HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-11-13; Planning Commission; ; EIS 205|SP 144 - CONSIDERATION OF FINAL E.I.R. AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN - ENCINA POWER PLANT STACKS.....
' • --:r:11,I.',, . ~~(;..,i-
'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT FOR
NOVEMBER 13, 1973
TID: PLANNING COMMISSION •
REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL E.I.R.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NOS: E.I.S.-205
SP-144
APPLICANT: H. E. RICHMOND FOR
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
P.0.Box 1831
San Diego, Calif. 92112
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Request: That the Planning Commission accept the Final Environmental
Impact Report and approve an Amendment to a Specific Plan to permit the con-
struction of a 400 ft. single stack to replace the four existing stacks, at
the Encina Power Plant on property known as a Portion of Lot F, Rancho Agua
Hedionda and a portion of Block W, Palisades No. 2.
B. Background: Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
the City Council , by Ordinance No. 9279, dated August 3, 1971 , di 1d approve a
specific plan on the subject property. \The subject property, containing some
680 acres is located east of the Pacific Ocean southerly of the north shore of •
Agua Hedfonda Lagoon: Said property is zoned P-U (Public Util it~).
I
II. CONSIDERATION OF E.I.S. NO. 205
A. Background: Upon notification of the staff that S.D.G.&E. intended to
modify the existing stack system, the City did enter into an agreement with
Westec Services, to prepare a draft E.I.R. describing the environmental impacts.
Westec Services did prepare the draft E.I.R. Upon receipt of the draft, staff
did circulate the report to the following persons and/or agencies_ for comments:
l. State of California Dept. of Transportation
2. County of San Diego Parks & Recreation Dept.
3. Intergovernmental Regional Environmental Management
4. C.P~O.
5. Dept. of Public Health, County of San Diego
6. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District
7. San Diego Coast Regional Commission ~
8. Phil Stanbro
9. City of Carlsbad Engineering Dept.
10. Terramar Association
11 . C. I.C.
12. City Library
.. • -2-
,,
B. Final E.I.R. ~ Staff Evaluation of Draft. E.I.R. •
l. Scope of E.I.R.: Summary:
The E.I.R. deals with S.D.G.&E's decision to opt for a single
400 ft. MSL stack with the apdition of a fifth generating unit to the Encina
Plant. The potential impact, therefore, reiates solely to the removal of the.
existing stacks at 190 ft. MSL and the construction of a singTe 400 ft.
stack. The City has previously considered the expansion of the· plant facility
to include the fifth generating unit, and therefore, this matter is not con-
sidered directly by the Draft E.I.R.
In terms of important.issues, staff believes that the aesthetic
impact and the air pollution potential over a substantial area are the major
concerns of the proposed stack.
2. Environmental Setting:
• The new stack foundation will be laid on the presently unused
portion of the site, directly to the east of the existing power plant. The
area of visual impact of the 400 ft. stack would be approximatley 4 miles in.
all directions. Population within the visual impact area would be about 28,000
persons vs. 12,000 persons for the existing structure. •
The power plant is about 3 miles from Palomar Airport and in its
.existing fotm, does not constitute an air traffic obstruction, according to
F.A.A. regulations. The single stack modification would require special
lighting.according to F.A.A. standards, but would not be a hazard to air
navigation.
A study of local air quality conducted by Stanford Research
Institute, indicated that existing air quality conditions associated with the
plant's operation are satisfactvry, but that additional generating un,its
could contribute to groundlevel concentration in excess of State Standards,
with the addition af a fifth stack.
3. Environmental Impacts:
a. Air Quality: The 400 ft. stack does not effect the .
production of pollutants by the plant, but rather, allows dispersion of
pollutants in order to preclude ground level concentrations of S02 from ex-
ceeding California 24 hr. so 2 standards. The 400 ft. stack will diminish
the adverse impacts on air quality by:
i. reducing the "aerodynamic downwash of emissions from
the plant", and,
ii. Eliminatinq the concomitant downwind odor problems from
the sulfur-dioxide.
-3-
b. Aesthetics: A public opinion survey was conducted by Central
Surveys in order to evaluate the public's reaction to the aesthetics of the
proposed stack modification. When shown a photograph of the plant in its
present stack, 72% of the sample said that they preferred the appearance
of the proposed stack modification. However, when questioned whether they
would favor the construction of a single stack, only 33% replied yes. What
this seems to indicate is that although the single stack is preferable to the
plant in its present state, it does not represent a positive aesthetic value
when considered on the basis of no stack. The increase of the impact area
from some 9 sq. miles to some 34 sq. miles is a substantial effect.
c. Public Safety: No negative impacts on public safety are indicated.
The draft E.I.R. contends that the 400 ft. stack will be a navigational aid
for both air traffic and ocean-going vessels ..
4. Mitigation Measures: The following measures are planned to
mitigate the adverse aesthetic affect of the proposed stack modification:
a. An 18 ft. facade will be build along the top of the building
to hide duct work and.refine the irregular contours of the
building.
b.-The stack is to be a •sea -foam gray11 color in order to blend
with the surrounding landscape. A daytime strobe light will
eliminate the need for a checkered pattern a·1 rcraft warning.
The proposed color of the stack is the natural color of the
materials which will compo~e the stack.
c. ·Landscaping along I-5 and S-21 will help provide some visual
relief from the structure ..
5. Alternatives: The alternatives to the single 400 ft. stack, briefly
summarized and evaluated are: The draft E.I.R. does substantially elaborate
in this area, and in addition is attached a further description of various
alternatives.
a. Fifth stack for Unit No. 5 -Results of tne study conducted
indicate that a fifth stack would result in ground-level
concentrations in excess of the State Air Resources Board
standards.
b. Use of natural gas (to reduce so 2 Emisions) -Use of natural
gas would eliminate essentially, _so2 emissions. However,
because of the limited availability of natural gas and an
increasing demand for higher priority uses {particularly
residential consumption), availability of natural gas for power
plant use will • be eliminated in a few years.
• -4-•
c. Very low sulfur content fuel: ·s.D.G.&E. plans to use low
sulfer content (less than 0.5%) fuel in all of its generating units.
An assured supply of 0.3% sulfur content fuel, according to S.D.G.&E.
is not available. Even so, use of· 0.3% sulfur content fuel would
still require .11 Extensive 11 stack modification in order to meet ambient
air quality standards.•
d. S02 Scrubber Systems: Systems for removal of S02 from flue
gasses prior to emission, are still in the experimental/proto-type
phases of development. The two main prohibitive aspects of a SO
removal facility are costly ($36 million as opposed to $4 milliofi
for the proposed modification) and size (such a facility would be
11 quite large 11 and difficult to locate on the prese'nt site11 ).
e. Plume Dispersion: Three alternatives for plume dispersion
were considered: (l) five stacks could be used at 290 ft. (maximum
height for roof mounted stacks) -even if the stacks were nozzled
to increase discharge volocity. This alternative would, in all
likelihood, contribute to unacceptable groundlevel so 2 concentrations.
(2} the height of existing units 1, 2, and 3 could be increased
by 100 ft. and flue gasses from units 4 and 5 could be discharged
,through a single 290 ft. stack -Again, this alternative·does not
achieve the critical height necessary for·so2 dispersion ..
(3) a single 400 ft. stack -this alternative was chosen by
S.D.G.&E. as the minimal height for plume dispersion which would
not cause the State 24 hour so2 standard to be exceeded.
6. ACCEPTABILITY OF THE DRAFT E.I.R.: It is not inappropriate in
evaluating the EIR for the S.D.G.&E. Encina Plant Stack Modification Prpposal,
to consider some of the broader long-range environmental concerns. The cost
benefit analysis of the proposed stack modification is in the broadest
sense, to weigh the costs of a negative visual impact and increased fuel
emissions against the benefits nf more effective pollution dispersion and in-
creased generating capacity. The proposed stack modification is by no means
environmentally innocuous. Yet, within the scope of presently feasible alter-
natives, it is the optimum solution for handling the increased emissions which
will accompany the 5th generating unit.
It is important to realize that given the uncertainty concerninq
demands and fuel availability, and the possibility of environmentally preferable
alternatives in the future, such a solution should not be static. Environmental
sensitivity involves a continuing re-evaluation of environmental~-social and
economic factors.
The draft E.I.R. in conjunction with the attached summary of the
relationship of Westec Services draft E.I.R. to the draft E.I.R. prepared for •
the Public Utilities Commission regarding the total Plant Expansion (Application
No. 53369) do adequately express all the environmental concerns of the proposed
stack.
• -5-••
III CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN-144 ·
A. Request: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of an amendment of the approved specific plan to permit the changing
from the existing four 190 ft. 'smoke stacks to a single 400 ft. high
stack. The existing four stacks are-located on top Qf the existing power plant
structure. The proposal is to remove these stacks and to construct a separate
single 400 ft. stack structure, which is to be located approximately 40 ft
easterly of the power plant structure. Said structure would be connected .
by a direct system which includes the installation of an 18 ft.-high facade to
hide the duct system on top of power plant structure.
In that the proposed stack has such a substantial visual impact on
the community and in that the advancement ·of technology is rapid, staff, as
a part of the recommendation, is proposing a method of monitoring the 11state
of the art 11to permit the conversion· of the Encina Plant to an emission system
as soon as technology permits a system that does not require such a·tremendous
stack.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. For E.I.R.: That it be moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council that Final E.I.R. be accepted to include:
a. the draft EIR
b. letter.from D. Parkinson, Westec Services comparing the two
.. -:
E.I.R.1s
c. response received from any agencies notified.
d. any public input received as a part of the public hearing held
regarding this EIR.
Justification is based upon:
1. The draft EIR, as amended by this report, does express the environmental
impacts of the proposed modification are either not as environmentally acceptable
or are not presently technically feasible. In this instance, the no project
alternative does not exist. The previous approval of the plant expansion has
been the catalysis for this stack modification.
B. For Specific Plan-144: That it be moved that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that specific plan no. SP-144, which is an
amendment of a previously approved specific plan, BE APPROVED. Justification
is based upon the necessity of providing a method of dispersing the emissions
of the Encina Power Plant which results in meeting the State Standards of Air
Quality.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Any approval of the Specific Plan should be subject
to the following conditions:
• -6-•
l. The amendment of the Specific Plan is granted for the land de-
scribed in the application and any attachments thereto, and as shown
on the plot plan submitted labeled Exhibit A. The location of all
buildings, fences, signs, roadways, parking areas,landscaping and
other facilities or features shall be located substantially as shown
on the plot plan labeled ExhibitA, except or unless indicated other-
wise herein. All buildings and structures shall be of the design as
shown on the elevation plans labeled Exhibit B. •
2. All conditions of Ordinance No. 9279, dated August 3, 1971, shall
be complied with.
3. Unless the construction of the structure or facility is commenced
not later than one year after the date the approval is. granted and
is diligently pursued thereafter, this approval will automatically
become null and void.
4. Any minor change may be approved by the Planning Director. Any
substantial change will require the filing of an application for an
amendment to be considered by the Planning Commission.
5. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the State
of California, City of Carlsbad, and any other governmental entity
shall be complied with. •
6. Prior to obtaining a building permit and within 30 days hereof,
the applicant shall file with the Secretary of the Planning Commission
written acceptance of the conditons stated herein.
7. Compliance with and execution ~fall conditions listed hereon
shall be necessary, unless otherwise specified, prior to obtaining
final building inspection clearance. Deviation from this requirement
shall be permitted only by written consent of the Planning Director.
8. All lighting shall be arranged to reflect away from adjoining
properties and streets.
9. Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment to· be located on the
roof of the structure shall be screened in a manner acceptable to
the Planning Director. Detailed plans for said screening shall be sub-
mitted, in triplicate, to the Planning Director ..
10. The approval granted herein is subject to review on a seven-year
basis. Six weeks prior to the review ye~r anniversary of this approval,
the applicant shall file with the Planning Department, a report
describing the 11 state of the art11 of the available alternative emission
control systems that could be utilized in lieu of the 400 1 stack. Said
report shall be considered as an amendment to the accepted E.I.R. When
a reasonable alternative system is found to exist, the applicant shall
make every effort to convert the Encina Power Plant to said system, and
said conversion shall include thi removal of the 400 1 stack. . .
• -7-•
11. In the event that the Encina Power Plant is discontinued for
generating electricity or pha.sed out of operation, the applicant
shall cause, at his expense, the removal of the 400 ft. stack structure.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance No. 9279
S.D.G.&E. Alternatives to the 400 ft. MSL Stack
Ltr. fm Westec Services dated Oct. 31, 1973.
•
I 1l • o 2900 ~ ~ ~~ 1:•~); BSCC::i§AEi:LE:::l
% \ Dtq,,✓,~"_;-~
-6 ~-.104 I..~
~~~Goo,v • 'b. ~~~-
\ GOGA~L-EC-.--1
~o
iir 1 '
. !
i I l
'---..,
' \ r ~
CITY OF CARLSBAD
STAFF STATEMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
STACK MODIFICATION
11 In evaluating the Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego
Gas & Electric En~ina Plant Stack Modification Proposal, it is
Staff's belief that the broader long-range environmental concerns
should be emphasized. These are, in the broadest sense, to weigh
the costs of a negative visua1 impact and increased fuel emissions
against the benefits of a more effective pollution dispersion and
increased generating capacity. The proposed stack modification is
by no means environmentally innocuous. Yet, within the scope of
presently feasible alternatives, it may be the optimum solution for
handling the increase emissions which will accompany the installation
of the 5th generating unit.
It is important to realize that, given the uncertainty concerning
demands and fuel availability, and the possibility of environmentally
preferable alternatives·in the future; such a solution should not be
static. Environmsntal sensitivity involves a continuing re-evaluation
of environmental, social and ~conomic factors. Therefore, the stack
modification is to be considered an int.erim process to be utilized
until technology is available to provide for complete elimination of
all environmentally negative emissions. Hopefully, the by-product
of this proce~s will be the elimination of the 400 1 stack.11
October 23, 1973
.x
' PREVIEW AGENCIES
R. E. Lacy (Civil Defense & Disaster)
San Diego County O.E.S.
7939 John Towers Avenue
Santee, California, 92071
448-4611
)(
Mr. Kenneth Little, Agricultural Commissioner
Agricultural Dept.
5555 Overland Avenue, Bldg. #3
San Diego, California, 92123
278-9200 -Ext. 491
Comprehensive Planning Organizatir,ri
Atn: Art. Letter
Security Pacific Plaza
1200 Third Avenue,Suite 524
San Diego, California, 92101
233-5211
State Dept. of Fish & Game
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California
90802
Attn: Ron Powell (213) 435-7741
-Dept. ,of ?ub,1-i.c .Health(Air Poll Cont.Bet.) Lo'Cal Agency Formatfon eommis•s·ion
Mr. S.M.Schmidt, Executive Officer
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, Ca1if. 92101 X Dr. J.B. Askew, Public Health Officer
Civic Center
San Diego, Calif.92101
236-2015
County Parks & Recreation Dept.
Mr. Lloyd Lowrey •
San Diego County Air Poll.Cont. District ·x 1600 Pacific Highway Attn: John Farnsworth
San Oeigo, C.<!_lifornia, 92101
450 Fletcher Parkway, Suite 220
El Cajon, California, 92020
440-3911
H1t-Ril<li~ JIM C ME.~t1Ut£
~w.1r-&.'f.=l:l:i,g:~ ~£.PT, 6F T~~~G P.
Community & Environmental Factors
P.O.Box ~ 81 ◄0fio
San Diego, California,~ "l '2.1 SS
294-5300
Mr. James Whitehead, Superintendent
Parks and REcreation Dept.
District 6 Headquarters
1350 Front Street, Room 6054
San Diego, California, 92101
236-7411
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Attn: Mr. Leonard Burtman, Executive Officer
6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite #205
San Diego, California 92120
286-5114
Mr. Dave Niel sen
Vicki Lynn
San Diego Ecology Center
2848 El Cajon Blvd.
San Diego. 92104 280-4820
San Diego Co. Sanitation & Flood Control
Attn: B. H. Hoffmaster
5555 Overland St.
San Diego, California,92123
San Diego Coast Regional Commission
(for projects in permit area)
Room 252
1600 Pacific Highway
SAn Diego, Calif. (236-2011)
)( P tU•-S, AA>B Ro
-Z.CftpS G~2FIE:LP
X
Intergovernmental Regional Environmental Management
1600 Pacific Highway
X TeteR'.AMAt2.
)( -e-:cc_# San Di ego, C_a l if. 92101 236-201 l
--
;x ~D A ~<9Pr'
-r O W B RA f2-y
7 copies for Planning Commission
6 copies for City Council (City Mgr)
Dr. J. B. Askew, Public Health Officer
Department of Public Health
Civic Center
San Diego, California, 92101
San Diego Gas and Electric Co.
Electric Building
861 Sixth Avenue
San Diego, California, 92101
Attn: Gary Dyer, Room 716
Pacific Telephone Company
Right of Way Dept.
2436 Howard Ave.-Room 120
San Diego, California, 92103
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.
Engineering Dept.
126 East Second St.-2nd Floor
Escondido, California, 92025
4~ Dr. Howard C. Harmon, Superintendent
Carlsbad Union School District
801 Pine Avenue
Carlsbad, California, 92008
5, Mr. James Kinghorn, Chairman
Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department
2140 Basswood
Carlsbad, California, 92008
6, San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
Customer Extension Planning 1
620 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, California, 92054
Attn: Mr. Gerald Sprint
7, Bruce Eliason
Department of Fish and Game
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California, ,90802
B~ Mr. Gary McClelland, Superintendent
Richmar Union School District
274 San Marcos Avenue
San Marcos, California, 92069
9. Mr. D. W. Quade, Superintendent
Escondido Union High School District
240 South Maple
Escondido, California, 92025
10 -. Leucadia County Water District
1959 El Camino Real
Leucadia, California, 92024
11. Carlsbad Municipal Water District
5780 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, Cal.92008
cc: Jack Kubota & Assoc.
2755 Roosevelt St.
Carlsbad, California, 92008
12 .. San Marcos County Ii-later District
788 West Encinitas Road
San Marcos, California, 92069
13. Olivenhain Municipal Water District
1966 Olivenhain Road
Encinitas, California, 92024
14~ Bill Berrier, Suprnt.
San Dieguito Union High School District
2151 Newcastle Avenue
Cardiff, California, 92007
15. Robert L. Brickman, PHO
Encinitas Elementary School District
185 Union St.
Encinitas, California, 92024
16, Postmaster
U.S.Post Office-Carlsbad
2772 Roosevelt St.
Carlsbad, 92008
G!;:)rim Flanagan, Engineer
City of Carlsbad
~Battalion Chief Wolenchuk
Carlsbad Fire Department
~ay Greeri
~arlsbad Building Dept.
• ~Paul Bussy, City Manager
City of Carlsbad
~Ed Johnson, Director
• Parks and Recreation Director
22. ·Mr. Sam,
San Diego Flood Control District
5555 Overland Drive
San Diego, California
~Bill Nichols
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California,92008