HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-11-20; City Council; 10920; EVALUATION OF COUNTY SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY'I
n .m oa, cnu cng dfi .rl *E
d
+a a
h'II a-
L) sac cud
J2 $22
a32
+la,@ OF! om
Ma F!k
.ri uw4 0 rn a* a5 I E a0 3a OF! u .rl urn *
-dda a, oe:
.A 6'*5 0 a)
4J (6u
mu
3 (6 -d
g32
E2 5L3
L) h-d am
(d 4J4
us0 HBu
000
\ a 1' an
4 4d4 "
0 rlaJ hl 44 \ 1'
2 0 5 a i 0 z 3 0 0
-
CITi()DF CARLSBAD - AGENDVILL
AB# /<) ?aD TITLE DE
CI' MTG. 11/20/90 WALUATION OF COUNTY SOLID WA!XE TRANSFER
DEPT. u/M STATION SITING SIWDY CI'
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 78 - .//3 approving for further study, two potential
solid waste transfer station sites in the City of Carlsbad and authorizing the
County of San Diego to prepare preliminary design studies and
environmental impact reports on the two sites.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On January 23, 1990, staff of the County Department of Public Works
presented the "North San Diego County Transfer Station Siting Study" to the
City Council for review and comment. The City Council referred the Study
to staff for evaluation and recommendations.
Solid waste transfer stations are conveniently located intermediate refuse
processing centers, which can perform additional recycling, diversion and
volume reduction before refuse is deposited in a landfill or other disposal
facility.
The Study had been prepared for the County by the consulting firm of
Brown, Vence & Associates. Two committees; a technical committee
consisting of city staff and a policy committee consisting of city council
representatives, provided advice and guidance to the consultant and County
staff. The Study assumes that new landfills serving the north county area
will be located east of Interstate 15. The transfer stations are intended to
complement the proposed new north county landfill(s) by (1) reducing the
number of refuse collection truck trips to the landfill thereby reducing the
impact, and, (2) providing for convenient places for local residents to dispose
of refuse. Transfer stations are proposed in each north county city (except
Del Mar and Solana Beach) and in the unincorporated community of
Fallbrook. Several sites are suggested as appropriate locations in each area.
The Study assumed that the transfer station for each city/community would
serve the needs of only that area, until the year 2010. For the City oi
Carlsbad, five sites are suggested as appropriate for locating a transfer
station, (see Exhibit 2).
Staff has conducted an in-depth review of the Study and concurs with the
methodology and the conclusions. Staff does not agree that each of the
suggested transfer station sites in Carlsbad is appropriate, however. Staf
recommends that only sites C-3 (present location of Coast Waste
Management) and C-5 (south of Carlsbad Raceway) be considered for furthei
9 0 - :
PAGE 2 OF AB# /', 920 ....
preliminary design study and environmental impact review. These studies
should provide more detailed information for the City Council to consider
prior to a final decision on the location and size of a transfer station in
Carlsbad.
SUPPLEMENTAL, INFORMATION
Board of SuDervisors Action:
The County of San Diego has determined to pursue construction of the San
Marcos Waste to Energy plant in two phases. Phase 1 would be the
construction of the "front end' of the plant and result in a facility similar to
a transfer station. Phase 2 would be the construction of the incinerator
itself. Should Phase 1 be constructed and Phase 2 not completed, the County
would have a transfer station capable of handling 1,600 tons/day at the San
Marcos landfill site. In other words, the County could be operating a transfer
station that could process 54% of the waste generated in north county in
1992 and 22% of the waste generated by the year 2010. Since the Phase 1
facility would capable of processing all of the waste presently generated by
Carlsbad, Oceanside and San Dieguito and more than twice the waste
generated by the City of San Marcos, staff is unsure how Phase 1 would
affect the need for a transfer station in Carlsbad or elsewhere in the north
coast area.
In addition to the action regarding the waste to energy plant, the County is
continuing in their efforts to expand the San Marcos Landfill to gain as much
as 7 plus years of additional capacity. The Board of Supervisors will consider
certification of the EIR for vertical expansion on November 13, 1990. The
County will be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the
City of San Marcos to operate the expanded version of the landfill. The City
Council of San Marcos has adopted an ordinance establishing conditions for
operating the landfill. Among those conditions is the requirement for
payment of host fees and the creation of a two-tier fee system tied to
whether or not a city executes a waste stream control agreement. The host
fee and the two-tier tipping fee system could initially add as much as $3.00
per month and ultimately as much as $16.00 per month, to the $9.60/mo.
residential refuse collection fee. At this time the County has not expressed
a position on the San Marcos actions.
Host fees and waste stream control agreements will be the subject of a future
report to the City Council.
* e
PAGE 3 OF AB# /$ ?Ld
North County Cities Action:
Since the Transfer Station Study has been completed, two cities, Encinitas
Oceanside, have determined to not site a transfer station in their city. The Cc
has indicated that those cities must make some arrangements for use of tr2
stations since, refuse collection trucks will not be permitted to enter the
landfills. Carslbad staff has had several discussions with County staff and st
the cities regarding this situation. To date nothing has been resolved, hov
Oceanside continues to work with their trash collection company to acqt
landfill and Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, Encinitas and Escondido are expl
alternative solid waste disposal solutions.
Even if the San Marcos landfill is expanded and the waste to energy pl
constructed, transfer stations will ultimately be required to perform waste divi
activities prior to transporting residual waste to the remote landfills. Either
two Carlsbad sites might be appropriate for a larger transfer station
contemplated by the Transfer Station Siting Study. Such a transfer station
serve the needs of the north coastal cities. A large transfer station in Carlsb:
been mentioned from time to time, however, neither the County nor the
affected cities have requested that the City consider such a proposal. Ab:
request to consider a larger transfer station, staff recommends that the City CI
authorize the County to consider the two candidate transfer station sites as s
the City of Carlsbad, only.
FISCAL, IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommended action Will have no direcl
impact on the City.
EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution qd-d/3
2.
3.
Plats identifying proposed transfer station sites in Carl!
Report evaluating the "North San Diego County T
Station Siting Study".
1
2
3
4
5 '
7
€3
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
RESOLUTION 90413
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDY OF TWO PROPOSED SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
STATION SITES IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
WHEREAS, The County of San Diego completed a "North San Diegc
Transfer Station Siting Study"; and
WHEREAS, The Study recommends five (5) sites as suitable for a E
transfer station for the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, The County requested the City Council to review and c
on the Study; and
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad staff has reviewed the Study
recommendations and found the Study factual and accurate; and
WHEREAS, After review of the proposed sites staff can only recomni
(2) sites as appropriate for further environmental study; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of thc
Carlsbad as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The City of Carlsbad does not approve the sites as approp
transfer station use at this time.
3. The County Board of Supervisors is authorized to procc
preliminary design and environmental impact studies, &,
C-3 and C-5 as identified in the Transfer Station Siting Stud
Ill
111
Ill
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City C
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of
December , 1990, and by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Larson, Stanton and Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin
ATTEST:
k) &&a
ALETHA L. UUTENmZ, cia
(SEAL)
i
..
.-
/I '\ __----___ /
I
~ . ' r . 51 -*",
- __ - -_- -- -
South Carlsbad Beech State Park
PRELIMIN,
~A027601 A1 00 3 - 21 Exhibit 1
-e---/-- --
/
FIGURE
PRELIMINL
CITY OF C
-- -___
Exhibit 1 a 3 - 22
@ DRP 0
_I
EVALUATION OF THE SOLID WASTE
TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY
On January 23, 1990, the City Council heard a presentation f:
County Public Works staff concerning the status of the No.
County Transfer Station Siting Study; accepted the study review and directed City staff to review the Study and prepq a recommendation for City Council consideration. Following
a summary and evaluation of the Siting Study.
STUDY PURPOSE:
Pending closure of the San Marcos Sanitary Landfill has requi that the County acquire new landfill sites. The County
identified three candidate sites which are presently undergc Environmental Review. The County decided to close the propc
new North County landfills to direct haul and the public
reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed landfil
Eliminating direct hauls and public access to the landfills IT transfer stations necessary. The Transfer Station Siting St
was to identify transfer station sites to service the Nc
County area. The transfer stations would receive refuse f commercial collection vehicles as well as commercial and puk self-haulvehicles; consolidate/compact refuse into large vol trailers for transfer to a landfill. Recycling would
performed at the transfer stations to remove recyclables wk
are not removed from the waste stream by curbside recyclz collection programs.
STUDY APPROACH:
The Study consisted of two major tasks: preferred number of transfer stations, and 2.
the most suitable sites.
1. Determination of Identificatio
PREFERRED NUMBER OF TRANSFER STATIONS:
Although all of the waste generated in the North County
could be managed at a single facility, any system chosen serve the local waste management needs of the eight cities the unincorporated area. (See Exhibit 1 for waste genera information). Thus, transfer station scenarios ranging fron
large transfer station to transfer stations for each of
seven collection areas were developed and evaluated u social, economic, environmental, and political crit developed by the consultant and a City/County Advi Committee. The criteria and the weighting system develope
shown in Exhibit 2. Application of the criteria and weigh
system to the transfer station scenarios resulted in
following:
0 0 .,
...
PAGE 2 OF AB #
1. Transfer station operating costs were determined by
cost to construct and operate a facility over a twenty y period. Capital and operating costs were based
constructing and operating a facility sized to meet 2
needs, assuming the trash-to-energy plant did not exis
Scenario 1, providing for one transfer station was the m economical of the scenarios.
2.
3. Scenario 5, providing seven transfer stations, one for E
of the seven collection areas, was ranked the highest
convenience, local control, traffic impact, air quality
minimization of miles traveled.
Based on the evaluation process, Scenario 5, with trans
stations for each of the seven waste collection areas, was
preferred scenario, (See Exhibit 3 for scenarios).
SITE IDENTIFICATION:
As the transfer station scenarios were being developed, a sez for appropriate sites was undertaken, A series of exclusiol and preferential criteria were developed and applied to north county area. These criteria included engineer. economic and environmental considerations. Initia.
preliminary criteria using general plans and zoning, dist from major transportation corridors, and waste generation applied, e.g., only industrial and agricultural land within mile of an existing freeway or four-lane road was sele (Exhibit 4).
Next, a second, more detailed criteria was applied. T
criteria took into consideration adjoining land use , tra impacts, topography, flood plains, cultural and biolog resources, fault zones and size to further narrow down sites, (Exhibits 5 & 6). Finally, aerial photographs
reviewed and site visits were conducted by an environme analyst and an engineer.
As a result of this evaluation process 17 sites were identif with 5 of the sites in Carlsbad, (Exhibit 7).
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
EVALUATION:
Staff has reviewed the report and several of the appendicer
cannot disagree with the findings and conclusions of the Sf
The methodology and the standards used are consistent
industry standards used in solid waste facility planning, anything, the assumptions used may be a basis for critic
e e
..
PAGE 3 OF AB #
For instance, the basis for the need for transfer stations
the first place, is the County's decision to limit direct hz
and public access to the new landfills. If direct haul i public access were provided, transfer stations would not necessary and cost would be less. However, direct haul i public access may make a landfill impossible to site because traffic impacts and noise. Also, with remote landf:
locations, public access would be inconvenient and littering i illegal dumping would likely increase.
Similarly, per capita waste quantity estimates for the area i
based on the waste actually received at the San Marcos Landf and population estimates in FY 1988-89. Waste generat estimates are tied to population and population projections
SANDAG Series 7 forecasts. Thus, if population or waste
capita estimates are in error then transfer station capac
would be wrong. Moreover, if waste generation is overstat transfer stations will be more costly per ton to operate, and
waste is understated costs of operation will be less.
Although the findings and conclusions in the Study may acceptable, Staff believes the recommended sites for the Citl Carlsbad are not wholly acceptable.
Site C-1 This site is located south of Palomar AirF Road, east of Paseo Del Norte. This area considered inappropriate because of flood pl constraints and visibility of the s: Moreover, the area is viewed as being I appropriate for office buildings rather 1 industrial uses.
Site C-2 This site is located at the northwest cornel Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Del Norte. ?
site is considered inappropriate due to
agricultural use, and the fact that most of property is under a Williamson Act contract
Site C-3 This site is east of El Camino Real, nortl
Palomar Airport Road. This site includes
present location of Coast Waste Managemi This site is considered acceptable for fur environmental study.
Site C-4 This site is located south of Palomar Air Road, east of El Camino Real, known as Bressi Ranch. Staff considers this sit4 unacceptable because of the potential fc
mixed use development on the prese undeveloped land.
. -. a 0
_.
PAGE 4 OF AB #
Site C-5 This site is located on the north side
Palomar Airport Road, just south of Carlsk
Raceway. Staff considers this acceptable f further environmental study.
RECOMMENDATION:
Of the 5 sites identified for the City of Carlsbad, st;
recommends that the City Council approve two sites, c-3 and (
for further study, only.
..
-rl rr.0 :I 3 22 bhz2z 2 OQ 0- e-4- 00 h "0, * c *
-- 4
"8 00000 00000 0 2L ;2! v) 3 5 .i E- mNrrNh 3.; N m3NNrr
?! 8 00000
r) :- :- :- o- O-
;$$ s -m-s- ss
.- -0 50 - - h 222sg --- rr%b--33 g; 2 N,-
0 0 9 z- 9 z- z- 1% :I E-
:{ 5-
!i !?-
z{ %
4 3
4
3 3 - ;-
kc.;
"8 00000
corn 3
av\mNh - ;- 3 m 4d-c
moQ
s 0, - 0- '0-
moo- rrm
cON N -
N *'= a>.
a33 -0w3rr SI 5- ,,v\sq
me+ 0- 8 z- z- z- z-
50 00000
r) o o- o- o- o& o-
Zk so * * *.
-
WLb 0 00000 t;s!c 0 00000
00- *- OWhN3 "-.I-- 3 psg % c ;g-= - e Zo'f z I-+; 9
I+&
00000
0, z-
*- Ne- -- ? :- 2- (CI-
t-
-0L. O- - ZkZrrm
gBU
72
N-l q g
E2 .e N 5g
$5 E c).
rr N N NmN-3
4 mmooom h*-hN3 N. 40 -, '5N N
m z~mwk "E - VI E - YImmmm m-.
N
Z
a"$ QOhO\v\ m-m-h 21 ? c q- * 8 9 w- v\N a
UL. 0 00000 -2 0 00000
3 -w--m
-
0- 2- ,=- 8 z- 8 On
2 e-4 N "5s - c. + 'Z
ZO. et-; F 0 oocoo 0 00000
00 ame-m
3.. q - -w- N El 2
n e- 9 z- c=- E- 9 - N -Ob= O-
CLU-
h z% ;$
sr u
m w-
- -
A L L a2
EU Bao v) MW .- 3 .- c u 0 o.== 2 s?2: '5 22 u = .- - 4 7 - e "-<= 0, -I a.g z $ 5 .z ;.=z -0 2 5'3i;Z 43 LC
9 - gz
h :
C TC
!! - -
M C .- L %
3i
c 3 5s
h g gt
Q) c. C,= x" + g; u .Y -u < u =" c 8:
u, t = zv .o 3 sra n z= $ % 3.z g 2 2:
; .- p zg 3s ZZU ;vQ)u 2 2 $- st.; a, JV 02 : m v 25
c w h 0 gLzz
c..+"-
0 E- s -.
$ z $G
1 w E5; rn 2 C'L; L g 22
5; E 2;
v c slu_ 2 2 Q)=
0 V u Eg
h % $= m
3 2 :g
3 g o"'$ e
0 - z zz JI < g <-. ;
u '=
22 v)- e
0-
b 0
In-. -. -=uY
n-
2 .s i 8 -a -2
e
0 0- m c. nz --
sr
0 2 z3 --
;z 32
n I- +g
u v\ vm
eb
YIm
.- - - 0-<
u 03 \ rr
CI 0
0
no
c) z E" e
v) 00 ox hl \ 000
- c - N* .c, c - 0 $2
J u g% 0
9
-
0
** ***
,.
0 * ..
Table 2-2
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Technical:
Convenience Degree of accessibility of the transfer stations to area resident! drop-off of self-haul wastes, recyclables, household hazardous ti
Ability of the transfer station system to accommodate future s( waste management facilities or activities (e.g., increased mate recovery, composting, waste-to-energy).
Degree to which the system maintains current direct haul pattc
Degree to which components of the system are proven to be te feasible.
Flexibility
Direct Haul Pattern Disruption
Technical Risk
Environmen~
Air Quality Degree to which the transfer station system minimizes air qui
impacts.
Degree to which the transfer station system minimizes traff il
Degree to which the transfer station system minimizes roadv
degradation.
Degree to which the system minimizes other environmental i
Traffic Impact
Roadways
Other Environ- mental Issues
Institutional:
Local Land Use Compatibility citizens' "NIMBY" reaction.
Level of Participation
Local Control
Degree to which the system minimizes siting problems due 1
Degree of compatibility with community's preferred level o involvement in solid waste management.
Degree of local control over a transfer station in terms of 1 characteristics, facility design and appearance.
Economics:
cost Degree to which the system minimizes overall cost.
Exh JOB:8900 1-2 12/ 12/89 2 - 19
I .. e a
Table 2-3 WEIGHTING OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
BY CITIES AND COUNTY
Y
Weighting criteria Factor
15.4 Local Control
Local Land Use Compatibility 14.5
13.0 Economics
Traffic Impact 9.8
Level of Participation 8.0
Roadways 7.5
0 ther Environmental Issues 5.5
Air Quality 5.4
Technical Risk 4.5
Convenience 7.2
Direct Haul Pattern Disruption 5.0
Flexibility 4.0
JOR8900 1-2 12/12/89 2 - 20
I .I
1 2 - 11 JOB:8900 1-2 12/ 12/89
. _.
I ~0~:8900 1-2 12/ 12/89 2 - 12
..I
..
JOB:89001-2 12/12/89 2- 13
, ..
_I
JOB:89001-2 12/12/89 2- 14
. _L
..
2 - 15 JOB: 890 0 1 - 2 1 2/ 1 2/ 89
..I
..
2- 16 JOB:8900 1-2 12/ 12/89
- ..
2- 17 ~OB:8900 1-2 12/ 12/89
.'
Table 3-1
Exclusionary Siting Criteria
First Level
1. Distance from Waste Centroid
2. Zoning and General Plan
Designations
3. Distance from Major
Transportation Comdors
4. Public-use Lands
89001/N SD Tr Stat/3.28.89
JOB:89001-3 12/07/89 3-3
1..
=;"$.-2z n
e
e 0
,e '.
Table 3-2 !gE$$
Exclusionary Siting Criteria
Second Level
1. Compatibility with Adjacent Land Use
2. Land Use Compatibility/Access Roads
3. Land Use Compatibility/ Visual
4. Slope
5. Natural Habitat
6. 100-Year Flood Plain
7. Active Fault Zones
8. Riparian Habitat
9. Cultural Resources
10. Availability
11. Size
39001 /N SD Tr StM3.28.89
rnn.annn1 7 17/n7/89 3-1
'. &e @ 4%
Table 3-3
Final Evaluation Siting Criteda
1. Biological Resources
2. Cultural Resources
3. Traffic Impacts
89001/N SD Tr Stat/3.28.89
JOB:S9001-3 12/07/89 3-5
\’ I I I
\ \
1
/. ‘t ___- - -___ A
- - - - t‘- -- A
South Carlrbad Beach State Park
NORTH COUNTY Tf SITING PI
7 3” I A ^-7I-P#’ A1 00
- &-- ---e
I 1 ',
NORTH COUNTY TF __ ____ SITING Pi
7 93 1?-760: A1 22
>
-.
December 31, 1990
G.M. Bowman, Director
Dept. of Public Works
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Ave.
San Diego, CA 92123
Attn: Kathy Lehtola
Re: COUNTY SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of December 18, 1990,
adopted Resolution No. 90-413, authorizing further environmental
study of two proposed solid waste transfer station sites in the
City of Carlsbad.
Enclosed for your records and information is a copy of Resolution
NO. 90-413.
Yg6 Assistant City C erk
Enc .
___
I____ 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008 - (619) 434