
Yes _ No_!_ If yes, please indicate person(s) ___________________ _
~ is defined u: 'Any individual, firm, cepartnership, joint venture, association, $0Cial club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust
receiver, syndicate, this &nd any other cour.:y, city and county, ci:y municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or
combination acting a.s a unit.' ..., ...,
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
g/~
Signature of applicant/date
aA!ttALJ ~-R.weLik(
Print or type name of ow, Print or type name of_ applicant
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART Il
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Palomar Transfer Station
2. APPLICANT: Coast Waste Management, Inc.
CASE NO: CUP 260{B)
DATE: February 21, 1997
3. ADDRESS ANO PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5960 El Camino Real, PO Box 947,
Carlsbad CA 92018
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: :....Fe=b=ru=a=-ry-<-=18=,-19~9'-'7 __________ _
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: an amendment to modify the floor area of the trash transfer facility,
relocate some parking, and revise the operating characteristics of the facility
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
,. 0 Land Use and Planning .. ~ Transportation/Circulation
D Biological Resources
D Public Services
D Population and Housing
D Geological Problems
D Water
~ Air Quality
D Utilities & Service Systems
D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Hazards
D Noise
D Cultural Resources
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE PECLARA TION will be prepared.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required .
.... • D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
~
µ-.Pl
least ~me potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master
Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR
93-01 ), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Date
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL IM
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
•
•
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a.less than significant level.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on· an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR ~r Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIRr
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
•
•• • •• ~; ~ #
If there are one or!re potentially significant effects, thelty may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be ch~cked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations:' for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the erfectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
Issues (and Supporting Informal Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ()
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
{)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide' the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? ()
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#1:Pg 5.1-5; #2:);>gs 5-6, 10-11)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1:Pg 5.1-12;)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#1:Pg
5.1-12)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1:Pg 5.1-9)
e) Landslides ormudflows? (#1:Pg 5.1-11;#2:Pgs 5-6)
t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? O
g) Subsidence of the land? (#1:Pg 5.1-11; #2:Pgs 5-6)
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( #2:Pgs 5-6, I 0-
11)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ()
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ()
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
-otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
No
Impact
IZ1
IZ1
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Info~ Sources). Potentially -otentia.lly Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation • Incorporated
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water □ □ □ ~ body? 0
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water □ □ □ ~ movements? ()
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either □ □ □ ~ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? O
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) □ □ □ ~ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) □ □ □ ~ i) Substantial reduction in. the amount of groundwater
otherwise availabl~ for public water supplies? () □ □ □ ~
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an □ ~ □ □ existing or projected air quality violation? (#1:Pg 5.3-4;
#2:Pgs 7-8, 12-13)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1:Pg 5.3-4; □ ~ □ #2:Pgs 7-8, 12-13)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause □ □ □ ~ any change in climate? (#2:Pgs 7-8, 12-13)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) □ □ □ ~ • VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
• a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1:Pg □ ~ □ □ • 5.7-10;#2:Pgs 9, 13-14)
b) Hazards to safety from design features ( e.g. sharp □ □ □ ~ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ()
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? □ □ □ ~ ()
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) □ □ □ ~
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) □ □ □ ~
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative □ □ □ ~ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ()
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () □ □ □ ~
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats □ □ □ (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? ( #2:Pgs 4-5, 9-10)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () □ □ □ ~
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak □ □ □ ~ • forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ()
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? □ □ □ ~ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) □ □ □ ~
6 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
•
#
Issues (and Supporting Infonen Sources).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#1:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.l)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#1 :Pg 5.12.1-4; #2:Pgs 9, 15-16)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#1:Pg 5.13-5)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (inclu~1ng, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ()
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? O
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ()
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( #2:Pgs 7, 11-12)
. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( )
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#1:Pg 5.12.5-3)
b) Police protection? (#1:Pg 5.12.6-2)
c) Schools? (#1:Pg 5.12.7.4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#1:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg
5.12.4-1)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#1:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1)
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#1:Pg 5.12.2-5)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1 :Pg 5.12.3-4)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1:Pg 5.2-8)
t) Solid waste disposal? (#1:Pg 5.12.4-2)
7
Potentially A>otentially
Significant Wsignificant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
□
·□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
No
Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
,.
•
Issues (and Supporting Infomen Sources).
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1:Pg 5.12.2-5)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( )
c) Create light or glare? ()
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ()
b) Disturb archaeological resources? () ,.,
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#1:Pg 5.13.8-5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( )
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range _ of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projests)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
8
.. ~ .. ,,_ .. , ..... ' : . ~~t:~;~~;; .otentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
XVII. EARLIER ANALY4t.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the t~ering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis .
...,
c) Mitigatibn measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
.: ,.:,\:/'-.,,:t~~•,'f'f" ;:~>, :•//I • . ~
DIS.ION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EV.ATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
• This project involves several changes ·(physical and operational) to the existing trash transfer
fa~ility. The project is designed to include roadway improvements (including roadway and
traffic control improvements) to the access road serving the site and nearby intersections. The
changes proposed are as follows:
•
•
A.
A. Physical Changes
1) legalization of previously built illegal construction (no new expansion
related construction);
a) minor modifications for safety reasons to accommodate weekend
self-haul
2) new parking area of 2.115 acres
3) various minor roadway and intersection improvements
B. Operational Changes
1) increase in tonnage from 400 tons per day to 800 tons per day
The proposed modifications to accommodate weekend self haul can be considered
"negligible" under CEQA Section 15301(e)(2). Therefore, this part of the project can be
exempt from CEQA review. The other physical change proposed, the creation of a small
new parking lot, can also be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15311. There are
no unusual circumstances associated with the site or the project which would render
either exemption invalid. Therefore, each of the proposed physical changes are exempt
from CEQA review. The proposed roadway and intersection improvements include 1)
wideI?-ing of the access road which serves the transfer facility, 2) lengthening of an
existing deceleration lane, and 3) minor intersecti9n improvements such as restriping and
signal timing adjustments. The specific improvements are detailed on the revised
application letter submitted by Coast Waste Management, the applicant. These
improvements are considered on-site improvements and were reviewed as a part of the
project design. The traffic impact study ("Traffic Impact Analysis For Palomar Transfer
Station") prepared for the project concluded that there will be no traffic/circulation
impacts resulting from the proposed project as designed
B. The operational changes requested involve an increase in the amount of trash tonnage
processed daily; from 400 tons per day to 800 tons per day. The original EIR prepared
for the project (EAD #77-7-34, Project #UJ7842) analyzed a maximum of 800 tons per
day. Only the current (1994) Conditional Use Permit Extension (CUP 260x2) limited the
amount of trash to 400 tons per day (for reasons not related to environmental impacts).
Therefore, 800 tons per day would be consistent with a finding of "prior compliance"
under CEQA. Any increase beyond 800 tons per day would require new CEQA
environmental review. Therefore, the City is prepared to approve an increase in tonnage
only to a maximum of 800 tons per day .
As discussed in the "Environmental Analysis" section below, an EIR was prepared for the
original trash transfer station in 1977. In 1993, the City '·s Planning Department prepared a
Master EIR (MEIR 93-01) for the City's General Plan Update. This MEIR assumed build-out
10 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
(i.e., "worst case") condi4lts throughout the City as the basis f.e analysis. The MEIR was
certified and statements of overriding consideration were made for air quality and
traffic/circulation impacts in 1994. In addition, a traffic impact study ("Traffic Impact Analysis
For Palomar Transfer Station") was prepared for the proposed project. This study concluded that
there will be no traffic/circulation impacts resulting from the proposed project as designed. All
of these documents (the traffic study and the two EIR's) were utilized in considering the
proposed expansion.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
I. Land Use and Planning (a-e)
The project is still consistent with all applicable land use and planning regulations,
including the General Plan designation and the zoning (Industrial). It is also still
compatible with surrounding use, which include undeveloped areas and similar industrial
type uses (water district office, fire station). There are no agricultural uses or residential
communities on or near the project site.
2. Population and Housing (a-c)
3.
The proposed amendment is a minor modification which would not be expected to have
any impact on growth either directly or indirectly.
Geologic Problems (f)
The proposed modification is within the boundaries of the existing project site and
involves only very minor grading (approximately 200 cubic yards) which will be required
to comply with the City's Grading Permit requirements. Therefore, the proposed
modification is not expected to result in unstable soil conditions.
4. Water (a-i)
The proposed project is a minor modification to an existing trash transfer facility. Any
change in drainage patterns, etc. on the site will be required to be handled consistent with
current City regulations governing runoff, including stormwater management (NPDES)
requirements. The proposed modification is not expected to result in any impacts to
surface waters or ground waters, and will not result in exposure to flood hazards. It also
will not alter the course or direction of water movements or currents, as there are no water
bodies on or adjacent to the site.
7. Biological Resources (a-e)
9.
The proposed modification is to occur within the existing boundaries of the current
project site. The project site is a developed site with no biological resources on it.
Hazards ( a-e)
The proposed modification does not significantly change the nature of the use, nor does it
significantly increase the likelihood of any type of hazard (i.e., explosion, substance
release, fire, etc.) and is, in fact, necessary to safely accommodate weekend self haul.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
10. Noise(a-b) --
The proposed modification will not result in increased noise levels. With longer
operating hours, the noise level could remain at its current level for a longer period of the
day. However, there are no sensitive uses in the area surrounding the project area which
would be affected by the longer noise period. Surrounding areas are either undeveloped
or contain similar industrial type uses.
11. Public Services ( d)
The proposed modification will not result in an increased need for public facilities
generally. Any roadway improvements which might be necessary to better serve the site
are being proposed as a part of the project design, including improvements to existing
intersections and widening of the existing access road which serves the facility.
12. Utilities and Services Systems (b)
All communications systems necessary to serve the site are already in place.
"
13. Aesthetics (a-c)
The proposed modifications are at the rear of the structure and do not exceed the height of
the existing structure. Therefore, there will be no negative aesthetic impact. The
modification will not create new light or glare.
14. Cultural Resources (a-e) _
15.
The proposed modification is to occur within the existing boundaries of the current
project site. The project site is a developed site with no cultural resources on it.
Recreational (b)
The proposed expansion will not affect existing recreational opportunities, either
positively or negatively.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
12 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
•
. l >·:•~--• . • ' . ' · ;,,. ' ' • ,. • ') ~t~t1~~~ .. t
appropriate General Pl◄ quality mitigation me~ures have e4it been incorpo;ated into the
design of the project or are mcluded as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. • This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
6. Transportation/Circulation
The implementation or subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
: adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures . have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th~
recent certification of.Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required .
13 Rev. 03/28/96
•
•
..
•
III. EARLIER AN A SES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(619) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March, 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Environmental Impact Report for the Palomar Trash Transfer Facility (EAD Log #77-7-
34, Project #UJ7842), dated November, 1977 .
14 Rev. 03/28/96
•
Proposed Traffic/Circulation Improvements
EXHIBIT "X"
March 5, 1997
The following traffic and circulation system improvements are included in the proposed
project as designed.
1. The owner shall enter into a lien contract for the future public improvement of
Faraday Avenue along and through the Leased Project for a full street width of
84' . The proportional cost of Public improvements shall include, but not be
limited to, paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutter, medians, grading, clearing
and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire
hydrants, street lights and retaining walls. Design and alignment of Faraday
Ave. shall comply with the City's design standards for a secondary arterial.
2. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the site plan. The offer shall
be made prior to issuance of any building permit for this project. All land so
offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances
and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be
rededicated.
3. The owner shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the public the access
road that serves this Transfer Station based upon a Full Right of Way width
of 72' . The owner shall improve the access road to the City's Industrial
Street standards at a time specified in the settlement agreement.
4. The applicant shall remove the fence that crosses part of the access road
within two weeks of the approval of the CUP Amendment and Extension.
5. The owner shall make such additional street dedications and improvements as
may be agreed to in the settlement agreement between the parties.
COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
LIBERTY RECYCLING
5960 EL CAMINO REAL P.O. Box 947
CARLSBAD, CA 92018-0947
TEL: 61 9-929-9400
61 9-452-981 0
FAX: 619-931-0219
•
February '27, 1997
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad Planning Commission and Staff
2075 Las Pallnas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Palomar Transfer Station CUP Amendment, Project No. CUP 260 (B)
Dear Planning Commission and Staff:
As the applicant for the above referenced CUP amendment, please accept this letter as our request
to modify the project description of the above referenced application and to confirm certain
understanding and commitments on the part of Coast Waste Management. The rest of our
application package remains unchanged.
I. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Coast Waste Management hereby requests that the scope of its CUP amendment application be
limited to the following:
(A)
(B)
Capacity:
That the maximum daily tonnage of municipal solid waste to be handled at the Palomar
site be limited to 800 tons per day.
Construction:
That our request be revised to reflect no proposed new construction related to
expansion of capacity at the Palomar site, and that the only site related work proposed
will be confined to (a) that work necessary, as directed by City of Carlsbad, to correct
violations that exist on site; (b) that work as directed by City of Carlsbad that may be
necessary to safely accommodate self haul waste disposal on the weekend, such as
signing, designation of parking areas, construction of the proposed accessory parking
lot, and similar improvements as directed by City of Carlsbad to ensure that self haul
operations can safely be conducted on the weekends within the 800 ton pe~_,?p.yelimit}'iJun
and (c) site work to comply with CUP conditions regarding drainage anc;l.(~ated
d d . , •oitlt stan ar requirements. L:~ill(' ()ur gc-.;
COLLECTION• TRANSFEII • RESOURCE RE.COVERY
•
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad Planning Commission and Staff Page2 February 27, 1997
(C) Disposal Sites
That our request be revised to clearly state that we propose to transfer and dispose
of waste oniy at disposal sites that have already been evaluated from an environmental
perspective in the 1994 Carlsbad Master EIR on the General Plan Update.
(D) Street and Related Work
That our request be revised to include as part of the proposed project those street and
related improvements shown on the sheet attached hereto. We understand that the
financing and payment for these aspects of the project will be addressed in a separate
settlement agreement between Coast Waste Management, City of Carlsbad, and the
County of San Diego, but understand and request that they be included as part of the
project description.
(E) Hours of Operation
Public use of station/facility:
Commercial hauling -Sunday thru Saturday
Public residential use of transfer station -Saturday and Sunday
Recycling Buyback Center -Sunday thru Saturday
Monday thru Friday
Saturday and Sunday
Internal Operations
7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Employees may be at the facility to perform maintenance or other activities, such as
the hauling of recyclables to market.or waste to the landfill.
Transfer Station 5:00 a.m. -8:00 p.m.
Fleet and Maintenance 7:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. (Midnight)
II. OTHER UNDERSTANDINGS:
Coast Waste Management understands that all of the following are required to be in place in
order for Coast Waste Management to begin operations under the CUP amendment:
A) Approval of the CUP amendment by City of Carlsbad.
• •
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad Planning Commission and Staff Page 3 February 27, 1997
B) Authorization from the Local Enforcement Agency to begin operations at
800 tons per day.
C) Approval and signing of a litigation settlement agreement by City of Carlsbad,
Coast Waste Management, and the County of San Diego with respect to the
Palomar site.
D) New leases covering the site in the form of a master lease from the County
of San Diego to City of Carlsbad and a sublease from City of Carlsbad
to Coast Waste Management, which must be in place before the expiration of
Coast Waste Management's current interim lease, scheduled to expire at the
end of May, 1997. (Operations may commence before these new leases are
signed, but must stop at the end of May if new leases are not signed.)
Coast Waste Management appreciates your consideration of these matters and of our request. Our
desire to proceed in this fashion is a reflection of our desire to assist prompt processing of our
application and to assist the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego in meeting the regional
need to handle solid waste when the San Marcos landfill closes on March 12, 1997.· If there is
anything further that you need, please let us know.
Sincerely,
J ~Vt4L {l.,~
mA-
Conrad Pawelski
President/General Manager
CP:cm
PLANNING COMMISSION • March 5, 1997 • Page 8
4. CUP 260(8) -PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION -Request for a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to modify the floor area of the trash transfer facility, relocate some parking, provide
several traffic/circulation system improvements, and revise the operating characteristics of the
facility on a site located on the east side of El Camino Real approximately 1500 feet north of
Palomar Airport Road in the M Zone and within Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Project Planner Elaine Blackburn described this project and explained that the physical modifications
include amending the approved site plan to include some construction work that was done previously,
without the necessary permits and the addition of a small, 2.1 acre parking area on the western edge of
the site. She stated with regard to the new parking areas, the amendment request is merely to obtain
approval for that work which has already been done, in an effort to clear a grading violation and that it is
not for any additional or new work. She stated with regard to the new parking area, the applicant had
originally proposed to use this area to provide some additional parking but was not able to work out a
lease agreement at that time and consequently the project remained as it had been previously approved.
Ms. Blackburn pointed out that the applicant has now achieved a lease agreement and would like to
provide the additional parking. She also pointed out that the operational modifications include a change in
the hours of operation and an increase from 400 tons to 800 tons processed at the facility per day. Ms.
Blackburn went on to state that the project also involves traffic improvements intended to better facilitate
circulation in the general area and include Improvements to the intersection at Faraday and El Camino
Real, improvements to the access road serving the transfer station and a deceleration lane on El Camino
Real where it connects to the access road. Ms. Blackburn stated that staff has reviewed the proposed
modifications and has determined that discussion of CEQA findings/notices (3 exemptions and 1 prior
compliance) and all other applicable rules and regulations have been met, and that staff is therefore
recommending approval of the project as conditioned.
Ms. Blackburn called the Commission's attention to the two handouts distributed to them, (a memorandum
and a new Exhibit "X" -revised) which provide an update ,in the settlement agreement, three revised
conditions of approval, and a detailed description of the proposed traffic/circulation improvements.
Commissioner Welshans asked what types of materials will be excluded from passing through this transfer
station.
Ms. Blackburn stated that the station will not accept any hazardous materials. She pointed out that the
recycle buy-back is typically certain types of glass, plastic and aluminum.
Chairperson Nielsen asked Ms. Blackburn to better define Memo Item No. 2.
Ms. Blackburn explained that the first part of Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 4068, currently does not
include the wording of a specific "end" date and the condition states that the CUP amendment is approved
for a period of five (5) years. She explained that the department now tries to give a "date specific" for the
end of the five year period and wishes to add the ending date to the above named condition. Also, she
explained that the word "amendment" was changed to "extended" because they wanted to be sure and
refer to the fact that this also includes an extension. As to Item 2b, the last four sentences were deleted
as it refers to provisions and procedures for automatic extensions of the CUP. This change is being made
as a result of the settlement agreement discussions.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if this change is a definite cut-off point and there will be no automatic
extension.
Ms. Blackburn stated that there is nothing specific that would allow an extension and that the assumption
would be that, in five years the CUP will be expiring and if another CUP is desired, a new application and
fee would be required.
MINUTES
• PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 1997 Page 9
Commissioner Noble pointed out that there are two Conditions No. 13.
Ms. Blackburn agreed and stated that they should be re-numbered. She added that in Item No. 3 of the
memorandum, Condition No. 14 will now become Condition No. 15.
Commissioner Monroy asked what recourse the City has, in the event that the applicant makes any further
changes without a permit.
Ms. Blackburn stated that any non-compliance with the Conditions of Approval of the CUP, would allow
another hearing to be held and the CUP can be revoked. As far as any other un-permitted activities, she
continued, the typical process would be to issue a violation notice which would require all the steps
necessary to correct the violation.
Chairperson Nielsen asked who the applicant is and who they lease the land from Ms. Blackburn
responded by naming Coast Waste Management and that, as of today, their lease is through the County of
San Diego-Airports Division and it is a valid lease
Chairperson Nielsen invited the applicant to step to the podium.
Conrad Powelski, President and General Manager of Coast Waste Management, 5960 El Camino Real,
Carlsbad, had no statement but offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Monroy asked why the hours of operation are being changed.
Mr. Powelski stated that the primary reason is to allow adequate vehicle maintenance time and also to
have adequate time to handle the materials that go through the station and get it moved off the site.
Commissioner Welshans asked what items can and cannot be processed at the station.
Mr. Powelski stated that it would be easier to state what is not allowed to be processed at this station. He
went on to explain the collection process and that the collectors are trained in safety features to make
them more responsible as a collector. They are trained to look for, and identify, hazardous materials or
special wastes that are not allowed to go into the transfer station or to be collected by the driver.
Specifically, he stated, they are not allowed to take any hazardous waste, liquid wastes, powdery materials
that will create a nuisance, wet, saturated or leaking materials or containers. He stated that when the
station is open for the public to bring in wastes, the person bringing in the waste is asked what he or she
has and the origin of the waste. Mr. Powelski further explained that when the waste is dumped from the
hauling vehicle, the waste is visually inspected to assure that the materials are acceptable. If any of the
materials are unacceptable, they must be separated from the rest of the materials and arrangements
made for their removal from the station.
Regarding the hours of operation, Commissioner Welshans asked if she is correct in her assumption that
the "public" means, e.g., a gardener disposing of green waste, a citizen taking out a sidewalk and bringing
the broken concrete to the station, etc.
Mr. Powelski stated that concrete and solid wastes, other than green waste or other recyclables, are
acceptable. If the materials are recyclable, Mr. Powelski stated that they encourage the individual to take
those materials to a recycle station.
Regarding logistics, Commissioner Welshans questioned the fact that people will have to accumulate and
hold the waste materials for five days before they can take them to the transfer station.
MINUTES
• PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 1997 Page 10
In response, Mr. Powelski stated that they would have to hold on to those materials from Monday through
Friday, unless they drive to other dumps or contract to have one of the commercial services pick up and
dispose of those materials. He added that there will be some significant changes in the hauling industry,
now that the San Marcos Landfill will be closing.
Commissioner Welshans then inquired as to whether or not the transfer station will be open if a holiday
falls on a Saturday or Sunday and if not, will they make the station available the next day after the holiday
much the same as the commercial collectors do by rotating the regular pick-up day to the next day.
Mr. Powelski stated that they have not addressed this subject, specifically, but certainly will be doing so in
the near future.
Commissioner Welshans asked Mr. Powelski if he could accept some language that would allow an
adjustment for holidays.
Mr. Powelski responded by stating that he would accept some language for amending the CUP to allow for
some holidays, so the public can get into the station for dumping.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if Coast Waste is the only hauler that will be using this station and are there
any particular routes that must be taken.
Mr. Powelski stated that Coast Waste is not the only hauler that will use the station and that all of the
trucks will be required to enter the station via Palomar Airport Road (either east or west) and then proceed
north on El Camino Real to the easement road and the station.
Chairperson Nielsen also asked if there is any mitigation for possible pollution of the trash by the haulers,
specifically, when the haulers do not cover their loads.
Mr. Powelski stated that the City has looked at that through their settlement agreement to make sure that
that problem is handled correctly.
Commissioner Noble asked if the hours posted for self-haulers are meant to preclude them from using the
station from Monday through Friday.
Mr. Powelski stated that those hours were set only to ensure that Coast can handle all of the collection
brought there by other collectors.
Commissioner Welshans asked if there is a turn-around area for the trucks going back out.
Mr. Powelski pointed out that the trucks have to go in that direction to be re-weighed when they need a
new tare. A commercial trash truck is already recorded with the county and the empty weight is already
known.
Commissioner Welshans pointed out that the parking spaces appear to be backwards and asked if the
trucks back in.
Mr. Powelski stated that the parking area is only used for their fleet for overnight parking and they
sometimes do back-in.
Commissioner Monroy asked how they will ensure that they do not exceed the 800 tons per day limit.
MINUTES
-PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 1997
Mr. Powelski stated that the scale system records everything that come in and goes out.
Commissioner Monroy then asked what happens when they reach the 800 tons.
Page 11
Mr. Powelski stated they will notify the commercial hauling companies that they have reached capacity.
He added that it is not likely that self-haulers could or would bring in that much waste on a weekend.
Chairperson Nielsen asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to testify and seeing no one,
closed the Public Testimony and opened Commission discussion.
Commissioner Monroy asked if the City could request (at random) a copy of the daily reports to the state
and/or monitor the station to ensure that it does not exceed its daily capacity.
Ms. Blackburn stated that she is not aware of any restriction that would preclude the City from acquiring an
occasional report.
Commissioner Monroy requested that Ms. Blackburn research his question and answer his question at a
later time.
Ms. Blackburn agreed to search out the answer and report to the Commission.
Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne pointed out that the station holds a state or county permit that
limits them to 800 tons per day and if there is a violation of that permit, there are many notice procedures
that occur.
Chairperson Nielsen re-opened Public Testimony and requested that Mr. Powelski return to the podium.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Powelski what the best way to monitor the operation would be.
Mr. Powelski responded that the best way is through the scales and the weighmasters that are reporting
the tonnage. He added that the station records are also inspected monthly, by the County Department of
Health Services, for tonnage.
Commissioner Welshans asked what percentage of the waste is hauled in by Coast Waste Management.
Mr. Powelski estimated that Coast contributes about 30% of the total tonnage.
Commissioner Welshans asked, in the event the tonnage approaches the 800 ton mark on any given day,
will Coast close the station to other haulers to ensure there is enough capacity available for their own
collectors.
Mr. Powelski responded that they would certainly close the facility and re-direct the other haulers
elsewhere.
Commissioner Welshans suggested that while Mr. Powelski was at the podium, and there are no others
wishing to testify, Commissioner Heineman may wish to offer an amendment regarding the public
operations of the transfer station.
Commissioner Heineman asked if it is appropriate to offer the amendment while Public Testimony is still
open.
Chairperson Nielsen asked Assistant 9ity Attorney Rich Rudolf if it is appropriate to discuss and
amendment before there is a motion.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION • March 5, 1997 • Page 12
Mr. Rudolf stated that if Public Testimony is closed and someone proposes the motion, Public Testimony
will have to be re-opened so that Mr. Powelski can respond. He advised that as a matter of courtesy it can
be discussed now. However, technically it's probably incorrect but it can be done.
Chairperson Nielsen suggested that Commissioner Heineman state the restrictions that he is going to
suggest and ask Mr. Powelski to respond to them.
Commissioner Heineman suggested that Condition No. 13 be changed, in part, to read as follows: The
hours of operation of the Palomar Transfer Station facility shall initially be as follows, but may be changed
as needed, to hours mutually acceptable to both the facility and the haulers it serves, and asked if this
change is acceptable to Mr. Powelski.
Mr. Powelski stated that the change is acceptable.
Mr. Rudolf, however, stated that the change is not acceptable to the City.
Mr. Powelski suggested that the change could read as follows: "based on an agreement with the City and
the permittee, the hours can be adjusted as necessary upon acceptance by the city.
Commissioner Heineman restated his suggested change to read: The hours of operation of the Palomar
Transfer Station facility shall initially be as follows but may be changed as needed to hours mutually
acceptable to the City, to the facility, and to the haulers it serves.
Mr. Rudolf advised that Commissioner Heineman's amendment is still too broad and suggested that
Condition No. 13(b) be amended.
Commissioner Heineman deferred to Mr. Rudolf.
Mr. Rudolf suggested that Condition No. 13(b) be amended to better accommodate weekend haulers and
provide for alternative dumping days when a holiday falls on a weekend. Mr. Rudolf prefaced his remarks
by saying that in addition to other permits that Coast Waste must have in order to operate the facility, there
will be an operating agreement between the City and Coast Waste which will control the operation of the
transfer station. In addition, there will be a contract between Coast Waste and the City, with regard to
being the City's franchised trash hauler. These are two separate contracts which will have all of the
necessary details. Mr. Rudolf emphasized that the Commission needn't worry about the City's control
over these kinds of issues. He pointed out that although the Commission may not be happy with the City
staff's position that self haulers will be restricted to weekend use only, he is not in a position, to negotiate
on behalf of the City policy makers regarding a Conditional Use Permit, and whether or not the City should
open the facility to self haulers -Monday through Friday. Mr. Rudolf then suggested that the Commission
approve this CUP amendment, as presented, with additional language under (b), to provide that if a
holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday, that as provided under the contract, self hauler use could be
extended to the following (or preceding) day, as mutually agreed by the hauler and the City.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Rudolf to clarify that the above mentioned contract includes the
reference to weekend self haulers.
Mr. Rudolf stated that the contract is still being negotiated and is not yet final.
Commissioner Heineman then asked if it is necessary to change the Resolution.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION • March 5, 1997 • Page 13
CORRECTED
Mr. Rudolf advised a change in (b), to acknowledge the potential that the contract will provide the holiday
exemption for Saturday and Sunday service for self haulers.
Commissioner Welshans stated that she could accept Mr. Rudolfs amendment to Condition 13(b),
allowing the adjustment for holidays.
Chairperson Nielsen asked Mr. Rudolf to explain how they should address the issue of providing weekday
access to the facility for self haulers.
Mr. Powelski pointed out that until he made the request to allow public use of the facility, the public has
been restricted from using the facility entirely. He also pointed out that in order to successfully operate
under all the rules, regulations and conditions, it will be necessary to continue to restrict public use of the
facility to weekends. Mr. Powelski cited the fact that vehicles other than those belonging to the
commercial haulers will very likely disrupt the flow of traffic, the result of which will be a much lower level of
efficiency. Citing these facts, Mr. Powelski urged the Commission to continue the weekday restriction for
self haulers.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Powelski why the presence of small trucks, during the week, could
seriously interrupt the flow of the commercial trucks into the facility.
Mr. Powelski responded by stating that commercial trucks can off-load their material in five to ten minutes
where it may take a self haulerup to an hour to off-load by hand. He added that the number of service
bays (off loading points) are limited.
Commissioner Heineman then asked if there is good operational reason for not allowing small haulers into
the facility during the week and Mr. Powelski responded affirmatively.
Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4068, approving Conditional Use Permit CUP 260(8),
based upon the findings and conditions contained therein and revised to include
all the corrections contained in both errata sheets and to include the amendment
proposed by Assistant City Attorney Rich Rudolf, to provide that if a holiday falls
on a Saturday or Sunday, that under the contract, self hauler use could be
extended to the following (or preceeding) day, as mutually agreed by the hauler
and the City.
7-0
Nielsen, Noble, Heineman, Monroy, Savary, Welshans and Compas
None
None