HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-10; City Council; 12980 Part IV; Palomar Transfer StationQ. Neighborhood Character/Aesthetics. Will the
proposal result in:
1. The obstruction of any vista or scenic
view from a public viewing area? X
2. The creation of a negative aesthetic
site or project?
3. Project bulk, scale, materials or style
which will be incompatible with surrounding
development?
4. Substantial alteration to the existing
character of the area?
5. The loss of any distinctive or landmark
tree(s), or a stand of mature trees?
6. Substantial change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
7. The loss, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features such
as a natural canyon, sandstone bluff, rock
outcrop or hillside with a slope in excess
of 25 percent? X
R. Cultural/Scientific Resources. Will the
proposal result in:
1. Alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
2. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure,
object or site?
3. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to
an architecturally significant building,
structure, or object?
61
4. Any impact to existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area? X
5. The loss of paleontological resources?
S. Human Health/Public Safety. Will the proposal
result in:
1. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
2. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
3. A future risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances
(including but not limited to gas,
oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation
or explosives)? X
T. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
1. 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?
2. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
62
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
63
APPENDIX G
Sample Only
NOTICE CONCERNING AIRCRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Declaration and Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts is made
by , hereinafter referred to as the "Owner," as developer of certain
real property situated in the City of , County of San Diego, State of California.
RECITALS
A. The Owner is the developer and holer of the title to certain real property in the City of
, County of San Diego, California, more fully described as:
B. The property is located approximately miles from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport, City of , San Diego County (the "Airport"), operated by the
County of San Diego, through which are conducted certain aircraft operations on and
about said Airport and over real property in the vicinity of the Airport.
C. Owner has no control over the operations of the Airport, including the types of aircraft,
flight, the flight patterns of the aircraft, nor the frequency of the flights.
D. It is the desire of Owner to give notice to any potential purchaser of the real property of
the air flight operation and the fact that purchasers may be subject to overflight, sight and
sound of aircraft operating from the Airport
E. The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future
potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of aircraft including public, military
and private aircraft which will generate noise and other environmental impacts.
65
NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the above Recitals, as developer and owner of the
property, does, for itself, and its successors and assigns, give the following notice:
1. Owner has and shall develop the property in accordance with Subdivision Tract Parcel
Map (CT/PM- ) approved by the City of , which approval includes
the requirement of the City of , that the development of the property is
consistent with the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan of the City
of
2. That Owner has no responsibility or control over the operation of the Airport, including
without limitation, the types or number of flight operations, types of aircraft (including
jet aircraft), timing of flight operation, or frequency of flights.
3. That the flight operations to and from the Airport may create significant aircraft
environmental impacts affecting the purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property and
that purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property reside there subject to such
overflight, sight and sound.
4. The property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used,
occupied and improved subject to this Declaration and Notice. This Notice shall run with
the property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or
interest in the property.
5. The purpose of this Notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future
potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of aircraft including public and private
aircraft which will generate noise and other environmental impacts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration of Notice of aircraft, overflight, sight,
and sound is made this day of , 19^.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ) ss.
On , 19 , before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
personally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as
President and Secretary, on behalf of
, the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me
that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of
its Board of Directors.
By:
By: __
66
November 30, 1994
TO: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
Via: Administrative Services/Projects Manager^ 0*
FROM: Management Analyst, Solid Waste
COUNTY TRANSFER STATION SITE IN VISTA
On April 9, 1 991 , the County Board of Supervisors authorized the expenditure of $5,700,000 for
the acquisition of 1 5 acres of land in Vista for the development of a solid waste recycling/ transfer
station. This was one of many recommendations of the San Marcos Contingency Plan,
developed when it appeared the closure of the San Marcos Landfill was imminent. I have
attached a copy of the Board minutes for the entire report, and have highlighted the sections
pertaining to the site purchase. The minutes state that this land was purchased specifically for
the development of a solid waste transfer station.
Because this property is owned by the County, it has been removed from the assessor's roll.
I am unable to access specific purchase information, such as closing date or exact price. I
believe that escrow closed in early 1992, and this site has subsequently been listed as an asset
of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.
Should you require any additional information, please call me at ext. 2949.
JUtit ROSS
On April 2, 1991, Board Order No. 79, the Board of Supervisors
ordered action held in abeyance until April 9, 1991 on TE3660 - San
Marcos Landfill, Real Property Contracts Parcel Nos. 90-0330-A-D
and 90-0149-A-C. The Board now considers the matter concurrently
with the matters concerning the Status Report on Solid Waste Issues
and the San Marcos Landfill Contingency Plan.
There is presented to the Board a letter, Board of Supervisors
Document No. 740326, from the Chief Administrative Officer
concerning the Status Report on Solid Waste Issues and recommending
that the Board note and file the report.
There is also presented to the Board a revised letter, Board
of Supervisors Document No. 740873, from the Chief Administrative
officer concerning the San Marcos Landfill Contingency Plan and
recommending that the Board take the following action:
1. Direct County Counsel to appeal to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board decision of March 11, 1991 to the
state water Resources Control Board -and seek a rehearing
on the vertical expansion of the San Marcos Landfill.
2. Direct the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign
a letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
requesting that either A) their staff proceed with work
on the County's application, or B) the Regional Water
Quality Control Board select a consultant to continue the
work and the county will pay the related costs.
3. Direct staff to meet with AB939 Advisory Committees to
gain their input.
4. Direct staff to prepare an Amendment to the Solid Waste
Management Ordinance (6875), Sections 68.501 and 68.511
to provide for the control of vehicle access to the San
Marcos Landfill.
5. Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to
obtaining permit modifications, if necessary, at otay,
Ramona, and Sycamore Landfills, to limit access to the
San Marcos Landfill to solid waste industry compaction
vehicles and to the public using standard passenger and
pick-up truck vehicles. All other vehicles would be
diverted to the County's remaining solid waste
facilities.
*6. Approve in concept and direct the Chief Administrative
Officer to return to your Board at a time certain on
May 21, 1991 with an Amendment to the Solid Waste
Nos. 61 - .71
4/9/91
dc
Page 1 of 18
PosMf Fax Note 7671
Phone*.
IB
From
Management Ordinance for phased Implementation and
enforcement of mandatory recycling in all areas in the
region using County landfills, to include the following
elements:
A* Curbside Separation and Collection of Yard and Wood
Waste
B. Commercial and Business Office Paper Recycling
C. Residential curbside Recycling Programs
D. Enforcement of Recycling Requirements
7. Amend the Fiscal Year 1990*91 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Spending Plan to authorize the expenditure of $250,000
from the Solid Waste Contingency Reserve and authorize
the Director of Purchasing and Contracting, to negotiate
an Amendment to Contract NO. 41056-E with Herzog
Contracting Corporation for the application of foam as
cover material at the San Marcos Landfill.
8. Direct the Director of General Services to terminate the
lease with Coast Waste Management at. the Paloroar Transfer
Station; and, amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund Spending Plan to:
(A) Authorize the expenditure of $500,000 from the
Solid Waste Contingency Reserve to authorize the
Department of Public Works to proceed with
environmental review, design, permit, construction
plans and specifications to expand the facility at
the Palomar, vista and san Marcos Transfer
Stations; and
(B) Direct and authorize the Director of Purchasing and
Contracting, to negotiate a Contract utilizing
Board Policy F-40, Procuring Architectural,
Engineering and Related Professional Services, to
procure a consultant for the design, environmental
review and permitting of the Palomar, Vista, and
san Marcos transfer stations; and, authorize the
Director of Purchasing and Contracting to award a
Contract upon the completion of successful
negotiations not to exceed $500,000.
9. With regard to the proposed Vista Transfer Station:
(A) Find in accordance with Section 15096 of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
that the County has considered the Environmental
Impact Report certified by the City of Vista (E85-
46) that addresses the impacts of industrial uses
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
page 2 of 18
within the North County industrial park. This
finding is for the acquisition of two parcels of
land in Recommendations 9B and 9C. Direct the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to file a Notice
of Determination for this action.
(B) Amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund to authorize the expenditure from
the Facilities Reserve of $5,700,000 to have the
Director of General Services to immediately acquire
parcel numbers 219-531-32 and 219532-19 for the
purpose of the development of a solid waste
recycling/transfer station in the North County
Industrial Park to be owned and operated by the
County of San Diego.
(C) Direct staff to proceed with necessary steps to
purchase the property and request the San Diego
Capital Asset Leasing Corporation to initiate the
financing for the purchase o-f the property and
return to your Board for approval, upon receipt of
funds from this action, direct the Auditor and
Controller to reimburse the Facilities Reserve.
10. Amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Spending Plan to authorize the expenditure of $1,000,000
from the Contingency Reserve and direct the Chief
Administrative Officer to seek modifications to the San
Marcos Landfill Permit to provide the means to transfer
up to 2,000 tons per day from that facility to other
solid waste facilities throughout the County.
11. Amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Spending Plan to authorize the expenditure of $750,000
from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Facilities Reserve
Fund for Recommendations 12 and 13 below.
12. In accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive
Procurement, approve and authorize the Director of
purchasing and contracting to negotiate and execute
Amendments of up to $500,000 to Contract No. 41115 with
Michael Brandman Associates for design of a flare system
to comply with Air Pollution Control District
requirements at the San Marcos Landfill and to complete
the permit process*
13. In accordance with Board Policy A-87, competitive
Procurement, approve and authorize the Director of
purchasing and Contracting to negotiate and execute
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Pago 3 of 18
Amendments of up to $250,000 to Contract No. 41302-E with
the IT Corporation to provide additional services
relative to permit acquisition and additional required
monitoring at the San Marcos Landfill.
14. Amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Spending Plan to:
1) Authorize the expenditure of $25,000 to provide
technical assistance in obtaining the Regional
Water Quality Control Board permit application; and
2) Authorize the Director of Purchasing and
Contracting to begin Contract negotiation with NBS-
Lowry, and subject to fair negotiations and
determination of a fair and reasonable price, enter
into a Contract to provide technical assistance in
preparing the Regional Water Quality Control Board
permit application.
»
15. Amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Spending Plan to:
1) Authorize the expenditure of $1,000,000 from the
Contingency Reserve to secure permit modifications
(if necessary) at the Otay, sycamore and Ramona
Facilities; and,
2) Authorize the Director of Purchasing and
Contracting to begin Contract negotiations with a
firm from the county's list of approved consultants
in accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive
Procurement.
16. Report back on May 21, 1991, time certain, with an action
plan on the County staffing and equipment needed to
implement Recommendations 4, 5, 6, 9b, and 10.
17. Find that the construction of additional scales and fee
booths at the Sycamore Landfill is in accordance with
Section 15096 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and that the County has considered the
Environmental Impact Report SCH 84040407 as certified on
June 28, 1989 by the California Department of
Transportation, and July 28, 1989 by the Federal Highway
Administration*
18. Amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Spending Plan tot
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 4 of 18
X) Authorize the expenditure of $600,000 from the
Contingency Reserve for the construction of
additional fee booths and temporary scales and
computers at the Sycamore, and Otay Landfills; and
2) Authorize the improvements necessary for
construction of fee booths(2) and temporary
scales(2) at the Sycamore Landfill, and the
improvements necessary for the construction of l
fee booth and temporary scale at the Otay Landfill,
and 3 upgraded computer systems.
There are on file a letter the following letters:
Board of Supervisors
Document No.
740905
740877
741008
740934
740919
740920
From
T. P. Pocklington
President of
sweetwater Valley
Civic Association
J. R, Thayer
Robert C. Maxwell,
Kenneth H.
Lounsbery,
SERVCON
Subject;
Opposition to
transferring North
County trash to
South Bay
Support for a trash-
to-energy facility.
Oppos i t i on to
transferring North
County trash to the
Otay Landfill site.
Concerning County's
transfer station
siting plan
and Mrs* M. Support for a trash-
.(illegible) to-energy contract.
Support for a Trash-
to-energy plant.
Mr.
S.
John A. Trathen
The Chief Administrative Officer makes introductory comments
on the three issues to be discussed and notes the matters being
discussed are related to the critical issue of solid waste
management.
The Deputy Director of the Department of Public Works for
Solid Waste Management gives a status report on solid waste issues.
He gives an overview of the immediate complex issues involved in
regional solid waste management. He states the report was prepared
to illustrate that solid waste issues are interrelated and have an
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
do
Page 5 of 18
effect on each other. With the aid of slides he reviews background
information and reviews the process currently in operation for the
disposal of solid waste. He addresses (1) recycling programs in
different areas in the County, (2) concerns related to capacity of
the different landfills, (3) requirements of AB939, (4) importance
of transfer stations, and (4) the financing for the different
programs. He reviews timelines for reports due back to the Board
for review. He states that the San Marcos landfill expansion, the
North County landfill siting and permitting, the transfer stations,
and waste-to-energy are the high priority issues because of the
great need right now in North County. Concerning the real property
contracts for the acquisition of the San Marcos Landfill, he states
the acquisition of certain parcels are within the original plan
A representative from the Department of Public Works addresses
the San Marcos Landfill Contingency Plan. He reviews the revised
recommendations as per revisions presented by staff, Board of
Supervisors Document No. 741081, and states the recommendations can
be summarized into six action items which include the San Marcos
Permits for expansion of the life of the landfill, diversion of
vehicles from the San Marcos landfill, the use of foam as cover for
the landfill, implementation of a transfer station process,
mandatory recycling Count-wide, and direction to work with the
AB939 Advisory Committees before coming back to the Board on May
21, 1991, with an action plan and discussion of the needed parcel
purchases. He states the contingency plans came about because of
the potential that the San Marcos Landfill will close temporarily
or permanently if the expansion permits are denied.
The following individuals express concerns with the proposal
to divert waste disposal from North County to the Otay Landfill as
a viable measure for extending the life of the San Marcos Landfill:
Michael Bixler, Mayor of Imperial Beach cites the following
concerns associated with diverting the waste: traffic impacts, air
quality impacts, reduction of life for the Otay landfill, and
increased cost for trash disposal. He asks that at the minimum an
environmental report be conducted before implementing this
proposal.
Leonard M. Moore, Mayor Pro Tempore for the City of Chula
Vista, presents the Board with a written copy of his testimony,
Board of Supervisors Document No. 741009* He asks the Board to
give serious thought to the issue and to choose other options which
do not penalize the "good soldiers".
Tim Nader, Councilmember from the City of Chula Vista, reviews
future projects and plans for the City of Chula Vista and points
out that being the "dumping grounds" for other communities is not
NOB. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 6 of 18
consistent with those plans. He indicates that the diversion of
waste disposal to the South county should require an environmental
report.
The Chairman of the Board reads into the record a letter,
Board of Supervisors Document No. 741010, from Judy McCarty,
Councilmember for the City of San Diego, in which Ms. Mccarty
states landfills are a fact of life and it is time communities
became good neighbors instead of exploiting government processes to
protect neighborhood turf./
Nick Aguilar, Board member of the sweetwater District Board or
Trustees, expresses concern that the increased load on the otay
Landfill will result in increased fees.
The following individuals address the Board in
support/opposition to the various issues relating to solid waste
and the San Marcos contingency plans:
Bud Lewis, Mayor of the City of Carlsbad states the problem is
most acute in North County because of what is happening in the San
Marcos Landfill area. He indicates cities must now be involved in
waste management and overall elements affecting the San Diego
region because of cost implications and requirements of AB939. He
addresses financial and environmental concerns relating to disposal
options. He also addresses the following issues: (2) need for
cities to take part in the decision making process; (3) need to
address joint powers agreements; (5) development of transfer
system; (6) need to address an independent financial analysis of
cost and benefits of waste disposal alternatives; (7) need to
address the short term as well as long term solutions; (8)
incineration; and (9) evaluation of private sector.
Gail Hano, Mayor of Encinitas, indicates that for the short
term solution the expansion of the San Marcos landfill needs to be
promptly processed and approved and mitigation of adverse impacts
should be resolved through the California Environmental Quality
Act. She points out the need for confirmation from the Board of
Supervisors that the County will be able to continue to provide the
necessary services until a new North County landfill is on line.
Don Rodee, Councilmember from the City of Oceanside, presents
the Board with two letters plus attachments, Board of Supervisors
Document No. 741106, expressing support for the San Marcos Landfill
expansion and addressing the impacts associated with recycling of
trash and transfer stations. He states 70 percent of cities in
North County are not interested in a trash burning type facility.
He expresses concern that neither the cities nor the County will
receive the revenue from these plants.
NOS. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dcPage 7 of 18
Jan McMillian, Mayor of City of Del Mar, expresses support for
an overall plan for countywide mandatory recycling, she points out
the serious economic impacts to ratepayers with a trash to energy
plant, and states that if cities are asked to have flow control
agreements they should have a much stronger voice in the financial
strategy for the program.
Celine Olson, Deputy Mayor of Solana Beach, expresses support
for additional studies concerning the financial and environmental
feasibility of the trash to energy plants. He suggests that the
formation of joint powers agreement would go a long way in the
right direction.
Jack Anderson states that Mayor Lewis has expressed his
concerns.
Sandra schultz, Vice Chair of the AB939 Technical Advisory
Committee and representing the City of La Mesa, expresses support
for the recommendation to direct staff to meet with the AB939
Advisory Committee and points out the need for the Committee's
input because they will be responsible for implementing the
proposed solutions. She expresses opposition to the diversion of
trash to the South Bay.
Reynold Blunk, member of the solid Waste Committee for the
City of Oceanside, speaks in support of waste to energy facilities
and cites their benefits. He states the solution lies in combined
efforts such as recycling, expansion of the San Marcos Landfill,
and waste to energy facilities.
Evelyn Alemanni, with the Elfin Forest Town Council, speaks
concerning the properties affected by the expansion of the San
Marcos Landfill. she states the landfill expansion leaves the
property owners no alternative. She asks that (l) families in the
buffer zone be compensated along the same guidelines used for
condemned properties; (2) that the Board do everything in its power
to expedite the process of acquiring these properties and closing
escrow, and (3) that the Board delay the expansion until all the
escrows are closed.
Bruce Hamilton, representing North County Concerned Citizens,
notes that the amount of waste entering the San Marcos Landfill has
declined dramatically during the last few months and at the current
rate will provide four years of life for San Marcos without any
diversion to the South County. He states the citizens of North
County do not want North County Waste diverted to South county
unless the Board votes to terminate the North County Resource
Recovery Associates contract. He urges the Board to terminate the
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 8 of 18
site contract and that North County Resource Recovery Associates
has no enforceable right to that site.
George Schlueter, consultant working with waste management,
states the technology for recycling/ resource recovery, and energy
recovery does exist and that resource recovery has tremendous
potential in the community. He stresses the importance of
recycling some of the valuable materials such as paper. He states
that if recycling is done without an integrated approach, the fuel
will be much too expensive. He states it is important that
everything be recycled into/its highest value.
Ruth Harber, representing the North County Coalition, presents
the Board with a North County Landfill Study, Board of Supervisors
Document No. 741011, and reviews what the driving distance would be
from Gregory Canyon as compared to using closer landfill sites.
Jean Doktpr, John Doktor and Monroe Foster speaking in support
of the trash-to-energy plant, cite benefits from having trash-to-
energy plants and problems associated with the landfills. They ask
the Board to consider the trash-to-energy plant as a viable
solution to the waste management problem.
Patricia Newton, member of the Elfin Forest Coalition, reviews
costs and impacts of the incinerator project. She addresses the
impact to the area such as destruction of rural character,
devaluation of properties, and the increase in health risks.
Bethany Gilmore indicates that there are better ways to waste
management than burying the refuse. She asks the Board to make a
decision that protects and preserves the natural resources and will
be for the highest good of all.
Candy Lindemuth states she owns one of the inverse
condemnation properties. She reviews background information
concerning her property and how the acquisition of her property has
been delayed. She asks for a time and date for the acquisition of
her property.
Carol Metzger addresses the impact to the contamination of
clean water if the siting is done at the Gregory canyon site and
cites reason why the Merriam Mountain site is a better solution to
the problem.
Virginia Buonarati, President of the North County Coalition,
presents the Board with a written copy of her testimony, Board of
Supervisors Document No. 741012. She expresses concern regarding
the search and evaluation of the site for the proposed landfill.
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 9 of 18
Charles Holsclaw presents the Board with a written copy of his
testimony, Board of Supervisors Document No. 741015, and speaks in
support of a trash-to-energy plant. He asks the Board to support
up-front recycling, burning that which cannot be recycled, and
making trash a revenue maker.
Burke Belknap, chemical engineer working in the environmental
field, speaks in support of the trash to energy plant. He states
it is the way of the future. He also states it is the least
polluting method and states it will be more economical in the long
run. '
Wayne Balderson speaks in support of the trash to energy
plant. He states incineration will eliminate life threatening
illnesses, landfills, transporting, and will save the County's
watershed, wildlife, and atmosphere. He suggests that trash
already in the landfills be recycled to make more room for
unrecyclable refuse.
Jim Casey, with the Construction Industry .Federation, presents
the Board with a letter. Board of Supervisors Document No. 741013,
submitting alternatives which address the increased cost to the
industry because of the increased distance related with the
diversion of trash to other landfills. He asks the Board to
conisder these alternatives.
Maggie Helton speaks in opposition to the trucking of refuse
from North county to the South County. She addresses the issues of
the prison authority facility, the six sites for landfills in South
County as compared with two sites for the North County, and asks
what is planned for the South county when that landfill is filled
to capacity.
Ted Marioncelli, representing Coast Waste Management lessee of
the Palomar transfer facility, asks the Board not to terminate the
lease with Waste Coast Management but to consider a contract with
the private sector for joint use of the site with the County.
Daniel Dennison, Helen Caesel, and Carol Freno, President of
crossroads, speak in opposition to diverting the refuse to South
County from North County. Reasons cited for opposition include
increased traffic, increased air pollution, wear and tear on roads,
decreased life for the South County landfill and the fact that the
South County already has its share of public service entities such
as Federal and State prisons, airport, and landfills.
George Boase suggests the following for solving the refuse
crisis in North County and fulfilling the requirements of AB939:
(1) canceling the North County Resource Recovery Associates project
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 10 of 18
and utilizing the site for the short term solution to the San
Marcos crisis (2) expanding the San Marcos Landfill southwest to
the 750 foot level, (3) adopting the Merriam Mountain site, (3)
adopting a policy stating no recyclables may be lanfilled after
July 1992, and no unseparated garden waste will be accepted after
January 1991, (4) adopting the policy of refusing organic waste at
landfills after January l, 1995, (5) increasing landfill tipping
fees to $36 a ton effective July 1, 1991, and (6) making all cities
responsible for the administration of recycling and composting
programs within their sphere of influence./
Muriel Watson asks the Board to take into consideration the
impact of the additional truck traffic to the area.
Sylvia Moore, owner of Parcel Nos. 90-0330-A-D, and Bob
Haberman state the County has put them into a hostage situation
with regard to their property. They review sequence of events and
express concern at the delay and the process used by the County to
acquire their property for the expansion of the San Marcos
Landfill. They ask the Board to proceed with acquisition of their
properties without delay.
There are on file requests to speak in support/opposition to
various issues concerning solid waste issues and the San Marcos
Landfill Contingency plans from the following people although they
do not in fact orally address the Board when their names are
called: Vince Biondo, George C. Davila, Edward C. McKenna, Bill
Schwartz, Gaye Soroka, Charles Stalb, and Dwight Worden.
The record shows that seven individuals have indicated
support/opposition but do not wish to orally address the Board.
During discussion concern is expressed at diverting the North
County trash to South County and it is indicated that a commitment
has been made to the citizens of the South County that landfills
sited in that area will handle the waste stream from the South
County and not other Counties. It is pointed out that the permit
for the landfill sites will be violated if the diversion of trash
is approved and that another Environmental Impact Report should be
required. Supervisor MacDonald indicates that if the capacity of
the San Marcos landfill is reached and the trash-to-energy plant
does not come on line, there will be a health crisis that will not
be surmountable unless trash is hauled to other areas. He also
indicates that if the action to divert trash is not passed it will
be a straying away from the regional approach to this problem. The
following are issues addressed during discussion: (1) emissions
from the trash-to-energy plant as compared to truck emissions; (2)
additional transportation and facility costs; (3) mandatory
recycling; (4) need for transfer stations near to landfills; (5)
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 11 of 18
flow control agreements? (6) required Environmental Impact Review;
and (7) reason for halting the San Marcos expansion. It is
indicated that there are many components to the solution of the
waste management problem and that there has to be another solution
at this time which is not shipping it to some other region.
Supervisor MacDonald states he cannot support a motion to start
mandatory recycling in the San Marcos Landfill unless the whole
region has mandatory recycling.
NO. 61 /
ON MOTION of Supervisor Bilbray seconded by supervisor Bailey,
the Board of Supervisors (i) directs County Counsel to appeal to
the Regional Water Quality Control Board decision of March 11, 1991
to the state Water Resources Control Board and seek a rehearing on
the vertical expansion of the San Marcos Landfill; (2) directs the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board requesting that either A)
their staff proceed with work on the County's application, or B)
the Regional Water Quality control Board select a consultant to
continue the work and the County will pay the related costs; (3)
directs staff to meet with AB939 Advisory Committees to gain their
input; (4) directs staff to prepare an Amendment to the Solid Waste
Management Ordinance (6875), Sections 68*501 and 68.511 to provide
for the control of vehicle access to the San Marcos Landfill; and
said no to the recommendation that would divert all vehicles that
are not solid waste industry compaction vehicles and standard
passenger and pick-up truck vehicles to the County's remaining
solid waste facilities and directed Chief Administrative Officer at
this time not to divert waste streams to south county locations,
and that North County waste streams go to existing or adjacent
sites.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, and Williams
NOES: Supervisor MacDonald
ABSENT: Supervisors None
No. 62
ON MOTION of supervisor Golding, seconded by Supervisor
Bilbray, the Board of Supervisors approves in concept and directs
the Chief Administrative Officer to return to the Board at a time
certain on May 21, 1991 with an Amendment to the Solid Waste
Management Ordinance for phased implementation and enforcement of
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 12 of 18
^
mandatory recycling in all areas in the region using County
landfills, to include the following elements:
A. curbside Separation and Collection of Yard and Wood Waste
B. Commercial and Business Office Paper Recycling
C. Residential Curbside Recycling Programs
D. Enforcement of Recycling Requirements;
and that no recyclables, or yard waste that can be composted be
allowed in County landfills, that a waste stream truck control be
initiated at the San Marcos Landfill, and initiate the program in
North County; and directs staff to prepare the implementation plan
for the Board's review on May 21, 1991, with phased implementation
to follow for the entire San Diego Region.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, and Williams
NOES: Supervisor MacDonald
ABSENT: Supervisors None
No. 63
ON MOTION of Supervisor Golding, seconded by supervisor
Williams, the Board of Supervisors amends the Fiscal Year 1990*91
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Spending Plan to authorize the
expenditure of $250,000 from the Solid Waste Contingency Reserve
and authorizes the Director of Purchasing and Contracting to
negotiate an Amendment to Contract No. 41056-E with the68 Herzog
Contracting Corporation for the application of foam as cover
material at the San Marcos Landfill.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, and
MacDonald
NOES: supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
No. 64
ON MOTION of Supervisor Golding, seconded by Supervisor
Williams, the Board of Supervisors directs the Director of General
Services to terminate the lease with Coast Waste Management at the
Nos. 61-71
4/9/91
dc
Page 13 of 18
Palomar Transfer Station; and, amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid
Waste Enterprise Fund spending Plan to:
A. Authorize the expenditure of $500,000 from the Solid Waste
Contingency Reserve to authorize the Department of Public
WorXs to proceed with environmental review, design, permit,
construction plans and specifications to expand the facility
at the Palomar, Vista and San Marcos Transfer Stations; and
8. Direct and authorize the Director of Purchasing and
Contracting, to negotiate a Contract utilizing Board Policy F-
40, Procuring Architectural, Engineering and Related
Professional Services, to procure a consultant for the design,
environmental review and permitting of the Palomar, Vista, and
San Marcos transfer stations; and, authorize the Director of
Purchasing and Contracting to award a Contract upon the
completion of successful negotiations not to exceed $500,000;
and
With regard to the proposed vista Transfer Station:
A. Finds in accordance with Section 15096 of the 'California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines that the County has
considered the Environmental Impact Report certified by the
City of Vista (E85-46) that addresses the impacts of
industrial uses within the North county Industrial park. This
finding is for the acquisition of two parcels of land in B and
C below* Directs the Clerk of the Board of supervisors to
file a Notice of Determination for this action.
B. Amends the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to
authorize the expenditure from the Facilities Reserve of
$5,700,000 to have the Director of General Services to
immediately acquire parcel numbers 219-531-32 and 219-532-19
for the purpose of the development of a solid waste
recycling/transfer station in the North County Industrial Park
to be owned and operated by the County of San Diego.
C. Directs staff to proceed with necessary steps to purchase the
property and request the San Diego capital Asset Leasing
Corporation to initiate the financing for the purchase of the
property and return to your Board for approval. Upon receipt
of funds from this action, direct the Auditor and Controller
to reimburse the Facilities Reserve;
with the caveat that it be without prejudice on the ability of the
Board to make a policy decision in the future to use private
enterprise to operate transfer stations if it wishes to do so.
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 14 of 18
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, and
MacDonald
NOES: Supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
NO. 6S /
ON MOTION of Supervisor Bailey, seconded by Supervisor
Williams, the Board of Supervisors amends the Fiscal Year 1990-91
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Spending Plan to authorize the
expenditure of $1,000,000 from the Contingency Reserve and directs
the Chief Administrative Officer to seek modifications to the San
Marcos Landfill Permit to provide the means to transfer up to 2,000
tons per day from that facility to other solid waste facilities
throughout the County, with the understanding that this is for the
creation of a transfer station at the San Marcos Landfill.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, and
MaoDonald
NOES: Supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
No. 66
ON MOTION of supervisor Bailey, seconded by Supervisor
Golding, the Board of Supervisors amends the Fiscal Year 1990-91
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Spending Plan to authorize the
expenditure of $750,000 from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Facilities Reserve Fund for actions taken in Board Order No. 67
below
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, and
MacDonald
NOES: supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 15 of 18
No. 67
ON MOTION of Supervisor Golding, seconded by supervisor
Williams, the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Board Policy
A-87, Competitive Procurement, approves and authorizes the Director
of Purchasing and Contracting to negotiate and execute Amendments
of up to $500,000 to Contract No. 41115 with Michael Brandman
Associates for design of a flare system to comply with Air
Pollution control District requirements at the San Marcos Landfill
and to complete the permittprocess; and in accordance with Board
Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement, approves and authorizes the
Director of Purchasing and Contracting to negotiate and execute
Amendments of up to $250,000 to Contract No. 41302-E with the IT
Corporation to provide additional services relative to permit
acquisition and additional required monitoring at the San Marcos
Landfill; and amends the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund Spending Plan to:
1. Authorize the expenditure of $25,000 to provide technical
assistance in obtaining the Regional Water Quality Control
Board permit application; and
2. Authorize the Director of Purchasing and contracting to begin
Contract negotiation with NBS-Lowry, and subject to fair
negotiations and determination of a fair and reasonable price,
enter into a Contract to provide technical assistance in
preparing the Regional Water Quality Control Board permit
application.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
vote;
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, and
MacDonald
NOES: Supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
Mo. 68
ON MOTION of Supervisor Golding, seconded by Supervisor
Williams, the Board of Supervisors amends the Fiscal Year 1990-91
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Spending Plan to authorize the Director
of Purchasing and Contracting to begin Contract negotiations with
a firm from the County's list of approved consultants in accordance
with Board Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement; and report back on
May 21, 1991, time certain, with an action plan on the County
staffing and equipment needed to implement the actions for this
NOS. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
page 16 of 18
date's Board Order Nos 61, 62, Item B of Board Order No. 64
relating to Vista Transfer station, and Board Order No. 65.
vote:
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
AYES: supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, and
MacDonald
NOES: supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
Mo. 69
ON MOTION of Supervisor Bilbray, seconded by Supervisor
Bailey, the Board of supervisors opposes the following
recommendations of the Chief Administrative Officer at this time:
(15) (1) authorize the expenditure of $1,000,000 from the
Contingency Reserve to secure permit modifications (if necessary)
at the Otay, Sycamore and Ramona Facilities; (17) find that the
construction of additional scales and fee booths at the sycamore
Landfill is in accordance with Section 15096 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and that the County has
considered the Environmental impact Report SCH 84040407 as
certified on June 28, 1989 by the California Department of
Transportation, and July 28, 1989 by th" F*d
a
e
n
r^ n ^filSJAdministration; and (18) Amend the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund Spending Plan to: 1) authorize the expenditure of
$600,000 from the Contingency Reserve for the construction of
additional fee booths and temporary scales and computers at the
Sycamore, and Otay Landfills; and 2) authorize the improvements
necessary for construction of fee booths(2) and temporary scales(2)
at the sycamore Landfill, and the improvements necessary for the
construction of 1 fee booth and temporary scale at the Otay
Landfill, and 3 upgraded computer systems.
vote:
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, and Williams
NOES: Supervisor MacDonald
ABSENT: Supervisors None
Nos. 61 - 71
4/9/91
dc
Page 17 of 18
Po«-ir Fax Note 7671
No. 7Q
There being no motion and no objection, the Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors notes and files the status report, on solid
waste issues.
NO. 71
ON MOTION of supervisor Bailey, seconded by Supervisor
Golding, the Board of Supervisors sets a hearing date for Hay 7,
1991, 9:00 a.m. instead of April 23, 1991, to approve the purchase
of parcels Nos. 90-0330-A-D and 90-0149-A--C relating to TE3660 -
San Marcos Landfill, Real Property Contracts and has the Clerk of
the Board publish Notice of Intention to purchase in accordance
with Government Code Sections 25340 and 6063 prior to the hearing
date.
vote:
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams, and
MacDonald
NOES: Supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
County of San Diego)
i
I, THOMAS J. 'PASTUSZKA', Clerk of the Board of supervisors of
the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby certify that
I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted
by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held April 9, 1991
(61 - 71), by the vote herein stated, which original order is now
on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and
correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand and the seal of said Board of supervisors,
this 15th day of May, 1991.
THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By ifQT?-.-
Patricia M. Fras«r>-Deputy
8 M.O, # 71 pulled to 5-21-91 # 108
I i
NUEIA 92•o^iit • 5 j
igRo
* jr
5 °
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Z ~UI Zi£3g 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 7419
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNA-
TIONS FOR ONE AREA OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.
GPA/LU 83-11 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on October 12, 1983
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
GPA/LU 83-11; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Planning Manager and the Planning
Commission have determined that the environmental impacts of this
project have already been considered in conjunction with another
project and previously certified environmental documents and
therefore,, issued a Notice of Prior Compliance on September 13,
1983.
WHEREAS, THE City Council did on November 15 and 22, 1983
hold duly advertised public hearings to consider said amendments
and at said time received the recommendations, objections,
protests and comments of all interested persons desiring to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after considering the proposed
change to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, directed the
City Attorney to return with appropriate documents to allow the
City Council to vote on the change individually as a part of one
single amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
I I
S.B£2
t>di
8
g
10
11
la
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That this resolution and Resolutions No. 7418
7420 i and 7421 constitute a single amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
3". That the findings of the Planning Commission as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2191 (GPA/LU 83-11)
constitute the findings of the City Council.
4. That the Land Use Element of the General Plan is
amended as follows:
A. GPA/LU 83-11; Change the land use designation
from OS Open Space to PI Planned Industrial, R-L Residential Low
Density and Open Space on 205 acres of land generally located
east of El Camino Real and north of Palomar Airport Road, as
shown on the map marked Exhibit X dated October 12, 1983,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 6th day of December , 1983
by the following vote; to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis and Prescott
NOES: Council Members Kulchin and Chick
ABSENT: None
MARY H. jCASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Olerk 1
,'0
COLMTY OF SAN DUGO
CARLSBAD OAKS
CITY SAFETY ft
SERVICE CENTER
(NOT A PART) JES
PALOMAR
TRANSFER
EXHIBIT X
OCTOBER 12, 1983
CITY )F CARLSBAD — AGENDA ILL
AB#.
MTG. 11/1P/83...
PFPT PLN
UIL£ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ID REDESIGNATE AREA
EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL & RES-
IDENTIAL. GPA/LU 83-1 1 - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
DEPT.
CITY ATTY
CITY MQR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and the staff are recommending that the City Council
direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents APPROVING GPA/LU 83-11.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The County of San Diego is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan. The proposed amendment would redesignate approximately 205
acres from open space (OS), to a combination of open space (OS), planned
industrial (PI) and low density residential (PL), on property located east and
southeast of the proposed public safety center (location map attached). The PI
area is consistent with the surrounding properties to the east, west and south.
The RL area is located at the north end of the property and is consistent with
the previously approved Mandana property.
The major issue regarding the county's request involves the protection of the
riparian (stream) habitat which runs through the property. Staff feels that
county has left sufficient OS area to ensure protection of this significant
habitat (please see Exhibit X for proposed land use boundaries). A specific
plan will be required for this property before development as it is located in
the airport influence area of the general plan.
For further information please see the attached Planning Commission staff
report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental impact report for the public safety center also covered the
subject property. The Council certified that EIR on December 21, 1982. The
Land Use Planning Manager issued a Notice of Prior Compliance on September 13,
1983.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no direct fiscal impact from the proposed project. Approval may
eventually save the City improvement costs on Faraday Avenue east of the safety
center.
EXHIBITS
1,
2.
3,
4,
Location Map
PC Resolution No. 2191
Exhibit X
PC Staff Report w/attachments
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2191
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM
OPEN SPACE TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
AND OPEN SPACE FOR 205 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CASE NO.; GPA/LU 83-11
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the
General Plan designation for certain property located, as shown on
Sxhibit "X", dated October 12, 1983, attahced and incorporated
lerein, have been filed with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a request
for amendment as provided in Title 21 of theCarlsbad Municipal Code
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 12th day of
Dctober, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
Law to consider said request;
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 the General Plan Amendment.
i
! NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
I
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
\) That the above recitations are true and correct.
3) That in view of the findings made and considering the
applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to
recommend APPROVAL of GPA/LU 83-11, as shown on Exhibit "X",
dated October 12, 1983.
26 jiFindings;
The project site is physically suitable to accomodate
development permitted by -the proposed land use designations,
28 J! as discussed in the staff report.
27 |;
M
7
12
13
2) Uses allowed by the proposed land use designations would be
compatible with surrounding land uses, as discussed in the |
staff report. "
3) That all significant environmental impacts have been
mitigated, the project has been changed so as to mitigate
4 these impacts, or social or economic factors exist which
override these significant impacts as described below:
5
A) Hydrology
6
Impact: Development will result in increased storm water
B) Archaeological Resources16
flows.
Impact: Grading activities could accelerate soil
erosion.
9
Impact: Increased sediment loads can lead to clogging of
10 waterways, increased flooding problems, adverse aesthetic
conditions and damage to habitat.
Mitigation: The project area has been redefined
to stay out of natural watercourses to minimize
these impacts. The specific plan can require
that grading only be permitted during the dry
season, and that permanent landscape plantings
are to be planted promptly after grading is
completed.
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
I!261!////
Impact: Project implementation will disrupt four
archaeological sites at their present locations on site.
Mitigation: A qualified archaeologist will
determine the significance of the archaeological
deposits identified on the property through a
test program designed to investigate the site's
extent depth and contents. Recommended testing
will be required in the specific plan by a
qualified archaeologist.
271;////
I:'
28 !PC RESO NO. 2191
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
C) Land Use
Impact: The proposed project without adequate shielding
measures could render the UCSD radio-telescope, located
on the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve, unusable.
Mitigation: It is inevitable that development
will gradually encroach closer and closer to
this use, eventually causing its relocation. A
specific plan is required for this subject
property and mitigation measures, such as
placing electrical distribution lines
underground and installing electrical shielding
devices could be provided as part of the
specific plan.
Impact: The project area could be subject to the hazard
of emergency aircraft landings.
Mitigation: The County of San Diego has clear
zone property located just to the south of the
subject property which could be utilized for
emergency landings.
D) Landform/Topography
Impact: The proposed project and subsequent grading
operations will result in permanent alterations to the
existing natural terrain.
Mitigation: In accordance with mitigation
recommend in the EIR, the specific plan will
require grading controls to minimize impacts
including creative building siting, following
natural topography in developing pad areas and
contour grading to blend in with hillsides.
All grading activities will be carried out to
the standards and regulations of the City's
grading ordinance.
PC RESO NO. 2191
7
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
settlemel^
1
2
soft compressible soils in fill areas could occur.
3
Mitigation: All grading and site preparation
E) Geology and Soils
Impact: As a result of grading operations,
4
5M
consultant.
6
Impact: Removal of vegatation during grading activities
activities will be conducted in accordance with
the City of Carlsbad grading regulations and tt
site specific recommendations of a geotechnica]
will expose underlying soils to increased potential for
erosion by wind and water.
Mitigation: To minimize the short term impact
9 of increased erosion potential, all grading
areas not suited for construction should be
10 planted with rapidly developing vegetation as
soon after construction as practical, as
11 required by the City Grading Ordinance.
12 Impact: Groundshaking could occur from seismic activity
along one of the active fault zones in the region.
Mitigation: All structures will be designed ir
accordance with the seismic standards of thj
California Building Code.
15
F) Biological Resources
16
Impact: Development of the project site could degrade
existing riparian habitat
Mitigation: Land use designations were
delineated to protect riparian habitat in Open
Space. The specific plan and the City of
Carlsbad grading regulations are anticipated tc
provide adequate erosion controls to limit
degradation by siltation.
G) Circulation
Impact: The project will generate 6,800 trips per day c
nearby roadways.
Mitigation: Impacts are considered minimal.
Roadway improvements, accompanying development,
should mitigate increased traffic volumes.
PC RESO NO. 2191
1
2
3M
local air quality.
4
5n
construction impacts.
6
7
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
H) Air Resources
Impact: Grading and construction activities represent <
source of fugitive dust which, along with construction
exhaust emissions, could have a short term impact on
Mitigation: City grading regulations are
anticipated to mitigate short term grading and
Impact: Industrial uses could potentially subject the
area to the accidental release of toxic or noxious
emissions.8
Mitigation: City ordinances prohibit nuisance-
type industrial uses.
I) Acoustic Environment
Impact: Construction activities will increase noise
levels on a short term basis.12
Mitigation: The specific plan will require the
construction be limited to daytime hours only.
J) Public Utilities and Community Services
Impact: Demand will be increased.
Mitigation: The propsed project will
incorporate all recommendations and requirement
of the City of Carlsbad Water Department and
the Costa Real Municipal Water District when
specific site designs are evaluated.
!| Mitigation: Development of the project will be
•\ coordinated with construction of additional
j sewage treatment capacity.
Mitigation: To help mitigate potential fire
hazards, all development will conform with
appropriate building and fire code
specifications, including the following:
a) Installation of sprinkler systems in al
industrial buildings.
b) Adequate street widths to insure fire
fighting vehicle access.
c) Use of fire retardant building
materials.
d) Buffer areas of fire retardant
vegetation.
e) Adequate water pressure for fire
fighting purposes.
PC RESO NO. 2191 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
K) Aesthetics
Impact: The visual character of the site will be c
from semi-rural to urban.
Mitigation: The specific plan can require that
the building materials and architectural design
will be compatible with the overall design them<
in the Palomar Airport area.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Calfornia, held on th<
12th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
-airman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombotis,
rcus, Lyttleton and Rawlins.
Commissioner Farrow.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Farrow.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairma
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2191 6.
CC JNTY OF SAN C.^GO
CITY SAFETY A
SERVICE CENTER/
(NOT A PART) J&
PALOMAR
TRANSFER
STATION
EXHIBIT X
OCTOBER 12, 1983
APPLIC "ION SUBMITTAL DATE
JULY 2 1983
STAFF REPORT
/"^CDDATE: October 12, 1983
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: GPA/LU 83-11 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - Request to amend the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to designate land
as Planned Industrial, Residential Low Density and Open
Space north of Palomar Airport Road and east of El
Camino Real.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution
No. 2191, recommending APPROVAL of GPA/LU 83-11, based on the
findings contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, is requesting approval of an amendment to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan to designate approximately 205
acres Planned Industrial (PI), Residential Low Density (RL, 0-
1.5 du/ac) and Open Space (OS), located as described above. The
irregularly shaped parcel surrounds the City's, proposed Safety
and Service Center to the north, east and south. The project
site is comprised of slopes, valleys and related riparian areas
of much of the Agua Hedionda Creek watershed. The subject
property is vacant and covered by natural vegetation. The site
is characterized by eroding hillsides and well-defined
drainages. Elevations on-site range from 100 to 400 feet above
sea level.
The project site is currently designated Open Space (OS) by the
Land Use Element of the General Plan. Adjoining the site, to
the east, is the undeveloped Carlsbad Oaks industrial park,
designated PI and OS. The airport "clear zone" lies to the
south. The Mandana Company's Carlsbad Ridge project, designated
RL, borders to the northwest. The Dawson-Los Monos Reserve
exists to the northeast. Surrounding land uses to the west
include the Palomar Transfer Station, Palomar Tech Centre,
Beckman Instruments and the proposed City Safety and Service
Center. All are designated PI and topographically distinguished
from the site on elevated plateaus.
The project site is proposed to be primarily served by the
westward extension of Faraday Avenue, a secondary arterial.
Faraday Avenue would also provide access to the City Safety and
Service Center and the Carlsbad Oaks property, eventually
joining Melrose Drive. Secondary access, to the southern
portion of the property, would be acquired through an extension
of the roadway which formerly served the Palomar Transfer
Station.
A request to designate the subject property Planned Industrial
was previously considered in November 1982, in conjunction with a
similar request by the City of Carlsbad to accomodate the
proposed Safety and Service Center. The City property, being a
level mesa top with access readily available, was designated for
Planned Industrial development. The request to amend the
designation for the balance of the property was denied without
prejudice pending the establishment of a new alignment for
Faraday Avenue (Los Monos Road).
An Environmental Impact Report, addressing both the City of
Carlsbad and County properties, was prepared and certified at
the time off the previous consideration. With respect to
eventual industrial development of the current project site, the
Environmental Impact Report identified potential significant
impacts to landforms and topography, hydrology, archaeology and
biological resources.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) What are the most appropriate land use designations
for the suubject property?
2} Have all environmental impacts, associated with the
proposed amendments, been adequately mitigated?
Discussion
Staff believes that a combination of Planned Industrial (PI),
Open Space (OS) and Residential Low Density (RL) are the most
appropriate land use designations for the subject property. As
shown on attached Exhibit "X", the majority of the site would be
designated Planned Industrial. Riparian woodland areas would be
protected in Open Space. A smaller area at the northwest of the
project site would be reserved for Residential Low Density, 0-1.5
du's/ac.
The portion of the project proposed to be designated Planned
Industrial is bordered to the east and west by similarly
designated property. Future land uses, therefore, are
anticipated to be compatible. This area is divided into two
areas, north and south of the planned extension of Faraday
Avenue. The two areas, approximately and acres, are
adequate in size to accomodate development permitted in Planned
Industrial areas.
-2-
The proposed PI area, north of the roadway, has been delineated
to avoid the sensitive riparian areas. The area shown for
Planned Industrial would represent the limits of grading of
eventual development. Surrounding riparian areas to the west,
north and east would be designated Open Space.
The property south of Faraday Avenue and north of the "clear
zone" would also be designated Planned Industrial. Open Space
areas have not been specified in this area although some may
occur when further grading studies are developed. The terrain
in this area contains varying elevations, hills and valleys.
Through the specific plan process staff intends to work with the
applicant to minimize necessary grading and alterations of the
natural topography.
A smaller area of land, at the northwestern portion of the
subject property, would be designated for Residential Low Density
(RL) development. This portion of the project, approximately
eight acres, is suitable in size to accomodate a limited number
of dwelling units. This portion of the project relates most
closely to the Mandana Carlsbad Ridge property. During
development of that tentative map, the provision for possible
future access to the subject property was provided. Staff
believes that the site topographically identifies with adjoining
residential property, that future land uses would be compatible
and adequate buffering from industrial property to the south
would be accomplished by large slopes and riparian areas proposed
for open space.
Staff believes that all environmental impacts, associated with
the proposed amendments, have been mitigated, or future
mitigation can be provided. The project is within the Airport
Influence Area requiring preparation of a specific plan prior to
zoning or development. Staff believes that all environmental
impacts of development that are not mitigated at this time, can
be mitigated through the specific plan process.
The EIR identified potential significant impacts to biology and
hydrology as a result of designating the 205 acres for Planned
Industrial development. Staff believes these impacts can be
mitigated by designating major riparian areas for Open Space. As
discussed in the EIR, the most significant biological resource on
the project site are the areas of riparian habitat. Thses areas
are all the more significant due to their interconnection with
the Dawson-Los Monos Reserve and the Carlsbad Oaks area habitat.
Designation of these areas as OS would provide continuous
corridors of open space linking the Reserve, the Carlsbad Oaks
property and the Agua Hedionda Creek area. Staff believes that
preservation of the riparian areas, indicated on Exhibit "X", in
Open Space would adequately mitigate potential impacts to
hydrology and biological resources, at this level.
-3-
Staff further believes that the specific plan process can be
utilized to mitigate future impacts to land forms and topography,
hydrology, archaeology and biology. Grading controls, in the
specific plan can be used to mitigate impacts to topography,
hydrology and biology. Staff will work with the applicant at the
specific plan level to minimize grading and related impacts
through creative site design.
Mitigation of archaeological resources would be required by the
specific plan prior to any development or grading. Further
protection against impacts to biology and hydrology would also
be provided for in the specific plan.
Staff believes that the proposed land use designations, as shown
on Exhibit "X", are the most appropriate for the project site
and that by utilizing the specific plan process all significant
environmental impacts of development associated with these
designations can be adequately mitigated.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .
The Land Use Planning Manager had determined that the
environmental impacts of this project have already been
considered in conjunction with another project and previously
certified environmental documents and therefore, issued a Notice
of Prior Compliance on September 13, 1983.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2191
2) Location Map
3) Background Data Sheet
4) Disclosure Form
5) Environmental Documents
6) Exhibit "X", dated October 12, 1983
CDN:bw
9/28/83
I DCATION MAP
SITE
CARLSBAD
OAKS
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
CARLSBAD PACIFIC
INDUSTRIAL PARK
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GPA/LU83-11
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA/LU 83-11
APPLICANT: County of San Diego
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to
designate 205 acres as Planned Industrial, Residential Low Density and Open
Space north of Palomar Airport Road, East of El Camino Real.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lots A and B of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according
to Map thereof No. 823 filed in the Office of the County Recorder,
November 16f 1896 ' APN: 209-050-25
Acres 205 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation OS Proposed Land Use Design PIf RLf OS
Density Allowed Density Proposed 0-1.5 (RL)
Existing Zone OS Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site OS Vacant
North RE Vacant
South OS Vacant/Agriculture
East PC/PM Vacant/Agriculture
West M-Q Vacant/Industrial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's N/A
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other, Prior Compliance, dated September 13, 1983
-vhat further infornati-n required, you will be so -"iv" -ed_
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
County of San Diego
Name -{individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
5555 Overland Ave., San Diego, .CA 92123
Business Address
565-5162
Telephone Number
A. C. Waldman
Name
1960 Joe Crosson Dr.., El Cajon, CA 92020
Business Address
MEMBERS:
Telephone Number
Name '(individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Nuaber Telephone lumber
'lane Borne Address
Business Address
Telephone Nuaber Telephone Suaber
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
elosuro » true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and nay be-
relied upon as bsing true and correct until amended.
County of San Diego
Dept. of Public Works
K • J *j
aA. C. Waldman
BY Deputy Director PnM-io
DEVELOPMENTAL I^s^-S^Bl 12°0 ELM AVENUE
SERVICES El ^vj£?\ 9 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-198S
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE l^^W^^ (619) 438-5591
Cttp of Carlsbad
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Land Use Planning Office has determined that the environmental
effects of the project described below have already been considered in
conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and,
therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a
notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: McClellan-Palomar Industrial Park.
Project Location: North of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino ~
Real.
Project Description: Request to amend the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to designate 205 acres of property PI, (Planned
Industrial), OS, (Open Space) and RL, (Residential Low Density, 0-1.5
du's/ac).
Justification for this determination is on file in the Land Use
Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. Comments
from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
Land Use Planning Office within ten (10) days of date of publication.
Dated: September 13, 1983
MICHAEL J. HDHZMIHHBR
Case No: GPA/LU 83-11 Land Use Planning Manager
Applicant: Waldman
Publish Date: September 2 4 , 1983
PC 1
COUNTY OF SAN DltGO
CARLSBAD OAKS
CITY SAFETY * Ix*:
SERVICE
(NOT A
STATIOM .smmmmmmm
EXHIBIT
OCTOBER 12, 1983
PAUL A. PETERSONJOHN O.THCLANROBERT M. CANSGREGORY c. M. GARRATT
COWARD F. WHITTLE*
LYNNC L. ME1OCL
CHARLES W. mOCHLICH, JR.or COUNSCL
PETE RSON, THE LAN 8 PRICE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS
03OO CALIFORNIA FIRST BANK BUILDING
S3O B ST1UET
SAN DIECO, CALIFORNIA 92IOI-4454
November 22, 1983
TELEPHONE
AREA COOE 619
234-0361
F:LE NO.
2095.03
Mayor Mary Casler and
Members of the Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: GPA for County-Owned Property (GPA/LU 83-11)
Dear Mayor Casler and Members of the Council:
We are assisting the County of San Diego and its
consultant, Municipal Engineers, Inc., in processing an
amendment to the Carlsbad General Plan to facilitate a planned
industrial development within a portion of th«> County's
205-acre property located north of Palomar Airport Road and
east of El Camino Real. Approximately 65 acres would receive a
new designation of "Planned Industrial" and approximately
3 acres would receive the "Low Density Residential" designation
on the City General Plan.
WE SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT GPA/LU 83-11 BE APPROVED
Both the Planning Commission .(by a 5 - 1 vote) and the
Planning Department have recommended approval of the General
..^ Plan Amendment, which would provide the following benefits:
•>**?-••
Mayor Casler and Members of the Council
November 22, 1983
Page Two
1. Dedication and construction of a significant portion
of. Faraday. Road, a circulation element road on the City's
General Plan;
2. A high quality, phased development, pursuant to a
Specific Plan to be applied for by the County (pursuant to
» •. .
Board of Supervisors Policy F-20) and approved by the City;
3. Ultimate development by private enterprise of
individual industrial sites under leases with the County, and
pursuant to the Specific Plan approved by the City and
individual Planned Industrial Permits as required by the City's
P-M zone;
4. Additional funds to the City from property taxes,
sales taxes, business licenses, gas taxes, etc.;
5. Additional local jobs, consisting of temporary
construction employment and permanent employment after
construction is completed;
6. Preservation of significant open space corridors
in the Los Monos Canyon area;
Mayor easier and Members of the Council
November 22, 1983
Page Three
7. Long-term agricultural use of the clear zone area
located at the south end of the property; and
S
8. Access by the Beckman "South Campus" property to the
existing County-owned private road which runs along the western
edge of the County property.
It should be noted that the County's application for this
Qeneral Plan Amendment is pursuant to a provision in the
Purchase and Sale Agreement between the County and the City,
whereby the City acquired the 26-acre sit«> proposed for the
City Operations Center. The additional 65 acres (gross) which
would be designated "Planned Industrial" are within the Palomar
Airport Road industrial corridor and represent an increase of
approximately 3% in the total industrial acreage along that
corridor.
»••''.." We respectfully request that the City Council approve the
General Plan Amendment.
Very truly yours ,
PETERSON, THELAN & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
GCG:slr
cc: County of San Diego
Municipal Engineers, Inc.
Gregory C. M. Garratt
390 OAK AVENUE. SUITE "0"
P.O. BOX "B" CARLSBAD. CA 92008
Telephone (714) 729-9242
Nov. ?2, 1983
City Council
1200 Elffi Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca. 92-08
Re: GPA/LU 83-11 County of San Diego
•Honorable Members:
First of all, we appreciate the postponement of this item to give U3
time to analyze the issues. I am Chairman of the Growth Management Committee
of the Carlsbad Chamber, and at our regular monthly meeting on Monday, Nov. 21,
1983, the committee voted to oppose this rezoning on the basis of our philosophy
that no government entity should compete with the private sector, and at the
present time, there is sufficient vacant industrial ground available in Carlsbad
so that the change in the general plan is not necessary. Mr. Gregory C, M. Garratt,
attorney at law, and Mr. Charles R. Crull, Reg. Civil Engineer of Municipal
Engineers, Inc., were at our meeting and gave their presentation and answered
•our questions.
Problems connected with this rezone are as follows:
1. All funds generated from this project should ba used for improvement
of the streets, etc., in and about the airport area as well as the airport itself.
2. The County of San Diego should not receive any economic advantages
which are required of the private sector. For example, the County should also
be required to participate in the public facility fees program.
3. The County should be required to put Melrose back into the circu-
lation element for that portion south of the city limits to the proposed Hwy. 680.
4. Any development which would be considered by the County on tliis
industrial land should be required to be as compatible if not better than other
industrial projects in the area such as the Koll project, Birtcher Pacific, etc.
5. We assume all revenue from taxes would be lost to the City for the
land and improvements if the land remained in the ownership of the County.
6. vie feel that the transfer facility should be maintained until a
suitable offer is presented to the County.
7. No approval should be given for this project un^ll such time as the
Board of Supervisors approves all conditions.
Again, I would like to thank you for continuing this matter and appreciate
. your courtesy in receiving our testimony.•-^oura U£*I-LJ , ^
C
FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
specific • plan
Carlsbad, California
FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
specific • plan
Carlsbad. California
Prepared for:
County of San Diego
52011 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
Prepared by:
Lightfoot and Associates
702 4th Street
Oceanside, CA 92054
October, 1984
FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION PAGE
1.1 Purpose and Authority 1
1.2 Property Description and Location 1
1.3 General Plan and Zoning Designation 3
1.3.1 Land Use Element 3
1.3.2 Circulation Element 6
1.4 Zoning 8
CHAPTER 2 - SPECIFIC PLAN
2.1 Land Uses 11
2.1.1 Open Space - Area "A" 13
2.1.2 Open Space - Area "B" 13
2.1.3 Planned Industrial Uses 11
2.1.4 Palomar Solid Waste Transfer Station 14
2.1.5 Low Density Residential 15
2.2 Circulation 15
2.3 Transportation 15
2.3.1 Employee Transporatlon Plans 15
2.3.2 Modified Parking Plan 17
2.4 Development Phasing 17
2.4.1 Phasing Units 17
2.4.2 Circulation Phasing 19
2.5 Planned Industrial Permit 21
2.6 Public Facilities Fee Agreement 22
CHAPTER 3 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
3.1 Building Height 23
3.2 Setbacks 23
3.3 Site Coverage 24
3.4 Parking and Loading Areas 24
3.5 Manufacturing Operation 25
3.6 Outdoor Storage 25
3.7 Mechanical Equipment 25
3.8 Refuse Collection Areas 26
3.9 Grading 26
3.10 Landscaping 27
3.10.1 Faraday Road Landscaping 27
3.10.2 Business Park Landscaping 27
3.10.3 Transitional Slope Landscaping 28
3.10.4 Natural Slopes and Riparian Habitat 29
3.11 Underground Utilities 31
3.12 Signs 31
3.12.1 Project Entry Sign 31
3.12.2 Monument Sign 31
3.12.3 Wall Sign 31
3.12.4 Directory Sign 32
3.13 Lease Terms 32
CHAPTER 4 • PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4.1 Noise 33
4.2 Odor 33
4.3 Vibration 33
4.4 Humidity, Heat and Glare 34
4.5 Partlculate Matter and Air Contaminants 34
4.6 Radio Frequencies 34
4.7 Industrial Waste Discharge 34
CHAPTER 5 - MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1 Landform and Topography 35
5.2 Geology and Soils 35
5.3 Hydrology 36
5.4 Archaeological Resources 36
5.5 Biological Resources 37
5.6 Circulation 37
5.7 Air Resources 38
5.8 Acoustics 38
5.9 Public Utilities and Community Services 39
5.10 Aesthetics 39
5.11 Energy and Resources Conservation 40
CHAPTER 6 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 41
Appendix
A - Landscaping Plant List A-1
B - PM Planned Industrial Zone B-1
List of Maps and Exhibits
MAP 1 LOCATION 2
2 VICINITY AND EXISTING LAND USE 4
3 TOPOGRAPHY 5
4 GENERAL PLAN 7
5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT 9
6 ZONING 10
7 SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USES 12
8 UNIT PLAN 18
EXHIBIT 1 LANDSCAPE CROSS-SECTION 30
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Authority
The purpose of the Faraday Business Park Specific Plan is to
provide for the design, development and operation of a high
quality business park within the City of Carlsbad. The land
use and development regulations contained in this Specific
Plan are designed to provide a sensitive* Industrial
development adjacent to the riparian habitat of the Agua
Hedlonda Creek. As a tool to implement the General Plan,
this Specific Plan will address the goals and objectives of
the Land Use and Open Space Elements by providing additional
regulations to ensure compatibility between the industrial
and open space designations. In addition, the Circulation
Element will be implemented with the extension of Faraday
Road.
This Specific Plan has been prepared pursuant to Section
65450 of the California Government Code authorizing the
preparation of Specific Plans and the Special Treatment Area
Guidelines of the City of Carlsbad Land Use Element requiring
a Specific Plan for parcels in the Palomar Airport Influence
Area.
1.2 Property Description and Location
The Faraday Business Park is located on approximately 203
acres running north from approximately the north-eastern
-1-
•""^^^^^^•'^^^••M
FaradayJBusinessRark
Vista
San Marcos
Ranch Santa Fe
Location
map 1
-2-
intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camlno Real. The
future extension of Faraday Road east of El Casino Real will
divide the property approximately in half. Maps One and Two
indicate the site's regional location and immediate
surroundings. The property is identified by San Diego County
Assessor's Parcel Number 209-050-25. The site contains a
mesa and northeasterly running valley that meets the Agua
Bedionda Creek in the northern third of the property as
indicated on Map 3, Topography. The Palomar Solid Waste
Transfer Station Is located near the southwestern corner of
the site and the City of Carlsbad Operations Center will be
located adjacent to the west. The rest of the property is
vacant and undeveloped. The southern 55 acres located Just
northeast of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real is contained within the Palomar Airport clear
zone and is partially in agricultural use.
1.3 General Plan
1.3.1 Land Use Element
The General Plan designation for the Faraday Business Park
was recently amended in the winter of 1983* by City Council
Resolution 7419 for Planning Commission Case GPA/LD 83-11, to
provide for Planned Industrial and Open Space designations on
176 acres of the property. Eight acres were designated Low
Density Residential on the very northwest corner of the
property to match the land uses of the Mandana Company's
-3-
Faraday Business Park
MANDANA
RIDGE RANCH
CARLSBAD
OAKS
Goidenjtear
BECKMAN
instruments
PALOMAR
AIRPORT
no scale Vicinity and Existing Land Use
map 2
Faraday Business Park
r-eoo' Topography
-5-
map 3
Carlsbad Ridge project. The riparian area of approximately 59
acres in size nortb of Faraday Road and along the Agua
Hedionda Creek was designated Open Space. The remaining 24-
acre site north of Faraday Road and adjacent to the easterly
property line was designated Planned Industrial. Sixty-one
acres between Faraday and the airport clear zone were also
designated Planned Industrial.
While not part of the 1983 General Plan Amendment, the 55
acres south of the Planned Industrial, containing the airport
clear zone, is shown as Government Facilities on the General
Plan and is proposed for Open Space as part of this
Specific Plan. Map 4 indicates the relationship between the
subject property's General Plan Designations and those of the
surrounding properties.
1.3*2 Circulation Element
The Circulation Element indicates Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real as Prime Arterlals with a 126-foot right-of-way.
Faraday is shown as a Secondary Arterial running east-west
through the property. Faraday Road will have an 84-foot
right-of-way with 64-feet of pavement width and two travel
lanes in each direotlon. It will connect El Camino Real
ultimately with Melrose Drive in the City of Vista. This
road will provide access to the Carlsbad Operations Center
-6-
Faraday Business Park
PI
OS
1"'800'General Plan
Land Use Element
map 4
and tbe Faraday Business Park. The alignment of Faraday
follows the contours of tbe westerly hillside down to the
business park access and then runs east to El Fuerte and
Helrose Drive as shown on Map 5.
1.4 Zoning
The zoning for tbe Agua Hedionda Creek and riparian habitat
is Open Space as is tbe southerly 55 aore airport clear zone.
Tbe industrial area north and south of Faraday Road is zoned
P-M, Planned Industrial, which allows research and
manufacturing uses along with office uses that are not
consumer oriented. Map 6 indicates the zoning designations
on the property and the P-M Zone Text is provided in
Appendix B.
Standards in addition to those found in the existing zoning
are desirable in order to fully implement the goals and
objectives of the Carlsbad General Plan on this particular
piece of property. The property's topographic features
require these additional development standards to fully
protect the riparian habitat and to address the topographical
features of tbe site.
The Faraday Business Park Specific Plan also provides for
flexibility in developing the industrial portion of the
project. This flexibility will assist in attracting quality
industrial users to the site.
-8-
™ '— —^^^^^"••^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^^••^•I^^^^^M^^^M
Faraday Business Park
FREEWAY
PRIME ARTERIAL
MAJOR ARTERIAL
SECONDARY ARTERIAL
no scale Circulation Element
map 5
-9-
Faraday Business Park
Zoning
map 6
-10-
CHAPTER 2
Specific Plan
The Faraday Business Park Specific Plan provides development
and performance standards for a planned industrial develop-
ment containing a balanced mix of industrial, research and
development, professional and business serving commercial
uses. While the industrial uses are regulated by the Zoning
Ordinance and this plan, additional protection is built into
the plan's open space regulations to preserve the riparian
habitat. Landscaping, signs, setbacks, building height,
parking regulations and project phasing are all addressed
within the context of the Specific Plan.
2.1 Land Uaea
There are three basic land uses allowed in the Faraday
Business Park: open space, industrial and a very small
amount of low density residential. The open space is divided
into two areas due to the special requirements of each area.
The Industrial land uses are based on the Planned Industrial
(PM) zone and are designated in two areas of the Plan. The
low density residential area, on the north side of the Agua
Hedlonda Creek, is a relatively small area allowing one acre
lots. These three land uses are shown on Map 7*
-11-
Faraday Business Park
1"-800'Specific Plan
Land Uses
map 7
-12-
2.1.1 Open Space - Area A
This 59-acre area la significant because the topography and
water in the creek combine to fora a wide variety of native
habitats. The Open Space designation in the Specific Plan is
intended to preserve the oak woodland and riparian habitat
of the creek bottom in a natural condition. In addition, the
majority of the chaparral community will be preserved on the
steep bluff on the westerly side of the site below the City
Operation Center. The coastal sage scrub habitat north of
the Agua Hedionda Creek will also be preserved. Develop-
ment will not be permitted in these areas and they will
remain in a natural condition. Faraday Road will fora the
southerly boundary for this area and will have transitional
slope banks planted in native species.
2.1.2 Open Space - Area B
Open Space Area B covers the 55 acres on the south end of the
subject property containing the Airport clear zone. Twenty
acres of this area is currently under cultivation with
agricultural crops. The Specific Plan permits this use to
continue and provides for its expansion. As part of the
grading for the industrial project, this area will be graded
to provide fill. The top soil and subsoil will be stock-
piled and then redistributed over the finish graded area so
the agricultural /
uses can be expanded.
-13-
Because of the land use restrictions of the airport clear zone,
the only development that will occur in Open Space Area B is
that associated with the on-going agricultural operation.
2.1.3 Planned Industrial Uses
The Planned Industrial zone allows business and light
industry primarily involved in research and/or testing,
compatible light manufacturing, business and professional
offices engaged in activities not catering to the general
public and limited commercial uses that support the other uses
permitted in the zone. All the uses in the PM Zone listed
in Section 21.34.020 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code
are allowed in the Faraday Business Park industrial area.
Those uses requiring a conditional use permit under Section
21.34.030 are also allowed subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Commission. (See Appendix B for P-M Zone Text.)
2.1.4 Palomar Solid Waste Transfer Station
The existing facility at the Palomar Solid Waste Transfer
Station may be used under the provisions of this Specific
Plan or any Conditional Use Permit granted by the City of
Carlsbad. At such time as the property owner determines the
present facility has out-lived its economic lifespan, the
property may be subdivided and/or improved under the
industrial Land Use provisions of this plan.
-14-
2.1.5 Low Density Residential
The eight-acre Low Density Residential site located at the
north end will allow three one-acre single family residential
lots with access from a 48 foot residential street in the
Mandana Corporation's Ridge Ranch development.
2.2 Circulation
Although the project site is near the northeastern corner of
Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, primary access to
the business park will be provided by Faraday Road. Faraday
Road is an east-west secondary arterial serving the
industrial area north of Palomar Airport Road. Faraday will
be extended in phases from the westerly property line to
serve the industrial portions of the site (See Section 2.4).
No industrial lots will take access from this street.
Internal access to the industrial lots will be provided by
industrial streets with 70-feet of right-of-way. The single
loaded industrial street in Phase 3 may have a right-of-way
of 64-feet, deleting the parking on the side of the street
abutting the open space area.
2.3 Transportation
2.3*1 Employee Transportation Plans
Since the Faraday Business Park tenants will generally have
the same hours of operation, Employee Transportation Programs
are encouraged to ease traffic flow in and out of the
business park.
-15-
An Employee Transportation Program may include:
a. Providing employees with information on public transit
routes, ride sharing through "commuter-computer11, and
bicycling.
b. Providing bicycle racks and motorcycle parking areas
and clean-up facilities for employees utilizing such
vehicles.
c. Allowing flexible work hours, where necessary, so that
employees can participate in ride-sharing arrangements
or use public transit services.
d. Coordinating the use by employees of public
transportation, ride-sharing, carpools, vanpools or
other forms of transportation not involving the
individual use of an automobile, and for
owners/tenants with more than fifty (50) employees,
designating an employee to coordinate and assist other
employees.
e. Assigning preferential parking spaces for use by
employees who regularly commute to work with two or
more persons.w
f. Establishing assigned parking spaces for compact cars
carrying two or more employees.
g. Operating company buses or vans to transport employees
to and from work.
h. Assigning and utilizing tandem parking spaces for
employees with fixed work and transportation hours.
-16-
2.3.2 Modified Parking Plan
Businesses that actively support an Employee Transportation
Program may submit to the Land Use Planning Manager, a
modified parking plan reducing the number of required parking
spaces from the number required by this Specific Plan. In
reviewing and approving the modified parking plan, the Land
Use Planning Manager shall consider the extent of the program
and the business's commitment to implementing the program.
The approval of a modified parking plan is conditioned upon
the continued use by employees of the Employee Transportation
Program.
2.4 Development Phaainf
The Faraday Business Park Specific Plan will be developed in
phases. A phase may contain one or more units of the
project. Each unit is dependent upon the completion of
street and other public improvements required to service the
development.
A final subdivision map with improvement plans shall be
prepared and submitted to the City for approval for each
unit of the project. Map 8 shows the location of the
Specific Plan units.
2.4.1 Phasing Units
Unit One of the project will extend Faraday Road to
Street A. Street A and a portion of Street B will serve the
lots In this unit of the project. Unit Two contains the
industrial area east of Unit One along Street B.
-17-
Faraday Business Park
1"«800'
Units
R-E
Unit Plan
map 8
Unit Three includes the subdivision of the Solid Waste
Transfer Station area. Street C will be extended from
Faraday Road across from the access to the City of Carlsbad
Operation Center when this unit is subdivided. Access to
the transfer station will remain off El Camino Real during
its operation.
Unit Four includes the business park area on the north side
of Faraday Road, adjacent to and along Street D. Access and
public services will either be extended across the creek from
Faraday Road or be provided from the adjacent property to the
east. This option will depend on the timing of development
on both properties and successful negotiations with the
adjacent property owner.
Unit Five is the residential area on the north end of the
Specific Plan.
2.4.2 Circulation Phasing
UNIT ONE
1. Prior to the occupancy of Unit One, the developer shall
fully improve Faraday Road from the westerly property
line to the end of Unit One. Improvement of that portion
of Faraday Road adjacent to the City Operation Center
property will be shared between the City and the
developer of Unit One.
2. Prior to the occupancy of Unit One, Street A and a
portion of Street B shall be fully improved to industrial
street standards to service the adjacent development
in Unit One.
-19-
TWO
Prior to occupancy of Unit Two, Street B shall be fully
improved from its terminus in Unit One to connect with
Faraday Road. Faraday Road will be improved to the
intersection with Street B.
PHIT THREE
Prior to occupancy of any new building in the
redevelopment of Unit Three, the developer shall
fully improve Street C to industrial street standards.
The adjacent property to the west shall share in the
proportionate cost for their frontage on Street C.
ONIT FOUR
Prior to occupancy of Unit Four, the developer shall
fully improve Faraday Road to the easterly property line.
Direct access to Unit Four will be by either:
1. An industrial street off of Faraday Road crossing the
open space area with an appropriate structure. The
road section crossing the open space need only be 54
feet wide or narrower upon the approval of the City's
Traffic Engineer. Street D nay be 62 feet wide with
no parking abutting the open space area.
2. Alternative access to Unit Three may be provided by
an industrial street from the adjacent industrial
property to the east. Access rights will have to be
obtained and improvements coordinated in the future.
-20-
flffTT FIVE
Prior to occupancy of Unit Five, a 48-foot hillside
street shall be fully improved and connected to the
Mandana Corporation's Ridge Ranch project.
The Land Use Planning Manager may approve non-sequential
development provided public facilities have been completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public facilities
include streets, water and sewer system, landscaping,
drainage facilities, and electrical, gas, and telephone
service.
2.5 Planned Industrial Permit
A final subdivision map shall be processed for each unit of
the Faraday Business Park. Upon recordation of the map, lots
may be graded, access improved and utilities Installed as
required. For each parcel in the subdivision, a Planned
Industrial Permit application shall be filed in accordance
with Section 21.34.050 of the Municipal Code governing
Planned Industrial Permits. (See Appendix B.)
Amendments to any approved Planned Industrial Permit shall be
processed in accordance with Section 21.34.110 governing
amendments to Planned Industrial Permits.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot within
that unit, a Final Planned Industrial Development Plan
conforming to the approved permit shall be submitted and
approved in accordance with Section 21.34.130 governing Final
Planned Industrial Development Plans.
-21-
2.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
A Public Facilities Free Agreement shall be entered Into by
the property owner and the City of Carlsbad. The property
owner may divide and improve lots and enter into leases with
individual developers. The agreement shall provide for the
public facilities fee to be paid by the individual developers
seeking approal of a Planned Industrial Permit and building
permits for an individual lot or lots within the Specific
Plan area. The requirement for payment of the fee by the
tenant shall be Included in the lease for each lot.
However, if the property owner decides to build industrial or
residential structures on any portion of the property in a
proprietary capacity (as opposed to its governmental
capacity), the owners shall pay the fees required by the
agreement. Should all or any portion of the property be
sold, the buyer shall be responsible for paying the fees
required by the Public Facilities Fee Agreement.
-22-
CHAPTER 3
Development Standards
The Inteot of these development standards in the Faraday
Business Park is to insure a high quality development that is
compatible with surrounding land uses. These standards are
intended to provide for innovative design of buildings
and the individual sites. While the development regulations
encourage innovation and individuality in building design,
the business ark will ae unified by a common landscaping
theme along the public street frontages.
3. 1 Building Height
All buildings in the Faraday Business Park shall normally be
limited to 35 feet in height. Upon the approval by the
Planning Commission of the Planned Industrial Permit, a
building not exceeding 4 stories or 45 feet may be
constructed.
3.2 Setbacks
Front yard - All buildings shall be setback a minimum of 50
feet from Faraday Road. The setback from interior industrial
streets shall be 25 feet. Setbacks shall be landscaped and
irrigated and measured from the public right-of-way. Parking
areas are allowed in front yards but shall maintain a 20 foot
landscaped setback from the public right-of-way.
Side Yard - All interior side yards shall have a minimum
setback of 10 feet to the building which shall be entirely
landscaped and irrigated.
-23-
Rear Yard - All buildings shall maintain a 20 foot setback
from the rear lot line. This rear yard shall be landscaped
and irrigated. The landscaped area may be reduced to 10 feet
for parking and driveway areas if the building setback is
increased.
3.3 Site Coverage
All buildings, including accessory buildings, shall not cover
more than 50} of the lot area. Open parking.spaces shall not
be included as building area in determining lot coverage.
3.H Parking and Loading Areaa
Off street parking shall be provided for each project at the
following ratios:
Manufacturing,
Research and Assembly 1: 500 sq. ft.
Office 1: 400 sq. ft.
Warehouse 1:1500 sq. ft.
Uses allowed by Conditional Use Permit will provide parking
in the amount provided for in Section 21.44.130, regulating
required parking spaces for all uses.
Parking areas, Including driveways, shall have a minimum of
10f landscaping distributed through-out the parking area.
Loading areas shall be screened from view from public streets
by six foot fences or walls. Fences and walls will be
designed as integral parts of the overall development design.
The required number of parking spaces may be reduced if the
business obtains approval of an Employee Transportation
-24-
Program emphasizing alternative modes of transportation, ride
sharing or other means of reducing traffic generation.
Op to 25 percent of the required number of parking spaces
may be reduced in size to accommodate small cars.
Small car spaces shall be designated and grouped together in
the parking area. Small car spaces shall be 7 1/2' x 15'.
3.5 Manufacturing Operations
All manufacturing, assembling, compounding, fabrication,
packaging, processing and treating operations shall e
conducted entirely within an enclosed building.
3.6 Outdoor Storage
All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from view by a
decorative wall or fence not less than 6 feet in height which
Is architecturally compatible with the building. Equipment
and material stored outdoors shall not be stacked higher than
the screening fence.
3.7 Meehanioal Equipment
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment including, but not limited
to, air conditioners, ducts, piping, heating or ventilating
equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent streets
and from nearby properties, either by parapet walls or
screening devices that are an integral part of the overall
architectural design.
-25-
3.8 Refuse Collection
All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be completely
*
enclosed by a decorative block wall six feet in height with
wood or metal gates, all of which shall be compatible and
harmonious with the overall architectural theme of the
project. Trash enclosures shall be screened from the public
right-of-way by landscaping where possible.
3.9 Grading
Due to the existing topography of the industrial site and the
need for relatively large flat areas for industrial
development, grading for the Faraday Business Park will be
considerable in some areas. However, grading will be done in a
sensitive manner to preserve to the greatest extent possible
the natural landforms of the site. To accomplish this goal,
roads will follow natural contours where feasible and
manufactured slopes will be contoured back into the natural
hillsides. All grading will be conducted in accordance with
the grading ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. No
manufactured slopes will have a steeper slope than 2:1.
Where possible, varying slopes will be graded and contoured
into the natural hillside. All slopes will be landscaped in
accordance with the landscaping provisions of this Specific
Plan.
-26-
3.10 Landscaping
Due to the location of manufactured slopes and the industrial
sites in relation to the open space area, three typea of
landscaping shall be provided: business park landscaping,
the transitional slope landscaping, and natural slopes.
3.10.1 Faraday Road Landscaping
The landscaping concept for Faraday Road is designed to
conform with the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. An
objective has been identified and a theme established for the
landscaping along Faraday Road. Since Faraday Road abutts
one of the City's riparian habitats, an Oak Woodland Riparian
theme is established with the objective of blending the
ornamental landscaping of the business park with the native
vegetation of the riparian habitat. The theme tree is Coast
Live Oak with London Plan Tree, Ironbark, Aleppo and Torrey
Pines as support trees. Brisbane Box will be the street
tree.
3.10.2 Business Park Landscaping
Each unit of the business park shall landscape the front
yards of all lots fronting on the public streets in that
unit. This landscaping will provide the unifying theme in
the park. Individual development projects may enhance this
landscaping as part of the planned industrial permit.
Each building site within the Specific Plan shall be
landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and ground
cover, and shall be permanently irrigated in conjunction with
-27-
a landscape plan to be approved by the Director of Parks and
Recreation. The 20-foot setback for parking in the front
yard shall be landscaped with an undulating berm to screen
the parking area from the public right-of-way. The
landscaping cross sections demonstrate how the landscaping
will appear and the planting list in Appendix A indicates the
species of plants that may be used.
A minimum of 10 percent of each outdoor parking area shall be
landscaped. Landscaping shall be reasonably distributed
throughout the parking area and shall contain one 15-gallon
tree for every 20 spaces.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed by the
developer prior to occupancy, and maintenance shall be
insured by enforcement of the lease terms or, if approved by
the City Council, a maintenance district. Entryway
landscaping features, including signs and landscaping, may be
applied to all entries into the Specific Plan area. Detailed
entryway plans shall be approved by the Land Use Planning
Manager prior to issuance of sign permits for the entryway.
3*10.3 Transitional Slope Landscaping
Because grading will occur adjacent to the creeks and
hillside areas, the Specific Plan provides for a transitional
landscaping of the manufactured slopes from the woodland/
riparian habitats to the ornamental landscaping of the
building sites. These manufactured slopes will be landscaped
with species of trees, shrubs and ground cover that are
-28-
drought-adaptive and/or native to the upland terraces and
coastal plains of southern California and interfaced for fire
protection in accordance with City's Landscaping Manual.
Erosion control techniques will be employed on manufactured
slopes to control sedimentation of the creeks. Revegetation
will begin immediately after grading has been completed.
Transitional slope areas shall be landscaped with species of
trees, shrubs and ground cover compatible with the adjacent
natural area and irrigated, as determined by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
A detailed landscaping plan for the transitional slopes
shall be approved by the City Engineer and Parks and
Recreation Director prior to issuance of building permits for
the adjacent development area.
3.10.4 Natural Slopes and Riparian Habitat
The natural slopes and riparian habitat areas of the Specific
Plan shall remain in natural condition. However, slopes
adjacent to developable area may be planted in compatible
species of trees, shrubs and ground covers and temporarily
irrigated, if required by the City Engineer or Director of
Park and Recreation. Native vegetation will be maintained in
accordance with the City's Landscape Guideline Manual for
fire protection.
-29-
K^ — -^^—^^^•^~^^^™™^^——
Faraday Business Park
Faraday Road
Landscaping
BL0G.
Industrial Street
Landscaping
Transitional
Slope Landscaping
ZOHet ZQNSZ ' ZOMT3
<9yAH*tgV7*t. S4A#</rACrv**0
ZQMT +
Landscape Cross-Sections
Exhibit 1
-30-
3 * 4 rfnrfAf*gpound Dti.lj.ti.as
All electricalf telephone, and other cable lines shall be
installed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment
may be placed above ground but shall be screened from view by
landscaping and other appropriate measures. Pumping
facilities for the sewer system may also be placed above
ground.
3.12 Signs
All signs will be architecturally compatible with the
buildings they identify. A sign program for each
shall be approved by the Land Use Planning Manager. Signs
shall relate to their surroundings in terms of size, shape,
color, material and lighting.
3.12.1 Project Entry Sign
A ground sign 100 square feet in size identifying the
Faraday Business Park shall be allowed at the intersections
of Faraday Road and the local Industrial Streets serving the
Business Park.
3.12.2 Monument Sign
Each building shall be allowed one 60 square foot monument
sign in the front yard setback.
3.12.3 Wall Sign
Each building is allowed one 200 square foot wall sign on
each street frontage.
-31-
3.12.4 Directory Sign
Every multi-tenant industrial or office buildings may have
one 60 square foot directory sign listing the buildings
tenants.
3.13 Lease Terms
Prior to the issuance of the first Planned Industrial Permit,
the property owner shall prepare lease terms for the entire
Faraday Business Park. These lease terms shall be approved
by the Land Use Planning Manager prior to the approval of the
first Planned Industrial Permit. The lease terms shall
reference this Specific Plan and shall provide for
enforcement by the property owner of the terms and condition
of the Specific Plan on all tenants of the Faraday Business
Park.
-32-
CHAPTER 4
Performance Standards
All industrial uses shall comply with the following
performance standards:
H.1 Noise
The maximum allowable exterior noise level of any use shall
not exceed 65 LDN as measured at the property line. Where a
structure is occupied by more than one use, the noise level
shall not be in excess of 45 LDN as measured within the
interior space of the neighboring establishment. Noise
v
caused by motor vehicles traveling to and from the site are
exempt from this standard.
4.2 Odor
All uses shall be operated so as not to emit matter
causing unpleasant odors which are perceptible to the average
person beyond the lot containing such uses.
4.3 Vibration
All uses shall be so operated as not to generate vibration
discernible without instruments by the average person beyond
the lot upon which the source is located or within an
adjoining enclosed space if more than one establishment .
occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles,
trains and temporary construction is exempted from this
standard.
-33-
4.4 Hl1Bmifc»- Heat and Glare
All uses shall be operated so as not to produce humidity,
heat, glare or high-intensity Illumination which is
perceptible without instruments by the average person beyond
the lot containing the use.
4.5 Particulate Matter and Air Contaminants
All uses shall meet the air quality standards of the San
Diego County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB). In addition,
all uses shall be operated so as not to emit particulate
matter or air contaminants which are readily detectable
without instruments by the average person.
4.6 Radio Frequencies
In order to reduce the potential radio signal interference to
the DCSD radio telescope, each industrial operation utilizing
radio frequencies will be analyzed and appropriate measures
will be imposed as conditions of planned industrial permit
approval.
4.7 Industrial Waste Discharge
All discharge of industrial waste shall be In conformity with
the provisions of Chapter 13.26 of the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code, as amended.
-34-
CHAPTER 5
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures shall apply to the overall
development of the Faraday Business Park and are summarized
here from the City Operation Center Environmental Impact
Report.
5.1 Landform and Toooyraphv
a. All grading activities will be carried out in accordance
with the grading guidelines and regulations of the City
of Carlsbad.
b. Grading for building pads and roadways should be
accomplished in a manner that would maintain the
appearance of natural hillsides to the fullest extent
possible.
c. To avoid excessive grading, roadways should follow
natural contours where feasible.
d. Manufactured slopes should be contour graded to blend
more naturally with the open space hillsides.
5.2 Geology and Soila
a. All structures will be designed in accordance with the
seismic standards of the California Building Code.
b. To minimize the short-term impact of increased erosion
potential, all graded areas not suited for construction
should be planted with rapidly-developing vegetation as
soon after construction as practical.
-35-
5 . 3
ir
a. As much of the natural stream course as practicable
should be left In its natural state through design of
subsequent planned industrial permits.
b. A number of management practices can be applied to
construction sites in order to mitigate potential
sediment yield during the construction period. The
measures that may be suitable to this site include:
grade during the dry season, install permanent landscape
plantings promptly after grading is completed, and expose
as small an area of land for as short a period of time as
possible.
c. Install a storm drain system at the stage of ultimate
project implementation in order to direct runoff and to
accommodate the volume and speed of natural drainage and
provide a system to regulate potential flood waters.
d. A water quality management program is recommended to
be developed and implemented to mitigate the impact of
urban runoff on the quality of local surface waters.
5 . 4 Archaeological Resources
a. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, a test
program of the identified sites shall be conducted
to determine their significances.
-36-
b. In the event that no significant deposit is identified,
mitigation would be a matter of transit locating, drying,
and photographing any features. Any surface artifacts
would be mapped and collected.
c. In the event that a significant deposit is found,
mitigation measures would be comprised of either
preservation or salvage excavation of those portions of
the deposit which would be impacted by the planned
project.
d. An archaeologist should be present to monitor grading
activities on the site in order to identify potential
archaeological sites presently obscured by thick ground
covering.
e. All work should be carried out by an archaeologist who is
a member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists
(SOFA).
5 . 5 Biological Reaouroea
Riparian areas will be preserved with adequate buffers to
protect wildlife habitat.
5.6 Circulation
Employee Transportation Programs to reduce the number of
trips generated by the project or to spread the trips over a
longer period, will be promoted.
-37-
5.7 Air Resources
a. Compliance with the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District Rules and Regulations will assure that
potential stationary sources (e.g., Industrial land uses)
of air pollutants will not adversely impact local and
regional air quality.
b. The RAQS includes the following measures that when
adopted by the City of Carlsbad, may be feasible for
implementation for the proposed project:
1. Expanded ridesharing
2. Expanded transit
3. Traffic flow improvement
4. Expanded interurban bus and rail
c. Employment forecasts from the proposed project should be
included in the statistical area which is used as input
in the RAQS.
5.8 Acoustic Environment
a. A detailed noise analysis should be required at the
Planned Industrial Permit stage to determine appropriate
mitigations for off-site noise.
b. On-site acoustic impacts can be mitigated effectively by
means of barriers (berms or walls), setbacks, and special
construction techniques (well-sealed plywood sheathing,
R-19 insulation in attic spaces, window Sound
Transmission Class [STC] of at least 24 or double-glazed
windows).
-38-
c. Short-term construction impacts can be partially
mitigated by the following:
-Limit construction to daytime hours only
-Recommend that construction workers wear protective
hearing devices
-Muffle or acoustically shield construction equipment,
when feasible.
5.9 public Utilities and Community Services
a. The proposed project will Incorporate all recommendations
and requirements of the City of Carlsbad Water Department
and the Costa Real Municipal Water District when specific
site designs are evaluated during the Planned Industrial
Permit Process.
b. Resource conservation measures which relate to energy and
water conservation (identified in Section 3*11 of the EIR)
should be utilized wherever feasible.
c. To help mitigate potential fire hazards, all development
will conform with appropriate building and fire code
specifications.
d. To effectuate crime prevention, adequate lighting and
high-grade security hardware should be incorporated into
the site and building designs.
5.10 Aesthetics
a. Innovative and varying siting techniques should be
utilized.
-39-
b. To the extent reasonably possible, grading for building
pads and roadways should be planned in such a manner as
to maintain the appearance of natural hillsides.
c. Manufactured slopes should be contour graded to blend
more naturally with the hillsides that would remain in
open space.
d. A landscape plan should be prepared that will provide
for the visual enhancement of the manufactured slopes and
undeveloped pad areas.
e. The building materials and the architectural design
will be compatible with the overall design theme in the
Palomar Airport area.
5.11 Energy and Resource Conservation
Energy and water conservation measures will be incorporated
into developments during the project design stage. The
benefits include lower maintenance costs for the consumer as
well as savings in resource use. A list of specific measures
Is found on page 65-67 of the City Operations Center EIR.
-40-
CHAPTER 6
Conditions of Approval
This chapter will be provided from the City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission and City Council resolutions approving
the Specific Plan.
-41-
APPENDIX A
FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
Specific Plan Landscaping Plant List
FARADAT nn*n
AREA:
THEME:
OBJECTIVE:
THEME TREE:
SUPPORT TREES
STREET TREES:
Faraday Business Park
Oak Woodland/Riparian
Blend ornamental landscaping of business park
with natural vegetation of riparian habitat.
Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak)
Platanus acerifolia (London Plane Tree)
Eucalyptus slderoxylon (Ironbark)
Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine)
Pinus torreyana (Torrey Pine)
Tristania conforta 'Brisbane Box)
Interior Project Trees-:one 1
The following trees, shrubs, and ground covers may be used for
landscaping of the industrial lots.
TREES
Botanical Name
Agonis flexuosa
Arbutus unedo
Calodendruin capense
Geijera parviflora
Ginkgo blloba "Autumn Gold*
Ginkgo biloba "Fairmount"
Hakea laurina
Jacaranda mimosifolia
Koelreuteria bipinnata
Melaleuoa linarifolia
Melaleuca quinquinervia
Metrosideros excelsus
Tabebuia chrysotricha
Tipuana tipua
Tristania conforta
Zizypbus Jujuba
Common Name
Peppermint Tree
Strawberry Tree
Cape Chestnut
Australian Willow
Maidenhair Tree
N.C.H.
Pincushion Tree
Jacaranda
Chinese Flame Tree
Flaxleaf Paperpark
Cajeput Tree
New Zealand
Christmas Tree
Golden Trumpet Tree
Tipu Tree
Brisbane Box
Chinese Jujube
A-1
LARGE SHRUBS
Botanical Mane
Acarda longlfolia
Calllstemon citrinus
Ceanothus "Concha*
Ceanothus gloriosus-Varieties
Ceanothus "Julia Fhelps*
Ceanothus "Sierra Blue"
Cytiaus racenosus
Feijoa sellowiana
Fremontodendron "California Glory"
Fremontodendron "San Gabriel"
Hetermoles arbutifolia
Leptospermum laevigatum
Rhus integrifolia
Rhua ovata
MEDIDM SHRUBS 5'- 10'
Botanical Name
Cistus corbariensis
listus "Doris Hibberson*
!iatus purpurea
Hakea suaveolens
Lantana montevidensis-Varieties
Pittosporum tobira
Xylosma congestum
Common Mama
Sydney Golden Wattle
Lemon Bottlebrusb
N.C.N.
N.C.N.
N.C.N.
H P M. V . Cl .
Broon
Pineapple Guava
N.C.N.
N.C.N.
Toyon
Australian Tea Tree
Lemonade Berry
Sugar Bush
Common Name
White Rockrose
N.C.N.
Orchid Rockrose
Sweet Hakea
N.C.N.
Mock Orange
Shiny Xylosma
SMALL SHRUBS 2 -
Botanical Name
Arctostapbylos densiflora
"James West"
Arctostaphylos hookeri
Arctostaphylos pumila
Ceanothus purpureus
Convolvulus cneorum
Cotoneaster buxifolius
Leucophyllum frutescens "Compactum"
Llmonium perezii
Pittosporum tobira "Wheeleri"
Ribes viburnifolium
Common Name
N.C.N.
Monterey Manzinita
Sandaat Manzinita
Hollyleaf Ceanothus
Bush Morning Glory
Bright Bead
Cotoneaster
Texas Ranger
Sea Lavender
Wheeler's Dwarf
Evergreen Currant
A-2
GROUND CQVRttS
Botanical Name
Arctostaphylos edoundail-Varieties
Arctostaphylos hookerl-Varleties
Arctostapbylos uva-ursi "Alaska"
Arctotbeca calendula
Baccbaris pilularis "Twin Peaks"
Ceanotbus grlseus borlzontalis
"Hurricane Point"
Gazania
Lonicera Japonlca
Rosmarinus officinalis
•Lockwood de Forest*
Rosmarinus officinalis
"Prostratus"
Verbena riglda
VIMBS
Common Mama
Little Sur Manzinita
Monterey Manzinita
N r ii• w • li •
Capeweed
Dwarf Coyote Bush
N.C.N.
N.C.H.
Japanese Honeysuckle
N.C.H.
Dwarf Rosemary
N.C.N.
Botanical Mama
Abutilon bybridum
Bougainvlllea
Flcus punila
Hibbertia scandens
Passiflora, species
Tecomaria capensls
Wisteria
Common Kama
Flowering Maple
N.C.N.
Creeping Fig
Guinea Gold Vine
Passion Flower
Cape Honey Suckle
N.C.N.
A-3
TRANSITIONAL SLOPE LANDSCAPING
Zone 2 - Manufactured slopes planting fire retardent and erosion
control (within 25 feet of building pad).
Low growing, high fire retarding plants:
Carpobrotua species
Delosperma "Alba"
Droaanthemum floribundum
Lanprantbus spectabilis
Malephora crocea
Sea Fig
White Trailing Ice
Plant
Rosea Ice Plant
Trailing Ice Plant
Croceui Ice Plant
Low growing, moderate fire retarding plants:
Aretotbeca calendula
Baccharis pilularis
Coprosma klrkil
Gazania rigens leucolaena
Lippia canescens
Myoporum parvifoliua
OsteosperBua frutlcosua
Santolina species
Trifoliua fragiferua var. O'Connor's
Vinca species
Zone 3 - Manufactured slopes low voluae,
Low fuel voluae native plants:
EriopbyllUB species
Eschscholzia California
Lotus scoparius
Lupinus species
MiBulus species
Pensteaon species
Salvia ooluBbariae
Salvia sonoaensls
Tricbosteaa lanatua
Zauschneria species
Low fuel voluae introduced plants
Arteaisia caucaalca
Atrlplez glauca
Atriplez seaibaocata
Clatus crispus
Cistus salviifoliua
Santolina cbaaaecyparlssus
Santolina vlrens
Cape Weed
Prostrate Coyote
Bush
Creeping Coprosaa
Trailing Gazania
Lippia
Myoporua
African Daisy
Lavender Cotton
O'Connor's Leguae
Periwinkle
slow burning planting.
Yarrow
California Poppy
Deerweed
Annual Lupines
Monkey Flower
Pensteaon
Chia
Creeping Sage
Woolly Blue Curls
California Fuchsia
Silver
Saltbush
Creeping Saltbush
Rookrose
Sageleaf Rookrose
Lavender Cotton
Green Santolina
A-4
TRANSITIONAL SLOPE LANDSCAPING
PLANTING LIST
Zone 4 -Native vegetation on natural slopes.
TREES
Arbutus unedo
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Grevlllea robusto
Lyonathamnus
Plnus halepensis
Pinus torreyana
Prunus lyonll
Quercus Agrifolla
Sambucus
Scblnus motle
SHRUBS
Acacia species
Arcbaslaplylos punula
Artenlslca callfornlca
Bougalnvlllea species
Calllstemon cltrlnus
Ceanotbus grlseus
Ceanotbus "Sierra Blue*
Cotoneaater congestus
Erlogonum fasclculatum
Heteromeles arbutlfolla
Junlperus species
Lavandula species
Luplnus arboreus
Plttosporuo tobrla "Wheeler!"
Rbus Integrlfolla
Rbus laurina
Rbus ovata
Salvla leucartha
Santollna specls
Spartluna lunceunl
GRODMD COVERS
Acacia redolens
Acbillea species
Artenllsca pycnocepbala
Baccharis pilularls
Ceanothua grlseus "Horizontalis"
Hellantbemum species
Lupinus nanua
Common Name.
Strawberry Tree
Sugar Gun
Ironbark
Silk Oak
Catalina Ironwood
Aleppo Pine
Torrey Pine
Catalina Cberry
Coast Live Oak
Elderberry
California Pepper
Cyclops Acacia
Sandmat Manzanita
California Sagebrush
Bougainvillea
Lemon Bottlebrush
Wild Lilac
N.C.N.
Buckwheat
Toyon
Junipers
Lavendar
Tree Lupine
Wheeler's
Lemonade Berry
Laurel Sumac
Roundleaf Hawthorn
Mexican Bush Sage
Spanish Broom
Acacia
Tarrow
Coast Sagebrush
Coyote Bush
Sunrose
Annual Lupine
A-5
APPENDIX B
City of Carlsbad
P-M Planned Industrial Zone
f May 25f 1983
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE 'OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 34 OP THE CARLS DAD
MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING THE P-M (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL)ZONE. _ . _ _ _ _____
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, docs
>rdain as follows:
SECTION It That Title 21, Chapter 34, of the Carlsbad
iunicipal Code is amended to read as -follows t(
CHAPTER 21.34,
P-M PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Sections :
21.34.010
21.34.020
21.34.030
21.34.040
21.34.050
21.34.060
21.34.070
21.34.080
21.34.090
21.34.100
21.34.110
21.34.120
21.34.130
21.34.140
21.34.150
21.34.160
. .Intent and Purpose
Permitted Uses
Conditional Uses
Uses Permitted by Specific Plan
Planned Industrial Permit
Industrial Condominiums
Development Standards ' •
Design Criteria
Performance Standards
Cancellation of Planned Industrial
Permit
Amendments
Final Map
Final Planned Industrial
Development Plan
Certification of Occupancy
Maintenance
Failure to Maintain
21.34*010 Intent and Purpose
(a) . Allow the location of business and light industries
engaged primarily in research and/or testing, compatible light
aanufacturing, business and professional offices when engaged in
ctivities associated with corporate office* or in activities
ose primary purpose is not to cater directly to the general
iblic, and certain commercial uses which cater to and are
ncillary to the uses allowed in this cone.
(b) Promote an attractiverand high quality design in
evelopments* which upgrades the City's natural environment
rid identity.
B-l
2
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(c) Provide for the phasing of development which is
coordinated with the development of .public improvement* -and
services. ••(d) Encourage reduced energy consumption by building design
and by allowing, in certain cases, compatible residential
development which provides housing for employees of this cone.
(e) Provide for alternative transportation modes for
employees of this zone by a combination of bus facilities, ride
share programs, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems.
21.34.020 Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted
in the P-M cone without the granting of a conditional use .permit:
(a) Research and testing facilities)
(b) Manufacturing -and processing facilities;
(c) Storage, wholesale and distribution facilities
(d) Administrative offices associated with and accessory to
a permitted use;
(e) On-site recreational facilities intended for the use of
employees of the Planned Industrial Zone;
(f) Business and professional offices which are not retail in
nature, do not cater to the general public, and do not generate
walk-in or drive-by traffic, and are incidental to the industrial
uses in the vicinity as follows:
(1) Accountants '
(2) Administrative Offices
(3) Advertising Agencies
(4) Advertising - Direct Mail
(.5) Agricultural Consultants
(6) Airlines Offices, General Offices
(7) Air Courier Service
(8) Answering Bureaus
(9) Appraisers
(10) Arbitrators
(11) Architect Design & Planners
(12) Attorney Services
(13) Attorney. (No Legal Clinics)
(14) Audio-Visual Services
(15) Billing Service
(16) Blueprinters
(17) Bookkeeping Service
(18) Building Designers
(19-) Building Inspection Service
(20) Burglar Alarm Systems
. (21) Business offices for professional and labor
organisations
(22) Business Consultants
(23) Civil Engineers .
(24) Collection Agencies
(25) Commercial Artists
(26) Commodity Brokers
(27) Communications Consultants
(28) Computer^ Programmers
(29) . Computer Service (Time-Sharing)
B-2
1
2
' 5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
23
24
25
36
27
28
(30) Computer Systems
(31) Construction 'Manager
(32) Corporate Headquarters Office
(33) Corporate Travel Agencies fc Bureaus
(34) Credit Rating Service
(35) Data Communication Service
(36) Data Processing Service
(37) Data Systems Consultants
(38) Diamond fc Gold Brokers
(39) Display Designers
(40) Display Services
(41) Drafting Services
(42) Economics Research . ,
(43) Educational Consultants
(44) Educational Research
(45) Electric Contractors (Sales fc Administrative
Offices Only)
(46) Electronics Consultants
(47) Energy Management Consultants
(48) Engineering Offices
_- I! (49) Environmental Services
J>Jp|1 (50) Escrow Service
(51) Estimators
(52) Executive Recruiting Consultants
(53) Executive Search Office
(54) Executive Training Consultants
(55) Export Consultants
(56) Financial Planners fc Consultants
(57) Fire Protection Consultants
(58) Foreclosure Assistance
(59) Foundation-Educational Research
(60) Franchise Services
(61) Fund Raising Counselors
(62) Gemolegists
(63) General Contractors (No. Equipment Storage
Permitted)
(64) Geophysicists
(65) Government Contract Consultants
onII (66) Governmental Agencies (General fc Administrative
Offices Only)
21 (67) Graphics Designers
(68*) Human Factors Research 6 Development
2211 (69) Human Services Organization (Administrative
Offices Only)
(70) Importers
(71) Industrial Medical (Workmen's Conp.)
(72) Incorporating Agency
(73) Information Bureaus
(74) Insurance Companies.(Administrative Offices Only)
(75) Interior Decorators & Designers (No Merchandise
Storage. Permitted)
(76) Investigators
<77) Investment Advisory
B-3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(78) Investment Securities
(79) Labor Relations Consultants
(80) Leasing Services
(81) Lecture Bureaus
(82) Literary Agents
(83) Magazine Subscription Agents
(84) -Mailing List Service
(85) Management Consultants
(86) Manufacturers Agents
(87) Marketing Research fc Analysis
(88) Message Receiving Service
(89) Mutual Funds
(90) Patent Searchers
(91) Pension fc Profit Sharing Plans
(92) Personal Service Bureau
(93) Photographic (Industrial & Commercial Only)
(94) Printing Services
(95) Product Development & Marketing
(96) Public Relations Services
(97) Public Utility Companies
(98) Publicity Services . .
(99) Publishers Representatives
(100) Radio Communications
(101) Real Estate Brokers (Commercial ft Industrial
Only)
(102) Real Estate Developers
(103) Recording Service
(104) Relocation Service
(105)' Repossessing Service
(106) Research Labs
(107) Retirement Planning Consultants
(108) Safety Consultants
(109) Sales Training fc Counseling
(110) Searchers of Records
(111) Securities Systems
(112) Security Firms
(113) Sound System Consultants
(114) Space Planning Consultants
(115) Space Research fc Developments
(116) Stock & Bond Brokers
(117) Surveyors • .
(118) Tax Service fc Consultants (Mo consumer oriented
Uses)
(119) Telephone Cable Companies
(120) Telephone Systems
(121) Title Companies
(122) Tour Operators
(123) Trade Mark Consultants
(124) Translators & Interpreters
(125) Trust Companies-
(126) Uses substantially similar to those identified
above if approved by the Land Use Planning
Manager.
6
(f) Government facilities and-offices;
(g) Accessory uses and structures where related and
incidental to a permitted use.
(h) Signs subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.41.
21.34.030 Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted
in the P-M zone upon the granting of a conditional use permitt .
(a) Eating and drinking establishments
(b) Hotels and motels
(c) Automobile service stations
(d) Day-care centers
(e) Health and athletic clubs
(f) Retail uses limited to the sales of goods and services
required for the convenience of the occupants of this zone.
21.34.040 Residential Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit.
The following residential uses are permitted in the P-M zone upon
10 lit he granting of a conditional use permit by the City Councils
| (a) Single family, multiple family residential uses or a
11 combination thereof which serve to house the employees of businesses
located in the P-M zone. Prior to the approval of a conditional use
12 permit, the City Council shall make the following findings:
(1) A Planned Development Permit for the project has been
13 approved, or is approved concurrently with the conditional use
permit, by the City Council.
14 (2) The residential development is an integral part of an I
industrial park or large industrial .use. i
1511 (3) The residential development is designed to be
compatible, with the industrial use it serves by means of
16 landscaping, open space.separations, etc.
(4) The industrial development served by the residential
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27.
28
development shall provide for convenient and efficient vehicular,
bicycle or pedestrian transportation to and from the residential
development.
(5) The maximum allowable density for the -residential
development shall be established by the City Council but in no event
shall the density exceed 40 dwelling units per acre.
21.34.050 Planned Industrial Permit.-
(a~jLand Use Manager Approval.No development of a permitted
se pursuant to Section 21.34.020, change of use of building
ificatiohs in excess of twenty-five percent of the building
aluation of the existing development shall be 'done without first
btaining a Planned Industrial Permit from the Land Use Planning
anager. In his review of a Planned Industrial Development, the
nd Use Planning" Manager shall ascertain all facts pertinent to the
roposed development and shall approve, conditionally approve,
isapprove or give notice of referral to the Planning Commission,
ogether with the findings and reasons for- such action.
(b) Application. Application for a Planned Industrial Permit
shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in this
section:
B-5
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
131
141
16
17
18
20
211
22
23
(1) An application for a Planned Industrial Permit may
_>e made by the record, owner 'or .owners of the property affected or
the authorised agent of the owner or owners. The application •
shall be filed with the Land Use Planning Manager upon forms
provided him. The application shall be accompanied by adequate
>lans which allow for detailed review pursuant to this chapter, a
Legal description of the property and all other materials and
information specified by the Land Use Planning Manager.
(2) At the time of filing the application, the
applicant shall pay a processing fee in an amount specified by
:ity Council resolution;
(3) If the applicant contemplates the construction of a
'lanned Industrial Development in phases, the application shall
3 state and shall include a proposed phasing* schedule;
(c) Findings of the Land Use Planning Manager. In approving
Planned Industrial Permit, the Land Use Planning Manager shall
»Xe the following findings*
(1) The site indicated by the Planned Industrial Permit
is adequate in sire and shape to accomodate the proposed use, and
ill yards spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping
ind other features required by this chapter;
(2) The improvements indicated on the Planned Indus
:rial Permit are located in such a manner to be related to
existing and proposed streets and highways;
(3) The improvements as shown on the Planned Industrial
>ermit are consistent with the intent and purpose of this zone
ind all adopted development, design and performance standards as
jet forth in this chapter.
(d) Notification. The .Land Use Planning Manager shall
lotify the applicant in writing of any decision made on a Planned
[ndustrial Permit.
(e) Appeal of Land Use Planning Manager Deci'sion.
Tl)The applicant or any other interested person may
ppeal, from any action of the Land Use Planning Manager with
aspect to a Planned Industrial Permit, to the Planning
lommission.
Any such appeal shall be filed with the Land Use
lanning Office within ten days of written notification of the
nd Use Planning Manager's decision. Upon the filing of an
ppeal, the Land Use Planning Manager shall set the matter for
lanning Commission hearing. Such hearing shall be held within
irty days'after the date of filing the appeal. 'Within ten days
following the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission
shall render its decision on the appeal.
(2) At the time of filing for such appeal, the
applicant shall pay a processing fee in an amount specified by
24 fcity Council Resolution.
I (3) The decision of the Planning Commission shall be
25 (ponsistent with the provisions of this chapter and shall be
supported by appropriate findings.
(4) If the Planning Commission fails to act on an
appeal within the time 'limits specified in this section, the
appeal shall be deemed denied.
26
27
281
B-6 .
8
10
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision.
2 "(T) The applicant or any other interested person may
appeal from any action of the Planning Commission with respect
to a Planned Industrial Permit, to the City Council.
Any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk
within ten days after the action of .the Planning Commission from
which the appeal is being taken.
Upon the filing of an appeal, the City'Clerk shall
set the matter for hearing. Such hearing shall be held within
thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days
following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall
render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the City
Council is final.
(2) At the time of filing for such appeal, the
applicant shall pay a processing fee in an amount specified by
City Council Resolution.
(3) The .decision of the City Council shall be
consistent with the provisions of this chapter and shall be
supported by appropriate findings.
ll|! (4) If the City Council fails to act on an appeal
'within the time limits specified in this section, the appeal
12||shall be deemed denied.
13
14
15
16
17
21.34.060 industrial Subdivisions. Industrial subdivisions
including industrial condominium and planned unit developments may
be permitted in the P-M zone if the project meets all other
requirements of this chapter and all requirements of Title 20
(Subdivision Ordinance). All industrial subdivisions, condominium
and planned unit development subdivision applications shall be
accompanied by an application for a Planned Industrial Permit
processed pursuant to Section 21.34.050 except that said permit
shall be approved by the same decision making body which approves
the subdivision. Amendments to a Planned Industrial Permit issued
ISllpursuant to this section may be made by the Land Use Planning
Manager according to this chapter.
19 [
21.34.070 Development Standards. All industrial projects
20 shall comply with the following development standards:
(a) Building Height. No building in the P-M zone shall*
21 [[exceed a height of thirty-five feet unless a specific plan
providing for a higher maximum has been adopted.
22 f (b) Setbacks
(1) Front Yard and Side Street Yard on Prime, Major
23 Und Secondary Streets. Every lot in .the P-M zone that has a
24
25
front yard or side street yard.facing on a prime, major or
secondary street jshall have a minimum setback of fifty feet.
This setback shall be measured from the right-of-way line. This
setback shall be entirely landscaped and irrigated; however,
upon approval of the Land Use Planning Manager, the landscaped
26 foortion off c setback may be. reduced to thirty-five feet to
Haccomodate a riveway .along the portion of the setback furthest
27- from the rig -of-way or private street.' Any driveway, within
[the front yar-4 setback shall' be sc***ened from the public or
28'brivate street by a mixture of mot jing and landscaping to the
satisfaction of the Land Use Planning Manager.
B-7 . ' ""
8
•
10
11
12
13
14
15
»
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) Pront Yard and Street Side Yard on Collector, Local
and Private Streets.Every lot in the F-M zone that has a front
yard or side street yard facing on a collector, local or private
street shall have- an average setback of 35 feet, however, said
setback shall not be less than 25 feet. This setback shall be
entirely landscaped and irrigated and shall be measured from the
right-of-way line or, in the case of a private street, from the
(3) side Yard - Interior. All interior side yards
shall have a minimum setback of ten feet which shall be entirely
landscaped and irrigated.(4) Rear Yard. The rear yard setback shall be a
minimum of twenty feet of which at least ten feet adjacent to the
rear property line shall be entirely landscaped and irrigated.
(5) Walls and Fences. A wall or fence located in any
part of a required setback area shall not exceed six feet in
height.
A wall or fence located in any required front setback or
side street setback area shall not exceed thirty-six inches in
height.
(6) Landscaping in Parking Areas. A minimum of ten
percent of the required parking area, inclusive of driveways,
shall be landscaped subject to the approval of the Land Use
Planning Manager. Landscaping in the building setback areas
shall not count towards meeting this requirement.
(7) Minimum Lot Area. Except for developments proposed as
condominiums or planned unit developments, each lot shall have a
minimum lot area of one acre. When an industrial subdivision is
submitted, the Planning Commission or City Council, whichever is the
final decision maker, may permit a reduction in the minimum lot area
requirement if it is found that the reduced lot area is necessary
for the development of a comprehensively planned- industrial project
and that the reduction of the lot area does not create adverse
impacts to surrounding properties.
(8) Lot Coverage. All buildings, including accessory
building structures, shall cover not more than 50% of the area of a
lot. Open parking areas shall not be counted in determining lot
Coverage.
(9) Private Streets. Private streets may be permitted
within a Planned Industrial Development provided their width and
geometric design are related to the function, topography and needs
of the development, and their structural design,-pavement and
onstruction comply with the requirement of the City's street
improvement standards and further provided that the permit is
recessed concurrently with a subdivision nap. The Planning
remission and City Council, shall determine the width of private
treets which shall in no event be less than the minimum standards
of this section. Pavement -widths between curbs of private streets
shall be not less than the following:
Type of Street "? Minimum Width (Curb to^urbj.
2 lanes, no parking 32 feet
2 lanes, parking one side 42 feet
2 lanes, parking on both sides 52^f«et
B-8
21.34.080 Design Criteria* All'industrial projects shall
;omply with the following design criteria:
(1) The overall plan shall be comprehensive, imaginative and
Innovative, embracing land, buildings, landscaping and their
relationships, and shall conform to adopted plans of all govern-
nental agencies for the area in which the proposed development is
Located;(2) The plan shall provide for adequate open space, circula*-
:ion, off-street parking and other pertinent amenities,
iuildings, structures and facilities in the parcel shall be Well
Integrated, orientated and related to the topographic and natural
Landscape features of the site.
(3) The proposed development shall be compatible with
existing and planned surrounding land uses and with circulation
glbatterns on adjoining properties. It shall not constitute a
lisruptive element to the community;
(4) The internal street system shall not be a dominant
feature in the overall design, rather it should be designed for
10 |khe efficient and safe flow of vehicles without creating a
lisruptive influence on the activity and function of the develop-
(5) The design of buildings and surrounding environment
hall be architecturally integrated and compatible with each
ther.
(6) Screening walls for storage spaces, loading areas and
uipment shall be architecturally integrated with the surround-
14 Ing building design.
(7) Building placement shall be designed to create
opportunities for plazas or other landscaped open spaces within
:he project.15
16 21.34.090 Performance Standards. All industrial uses shall
17 Ifcomply with the following performance standards:
(a) Noise. The maximum allowable exterior noise level of
use shall not exceed sixty-five Ldn as measured at the
roperty line. Where a structure is occupied by more than one
19 ise, the noise level shall • not be in excess of 45 Ldn as
measured within the interior space of the neighboring
20 Establishment. Noise caused by motor vehicles traveling to and
from the site are exempt from this standard.
21 1| (b) Odor. All uses shall be operated so as not to emit
tttor causing unpleasant odors which are perceptible to the
22 Average person while within or beyond the lot containing such
ises.
23 1| (c) Vibration. All uses shall be so operated as not to
jenerate vibration* discernible without instruments by the average
24 person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is
Located or within an adjoining enclosed space if more than one
25 Establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor
'chicles, trains and temporary construction is exempted from this
26 Standard. • '.-•*•
(d) Humidity, Heat' and Glare. All uses shall be operated so
2?]}»s not to produce humidity, heat, glare or high- intensity illu-
nination which is perceptible without instruments by the average
28 person while on or beyond the lot containing the use*
B-9 - ' • -
6
8
10
11
particulate Hatter and Air .Contaminants. All uses shall
meet the air quality standards oc the San Diego County Air
Quality Control Board (AQCB). In addition, all uses shall be
operated so as not- to emit particulate natter or air contaminants
which are readily detectable without instruments by the average
person while on the lot containing such uses.
(f) Manufacturing Operations. 'All manufacturing, assem-
bling, compounding, fabrication, packaging, processing and
treating operations shall be conducted entirely within an
enclosed building.
(g) Outdoor Storage. All outdoor storage, including
equipment, shall be completely enclosed by a solid decorative
concrete or masonry wall not less than six feet in height. Any
such wall shall be architecturally compatible with the main
buildings on the site and shall screen the stored materials from
the view of industrially zoned adjoining properties and public
streets. If complete visual screening of stored materials is
not possible, trees and other plant materials shall be used. Any
walls or landscaping used for screening purposes shall be subject
to the approval of the Land Use Planning Manager.
Outdoor storage shall not be allowed adjacent to non-
12 industrially zoned properties.
(h) Industrial Waste Discharge. All discharge of industrial
13 waste shall be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 13.16
of this code, as amended.
14
21.34.110 Amendments .
15 1| (a) Amendments to a Planned Industrial Permit may be
initiated by the property owner or authorized agent as follows:
16 1| (1) A request for an amendment shall be submitted to
the Land Use Planning Manager in written form and shall be
17 accompanied by such additional graphics, statements, or other
information as may be required to support the proposed amendment.
18 When necessary, the amendment shall be accompanied by an
amendment to any corresponding tentative map or tentative parcel
19 map;
(2) . If the Land Use Planning Manager considers the
20 amendment minor in nature, the additional graphics, statement or
other information may be* approved .by the Land Use Planning
21 Manager and made part of the original approval.
(3) A minor amendment shall not change the boundaries
22 of the subject property, or involve 'an addition of a new building
or group of buildings not shown on the original permit of greater
23 than ten percent in approved yards, coverage, height, open space
or landscaping, provided no changes Shall be less than required
24
25
26
27
,28
by this chapter. - If the Land Use Planning Manager determines
that the amendment is not minor, a new Planned Industrial Permit
shall be filed. An amendment affecting a subdivision map for the
project shall not be deemed minor and shall be processed pursuant
to Title 20.for amendment of subdivisions.
(4) • if a new Planned Industrial Permit is required, the
applicant shall submit*a completed application with graphics,
statements, or other information as may be required to support
the proposed modification.
*•
B-10 • • • ' •-
F" *•
(5) A fee, as specified by City Council resolution,
shall be required for an amendment to a Planned Industrial
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Permit.{6) An application for an amendment of a Planned
Industrial Permit shall be processed and determined in'accordance
with the provisions of this chapter applicable to the adoption of
a Planned Industrial Permit;
5 21.34.120 Final Map. Building permits for construction- within
any planned Industrial Development shall not be issued until a final
subdivision map or parcel map has been recorded for the property. A
final map which deviates from the conditions imposed by the permit
shall not be approved.
6
21.34.130 Final Planned Industrial Development Plan.
(a) For applications that have riled a parcel map or
tentative mac concurrent with a Planned Industrial Permit, a
final Planned Industrial Development Plan shall be submitted to
and approved by the Land Use. Planning Manager prior to the
recordation of the final map.
(b) For applications that have not filed* a parcel map or
tentative map concurrent with a Planned Industrial Permit, a
final Planned Industrial Development Plan shall be submitted to
and approved by the Land Use Planning Manager prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
(c) The final Planned Industrial Development Plan shall
reflect all required revisions and refinements. The final
Planned Industrial Development Plan shall include:
(1) Improvement plans for private streets, water,
sewerage and drainage systems, walkways, fire hydrants, parking
areas and storage areas. The plan shall include-any off site
work necessary for proper access, or for the proper operation of
water, sewerage or drainage system;
(2) A final grading plan;
(3) Final elevation plans;
(4) A final landscaping plan including methods of soil
(preparation,'plant types, sizes and location; irrigation system
20((plans showing location, dimensions and types; and
(5) A plan for lighting of streets, driveways and
[(parking areas.
(c) Where a Planned Industrial-Development contains any land
22 Ur improvements proposed-to be held in common ownership, the
applicant shall submit a declaration of covenants, conditions and
23 restrictions-with the final Planned Industrial Development plan.
Such declaration ^hall set forth provisions for Maintenance of
24 all common areasr payment of taxes and all other privileges and
responsibilities of the common ownership 'and shall be reviewed by
25 |and subject to approval by the Land Use Planning Manager and City
Attorney.„''« "•
28
B-ll
I
b
I
I
I
I
I
I
(d) A final Planned Industrial Development plan may be
2|submitted for a portion of the development, provided the Land Use
Planning Manager approves the construction phases as part of the
31 permit and provided that the phases are consistent with any
subdivision nap filed on the property. The plan for the first
41 portion must be submitted within the time limits of this section.
Subsequent units may be submitted at later dates in accord with the
5|approved phasing schedule. . .
(e) The Land Use Planning Manager shall review the plan for
61|conformity to the requirements of this chapter and the Planned
Industrial Development permit. If he finds the plan to be in
7|substantial conformance with all such requirements, he shall approve
(the plan.
21.34.140 Certification of Occupancy. A certification of
9|joccupancy shall not be issued for any structure in a Planned
Industrial Development until all improvements required by the
10{Planned Industrial Permit have been completed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, Land Use Planning Manager and the Director
11 of Building and Planning.
P
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.34.150 Maintenance. All private streets, walkways, park-
ling areas, landscaped areas, storage areas, screening, sewers,
[drainage facilities, utilities, open space and other improvements
not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the property
jowners or as otherwise approved by the City Council. Provisions
acceptable to the City shall be made for the preservation and
maintenance of all such improvements prior to the issuance of
(building permits.
21.34.160 Failure to Maintain.
(a) Al 1 commonly owned 1 and", improvements and facilities
shall be preserved and maintained in a safe condition and in a
state of good repair. Any failure to so maintain is unlawful and
|a public nuisance endangering the health, safety and general
elfare of the public and a detriment to the surrounding
ommunity;
(b) In addition to any other remedy provided by law for the
batement, removal and enjoinment of such public nuisance, the
ity Engineer may, after giving notice, cause the necessary work
f maintenance or repair to be done. The costs thereof shall be
ssessed against the owner or owners of the project;
(c) The notice shall be in writing and mailed to all persons
hose names appear on the last equalized assessment roll as
ners of real property within the project at the address shown
n the assessment-roll. Notice shall also be sent to any person
nown to the City Engineer to be responsible for the maintenance
r repair of the common areas and facilities of the project under
n indenture or agreement. The City Engineer shall also cause at
jleast one copy of such notice to be*posted in a conspicuous place
n the premi&os. No assessment shall be held invalid for failure
to post or mail or correctly address any notice;
B-12
(
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 i
23
24
25
2G
27
28
<d) The notice shall particularly specify the work required
to be done and shall state that if the work is not commenced
within five days after receipt of such notice and diligently and
without interruption prosecuted to completion, the City shall
cause such work to be done, in which case the cost and expense of
such work, including incidental expenses incurred by the City,
will be assessed against the property or against each separate
lot and become a lien upon such property;
(e) If upon the expiration of the five-day period provided
for in subsection (d), the work has not been done, or having been
commenced, is not being performed with diligence, the City
Engineer shall proceed to do such work or cause such work to be
done. Upon completion of such work, the City Engineer shall file
a written report with the City Council setting forth the fact the
the work has been completed and the cost thereof, together with a
legal description of the -property, against which cost is to be
assessed. The City Council shall thereupon fix a time and place
for hearing protests against which the cost i* to be assessed and
against the assessment of the cost of such work. The City
Engineer or the City Clerk, if so directed by the Council, shall
thereafter give notice in writing to the owners of the project in
the manner provided in Subsection (c) of the hour and place that
the City Council will pass upon the City Engineer's report and
will hear protests against the assessments. Such notice shall
also set forth the amount of the proposed assessment;
(f) Upon the date and hour set for the hearing of protests,
the City Council shall hear and consider the City Engineer's
report and all protests, if there be any, and then proceed to
confirm, modify or reject the assessments;
(g) A list of assessments as finally confirmed by the' City
Council shall be sent to the City Treasurer for collection. If
any assessment is not paid within ten days after'its confirmation
by the City Council, the City Clerk shall cause to be filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of the County a notice of lien,
substantially in the following form:
B-13
o
fflin
t * t0 s <u. • * o•- i w •nji
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16,
171|
is j:
19!'
20
21 i
i!22 ii
23
24!i
25 |
26 ii
27
28 Ii
RESOLUTION NO.9079
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING SPECIFIC PLAN 198
FOR A 203 ACRE BUSINESS PARK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST OF THE CARLSBAD SAFETY CENTER
APPLICANT: FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO.; SP-198
WHEREAS, on February 18, 1987 the Carlsbad Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2642 recommending to the City
Council that Specific Plan 198 be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on
May 5, 1987 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations
and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Specific Plan
198; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, Calfornia as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That the findings of the Planning Commission in
Resolution No. 2642 constitute the findings of the City Council
in this matter.
C. That said Specific Plan 198 Faraday Business Park
was denied without prejudice.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California on the
19th day of May , 1987 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: None
Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux, andLarson
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
CLAUDE A. LEWIST Mayor
CIT" OF CARLSBAD — AGENDA BILL
OO
0,CO
ooc
0)
oz
(0<uOS
Q.OT3to
a
C3OO
00I
Im
AB« 8988-#l
MTG 5/1Q/H7
DEPT CA
UJJLEj DENIAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN SP-198
FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
DFPT Ml"!L/Cr 1 . nU.
CITY ATTY^S
CITY MGRjE
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the City Council wishes to deny SP-198 your action is
to adopt Resolution No. fo7^ .
ITEM EXPLANATION
The City Council at your meeting of May 5, 1987 directed
the City Attorney to prepare the document denying the
specific plan for a 203 acre business park and upholding
the Planning Commission decision. That document is
attached.
EXHIBIT
Resolution No.
<-J
o
Oo
cr
Aflf fr 5tP/P"
yrft 5/5/87
nppT PLN
' OF CARLSBAD - AGENT BILL
TITLE- REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC PLAN ON A 203
****** ACRE PARCEL EAST OF THE CARLSBAD
SAFETY CENTER
SP-198 - FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
DEPT. *•
CITYA1
CITY M<
'^3
/w£
<D. 1^
mr^S
GRcSfe
CO RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CU
u
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the
Council direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SP-198.
u
CUQ.
CO
00c
C(U-o
£
oo
ex
0)
01C
oV
ITEM EXPLANATION
This specific plan was originally accompanied by a 3/lot
tentative tract map. The specific plan and the tentative map
were denied by the Planning Commission at their February 18, 1987
meeting, where a number of projects that were on hold for a long
period of time were also denied. The decision of the Planning
Commission is final for tentative tract maps of 50 units or less
unless appealed to the City Council. Applications for Specific
Plans, such as SP-198 must go the City Council regardless if
approved or denied by the Planning Commission.
Specific Plan 198 was originally submitted in February, 1985.
Shortly thereafter staff informed the applicant (County of San
Diego) that the submittal was incomplete. The application did
not include a signed Public Facilities Fee Agreement or a signed
agreement to pay traffic impact fees and fees connected with the
bridge and thoroughfare district. In addition there were a
number of unresolved planning and engineering issues.
Since the application- was incomplete and the applicant had not
made any serious effort to process this project for the past six
months staff took this project along with several other inactive
projects to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of
denial. No one appeared at the February 18, 1987 Planning
Commission meeting to speak for or against the proposed project.
After discussing the project the Planning Commission concurred
with staff's recommendation and voted unanimously to deny SP-198
without prejudice.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review was completed for this project because
the application was incomplete and no effort was being made to
complete the application or resolve planning and engineering
issues.
O
ou
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No.
FISCAL IMPACT
The increased need for City capital facilities resulting from
this development will be offset by the payment of the public
facilities fee. Any capital facilties related directly to this
development will be constructed and paid for by the developer.
Increased operating expenses related to this development will be
offset to some extent from increased tax or fee revenue generated
by the development. No detailed economic impact analysis of this
development has been conducted at this time so predictions of the
portion of operating expenses covered by additional operating
revenue created as a result of this project cannot be made.
PUBLIC FACILITIES ADEQUACY STATUS
Traffic Impact Fee
Bridge & Thoroughfare District
Development Zone
Citywide Facilities Plan
- Required
- Required
5
- Required
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2642
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 18, 1987
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. 2642
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 198, FOR A 203 ACRE
BUSINESS PARK.
APPLICANT: FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO: SP-198
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit
Portions of Lots "A" and "B" of Rancho Agua Hedionda,
according to Map No. 823, filed November 16, 1896,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as
provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of
February, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed bj
law, to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consider-
ing all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring tc
be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
Specific Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commis-
sion as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th<
Commission recommends DENIAL WTHOUT PREJUDICE of SP-198, based
on the following findings and subject to the following condi-
tions:
li
2
3
4
I
5
6
i
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings;
1. The applicant is not actively processing the proposed project.
2. The application for the proposed project is incomplete. A
Public Facilities Fee Agreement has never been submitted.
3. The proposed project has numerous unresolved Planning and
Engineering issues.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 18th day of February, 1987, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN;
Vice-Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners:
McBane, Hall, Schramm, Schlehuber & Holmes.
None.
Chairman Marcus.
None.
JEANNE B. MCFADDEN Vice-Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIfaLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2642 -2-
STAFF KBFOBY
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1987
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: SDP 86-3 RANCHO LA COSTA PLAZA, V-374 ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD, AND CT B5-12/SP-198 FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
inactive projects.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution
Nos. 2638, 2640 and 2641 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SDP 86-3,
V-374, and CT 85-12 and Adopt Resolution No. 2642, recommending
DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of SP-198 to the City Council based on
the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
At a previous meeting, staff informed the Commission that a
number of inactive projects would be brought to the Commission
with a recommendation of denial without prejudice. The projects
discussed in this report have been in process for quite some
time. All of these projects have serious design problems or
deficiencies which prevent staff from recommending approval.
Staff has made the applicants aware of these problems, but they
have made little or no effort to resolve them. In addition,
some of these applications are incomplete. Letters have been
sent to all of the applicants informing them that their project
has been scheduled for tonight's meeting with a recommendation
of denial without prejudice.
State law establishes time limits for the processing of projects
submitted for City review. In an attempt to comply with this
requirement and to clarify the City's records, staff is
recommending that these projects be denied without prejudice.
Normally, when a project is denied, the applicant must wait at
least one year before proposing a similar project on the same
property. A denial without prejudice will allow the applicant
to submit a similar project on the same property without
complying with the one year time limit.
Project Description
SDP 86-3 Rancho La Costa Plaza - Request for a Site Development
Plan for 4.52 acre commercial development at the southeast
corner of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Pe Road in the P-C
Zone.
This project was submitted in April, 1986. An issue letter was
sent to the applicant the same month. As proposed, the
Engineering and Planning Departments have concerns with the
proposed circulation, parking layout, and location of the drive-
through.
Probably the most significant problem is that this application is
incomplete. This property is designated as Neighborhood SE-15 of
the La Costa Master Plan. Neighborhood SE-15 consists of two
parcels. The applicant's proposed plans only show development on
one of these parcels. The other is designated, not a part. This
is in conflict with the requirements of the La Costa Master Plan
which requires that development plans for entire neighborhoods
must be processed concurrently. They cannot be processed in
stages. The one parcel that is being left out of this
application is owned by an oil company. That parcel will
probably be developed with a service station, and must gain
access through the other parcel. The parking lot layout of the
commercial project will greatly affect the operation of the gas
station, so the entire site must be planned together.
The applicant was made aware of these problems in April 1986, but
has made little effort to work with staff to resolve these
issues. It has been several months since the applicant has made
a serious attempt to process this project. Therefore, staff
recommends that this project be denied without prejudice.
V-374 - Atlantic Richfield - Request for a variance to erect
service station signs at the northeast corner of La Costa Avenue
and El Camino Real in the C-2 Zone.
This application was submitted in May, 1986. In June 1986, the
applicant was sent a letter listing the Planning and Engineering
Department's concerns. The proposed monument sign has an area of
approximately 81 square feet, while the sign ordinance only
allows 48 square feet. In addition, the proposed six-foot high
sign is located within the triangular area created by the
intersection of two property lines along the street and two
points 25 feet behind each back of curb return. The sign
ordinance permits a maximum height of 30 inches in this area.
-2-
As proposed, this sign could create a serious visual hazard to
motorists at the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino
Real, a secondary and prime arterial respectively. Neither the
Planning Department nor Engineering Department can support the
requested variance.
Staff has met with the applicant several times to discuss these
concerns. However, no efforts have been made to redesign the
proposed sign. In November 1986, staff sent a letter to the
applicant giving him the options of withdrawal, redesign, or a
recommendation of denial. Since we have had no response to this
letter, staff is recommending that this project be denied
without prejudice.
CT 85-12/SP-198 - Faraday Business Park - Request for a 31 lot
tentative tract map and Specific Plan on a 203 acre parcel east
of the Carlsbad Safety Center.
This project was submitted in February, 1985. Shortly after it
was submitted, the applicant, the County of San Diego, was
informed that the application was incomplete. The applicant did
not submit a Public Facilities Fee Agreement or sign an
agreement to pay traffic impact fees and fees connected with the
bridge and thoroughfare district. In addition, there were
numerous unresolved Planning and Engineering issues with the
design of the proposed project.
The applicant still has not signed and submitted the necessary
agreements, or made a serious attempt to resolve the Planning and
Engineering Department's concerns. Since the application is
incomplete, and the applicant has made no attempt to process this
application during the past six months, staff recommends it be
denied without prejudice.
In conclusion, the projects discussed in this report have been
in for quite some time, have serious design problems, are
incomplete, and are inactive. In an attempt to comply with state
ordinances which set time limits for the processing of projects
and to clarify the City's records, staff is recommending that
they be denied without prejudice.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2638, 2640, 2641, and
and 2642
2. Location Maps
3. Disclosure Forms
4. Exhibits "A- - "C", dated April 4, 1986
Exhibits "A" and "B", dated March 19, 1986
Exhibit "A", dated May 31, 1985
MH:dm
1/20/87
-3-
V... . __
GENERAL PLAN
•ISIOINTIAl
RL IOW DENSITY (0 111
RLM LOW-MEOIl M OENSIIV (l)-4)KM MEDIl M DENSITY «•»>
RMH MEDIl M HIGH DENSITY (••!»)
RH HIGH DENSITY (H-JJ)
COMMMCIAl
RRI INTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL < If. PIlZl Camino RnJ)
RRE EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL «f Ctl Counirr ClftfDld)
RS REGIONAL SERVICE
C (I IMMI MTV COMMERCIAL
N NFK.IIRORHOOO COMMERCIAL
IS IR.AVEL 'ERVICES COMMERCIAL
II PROFESSIONAL RELATED
f:»D ( ENTR.AL BI.SINESS DISTRICT
PI PLANNED I.NDI STRLALG (rfrtERNMCNTFACILITIES
I. PI SLIC I HLITIESRC RF< RFATION COMMERCIAL
SCHOOIS
E ELEMENTARY
J JINIORHIGH
M IIK.II « HOOL
P PRIVATE
OS OPEN SPACE
NRJI NON RESIDENTIAL RESERVl
ZONING
RISIDtNTtAl
f-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONl
R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRlCllTlRALZONtRE Rl R.A1 RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONlR- 1 ONI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONlR-I TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONIR 5 MI mpLE FAMILY RESIDENTUL ZONIR- JL I.LMITED MI in FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONI
RO-M RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ML LHPLE ZONE
RO-H RESIDENTIAL DENMn HIGH ZONE
RMIIP RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK ZONl
R P RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ZONl
RT RESIDENTIAL TCK. RIST ZONE
RV RESIDENTIAL «ATE*WAY ZONE
COMMIKIAl
O OFFTCE ZONl
C 1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONl
Cl GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
C-T COMMERCIAL TOLRBT ZONE
C M HEAVY COMMERCIAL- LLMITED [MX STRLAL ZONl
M LVDLSTRIAL ZONl
P- M PLANNED 1NTX STRLAL ZONl
OTMIB
FP FLOODPLA1N OVERLAY ZONl
1C LIMITED CONTROL
OJ OPENSPACI
PL' H-BUC LTIUTY ZONl
FARADAY BUSINESS PARK
1
n
/I
/Ijn
\i
City of Carlsbad
CT85-12/
SP-198
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - AGENDA ITEMS
'TO: BOARD OF Supervisors (A45)
FROM: Director, Department of Public Works (0332)
MEETING DATE SUBJECT
March 16, 1982 • Solid Waste Status Report
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: -^ / ^-V bt( -58 ) REFERRAL
DATE:
O YES
March 4, 1982
(±3 NO | SUPV. DIST: Al
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve the attached listing of object purposes for inclusion in the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund Program.
2. From the five options described in the discussion, select and approve Option I, II, c
III as the 1982-83 spending plan for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.
3. Reconsider, and confirm or change your Board's policy direction that 40% of the
Solid Waste Program expenditures for the Interior Zone shall be supported fron
General Fund revenue sources.
4. Approve the transfer of all landfill lands and leases fron the General Fund to the
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, and direct the Department of General Services to
document and process the required transfers.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST/REPORT: "~~~~~ ~
1. The object purposes identify elements of the Solid Waste Program to be included in
the Solid Waste Enterprise spending plan.
2. The selection of an option will give policy direction as to the level of funding your
Board desires to approve for the purposes stated in the options. It will determine
whether your Board will increase fees for Fiscal Year 1982-83.
3. Your policy directi-on will determine the .extent to which the General Fund will
provide -funds for the Interior Zone during FY 1982-83.
4. This action will complete the accounting transfers necessary for the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund established by your Board on January 12, 1982 (71).
D ORDINANCE RESOLUTION [CITIZENS COMMITTEE STATEMENT D YES BNO
1 D CIVIL SERVICE APPROVAL NEEIP AGREEMENT/CONTRACT NO.
APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNSEL AS TO LEGALITY DYES (3 NOT APPLICABLE D STANDARD FC:
FUNDING SOURCES: Solid
Waste Enterprise Fund
CURRENT YEAR COST:
$9,580,358
ANNUAL COST:
$9,580,358
BUDGETED:
0 YES C!
WILL PROPOSAL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL?
NO B IF YES. STATE NUMBER PERMANENT TEMPORARY ....OTHER.
BOARD POLICY{l£S)
CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL ACTION
O APPROVED D DISAPPROVED K&IGT APPLICABLE
O AUDITOR APPROVED
CONCURRENCES (If Applicable)
D OMB APPROVED D CAO APPROVED
Race N. Wilt
CONTACT PERSON PHONE AND MAIL STOP . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT!'
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REFERRAL:
DATE ASSIGNED ._AGENQA
LEAD ASSIGNEE OTHER ASS,GNE6
REPORT DUE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS D YES D NO DUE DATE
TITLE:
TEXT:
Attachments:A. Table of Options for Solid Waste Program
3. List of Solid Waste Properties to be Transferred
to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
CAO (A6)
DCAO (A249)
County Counsel (A12)
OMB -(A214)
Auditor/Controller (A5)
General Services (0360)
RJM:RNW:ck
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT FORM
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Status Report
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
'Program: Solid Waste
Remarks: Recommendation No. 1
*
No Fiscal Impact
Recommendation No. 2
Option I -- Existing fee structure adequate to fund in 1982-S3
Option II -- Existing fee structure adequate to fund in 19S2-S5
Option III -- Existing fee structure adequate to fund in 19S2-S3
Option IV -- Will increase Solid Waste Program costs by about
$1,352,000 in 1982-83 and will require a 16%
increase in tipping fees. •' . .
Option V -- Will increase Solid Waste Program cost by about
$2,032,000 in 1982-85 and will require a 24%
increase in tipping fees.
Recommendation No. 5
If your Board continues General Fund support to pay for 40% of
the Interior Zone costs, the cost to the General Fund will be
$320,000.
Recommendation No. 4
No Fiscal Impact
r^T
Discussion;
1. OBJECT PURPOSES
The following list of object purposes identifies the activities which the
Department recommends be included in any Solid Waste annual work program:
100 ACTIVE LANDFILLS
200 HAZARDOUS WASTE
300 COMPLETED LANDFILLS
400 COMPLIANCE
500 TRANSFER STATIONS
600 RURAL CONTAINER STATIONS
700 RESOURCE RECOVERY
800 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
900 OTHER
999 CONTINGENCY/RESERVES
A description of these object purposes follows:
100 ACTIVE LANDFILLS
Includes all the costs of operating the six active landfills in San Diego County.
The costs occur in five categories:
1) Landfill operations contract payments for 1982-83.
2) Betterments at the landfills not covered by the operating Contract,
but done by contract.
3) Fee collection by County, including Revenue and Recovery.
4) Public Works Department administration, inspection, and engineering.
5) External costs expended by other County departments (formerly
allocated but now direct charges).
200 HAZARDOUS WASTE
Covers the costs of laboratory analyses of hazardous waste spills when needed,
The enforcement of hazardous waste regulations is not funded in this program.
300 COMPLETED LAKDFILLS
Provides for engineering, monitoring, and maintenance of eight (8) completed
landfills in San Diego County for the prevention of erosion, detection and
control of methane and leachate, and other maintenance needs.
400 COMPLIANCE SERVICES
Covers inspection of more than 300 collection and transport vehicles of 24
companies for conformance with all collector franchise and licensing require-
ments of the Solid Waste Ordinance. The activity also provides for
investigation of illegal dumping, and enforcement of other pertinent regulations,
500 TRANSFER STATIONS
With the closing of operations at the Palomar Shredder and Transfer Station,
lease payments-, interim maintenance, and security will continue. It will be
necessary to find alternative uses for the facility or to complete a dis-
mantling and salvage process. The largest portion of the continuing cost is
for lease payments for land ($124,000). Costs for various options at Palociar
are shown later in this letter.
• ' •
600 RURAL CONTAINER STATIONS
Provides the costs associated with the maintenance of the ten rural container
stations in the eastern section of the County (interior Zone), and for the
contracts for pickup and hauling the waste from these stations to County land-
fills. Expenditures include the hauling contracts, landfilling payments, fee
collection, operational maintenance at the sites, administration, engineering,
and external costs.
700 RESOURCE RECOVERY
Administering the resource recovery aspects of the Solid Waste Program,
including current contracts, the El Cajon facility, and continuing efforts to
promote recycling and recovery activities. The El Cajon facility will require
maintenance and continuing lease payments ($30,000) until an alternate new use
is approved, or until the plant is dismantled and the property returned to the
City of El Cajon.
800 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ' !
Identifying and developing new and replacement waste disposal facilities,
capital improvement needs, including design contracting and construction,
and current contracts. The activity also includes all local, regional,
state and Federal intergovernmental coordination required for the projects,
maintenance and updating the Solid Waste Management Plan, environmental impact
statements, permit acquisition, public education, litter abatement,
legislative analysis, and Enterprise Fund budgeting and accounting responsibilities
to meet Divisional needs.
900 OTHER COSTS
Fixed assets and equipment contributions.
999 CONTINGENCY AND RESERVES
•
The Solid Waste Enterprise Fund requires contingencies and reserves.
The major operating contingencies are:
1) Unexpected fluctuations in waste volumes resulting in either
(a) high contract payments for landfill operations, or
(b) loss of revenue fron fees.
2) Unexpected liabilities associated with the Solid Waste Program in
general and the landfill activities in particular.
3) Potential unidentified major expenditures for leachate and/or
methane control at active or completed landfills.
4) Hazardous waste cleanup at landfills (some County costs, sorae
contractor costs).
5) Potential need to pay for the dismantling and/or salvaging of the
El Cajon Resource Recovery facility and the Palomar Transfer Station.
6) To set aside funds for maintenance of completed landfills which
can be foreseen in general but are not quantifiable.
7) Salary increases.in enterprise funds are not recovered from the
General Fund, and must be provided within the Enterprise Fund.
The major reason for capital reserves is to set aside funds for -future capital
costs associated with new landfills or replacement facilities, including potential
funding for resource/energy facilities.
Your Board may increase reserves when necessary to support acquisitions or programs^
Increases in reserves could require increases in tipping fees.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
THE DEPART>ENT RECOMMENDS THAT YOUR BOARD APPROVE THE LIST OF
OBJECT PURPOSES FOR INCLUSION IN ALL SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE FUND
SPENDING PLANS.
2. SELECTION OF OPTION
Five options follow. . The options show different levels of spending within
the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for Fiscal. Year 1982-83.
The selection of an option by your Board will determine whether the
Solid Waste Program will'continue to be funded with the existing tipping
fee structure, or with increased tipping fees.
The options are identified by various possible actions concerning the
Palomar Transfer Station.
Attachment A shows each option with its estimated cost and resulting impact
on tipping fees.
Moneys Available for Options
Six Sources - The Solid Waste Enterprise Fund has six sources of
available funding:
1) Fund balance from prior year - consists of residual monies
transferred in 1981-32 for fund operation plus savings if
any from expenditure variations in the 1981-32 spending plan.
2) Revenues from the existing tipping fees.
3) Revenues from any tipping fee increase adopted by the Board
of Supervisors.
4) Revenues from permits and inspections.
5) Revenue from resource recovery when available.
6) General Fund support as may be approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
With the exception of Item No. 6, the amount of the above funding
sources could vary depending on contingencies, actual expenditures,
and changes in economic conditions. A reasonable allowance for
these variations is plus or minus ten percent (+10%).
Equipment Sales - Revenues from the sale or use of solid waste
equipment are not available to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
options. They are accounted for separately in the Internal Service
Fund (ISF) for equipment.
The Contractor has selected and purchased two (2) pieces of solid
waste equipment formerly operated by the County at the landfills,
for $54,000.
The remaining pieces which have been withdrawn from service will be
offered for sale. The revenues from the sale will accrue to the ISF.
Necessary expenses in the sale of the equipment will include trans-
port to the site of sale, cleaning, minor servicing, and detailing
for the sale. Some vehicles remain in County service for inspection
and other retained activities.
Option Descriptions for Activity Level at Palomar Transfer Station
A brief description of each option follows. Costs are shown on
Attachment A.
OPTION I - SALVAGE
This option anticipates terminating all operations at the Palonar Transfer
Station, and providing funds only to maintain security and make lease
payments until the plant is dismantled and salvaged and the property vacated^
About 3/4 of a staff year, including clerical assistance, is assigned to
implement this Option. Lease payments continue until the land is vacated.
External costs would also apply to the process.
The expenditures shown do not allow for the possibility that the County may
have to pay to clear the land; that is, a potential negative salvage value.
DEPARTMENT ACTION: IF YOUR BOARD ADOPTS OPTION I, THE DEPARTMENT
T5WILL NOTIFY BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES TO CEASE OPERATIONS ON
JULY 1, 1982, AND WILL NEGOTIATE THE CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT, AND
2) WILL PREPARE AN INVITATION TO BID FOR THE SALVAGE OF THE FACILITY
AND CLEARING THE SITE.
OPTION II - RFI&Q
This option anticipates the termination of all operations at Palomar Transfer
Station. However, rather than salvaging or clearing the land, the time of
the 3/4 staff year and external costs would be directed toward identifying
and implementing other potential uses.
County lease payments and naintenance will continue under this Option
for as long as the County occupies the land. •
DEPARTMENT ACTION: IF YOUR BOARD ADOPTS OPTION II, THE DEPARTMENT
1) WILL NOTIFY BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES TO CEASE OPERATIONS ON
JULY 1, 1982, AND WILL NEGOTIATE THE CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT, AND
2) WILL PREPARE A REQUEST FOR INTEREST AND QUALIFICATIONS (RFI&Q).
FOR USE OF THE FACILITY.
FURTHER ACTION WILL DEPEND ON THE RESPONSE TO THE RFI&Q, AND MAY
INCLUDE THE PREPARATION AND ISSUANCE OF A BID OR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED USE, LEASE, OR SALVAGE.
OPTION III - LEASE
This option would -terminate all County operations at Palonar Transfer
Station. The Department"would inaaediately prepare an Invitation for Bid
(IFB) for the private lease of the facility.
In this option, the time of the 3/4 staff year and external costs would be
assigned to the preparation and processing of the RFP, negotiation of a
lease, and implementation of the proposal covered by the lease.
Lease payments would continue by the County until assumed by the .successful
lessee, if any.
If an appropriate lease agreement could not be reached, the County could
then salvage under Option I.
DEPARTMENT ACTION: IF YOUR BOARD APPROVES THIS OPTION, THE
DEPARTMENT 1) WILL NOTIFY BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES TO CEASE
OPERATIONS ON JULY 1, 1982, AND WILL NEGOTIATE THE CANCELLATION OF
THE CONTRACT, AND 2) WILL PREPARE AN INVITATION FOR BID (IFB)
FOR THE PRIVATE LEASE OF THE FACILITY.
IF NO ACCEPTABLE BIDS ARE RECEIVED, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD PROCEED WITH
A SALVAGE CONTRACT.
OPTION IV - TRANSFER ONLY
This option provides for continuing operations at the Palooar Transfer
Station, but as a transfer station only. The shredding operation would be
discontinued.
On February 26, 1981, representatives from the Department of Public Works,
Browning-Ferris Industries, and North County cities and haulers held a
meeting to discuss a separately funded alternative for operation of the
Palomar Transfer Station.
BFI presented cost/ton estimates for providing "transfer only" service at
the Palomar facility. Based on a minimum daily tonnage of 750, this
service would run $6.35/toni The BFI Contract anniversary date is October.
BFI estimates the cost/ton will be $6.90 after that time.
Assuming 5 days/week operation at 750 tons/day, the annual contract
cost for this operation would be approximately $1,332,000. This does not
include approximately $175,000 for contract management, fee collection,
and lease payments, all of which would continue as at present, as shown
in Options I, II, and III.
This option requires a tipping fee increase of 16%.
DEPARTMENT ACTION; IF YOUR BOARD APPROVES THIS OPTION, THE
DEPARTMENT 1) WILL NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH
BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES AND 2) WILL PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR
YOUR BOARD TO INCREASE TIPPING FEES BY 16%.
OPTION V - NO CHANGE
This option would continue the existing contract for shredding and
transfer at the Palomar Transfer Station.
This option requires a tipping fee increase of 24%.
DEPARTMENT ACTION: IF YOUR BOARD ADOPTS THIS OPTION, THE
DEPARTMENT WILL PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR YOUR BOARD TO INCREASE
TIPPING FEES BY 24%.
Surcharge at Palomar Transfer Station (Option's IV & V)
If your Board selects either Option IV or Option V, i.t would be possible
to attempt to recover all or a portion of the added costs by imposing a.
surcharge on all refuse delivered to the transfer/shredding station.
Total recovery would be impractical. To add $6.35/ton to the existing fees
would price the operation out of business.
Partial recovery at a modest surcharge of say, $3.00/ton, could produce
about $500-$550,000 annually. The $3.00 surcharge represents the approximate
cost to collectors/haulers to make the 16-nile round trip from the transfer
station to the San Marcos Landfill.
Any surcharge would reduce tonnage delivered to the station, possibly below
the 750 daily minimum required by BRI for its quoted processing rates.
In any event, surcharge revenues would not cover additional costs. A subsidy
would continue to the extent of the shortage.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECOMMEND A
SURCHARGE FOR PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: (OPTIONS): THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS
THAT YOUR BOARD SELECT FROM OPTIONS I, II, OR III, ALL OF WHICH
CARRY ABOUT THE SAME COSTS, AND ALL OF WHICH ANTICIPATE NO FEE
INCREASE AND NO GENERAL FUND SUPPORT.
NOTE:
OPTION I - SALVAGE can commence immediately.
OPTION II - RFI&Q will require a longer period of time than
either Option I or Option III
OPTION III - LEASE eliminates the RFI&Q process of Option II,
and therefore should be completed sooner than Option II.
3. GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR INTERIOR ZONE
(
On May 19, 1980 (62), your Board set a policy that the General Fund impact
of the Solid Waste Program be reduced over a period of three years, and
become funded totally from other sources, with the funding in 1932-83
to be 60% tipping fees and local sources, and 40% General Fund.
According to this policy, the proposed General Fund support for FY 1982-83
would be 40% of the Interior Zone costs. As proposed in the 1982-83 program,
the total Interior Zone costs would be about $900,000. Revenues from the
sites where fees are collected are estimated at $102,000. 40% of the
remaining net costs would be about $320,000.
None of the options include or anticipate any General Fund support for any
Solid Waste costs.
If your Board were to continue General Fund support in the above amount of
$320,000, this amount would be added to the funds available to the program.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION; THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT YOUR
BOARD NOT PROVIDE ANY GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR THE SOLID WASTE
ENTERPRISE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982-83.
4. TRANSFER OF LANDFILL LANDS AND LEASES
The transfer of all solid waste landfill lands and leases from the General
Fund to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund is necessary to ensure that all
revenues generated from the use of these lands accrue to the Enterprise
Fund, thus helping to maintain the independence of Solid Waste costs from
General Fund support now and in the future.
The land at the Palomar Transfer Station and at the El Cajon Resource Recovery
Facility is owned by other agencies and would not be subject to the transfer.
•
The attached listing (Attachment B) identifies the subject parcels according
to records in th eDepartment of Public Works. It will be reviewed for com-
pleteness and accuracy by the Real Property Division prior to actual
documented transfers..
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION; THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT YOUR BOARD
APPROVE THE TRANSFER.
ATTACHMENT A
.0
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
999
SOLID
OBJECT PURPOSE
ACTIVE LANDFILLS
HAZARDOUS WASTE
COMPLETED LANDFILLS
COMPLIANCE
TRANSFER STATION
RURAL CONTAINER STATIONS
RESOURCE RECOVERY
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
OTHER
SUBTOTAL
OPERATING CONTINGENCY
CAPITAL RESERVE
TOTAL
FUNDS AVAILABLE
TIPPING FEES
OTHER
FUND BALANCE
GENERAL FOND SUPPORT
TOTAL
WASTE ENTERPRISE SPENDING PLAN OPTIONS
OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III
5,320,000 *
1,000
458,000
252,000
175,000
899,00.0
294,000
444,000
29,000 '
7,872,000
787,000
890,000
-9,549,000 9,549,000 9,549,000
8,500,000
59,000
990,000
-0-
9,549,000 9^549,000 9,549,000
OPTION IV OPT 10^
W
', *
1,507,000 2,207,000
^j>£f2i^
( <-, 7 oo.*"
- 7#7' *
•"/ 'J '"
9,204,000 9,904,000
10,881,000 11,531,000
9,832,000 10,552^0
10,881^000 11.5S1.0CO
% INCREASE IN TIPPING -0- -0- -0- +16% +24%
FEES
*FIGURES OMITTED IN OPTIONS II THROUGH V ARE IDENTICAL TO OPTION I.
FOOTNOTES
OPTIONS I, II AND III MAY BE FUNDED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE EXISTING TIPPING FEE
STRUCTURE, AND DO NOT REQUIRE GENERAL FUND SUPPORT OR AN INCREASE IN FEES.
OPTION IV ASSUMES OPERATION OF PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION AS A TRANSFER FACILITY
ONLY, FUNDED BY AN INCREASE IN TIPPING FEES OF 16%.
OPTION V ASSUMES FULL OPERATION OF PALOMAR, BOTH SHREDDING AND TRANSFER AS AT
PRESENT, FUNDED BY AN INCREASE IN TIPPING FEES OF 24%
I
t
•3'
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - AGENDA ITEMS
TO: BOARD 0F..Supervisors (A^
FROM: Director, Department of Public Works (0332)DATE: January 25, 1982
MEETING DATEFebruary 2, 1982 SUBJECT
Solid Waste Program
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: 4/ 22 / 81 (31 ) | REFERRAL Q YES
:. ..-•;.-„
X3 NO | SUPV. DIST: 2,5
1. Direct that the Palomar Transfer Station cease operations effective July 1, 1982.
2. Approve for circulation the attached Request for Interest and Qualification (RFI§Q)
for Operation of the El Cajon Resource Recovery Demonstration Facility and the
Palomar Transfer Station. . •
In the event of negative response to the RFISQ, direct the* Department of Public
Works, to begin salvage of the El Cajon and Palomar facilities and terminate leases
therefor.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST/REPORT:
Your Board has expressed concern about further expenditures of County funds for the
inactive El Cajon Resource Recovery Demonstration Facility. You have also directed
the Department of Public Works to explore alternatives for the Palomar Transfer Station.
The recommended action is intended to offer the County an opportunity to receive
revenue from these two facilities. We believe this approach will be seen as an
attractive opportunity especially in light of the advantages offered the private sector
in the Economic Recovery Act of 1981.
If response to the requests is negative, the Department of Public Works will then
commence salvage and lease termination for both facilities.
These steps will be made within this Fiscal Year. However, they may not be completed
until early in FY 82-83.
D ORDINANCE D RESOLUTION [CITIZENS COMMITTEE STATEMENT XI YES DNQ
DAGREEMENT/CONTRACT NO.| D CIVIL SERVICE APPROVAL NEEDED
APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNSEL AS TO LEGALITY DYES JOCNOT APPLICABLE D STANDARD FORM
FUNDING SOURCES:CURRENT YEAR COST:
$1,886,032.00
ANNUAL COST:
$1,886.032.00
BUDGETED:
EKYES D NO
WILL PROPOSAL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL?
NOH IF YES. STATE NUMBER PERMANENT TEMPORARY OTHER.
BOARD POLICY(IES) APPLICAB
1-76
CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL ACTION
' D APPROVED D DISAPPROVED D NOT APPLICABLE
CONCURRENCES (If Applicable)
D AUDITOR APPROVED O OV.3 APPROVED APPROVED
Sharon J._ Reid _,.
CONTACT PERSON
.5.05-.3987.....
PHONE A\D MAIL STOP DEPT. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
Attachement J. MASSMAN, Director
Department of Public Works
ATTACHMENT DISTRIBUTED T01.EACH BOARD MEMBER, CAO, COUNTY
COUNSEL AND ON FILE IK THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD.
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INTEREST AND QUALIFICATIONS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Palomar Transfer Station
The Palomar Transfer Station was built in 1979 to shred solid-waste, recover ferrous
metal and transfer the shredded waste to the San Marcos Landfill. The facility was
necessary in order to extend the life of the San Marcos Landfill. Shredding reduces
the volume of solid waste. Shredded waste does not require daily cover material
which further extends the site's life.
The compaction equipment required in the landfill contract will provide volume
• reduction which equals that achieved by shredding. The Palomar Transfer Station as
presently configured is no longer necessary.
The facility was designed to provide additional resource recovery capability. Prior
to closure and salvage of the plant, private sector interest in acquisition for use
as the front end in an energy recovery process should be sought.
The Palomar Transfer Station Contract provides that "if for any fiscal year of this
contract said Board of Supervisors fails to appropriate or allocate funds for periodic
payments for the oppration and maintenance services under this contract, County may,
upon 30-day written notice to the Contractor, terminate this contract."
Unless otherwise directed, we will serve such notice to the Contractor on June 1, 1982,
El Cajon Facility
The El Cajon Resource Recovery Demonstration Facility was established to test a flash
pyrolysis process developed in 1972 by Occidental Research Corporation.
The project demonstrated that the experimental technology was not viable. Information
gained from the demonstration has been used by the SANDER Task Force in defining
their project. The El Cajon Project has also been of benefit to resource recovery
projects throughout California and the nation.
The El Cajon Facility is located on 5.25 acres leased from the City of El Cajon. The
lease expires November 30, 1983. In recognition of the plant's inactive status, the
City has agreed to a 50% payment of the 1978 market value of the land. The City of
El Cajon is anxious to begin receiving full market value for this property.
The County of San Diego invested $2 million in the $14.3 million effort. The
settlement agreement-with Occidental Research Corporation allows the County to
sublease, sell or salvage the entire project.
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY
' The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 offers many incentives to the private sector to
invest in capital intensive projects. Both the El Cajon and the Palomar Transfer
Station could prove to be attractive opportunities.
The attached Request for Interest and Qualifications (RFI5Q) identifies the County's
objectives in offering these facilities and the conditions specific to each site.
This represents Phase One of the process.
After evaluation, only qualifying firms would be sent a Request for Proposal for the
Operation and/or Acquisition of the facilities.
Should the response to the first phase solicitation be negative, however, the
Department will begin appropriate lease termination and salvage of the facilities.
OTHER SOLID WASTE PROGRAM CONCERNS
Several other Solid Waste Program policy issues have been identified. Issues other
than the El Cajon and Palomar Transfer Station are not as time sensitive. They will
be discussed in depth in a March Board letter. These issues include:
1. Sycamore Gravel, Asphalt, Concrete; On recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Landfill Operations, development of gravel, asphalt and/or concrete recovery
projects was excluded from the Landfill Contract. A proposed contract for gravel
mining will be included with the March report.
2. Resource Recovery at Landfills: The Herzog Contract includes rights to resource
recovery at the landfills.The Contract requires a plan be submitted to the
Director. Initial discussions have focused on developing a methane recovery
program.
3. Program Financing:
Landfill Acquisition. No new landfill sites have been acquired since 1976. We
are currently using approximately 2-1/4 million cubic yards of capacity annually.
There is an immediate need to provide a replacement facility for the Bonsall
Landfill and an additional facility in the southeast quadrant of the Interior
Zone.
Maintenance for Completed Landfills. Landfilling of Solid Waste is not true
disposal.The organic materials in the waste stream decompose. The County
retains responsibility for proper and constant monitoring. Without a maintenance
program, settlement, methane migration and leachate can become threats to the
public health and safety.
Methods of Financing. Your Board has recognized the need to earmark funds for
future equipment acquisition should the County need to get back into disposal
operations. Perhaps a similar fund for future solid waste facility acquisition
and ongoing maintenance should be established.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2
PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION - HISTORY
During consideration of the contract operation of the County's landfills, the Ad Hoc
Committee on Landfill Operation recoinmended that consideration be given to the closing
of the Palomar Transfer Station, located on a 22-acre site in the City of Carlsbad.
The 800-ton capacity Palomar Transfer Station receives and shreds refuse and recovers
ferrous metal. The shredded material is transferred a distance of seven miles to the
San Marcos Landfill. Under special permit from the State Solid Waste Management Board,
the shredded waste does not require daily cover.
Cover material at the San Marcos site is scarce. Volume reduction through shredding,
plus not having to cover daily extends the life of the site .seven to ten years. This
was important since the other North County landfill, Bonsall, also had a limited
life-span.
The landfill contract awarded by your Board includes a compaction requirement. The
compaction ratio achieved with this equipment balances the volume reduction achieved
by shredding.
Built in 1978 with a $4.1 million Economic Development Agency grant, the Palomar
Transfer Station was designed to accommodate a resource recovery process. Staff
believes that there would be private sector interest in developing this energy
recovery potential.
EL CAJON RESOURCE RECOVERY DEMONSTRATION FACILITY - HISTORY
On April 21, 1981 (31), your Board approved a final Compromise and Settlement
Agreement with the Occidental Research Corporation for the El Cajon Resource
Recovery Demonstration Facility. The Agreement allows your Board to operate the
facility, sub-lease the operation, or sell the facility with certain conditions.
The El Cajon Resource Recovery Facility is located on S.2S acres leased from the
City of El Cajon. The Demonstration Project was designed to test a 200 ton per
day experimental pyrolysis process. The facility consists of an administration
center, the pyrolysis unit, a glass separation process, aluminum and ferrous metal
recovery, a storage floor, a tipping floor, a maintenance shop, and a laboratory.
The project demonstrated that flash pyrolysis was not a viable technology for
energy recovery from municipal solid waste. Lessons learned from the demonstration
have been applied to the SANDER Project locally, as well as resource recovery
projects throughout the nation.
In April, your Board authorized the Solid Waste Division to work with San Diego
State University on developing the El Cajon Plant as a solid waste research center,
Initial interest was received from the United States Department of Commerce for
funding a research center. Similar interest was expressed by the State Solid Waste
Management Board.
San Diego State University's Department of Engineering developed an unsolicited
proposal as a result of this interest. Unfortunately, a funding offer has not
been made.
ATTACHMENT 2
EL CAJON RESOURCE RECOVERY DEMONSTRATION FACILITY - HISTORY (Continued)
Sized for the waste from the City of El Cajon, conveniently located.seven miles from
the Sycamore Landfill, the facility could provide an opportunity for a resource
recovery project using a proven technology such as incineration.
The El Cajon Plant has received continuing attention from the private sector. Much
of the facility can be utilized for solid waste processing. The in-place capital
investment, plus the fact that the plant held operating permits, make it an
attractive opportunity.
REQUEST FOR INTEREST AND QUALIFICATIONS (RFISQ) PROCESS
In order to determine private sector interest in either of these facilities, staff
recommends a two-step process.
The attached Request for Interest and Qualifications (RFI§Q) Is step one. It would
be advertised in professional publications and sent to parties which have expressed
interest in the facility.
Based on the responses to the Request for Interest and Qualifications, a Request
for Proposal would be brought to your Board for approval. Upon completion of the
Request for Proposal process, a contract would be awarded. Staff estimates this
two-phase process could be completed by the end of this fiscal year.
This two-phase process will allow evaluation of the private sector's interest in
the facility. Should there be no interest, salvage operations and termination of the
lease can be initiated at the end of phase one. This determination should be made
before the start of FY 1982-83.
ATTACHNENT 2
Page 2
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT FORM
SUBJECT: Request for Interest and Qualifications
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
FISCAL IMPACT
*None as a result of this action.
The FY 82-83 Solid Waste Program budget will not include -$2.0 million for thePalomar Transfer Station operation.
Additional fiscal impact will occur when a private sector contract is awarded as
a result of this process or salvage of either of the facilities is initated.
The Public Works Advisory Board will consider for further review, this item at
their January 28, 1982 meeting.
OEDICATED TO A CONTINUING RURAL ATMOSPHERE
May 5. 1982
20652 Elfin Forest RdEscondido, Ca 92025
City of San Marcos
City Administration Bldg
San Marcos, Ca
ATTNi PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Gentlemeni
We understand that the county is planning on closing
the Palomar Transfer Station in the near future* In
the past we hare expressed our deep concerns over the
safety and maintenance of Questhaven road to the land-
fill site* We have also expressed our concern over
the safety of the Rancho Santa Fe and Questhaven Inter-
section and off-road illegal dumping in the area*,.
/ ..,
We believe that if the transfer station is closed*
significant adverse Impacts will result in the above
mentioned areas* These Impacts are not acceptable to
our community and should be mitigated prior to any
action by the county. Terms of the special use permit
should be reviewed in view of the "change of condition*"
We express our concerns via this letter and-expect the
city of San Marcos and the County to take no action on
the transfer station until the Impacts of this change
have been studied*
Respectfully,
STEVE SMITH
Vice-chairman
Board of Directors
oe Clerk of the Board
Supervisor Bokart
Tax Payers Association
-N
C-i'f-
.»''_..-.-,.< • •
1
. I
' 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
18
17
18
• . *V • Jv- -*v * '
™™.. .,-Q., ^
;• ._
OANT AND ASABO
ATTORNBYS AT LAN
Suit* 330 Union Bank Building
525! -B- Street
Baai Diego, California 92101
Telephone t (714) 234-2211
Attorney* for Debtor
UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN DI8TK
— <
In the Matter of )
NORTH COU NT I lUVE&inuiia,
• T.<H«»4»1 »»T-«-n»i-*>i4pr
Debtor.
.
> At San Diego, in si
January, 1974.
: The Application of
,.**. >»-•••• <•*- « T«"o
* ETinrD
'JAN9 «W
1
BANKJtUPTCY JUOGC
8AM WOO; CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT CUURT
CCT OP CALIFORNIA
toOOO
In Proceedings for a Real
riupei Ly Arrangement
NO. 73-2105-K
ORDER ADTBORISING SALE OP PROPERTY
PREE AND CLEAR OP LIENS
lid district, on the 9th day of
NORTH COUNTS INVESTMENTS, a Limited
Partnership, and Debtor herein, filed on the 28th day of Decem-
20 I ber, 1973, that said Debtor be authorized to sell to the County
21 of Sett Diego, the subject property free and clear of liens, and
the Supplement thereto, filed on the 3rd day of January, 1974,
having COBS on for hearing before me, of which hearing notice
24 va* given tot County Tax Collector} Lloyd B. Craybiel, Esquire
25 of Long « Levit (Attorneys for American Guaranty Life Insurance
28 Compmny)i Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkina and McMahoni William Tavisj
27 Office and Industrial Space Guide i American Guaranty Life In-
surance Company; William C.H. Chung, Trustee} Robert P. Lowell,
2i Esquire of Lowell, Hicks, Prahl and Jones (Attorneys for William
30 C.H, Chung, Trustee)j Planning and Environmental Analysis Kon-
jj sultants; and Associated Engineers by placing a true copy there-
of in a keeled envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in
-i-
UM UniUd BtatM Mil at 0M OU«o* California,afUir
8
4
5
a
•f
' 8
9
10
11
IS
28
14
26
16
17
18
29
20
21
27
28
29
80
81
821
hearing , tham teing no opposition th«r*toi Md UM Court IwivUf
*found that UM aalo of aaid roai propMrty la U tho bMt lute*froat of tho eraditora of thia aatat* and will protact UM Uta*
f
raata of tha paada of Truat and tax I Ian haxaini it ia teraby
anauoD, ADJUDGED AMD DI
(1)1 THAT I MORTH COOMTY ZMV1 ra, a Uaitad Partaar-
•hip, tha Dabtor harein, ba and haraby ia, author iaad to aall.
tho aubjaet roal propacty froa and elaar of tha Daada of Truaet
of ftnwinin Ooaxanty I>ifa Zaaaraaoa Conpany and MilXiaa C.H.
Chung* Truatoa, at a aala arrangad by tha Dabtor to tha County
of Ban Dlago, SS55 Ovarland Driva, San Diogo, California, for
i
$1,500,000.00 eaah, in accordance with tha rulaa of tha Court,
oa tho following tarn* and conditional
(2) THAT: Tha Daad of Truat of Aaarican Guaranty
tif • Znauraaoa Coapaay b« and tha ••»• hereby i> tranaf erred to
tha eaah proceeds raalizad at tha sale of the subject realI
property. f
(3) THATs The Dead of Trust of William C.B. Chung,
Truatoa, dated tha 9th day of June, 1971, securing a promissory
note in the amount of $670,000.00, ba and hereby ia, tranaf erred
to tha eaah proceeds realized at tha sale of the subject real
(4) THAT i In no event shall the escrow to sell the
said real property elose nor shall said real property be rendered
i
fro* and elaar of any said liens of Deeds of Trust until the
County of San Diego, serving as escrow holder, holds, subject
only to tha orders of this Court, cash in the amount of at least
11,500,000.00,
(5) THATc When the escrow holder, the County of Ban
Diego, holds at least $1,500,000.00 cash, in connection with
sale of the real property described in Exhibit "A" , a copy
-2-
X
t
s
4
5
6
1
a
•
10
U
12
18
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
a
£4
25
25
27
28
29
80
81
U IWMJC
of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
it be and hereby In, authorised and directed to disburse forth-
with at the close of the sale ••crow, each proceed* as follows*
American Guaranty Lite Insurance Company
(a) $300,000.00 unpaid principal balancei
(b) $17,500.00 interest on the unpaid balance fro*
June 16* 1973 through January IS, 1S74 (at ten percent (10%) per
annum* amounting to a rate of $13.33 per day).
(o) Interest at the rate of $83.33 per day, eomstencing
on January 16, 1974 and continuing to and including the date eaid
creditor or attorney for said creditor, receives the cash pro-
ceeds oa its Deed of Trust.
William C.H. Chung, Trustee
(a) $670*000.00 unpaid principal balancei
(b) $173,093.00 interest on unpaid balance from June
16, 1971 through January IS, 1974 (at ten percent (10%) per annum
amounting to a rate of $186.11 per day).
(c) $24.786.95 - funds advanced by William C.H. Chung,
Trustee, to pay interest on first trust deed.
(d) Interest at the rate of $186.11 per day, con»«n-
ciag on January 16, 1974 and continuing to and including the date
said creditor or attorney for said creditor receives the cash
proceeds on its Deed of Trust.
County of San Diego
(a) Any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent
taxes, together with penalties and interest which may be a lien
against the subject property for taxes due the County of San
Diego.
(b) That in the event said tax lien is not trans-
ferred to the cash proceeds realized at the sale ot the subject
property by January 15, 1974, said principal tax amount shall
continue to accrue interest and/or penalties cuornxncinq on
-3-
I
X January 1C* 1174 until data of payment.
• Closing Pees
3 All sums necessary to pay recording faaa, forwarding
4 fees, trustees' fees, reconveyance faea and the premium charged
for titla insurance.
6 Unsecured Creditors
• Saltier. Caplan, Wilkins and McMahon $ 911.12
3003 Fourth Avenue
ft San Diego, California 92103
0 William Tavis ' $1,275.00
110 North Elm10 Beverly Hills, California 90210
11 Planning and Environmental Analysis Xonsultants $ 600.00
1393 Baaswood
12 Carlsbad, California 92001
13 Office and Industrial Space Cuide $ 590.00
15B5 Roseorana
14 San Diego, California
15 Associated Engineers $3.703.00
3904 Oroton Street
16 San Diego, California 92110
17 (6) THATi After payment of all sums referred to in
18 Paragraph S, above, the escrow holder shall disburse to the
Debtor, NORTH COONTT INVESTMENTS, cash proceeds equal to the
20 I difference between (a) $1.500,000.00 cash proceeds received in
211 escrow relative to the- sale of the property described in Exhibit
•A*, and (b) sai.i 4ums disbursed pursuant to Paragraph 5, above.
(7) THAT! Upon receipt of the cash proceeds pursuant
24 I to Paragraph 6, above, NORTH COUNTY INVESTMENTS, the Debtor
herein, shall place the sum of $40,000.00 of said cash proceeds
20 I in a Certificate of Dapoait for 30 daya or less, with a deposi-
27 I tory approved by this Court* said proceeds to remain in auch
depository until further order of this Court.
Patadi JMI 1974.
KAXZ
«*uw* t. . . 3, ::
• tftaei •• .
•44 «P(MU M Ut M
. . i. i!
. . ; t i
HERBERT KATZ
Bankruptcy Judge
W»
1894
73-1315 A
•;.(.' •"'
-3£v
>:-
tt»M* portlono of Lota "A" and "«" of laacbo Agon llodloaida. In th* City of: Carlabad, County of San iiicso, Stat* of California, according t* M* thereof
Co. 823, filed In tho Office of Che County of San Dingo County, Kiiuutir 16,
1896, dMcribed M follouat
•?-•--•<<•at Point 14 of Mid Lot "8" M do*lea*ted M Mid W* Ho. 823;
•long th* boundary of Mid Lot "8". South 89*54*00" EMC. 23.41 feec t* the
northeasterly comer of land described In deed to Uorth rnuup IniMCnanra.
June 16, 1971 M File Ko. 126673 and being Che HOC POIHT OF BBBinCIK;
retracing along Mid boundary Corcu 89*S4*OOr* VMC. 23.41 feec to Mid
Point 14 of Lot "B"; tfaMce eloag the boundary of aaid land of north County
InvMtor'o M follouu: South 54*15*33" VMt. 326.48 feet; South 50*55*35" VMC.
1788.65 feet; South 01*28*24" Uest. 787.30 foot; and S^uth 10*44*15" UMt.
2187.68 feet to the aoot Uortherly corner of Und described la Parcel 1 la
d**d to Carlabad MnUeipal Water iiiatrict, recorded Parentur 27. 1961 M
Pile n*. 222199 and being a point herein designated M Peiac "I"; thance along
th* boundary of aaid Water District's land M follouat South 73*43*45" Faat.
232.43 feec to M angle point therein; end South 38*38*23*' EMC. 341.96 feet
Co the uooc EMCerly corner of Mid land; thence South 38*38*25" CMC. 100.00
f**t; tfaMca SMth 51*21*35" UMt. 638.00 fe*t to th* CurthoMterly lia* of
County Road Survey Co. 6fc2 (known aa Rl CMdao loal) according to Plat thereof
on fit* la Che Office of the County Pigineor of Sen Diego County; fhMcs eloog
Mid northoMCerly line north 38*38*25" Vest. (Record - north 38*33*00" VMC)
50.00 feet Co a point herein deaicMted aa Point "T"; ttiMce conciauing north
38*38*25" VMC, 150.00 fMC to a line which boar* South 10*46*15" UMC frou
Mid Point *X"; thMM SMth 10*46*15" VMt. 39.50 feet Co the center UM
of Mid County Bead SurvoMlo. 682; thence nlong Mid concur UM South 38*38*25"
EMC, 1047.69 feet to th* Westerly prolongation of Conn* Ho. 3 in the Southerly
boundary of Mid Lot "B» M •buuu on goeord of Survey Nap Ko. 317, filed in
th* Of fie* of the County Recorder of Saa olego County. October 23, 1935; rhencaalong Mid oroleneatiM and Mid Course I*. 3. Itorth 84*34*38- BMC (Record -
Berth 84*38*00- Oat) 1692.91 fMt to a line ubich bMra South 03*05*08" Gaat
frau th* ttat POUJT UF BBCIIX1KC; Chanrn liorth 03*05*08" VMt. 5393.11 fMtc* th* not mat or
230.98 acr*a, nor* or loaa
w c »
O)s? •j-iji*
It", An t!f* affpas«r»
ffla.3at* n"sS.P-
B SS!NI?
l-s-off«^8"1^1 i-IffS-? «P 9
28-sfS1 B ffl
?i'lllllfI e-a -ss i ^ s:iinpis!!
^sS-liaslfS,
*?»fg-o o sr
l?ll
Q)
3
CD
S
•»lHiS"*il6
«»!l!*:ifffi«.o « <* S^?§g-§i«3K?«|gS
{DBraae^3S ^Sff
Planners
back buy
of facility
jCity to mull fate
ot trash station
By Tom Bradley Jr.
Staff Writer ,, •;-. .
V
CARLSBAD. — A 'city panel
determined; that a-- proposed
Carlsbad pniTh'rtff*' of 'ar. county-
owned trash-transfer- facility will
.help the cfty- stabilize its Iong4enn
•waste management program!
wttirthe. Planning Cbm-
ion'S nmmimmig raoomm««idi»-
the City Council on- Jan. 10 win
decide whether to condemn" the
Patomar.- Traasftat Station.; north.-
east of Palomar J<Epport Road and
El Camino- Real under «wtiiTn»nf-
domaiir proceedingSyAssixtantCity
Manager-<->Frank .Uannen.-'said
WednesdayTright Q^Mp>»- * *
Coast Waste Management, Caris-
h^M's.contracted.trasMpaler, has
leaded ther IT-acre; slpfrom the
covnty airports- divii&nV.fbr 10
years. ''./. v- , •^IKttr^a V
If the council bacldraie commis-
sion's endorsement^ ftke 'move
could circumvent 'the^ 'county's
rejection last month of a $&million
bid by Carlsbad: .for? the? site.
Carlsba± -Subniitted the offer in.
mid-Novembed ;v 'j-ttr-f-'j "-; ^
Deputy County Cbunseh Scott.
Peters said the county dismissed
the offer because it was considered
too low, and because a city-
imposed 10-day deadline for a
response to the offer gave the
county no time to hire an outside
appraiser.
"I dont think anyone would
want the county to accept a $3 mil-
lion offer without looking further
into it" Peters said. <
Mannen said the suggested sale
price was based on an internal city
appraisal.
Carlsbad wants to buy the prop-
erty "so we will have a reliable,
stable trash-disposal system,"
Mannen said.
> See Planners, Page B-2
.•
to
r,
h
•y
n
?t
•s
:s
5-
Hauler
battles
to stay
Coast Waste
files suit to try
to block eviction
By Linda Tontini
Staff Writer
Coast Waste Management Inc.filed a suit in federal court-Wednesday in a bid to halt county
plans to eject the hauler from a
Carlsbad facility this month.
"We certainly hope the county
of San Diego will reconsider its
actions and work out a reasonable
resolution to this matter," said
Coast Waste lawyer Leigh Rayner.
"We regret we had to take this
action." • •'
Coast Waste filed suit in federal
court in San Diego in an attempt to
block plans to turn the hauler out
of the county-owned trash-transfer
station Dec. 10. The hauler leasesthe Palomar Airport Road facility
from the county's airport divisionon a monthly basis. ' ' -County officials said the mainreason for the notification was a
need to collect more than the
$17,000 a month in rent the opera-
tion currently generates. Deputy
county counsel Scott Peters said
legally there was nothing to pre-
vent the county from turning out atenant with an expired lease,which is the situation with Coast
Waste."If someone's lease expires,
generally they have no right to stay.If s the same with renting an apart-ment or a home," he said. "I thinkthe county has every right to see if
it can get more money out of that
site."
The hauler was originally on afive-year lease that expired and
rolled over to a month-to-month
basis.
But longtime observers of trash-
disposal politics saw it as retalia-tion against the hauler for
diverting Carlsbad's trash from the
San Marcos landfill to facilities
outside the county since Oct 1. Thehauler diverted trash to avoid
increased trash-disposal fees
charged to cities refusing to make a
commitment to the regional trash
system run by the San Diego Solid
Waste Management Authority,
composed of the county and seven
cities.
Ten cities outside the regional
> <oe Hauler. Paae B-2
§3<S£ls^•§55*=
18"
o•o
-g°»;e:.s{hs*£|
tfJo****118
lf*j£i-|
R
'It!1
8 if"
Trash station
may be foireed
•i ^^^J ' - • • i *v ^4 *• ^~ ^fi^^C • -^T^^'^BfOJP~'. -
( f ' m II •' i B »»• "TB . ^^ •*a •. M f • fc» •••"»* .-•>..,.£.- ••• . ••to close doors
t ' ffit • '- . t* -..-..-,, J. -.---I ;^*..-. -"F :.»;.'. , i-. ,
By Tim Mayer
Staff Writer
The owner of the local
garbage company said he
will file suit this week in
federal court to stop the county
from evicting his company.
. Arnie De Jong, owner of Coast
Waste Management, was served
Nov. 6 with a 30-day eviction
notice ordering him off the land
he's leased for a decade from the
county airport department north
of Palomar Airport Road and east
of El Camino Real.
The land, for which he pays
more than $200,000 a year, is the
site of his office headquarters,
maintenance shop and public
truck scales.
It's also the site he uses since
October to transfer some 220 tons
of Carlsbad's residential and com-
mercial trash daity to large trucks,
which haul it to-a landfill'neaif
Yuma, Ariz. 4,-
De Jong said'the
the eviction is in' retaliation fin1
taking the trash to Arizona and?
avoiding the higher tcharged at,
landfill and
San Marcos. D&pit^kfr»ng
haul, it is saving CarBbad about
$20 per ton. But county officials
have said it also threatens the
county's financing of its $139 mil-
lion recycling center-by cutting
the amount of trash it gets below,
minimum operating levels. .'
De Jong said he. haATno choice"
but fight or he "may be homeless.
Maybe you've got a place I can
stay ' withy 120 employees, about
60 trucka,repair facilities...^ .
To^tabilize the situation,
Carlsbad Assistant City Manager
Franki_M*nnen said the city last
weeV"olfered"to "buy1 the land,
about IS to 17 acres including the
transfer statin.- Theresa* ^et
lr to the, oHer^.'the
He said the city also sent a let-
ter to the county asking them to
reconsider the eviction deadline
set for Dec. 10.
County Airport Director Jack
Miller, who is also acting director
of ~ tBe ''county Solid Waste
'Division-,"this week continued to
deny^ the eviction was ordered in
retaliation for Carlsbad's break
from the county waste system.
Wednesday, November 9,1994
County's eviction of
trash hauler is called
a case of retaliation
ByPATFLYNN
Staff Writer . .
The company that hauls Carls-
bad's trash has been ordered to
vacate a trash transfer station it
leases from the county, a move
some see as retaliation against the
hauler, Coast Waste Management
County officials notified Coast
Waste on Friday to leave the site on
Patomar Airport Road in 30 days. ~
The order conies only one month
after Coast Waste stopped hauling'
Carlsbad's waste to the county's
San Marcos recycling system, fur-
ther reducing the trash and income
stream to the controversial ,$139
million plant and heightening the
chance that the county win be
forced to default on the $134 mil-
lion in bonds sold to build it a
f "Obviously they weren't really
excited about losing the flow,' «aid
Arie de Jong, the owner of Coast
Waste. Til let you draw the conclu-
sions, but I have to wonder if they
didn't say, 'Maybe we ought to.
make it as difficult as we can for
Coast Waste."*
Jack Miller, the county's acting
solid waste director, said he was
aware that some see the eviction as
retaliatory.
T recognize that, but I can't com-
ment on it," said Miller, who is also
the county's airports director and
thus controls the Palomar Airport
parcel where the transfer station
sits.
Coast Waste was on a month-to-
month lease and the county was not
required to cite a reason to termi-
nate the agreement, Miller said.
Coast Waste stopped hauling
trash to the San Marcos facility on
Oct. 1 when the county raised
dumping fees from $55 a ton to $74
a :ton for trash from the 10 cities
that have refused to join the county
Solid Waste Authority. Carlsbad is
one of those cities.
'Coast Waste uses the
transfer station to load waste from
8-ton trash trucks to 23-ton trailers
that haul it .to landfills in Arizona
and the Los Angeles area.
Because of the fees at the San
Marcos facility, de Jong said, he is
able to dispose of the trash less
expensively at the distant landfills
even with the increased transporta-
tion costs.
De Jong said yesterday that he
may seek an injunction prohibiting
the county from evicting him.
#
I
County
$3M land offer
By Tim Mayer
Staff Writer
The county has rejected an. offer
from Carlsbad to buy the land
now occupied by the city's trash
hauler, Coast Waste Management.
Assistant City Manager Frank
Mannen said the city has received
a letter advising officials that the
county Board of Supervisors
rejected the $3 million offer. But,
said Mannen, the notice did not
explain why the board took the
action, reportedly in a closed-door
session on Nov. 30. ": •
The city had sought to buy some
17 acres of Palomar Airport prop-
erty east of El Camino Real and
north of Palomar Airport Road.
Coast Waste Management has
leased the land for its headquar-
ters, maintenance shop, and
transfer station for a decade, pay-
ing more than .$200,000 a year:
But it was hit with an eviction
notice by<the» county's-airport,
department last month. County
officials maintain.the eviction,was.
issued so tnfecounty could seek a
new tenant and make more-money
for the airport, which gets.|the
income from leased land- • 3*
Coast Waste Management owner
Arie De Jong; who has fled suit in fed-
eral court to bkxk the ewctian, aDeges
it ism retaliation becaoaaCaast Waste?
hasbeenhaulmg'Garlsbad>stzash.toa>
landfill nr Arizona? and avoiding" the?
high dumping fees charged at the
Mannen: said the issue will be
taken back, to the.'.City Council,
which authorized the purchase
offer, at its Jan. 10 meeting.1 "to
see if they (council members)
want to look at condemnation."
I
fl3
hi3*1
fit
iii-filjWl
a H!sSsai5ae»
all
•ss-s §«18a>s-aa&15 jf iilslllje>5 •=s*>28e»o>a'8«-a|3s-a
I If
l||:pfi|*al| s! i
^h-SifalLvlEl ^1 /If .11
ou.
^J frIen1 ?O!
'Oi
v
.5;
b'8
•as j
05
CO
03
05
CD
05
05
E_g
05n_
05
* — -o e A aB-o MMSAM := » :» L u £ .= S -2: - x 3 = 2 •-Isls.!!1 .sj.s.s.2 §-.s ojj '5«jg3 s 8 «^ s s =.2-=«a323i. sSs-g-Ss!" fe* s s S-a g-8^!"1 S"« S s.S"»E* -sp-iSi-aS- ^^ s^-^^uJo^^-gl-^5^ .isJ*^^ i^Js*2 ii e|M^j^e^-a^;-£33.
il:iii§r?t«i.iii ss J!3s:S{s!:*3is5UJ!.j
o
CD
= !llili!r3^l!l ilf !i Is 11 ui!
mm Jii in*s ill il«^ss^i= Ijliit2 1-1 M?!I |1» ^=sl^§-.«_! «^ 't.47^3 ^^i sail? 5-- *"$"3iisiltiii5^^ £ii.nials«::; SM*I
to .ffji^SSSSSa J|fSS£S-"-: *S =J=_=-2i-pi i|l| 1111=! .Iji
i?Ii^J!5!t=!il:r5l!3
iii«i -i
la igis sf -2 :« s 97 »3 s s *.s s= |^=l s i|s - 3
CD
O)
*£.:« Oi.CC
UTo i
je£=3
«-3 a " «
a.-.o-'-Soh — -^ s —•^Eircoi-^cS-s >.*»
«KS'«iJi-3S)"55-3Jia>.--=£t^ ^p «M ^ t *•* ••• ^3 -~ ^j i— ** ^--"-l^li^^ilPliii
TIMES-ADVOCATE
Wednesday, March 24.1882
From boon to boondoggle
County abandons
$4 million experiment
in garbage shredding
By Tony KnightTh* TIIMC-MMCTO
BAN DIEC*>-When tho county built a(4 million Palomar Transfer Station gar*,bageshre*lmg plant to Oulsbed in 1979,It was Aonsidarod a boon to the environ-ment. Now, three and a>hall yean later, itis being called a bureaucratic boondoggleThe county supervisors last week voted
iianlraously to close the plant July landyut the 40,000-square-foot building with Itasophisticated trash shredding machineryup for lease.
Whether any private firm needs a plantwhose sole purpose is to shred and com-
pact 900,000 tons of garbage annually hassome officials worried that the stationmight become a major problem for thecounty.Public works officials concede that if
the plant cannot be leased, they will rec-ommend tearing It down and selling the•crap for salvage. But they maintain thatbuilding the plant was not a waste of taxdollars."It doesn't matter if it only lasted threeor four years," said John Burke, head ofthe county's solid waste division. "It gaveus the wherewithal to get another landfill
In tho North County that was badly nocd-
ed."
Officiate Mid the transfer •Utiea, which
was 9ft percent funded with a federal
grant, did provide an environmentally
sound way of disposing of garbage and it
did extend the useful life of the flan Itsr-
cos landfill site.But the plant's ^million annual operat*
ing- costs became a burden on the be-
leaguered solid waste budget And techno-
logical advance* crated a better, nheap-
er way to bur>f tradiiPublic Works Director Rudy "f"rfffinally decided that plant operating costscould be bettor spent acquiring new land-thftr solidfill sites waste pro-grams. The county supervisors approvedhit Mfommtnrtstlon to close the plant.Meanwhile, the county still faces thecritical problem of finding places to bury
trash. With every man, woman and childIn the county generating a ton of trasheach year, landfuTs fffl up quickly . Mass-man said the county needs another 2,500acres of landfill space in order to avoid acritical garbage problem in the next toyears.But obtaining new landfill sites presentspolitical and physical problems. Peo-ple do not want a dump located near theircommunity, and when residents learn ofcounty plans to open a new dump, theyturn out in large numbers to oppose it Andlocating dumps in remote back country
areas only increase* the cost of haulin
the trash,
Part the eounty'a etraUgy ha* bwi 1
look for Innovative ways to extend the 111
of IU present landfill*. Oonctructien of tt
Falomar Transfer Station at the comor <
Palomar Airport Road and BU Oamlr
Real was considered a solution to U
problem fuur years «gu.
The plant dealt with the North County
ever-growing trash pile by reducing ga
bag* volume. It was conveniently locat«
to reduce hauliRS costs, and by extendlrlandfill life, it reduced the need to Uu
more virgin ground Into trash burial situBurke said the county could never ha>opened the 300-acre San Marcos landfill:
1»T9 without tho shredding plant Wtthoishredding, the landfill's life would ha<
been too short to Justify the investment, I
The Palomar plant was also to be tt
"front end" of a major effort to recovivaluable resources from garbage, Bur)said. He said that considering the expeimental work going on with resource rcovery. solid waste officials figured Uu
one day the plant would become a rsource recovery faculty.County officials still hope this might ocur. They want a private resource recoery firm to lease tho plant and turn it ina money-making optration.
Please tee QwtMge, Back Page
•Garbage
Continued from p«00 A1
Two problemN lie at the root of the pres-
ent situation.
First, shredding trash at the Palomar
Tranafer-6Jatlon and trucking it the eight
miloa to San Marcos became too expen-
sive for the county. Last year it cost 18 a
ton to bury trash going through Palomar.
The Henog Contracting Corp., which won
a &<• million seven-year contract to take
over the county's six dumps in March, has
promised to bury trash tor only $8.22 per
ton.
The second reason is that Henog has a
better way to compact the trash. By using
portable compactor tractors located at
four dump sites, Henog can batter the
county's output at Palomar far a fraction
of the costThe four Henog compactors cost only
"160,000 apiece, compared to just over fi
.nilllon for the transfer station. And the
annual operating costs of the Henog ma-
chines is $154,000, compared to 13 million
for Palomar.
Cost comparison proved a critical factor
-when the supervisors were considering
con'-acttng out the garbage business.
Public works officials argued that the
county oould operate portable compactors
Just as well as Henog. But in the end, the
board was swayed by the fact that Henog
proposed a better plan from tho start,
while the county staff had to take respon-
sibility tor proposing the oo»Uy tnmaferstation four years earlier.
"It was a bureaucratic boondoggle," Su-
pervisor Paul Eckert said of the transfer
station. "I wanted to close it last year, but
I couldn't do it"
According to Burke, the public works
staff didn't propose the compacton in ma
because the technology behind them was
unproven when the transfer station was in
its planning stages. He said the early com-
pactor tractors, as they are cs'led.
couldn't do the job of the Palomar shredd-
er. But now they can better the shredder.
The staff did recommend buying com-
pacton in 1980, said Burke, but by then the
board was committed to contracting and
would not sink more money into the solid
waste division. When Henog came for-
ward with its plan, the Palomar station'sdays were numbered.
"Someone came up with a better solu-
tion. What the hell are you going to dor'ssidBurke. "If you're asking, 'Did thesis
tion do what it was supposed to do?' tha
answer is yes. But if your viewpoint is, 'Is
this an investment that was good for the
ages?' the answer is no,"
Public works officials try to minimise
the fiscal implications of closing the three,
and-a-half-year-old plant by pointing out
that it was built with federal funds, UM
now-defunct fedenLEconomlo Develop*
mont Administration paid (ft percent ol
iho construction coats.
Eckert pointed out that the money itiU
coma* «ut of local taxpayer*' poeketo.
However, Dekert joined the board alter
the transfer station was approve tor con-
struction, so in a political w.i»e, he leeli
free to criticize it
Supervisor Jim Bate*, who hu been or
the board (or eight yean, sees the Palo-
mar project in a afferent light
"You've got to experiment," he said
"You've got to try new things, and U the)
don't work, go on to something else."
Massman, too. can claim immunity ir
UM Palomar experiment. He didn't tak<over the solid waste division until the ol<
Sanitation and Flood Oontroi Departroenand his Department of TransporUtioi
were combined into Public Works in 1MO.
In the ^*nTMJnff IS months Massman hai
com* up with a long-range plan to «olv<
UM county's f'Tt^fl" shortage problem. Xincludes buying M acres of landfill attti
per year for 90 yean.
For this ha needs money. So last weel
be came to the supervisors with a set o
options. Either dose the, transfer station
said Mailman, and use the $2 million ii
operating costs for capital acquisition an<
other soud waste costs, or increase tto
feet at the county landfills.
Fee increases would ultimately hav<
been passed on to homeowners and buslnesses, so the supervisors doted th<
plant
JUL1 1980
Garbage Station Wants
Stricter Safety Controls
By JIM ESTERBROOKS
Staff Writer
CARLSBAD — Three months ago,the walls were blown off the hugePalomar garbage transfer jjfotlfm
when a can of lacquer•thinner ignited.Miraculously, no one was seriously
injured in the incident, but it leftworkers at the plant with a strong
sense of the value of strict controls onhazardous waste discharges. Besidesthe fact that (23,000 has since beenspent to repair the plant, the
explosion could easily have had farworse consequences.Said one fire inspector momentsafter the blow-up, "If that building hadbeen concrete, there could have beensome deaths. The only thing that saved
those guys was the way that buildingwas constructed."
Had a company or individual beenprosecuted and convicted of dumpingthe can of lacquer thinner, a fine of up
to $25,000 could have been levied.Despite the threat of such a fine —
and that amount may soon be doubledif a bill now before the state legisla-
ture is approved—hazardous materi-als like paint, gasoline and lacquerthinner still turn up at the plant
periodically."They know they're not supposed to
bring that stuff here," said 21-year-oldGary Hucks, a worker at the plant
operated by Browning-Ferris Co. "Wedon't want it here."
Hucks said all plant workers aremore careful about scanning the ref-
use before it enters either of the
plant's huge shredders. It was insideone of the two shredders that the can
of lacquer thinner blew up.The plant has also increased the
number of workers who check therefuse, which is brought to the plantby garbage trucks from throughout, North County. Once the trucks arriveat the plant, they dump their contentson the floor of the huge warehouse-
like structure.
Once on the floor, the garbage is
spread about, giving workers a chanceto see. what's there, and then shoved
onto one of two conveyor belts thattake the refuse to either of the plant's
shredders.
As far as prosecuting the firm or
individual reponsible for the Marchaccident, chances are slim, accordingto Bond. His inspection has narrowed
the list of suspects to a small group ofauto body repair shops in Escondido,
but pinning the violation on any onefirm is tough, he said.
,., '••'.- • • ••*••.. . .-.-'• -. 3MPtaMBrI'MOoum -,T..,. ...; i- • • . :• • ••;•(• - •.— .. • ..'••..• *••
WORKER at Palomar Transfer Station examines damage.
osion
Tr arisfet1 '~$ t atioii
By JEM ESTERBROOKS MAR 9 7StaffWriter ""^ * -'CARLSBAD — An explosion rocked the Palomar trashtransfer station Wednesday, blowing out walls and scatter-ing debris, but injuring no one.
, The blast sounded at about2:45 p.m., when a container offlammable liquid vaporized and ignited inside one of thestation's massive trash shredders. . v .| The transfer station, just east of Palomar Airport, shredsand compacts refuse from throughout North County andthen sends it off to a San Marcos land-fill site. -
1 "I thought for sure I was dead," said 21-year-old ShawnHoberg of Carlsbad, a mill operator who was standingclosest to the explosion. "It knocked me clear out of thebooth andright down the stairway. Everything was on fire."• Moberg was taken to Tri-City Hospital for observation,but according to a hospital spokeswoman, was treated andreleased. •; No estimate of damage was given immediately.! Jim West, a battalion chief with the Carlsbad FireDepartment, said, "The only thing that saved them was theway the building was constructed. It was made to blowapart like that," West said, referring to the three-story,corrogated steel structure.{ "If it had been concrete," West added, "there could havebeen some deaths, because the energy from the explosionWouldn't have been released, it would have been containedin the building."Moberg, drenched by water from the plant's emergency
sprinkler system, was not the only worker shaken by theblast. A handful of other workers laughed nervously outsidethe tattered building as firemen doused the plant's machin-
ery."All I could do was run," said 24-year-old Steve Thomas of
Oceanside, who works for North County Disposal. "It scaredme to death. It was just boom and things started .to fall.
Nobody was yelling or screaming, just running."John McNamara, the plant foreman, simply shook hishead when asked when the. plant might operate again."We'll just have to get into it and see, "he said. "I really don't
know."
Other employees at the plant said "it's a constant battle"to keep flammables out of the plant "We tell people all the
time," said one worker, "but they don't seem to pay any
attention."West said a metal drum marked "flammable liquids" was
recovered from the wreckage and taken to Carlsbad firedepartment headquarters for inspection. He said thedepartment will attempt to trace the drum to the person orcompany that deposited it at the plant. ____ , __
. The $94 million plant was opened only five months agoand is the first of its kind on. the west coast: By-compacting
refuse as it does, the plant triples the lifespan of the San
Marcos land-fill site, as well as making the trash moresanitary, according to plant operators.
•v. -v
\
8
a*
OD ^f
-» «.
*1 !«'cd
S - S
X
J
i--Bpr ltf'-«
QC lif'Hi is |,
O :*;
fci
. U
•sI
g
ft.iJf i
*• n\i 1
mi"259:
!l-
I*:
ii;la
8^•j'j1
M 8 ••a-aas
ou1CO00
00
J
2IT3
55
IK
st:&
OCT 19 1377
•- By GIL DA VIS
'"= f SUtfWrtterCARLSBAD-By a three to one citycouncil vote, Carlsbad will become thetrash depot for much of the NorthCounty. " ' , .:?•Council members decided that acounty-proposed, $4 million waste
shredder and compaction station couldbe located just northeast-of PaJomar
operation will be totallyI in industrial type buildings.
Onceythe magnetic metals are ex-tracted from the processed trash, it willbe loaded in covered trailer trucks andtransported to a San Marcos land fill.
! covering earth.Since the shredded waste doesn't need
covering, this land fill site win handle
North County refuse for another 20years, reported county representativeClarenceCoffman. . •-
He said Carlsbad residents would saveapproximately 1200,000 a year in hauling
charges by having the refuse station inCarlsbad rather than farther away.Other reasons for selecting, theCarlsbad site include: central locationfor all of the northwest San Diego
County, high cost of improving a road tothe San Marcos location and closeness topossible energy using resources if thewastes become recycleable for energy
Council members heard these, argu-
ments and then overturned-a planning
commission recommendation of denialwhich conflicted with a dty staffrecommendation of approval.Voting for the project were Mayor
Robert Frazee, Vice-mayor ClaudeLewis and Anthony Skotnidd. Votingagainst was Dr. Ronald Packard whileMary Casler was absent.Packard said he was still concernedabout the plant's potential odor, noise,
dust, dirt, litter, sewering, .1pact, and increased traffic, (al
Camino Real anil Palomar,'
Road). •^•:.;-,"I tried to weigh the
against the benefits," he said.S3don't believe this body should "ute...this is the heart of an
area and'it won't go iway.'ttexpanded to be one of the few si tNorth County.'^ • :.v,-&;-.•;
Frazee replied that this was -__ _those kmd of facilities that we wfeh-wicould get along without'" But sfhceihai
isn't possible, it's necessary td provide
the service in the best possible manner,he said.. .:•• - - •.»•/••• ' -i =-.;;** ;
Skotnidd wondered out loud what
Carlsbad would do- if the county/SaidCarlsbad would have to take care if Itsown trash. • . •-•_ ;:.,j/*^^f •
One important point was notedty CityManager Paul Bussey wfaa said the
county doesn't have to abldrty «ilyplanning ordinances which means the
county has volunteered to be regulatedby the city. - -f •:.< :
"My only concern is that I'd not like to
see the county give up on processing itsprojects through thecity," be said. .
The only person to speak against.the
project was -a representative- fromnearby BeckmanN Instruments whichproduces medical quality chemicals. Heasked for a slightly stiffened condition of
approval so that the Beckman plantcould better be protected from anyinsects and pests that might be
attracted by the waste facility.
NC Trash
•-,-., . ..il-..,j;^(- Lyj',''. r- '.*^«»Ht.•.;••-•;• -j?r.^l ^./S&.-^v **.;&•-Comac
mfllioo trash
f would serve
Carlsbad loAirport .--Carlsbad dty planners recdved the
project's application Wednesday fromthe County of San Diego. • -
County staff is recommending that a
large building be located on a 21-acre :knoll Just east of the Carlsbad MunicipalWater District (CMWD) headquarters.
Noise, odor and stray trash would be
minimized by fully enclosing the trash
dumping operation Inside the building.
This mean that trash • tracks *Mprivate vehicles would enter the
building arv* <jqwtlt thffr trash on aconcrete floor. ' •' ' •_•,•.. I
A bulldoze' would push the debris into
a pit which would contain a conveyor
belt • ••-.;,;:..' ;,'.Metal attracted by magnets Isexpected to be t*i*W'Tl*>! frum the
conveyor belt before the refuse to sent toa compactor which would reduce trashvolume by 90 per cent (a 10 to onecompaction).. Other reclamation
mechanisms would be added as theybecome economically feasible.
The compaction is the chief reason for
building the faculty, which may be
entirely funded by the .federal
government
By greatly reducing the volume of the
refuse, the county can significanlty
increase the life of its sanitary fills.If federal funding becomes a reality,
prelimary site preparation is expected
to begin in November. But it will be
another two yean before -the plant
becomes operational, said Ernie
Shepherd, principal civil engineer for
the county's Department of Sanitationand Flood Control
He said the operation's compacted
trash will Initially go to Bonsall and thento a new San Marcos landfill.
"Even after the San Marcos landfill Is
completely filled, this transfer station
will be very convenient because of itscentral location," Shepherd said.
Carlsbad's assistant city planner, BudPlender, said a possible concern is theproject's traffic flow.
The county's parcel Includes some 200
acres which are now labeled "openspace" in .Carlsbad's General. Plan.
County staff Is proposing leaving about
half that acreage in open space with a
portion being changed to plannedindustrial.
Carlsbad council members are
expected to review the county's
application sometime in September.
SEP 27S76
The solid waste trantterAftttnaa is. '
planned for a '«wnryH»«ned «lte.v:Jusl 'southwest of Palomar Airport Road and ElCaminoReaE- ..--•-• •-
' IDCuUS
would tier compacted
trucks fdr transfer
dumps. "><]..-,...:. /#3»iies3x&!'i
Tbe two QtogosedlandfilL sites arejust
SiaiiDfegff. •
Ken Sayles,'county solid waste researchanalyst, said the region Is running 'out oflandfill areas. *.^'- j* '• • • • '••.;-!'*•' ij*
Other projects'soai^it for fundtngimdera still unsigned Public Works Employment
Act o< 197* are a $140,000 access roadupgrading Tor "Palomar Airport and a
$720,000 water management and pondexcavation for the San." Elleastembasln.Elljo Lagoon'