Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 144A; SDG&E Wastwater Facility; Specific Plan (SP)LIST OF CORPORATE OWNERS SDG&E has over 100,000 shareholders. It would be extremely difficult to provide a complete list of all persons having a financial interest in this application. In lieu of this requirement, we have provided below the names of the top five officers of SDG&E. Thomas A. Page Chairman of the Board, Pres. and Chief Executive Officer Jack E. Thomas Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Gary D. Cotton Senior Vice President - Engineering and Operations Alton T. Davis Senior Vice President - Customer Service R. Lee Haney Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer Stephen L. Baum Senior Vice President and General Counsel APPLICANT: AGENT: MEMBERS: DISCLOSURE FORM San Diego Gas & Electric • Name(individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication! 101 Ash Street, San Diego, CA 92101 Business Address ~~ ~~" " ~ — 696-2410 Telephone Number Dave Siino Name P. 0. Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112 Business Address - 696-2410 Telephone Number Corporation (See Attached List) Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) P. 0. Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112 101 Ash Street, San Diego 92101 Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, I/we will apply for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development. I/We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose. I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. SDG&E APPLICANT BY Agenf,rOwner, Partner BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SP 144 fMINOR AMENDMENT) APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC REQUEST AND LOCATION: ENCINA POWER PLANT - REPLACE EXISTING WASTEWATER PONDS WITH WASTEWATER TANKS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PORTIONS OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA. MAP NO. 823 AND BLOCK "W". PALISADES. UNIT 2. MAP 1803 APN: 210 - 01 - 22 Acres ..9 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation PUBLIC UTILITY (Ul Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone PU Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site PU POWER PLANT North OS LAGOON South PU POWER PLANT East PU POWER PLANT West PU POWER PLANT PUBLIC FACILITIES School District CARLSBAD Water CARLSBAD Sewer CARLSBAD EDU's N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date EXEMPT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Negative declaration, issued MARCH 17. 1989 E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, X SUB IECT LOCATION ENCINA POWER PLANT PACIFIC OCEAN City of Carlsbad S.D.G.& E. MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 1 10. Additional public and/or onsite fire .hydrants shall be provided if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal. 2 11. The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations 3 of existing and proposed fire hydrants and onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for approval. 4 12. An all-weather access road shall be maintained throughout construction. 5 13. All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be 6 operational prior to combustible building materials being located on the project site. 7 14. All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic 8 sprinklers, and other systems pertinent tot he project shall be submitted to the Fire department for approval prior to construction. 9 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 11 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July, 12 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 13 AYES: 14 NOES: 15 ABSENT: 16 ABSTAIN: 17 18 MATTHEW HALL, Chairman 19 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 20 ATTEST: 21 22 23 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR 24 25 26 27 PC RESO NO. 2859 -3- 28 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 The proposed project will improved the treatment of wastewater at the Encina Power Plant and eliminate the possibility of ground water contamination. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Specific Plan (SP 144) which applies to the entire property. Conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Approval is granted for SP 144 (Minor Amendment), as shown on Exhibit(s)nA"-NC" dated February 10, 1989 incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100 scale mylar copy of the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100 scale mylar copy of an updated plan showing the entire Specific Plan 144 area including all existing buildings. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on May 19, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department, and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits for the amended portion of the site. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to the approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first. Trees to screen the tanks shall be minimum 36" box. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. a healthy and thriving The tanks shall be painted a color to match the natural landscape backdrop surrounding the tanks. A specific color sample shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to start of construction. Fire Department Conditions: 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. PC RESO NO. 2859 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, 2 CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX WASTEWATER TREATMENT TANKS AND ACCESSORY 3 FACILITIES TO REPLACE SIX EXISTING WASTEWATER PONDS AT THE SDG&E ENCINA POWER PLANT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, 4 SOUTH OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, NORTH OF CANNON ROAD AND WEST OF THE ATS&R RAILROAD. 5 APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CASE NO.; MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 6 7 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of 8 Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and 9 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided 10 by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the 12 Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of May 1989, the 7th day of June 1989, 13 and the 19th day of July, 1989 consider said request on property described as: 14 A portion of Block "W" of Palisades Unit No. 2, Map No. 1803 and a portion of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, Map No. 823 15 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 16 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard said 17 Commission considered all factors relating to SP 144 - Minor Amendment. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of 19 the City of Carlsbad as follows: 20 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 21 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the 22 Commission APPROVES a minor amendment to SP 144, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 23 24 Findings: 25 1. The proposed project will allow the applicant to comply with the Toxic Pits Act of 1984. 26 27 PC RESO NO. 2859 -1- 28 IV. DETERMINATION (To ompleted By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: _I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I Date / Date Planning Director V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -8- YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory findings of significance - a. b. c. Does th« project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage 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.) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effecty of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description: 18. The wastewater treatment tanks will be 18 to 30 feet in height. The existing ponds are not visible. The tanks will be constructed of steel and will be visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. However, they will be painted a color that makes them compatible with the existing landscaping that backdrops the site. In addition, planting along the front perimeter of the site is incorporated into the project for screening purposes. -7- YES MAYBE NQ 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. The project is being done in order to comply with the Toxic Pits Act of 1984. Phasing or a no project alternative is not possible. To comply with the new law, SDG&E studied two alternatives: relining the existing ponds or using steel tanks to hold the water. SDG&E chose to use the steel tanks. While the tanks are the costlier of the two alternatives, they are the safest and most environmentally-sound. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has directed SDG&E to complete the project by August, 1990. -6- YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x x x x x x -5- MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources - will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or . create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? x Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? x Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x_ -4- YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life — Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- MAYBE NO 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- "Pll" dated March 10, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SP-144 - Minor Amendment DATE: March 10. 1989 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: San Dieao Gas & Electric 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 101 Ash Street. San Diego. California 92101 (619) 696-2410 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? mil, to: State Clearinghouse, UOO TentX Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- 9W445-0613 NOTICE IOH AMD ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOKN See NOTE •elan: SCN t 1. •-]-«. r.-»i- SIM D1EBQ CAS t ELECTRIC / SP-144 AMENDMENT 2. Lead Agency: W of CAM.SMB 3. Contact Person:MICHAEL H012M1LLER 3a. Street Addr«s«: 2075 LM Palmaa Driv» 3c. County: San Dieao 3b. City: Carlsbad 3d. Zip: 92009 3«. Phone: (619) 438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diego 4a. City/Community: Citv of Carlsbad 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 210-01-33 5a. Cross streets: Carlsbad Blvd./Cannon Road 6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. 1-5 4c. Section: For Rural, 5b. Nearest Community: Tup.Range b. Airports Palomar Pacific c. Waterways Ocean 7. DOCUMENT TYPE CEQA 01 MOP 02 Early Cons 03 _x_ Neg Dec 04 Draft EIR 05 Supplement/ Subsequent EIR (if so, prior SCH # ) NEPA 06 Notice of Intent 07 Envir. Assessment/ FONSI 08 Draft E1S OTHER 09 Information Only 10 Final Document 11 Other: 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 01 General Plan Update 02 New Element 03 General Plan Amendment 04 Master Plan 05 Annexation 06 x Specific Plan Minor Amendment 07 Redevelopment 08 Rezone 09 Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE 01 Residential: Units Acres 02 Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 03 Shopping/Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 04 Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 10 Use Permit 05 06 07 08 Sewer: MGD Water: MGD Transportation: Type Mineral Extraction: Mineral 11 Cancel Ag Preserve 12 Other 09 Power Generation: Wattage Type: 10 Other: 9 TOTAL ACRES;.9 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 Aesthetic/Visual 02 Agricultural Land 03 Air Quality 04 Archaeological/Historical/ Paleontological 05 Coastal 06 Fire Hazard _07 Flooding/Drainage 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal $. 08 Geologic/Seismic 09 Jobs/Housing Balance 10 Minerals 11 Noise 12 Public Services 13 Schools 14 Septic Systems 15 Sewer Capacity 22 Water Supply 16 Soil Erosion 23 Wetland/Riparian 17 Solid Waste 24 Wildlife 18 Toxic/Hazardous 25 Growth Inducing 19 Traffic/Circulation 26 Incompatible Land Use 20 Vegetation 27 Cumulative Effects 21 Water Quality 28 Other State $Total $ 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING; Presently paved and used for storage in conjunction with operation of Encina Power Plant. Genera Plan, Coastal Plan and Zoning is Public Utility (P-U). 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION; A minor specific plan amendment to replace six wastewater collection ponds with six enclosed tanks a required by Toxic Pits Act of 1984. Detailed project description attached. 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE:Date: "ND" dated March 17, 1989 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mJrWJtM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 Wr«fJrM (619)438-1161 (Eitg of PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 4600 Carlsbad, Boulevard, Carlsbad, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for permission to install six wastewater collection tanks and associated facilities at the Encina Power Plant. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. DATED: March 17, 1989 MICHAEL J. HOLiMIL CASE NO: SP-144(A) Planning Director APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO. PUBLISH DATE: March 17, 1989 MJH:af 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 2858 -2- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2858 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MINOR SPECIFIC 3 PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT SIX WASTEWATER TREATMENT TANKS TO REPLACE SIX EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PONDS AT THE ENCINA POWER 4 PLANT. APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 5 CASE NO.: MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of May, 1989, the 7 7th day of June, 1989, and the 19th day of July, 1989 hold a duly noticed 8 public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 9 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 10 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information 11 submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning 12 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as 14 follows: 15 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 16 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 17 Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "NO" dated March 17, 1989, "SCH" dated March 10, 18 1989, and "PIP, dated March 17, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 19 Findings: 20 1. A field survey plus Part II of the initial study and comments received 21 during the public review process show that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the 22 environment. 23 2. The site has been previously graded, paved and used for temporary storage. 24 3. The project will replace six existing, open wastewater treatment ponds 25 and, thereby, eliminate potential ground water contamination. 26 4. Visual impacts have been mitigated by landscape treatment and painting of the tanks to match the existing landscaped backdrop. 27 28 SP 144 SDG&E - MINOR AIWMENT June 7, 1989 PAGE 4 17, 1989. This decision was based on findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and field survey. The site is presently paved and used for storage. The project will replace six existing open wastewater treatment ponds and eliminate the potential for ground water contamination. Visual impacts of the project will be mitigated by landscaping and painting. The Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse and no comments were received. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2858 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2859 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Statement 6. Letter from Department of Health Services 7. Exhibits "A" through "C" dated February 10, 1989 MJH:lh April 13, 1989 SP 144 SOG&E - MINOR June 7, 1989 PAGE 3 2) The low volume waste tanks will collect the same waste streams as the ponds currently collect. However, there will be a new step in the treatment process. The low volume wastes will be treated in an oil and solids coalescer. This new system will continue to automatically filter and monitor low volume wastewater to assure that the discharge of these wastewaters complies with the plant's discharge permit limits. If wastewater does not meet specified limits the system automatically shuts down, making it a 100 percent backup system. 3) Because the new system will make the most effective use'of the equipment and involve the addition of the oil solids coalescer, the amount of wastewater onsite at any one time will be significantly reduced. The extended waste tanks will contain 357,000 gallons, the treated water tanks will have a capacity of 95,000 gallons and the low volume wastewater tanks will hold 56,000 gallons. 4) Each tank will be completely above ground to allow plant operators to visually inspect for leakage. The tanks will be built on a concrete pad that is designed to meet very stringent seismic criteria. The pad will be surrounded by a watertight, concrete containment block wall which will capture any leaks, in the unlikely event that any might occur. 5) Tank levels will be monitored continuously and high level alarms will sound in a control room which is manned around-the-clock. Additionally, there are provisions for each tank to overflow into the parallel sister tank should all systems fail. One concern that staff had was the visual impact of the tanks. The tanks will be 18 to 30 feet in height and 20 to 45 feet in width and will be visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. They will be small, however, in comparison to the existing tanks already located to the north on the property and currently visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. In order to mitigate the visual impacts staff is recommending, and the applicant concurs, to paint the tanks a color that makes them compatible with the existing landscaping that backdrops the site. In addition, planting along the front perimeter of the tanks is incorporated into the project for screening purposes. Some grading and retaining walls will be necessary to create a large enough pad area for the tanks as shown on Exhibit "A". The maximum cut will be 8 feet, the maximum fill will be 3 feet and the retaining wall will range from 1 foot high to 7 feet high. Because the proposed project will improve wastewater treatment at the Plant, will eliminate the possibility of ground water contamination and will not interfere or impact existing circulation or other onsite operation, staff is recommending approval of this Minor Amendment to SP 144. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that no significant environmental impacts will result from this project, and a Negative Declaration was issued on March SP 144 SDG&E - MINOR AMBIENT June 7, 1989 PAGE 2 personnel are not required to wear protective clothing or breathing apparatus when handling then. The cleaned water is forwarded to the treated water ponds. The treated water ponds are used to temporarily store the water which has been processed through the treatment facility. At this point, samples are taken and analyzed before allowing the water to be discharged Into the ocean. The proposed project would replace the open ponds with six tanks and Is being done in order to comply with the Toxic Pits Act of 1984. This law set more stringent standards on the use of waste impoundments and their potential for ground water contamination. To comply with the law, SDG&E had two options: Relining the existing ponds or using steel tanks to hold the water. SDG&E chose to use steel tanks. While the tanks are the costlier of the two options, they are the safest and most environmentally sound. The Regional Water Quality Board, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law has directed SDG&E to complete the project by August, 1990. SDG&E's plan has been approved by the State Department of Health Services which regulates the design of these types of facilities (approval letter is attached to staff report). III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Will the installation of the tanks improve the treatment of wastewater at the Power Plant and eliminate the possibility of ground water contamination? 2. Will the installation of the tanks at the proposed location impact or interfere with any other operations of the Plant including onsite circulation? 3. Have the visual impacts associated with above-ground tanks been adequately mitigated? DISCUSSION The proposed location for the tanks is in the area on the site that is presently paved with asphalt and used as a temporary storage area. Therefore, the installation of the tanks will not impact or interfere with onsite circulation or parking or any other aspect of the power plant operation. The existing ponds will be closed/removed in accordance with a "closure plan" approved by the State Department of Health. The installation of above ground tanks will virtually eliminate the possibility of any potential ground water contamination. Key features of the new system are: 1) The extended waste and treated waste tanks will function like the existing ponds in that they will collect and temporarily store wastewater before and after treatment prior to discharge. ApdcATION COMPLETE DATE: * March 10. 1989 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 7, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MINOR AMENDMENT SP 144 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY - Request to replace six uncovered wastewater collection ponds with six collection tanks at the Encina Power Plant, 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard located in the PU Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 3. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2858 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2859 APPROVING a Minor Amendment to Specific Plan 144, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This item is a request by San Diego Gas & Electric for a Minor Amendment to Specific Plan 144 to install six wastewater collection tanks at the Encina Power Plant. Specific Plan 144 covers the entire Encina Power Plant operation. Because the new tanks will replace the six open ponds presently being used for wastewater collection and because the amendment only affects a small area on the power plant property, it is being processed as a Minor Amendment to the Specific Plan. Wastewater treatment at the plant currently involves the use of six open ponds and a physical/chemical treatment facility. There are two low volume waste ponds with 300,000 and 590,000 gallon capacity, two extended waste ponds with a 750,000 and 330,000 gallon capacity and two treated water ponds with 220,000 and 270,000 gallon capacity. The two low volume ponds hold wastewater which contains low levels of dirt and oils that make their way to the basement sumps. Sources include rainwater runoff and other low level waste such as water softener regenerant flow. This wastewater is similar to that which would result from activities like a homeowner washing a driveway, car washes or garages. The extended wastewater ponds are empty most of the time. They are used to hold wastewater from washing the power plant's four steam boilers. This process is necessary to increase the boilers' efficiency and reliability and is done about every two years on each of the boilers. The materials contained in this wastewater include trace metals such as iron* copper and nickel along with cleaning chemicals. These materials are removed from the water through treatment, solidified and taken to a licensed disposal facility. Although these materials are classified as hazardous, operating MEMORANDUM DATE: JULY 19, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 - MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP-144 - SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC Minor Amendment to SP-144 was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 1989 in order to research the applicability of engineering conditions being recommended to staff. Based on staff's research, the Resolution of approval (Resolution No. 2859) has been modified by removing the conditions regarding street improvements and undergrounding of utilities. Otherwise, the staff report and recommendation remains the same and a copy is attached. MJH:af STATE OF CAUFOHNIA—HCAITH AND WElf AKE AGENCY GtCMGt OCUKMEJIAN. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 107 SOUTH BROADWAY. ROOM 7011 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 .0- August 30, 1988 Mr. G. D. Cotton Senior Vice Prescient Engineering ir^Operation San Diego/Gas & Electric Company P. 0. B^c 1831 San DJTego, CA 92112 Dear Mr. Cotton: PART A MODIFICATIONS: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC, ENCINA POWER PLANT (CAT000618900), AND SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT (CAT000619056) This is in response to the revised Part A you submitted on June 24, 1988. You requested permission to replace surface impoundments with the above-ground tanks at the above facilities as described in Appendix C of the submittals. This request is part of your effort to comply with the Toxic Pit Clean Up Act (TPCA) . The Department approves your proposals for both facilities subject to the requirements that new tanks will comply with 40 CFR, Part 265, Subpart J. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Suwan Sonkprasha of my staff at (213) 620-3050 or Jim Potter at (213) 620-5456. Sincerely, l° ' Mohinder S. Sandhu, P. E., Chief Facility Permitting Unit Region 4 (Long Beach) Toxic Substances Control Division MSS:SS:kap cc: Caroline Cabias Hazardous Waste Management Section Toxic Substances Control Division 714/744 "P" Street P. 0. Box 942342 Sacramento, CA 94234 Paula Rasmussen Surveillance and Enforcement Unit Region 4 (Long Beach) Toxic Substances Control Division 245 West Broadway Long Beach, CA 90802 JUL July 11, 1989 puajmHS TO: Planning Director CAPIS?>M) FROM: City Attorney ENCINA POWER PLANT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WASTE WATER TANKS The Planning Commission's consideration of the above referenced matter was continued at our request made in response to a letter from SDG&E's attorneys raising legal objections to two conditions ,(10 a & b) recommended by the Engineering Department. SDG&E's objections were based on the alleged lack of a reasonable connection ("nexus") between the construction of the waste water tanks and any attendant increased burden on the surrounding street system which could justify the conditions. Our initial review revealed a serious problem with this application relating to process. Encina is subject to the provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.36, the Public Utility Zone ("PU"). No building permit or other entitlement for any use in the PU may be issued until a Precise Development Plan has been approved (21.36.030). The process for plan approval or an amendment to the plan must be the same as that for the adoption of a zone change. (21.36.040). Public hearings are required before the Planning Commission and Council. After approval and prior to the issuance of any building permit, a final precise development plan must be submitted incorporating the change into the "official site layout plan" which must be attached to the building permit application. (21.36.100). It appears the subject application has not been processed in accordance with the code. Ordinance No. 9372 which approved a specific plan amendment to construct the Encina 5 plant and the 400 foot stack does provide that the Planning Director may approve a "minor" change while a "substantial" change requires an application to the Planning Commission. There is no authority in the ordinance or the code for approval of a "change" by the Planning Commission. Ordinance No. 9372 simply states that a substantial change requires the filing of an application for an amendment to be "considered" by the Planning Commission. It is silent as to whether or not the Planning Commission has the authority to approve it; nor is there anything in that ordinance which would justify failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.36. The specific plan must be read in a manner that is consistent with the municipal code. It is our opinion that a change to the plan requires an application for a precise development plan amendment which must be considered by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. You have given us a list of eleven so called "minor amendments" approved by staff or the Commission from 1975 through 1987. As discussed above, the projects before the Commission should have been processed as a precise development' plan amendment and been passed on by the Council after public hearing. Staff's authority to approve "minor11 changes should only be used for projects like internal remodels which do not extend the life of the facility, do not change building "footprints", are not apparent to the public and do not affect the public impact service needs at Encina. New buildings (30'x 30' or 20'x 40') or tanks should never be processed by staff as a "minor" amendment. Trailers under the code are allowed by conditional use permit under certain circumstances as a temporary use pending construction of permanent buildings. Your authority under the specific plan must be exercised in full compliance with all other applicable provisions of the Code. There was no authority for staff to approve these trailers without compliance with the CUP process. It is my recommendation that this past process never occur again. We are facing a situation where there is no "up to date" properly approved precise development plan. A number of changes have been made without affording the public the legally required public hearings. It is possible that the cumulative impact of these changes has resulted in substantial impacts both in the scale and scope of Encina as well as to its overall utility and useful life without addressing if these impacts require conditions in order to protect the public interest. While any one of the individual changes may not have necessitated the conditions as recommended by the Engineering Department it may be entirely different if they are addressed as a whole. This piecemeal approach should be discontinued. The next request from the Company for any change at Encina should be processed in accordance with Chapter 21.36 and a precise development plan must be prepared which incorporates the current reality including the eleven "minor amendments" which have been made in the last 14 years. At that time in preparing the plan, staff should also address any cumulative impacts of the changes and determine whether or not the existing conditions of approval are adequate. SDG&E correctly points out that in imposing conditions of approval, staff must include sufficient evidence of a rational relationship or "nexus" between the burden imposed on the public by the application and the condition imposed to mitigate that burden. The existing staff report for this matter is silent on the need for additional street dedications or utility undergrounding. In the absence of any evidence in that regard and given the company's strong objection to the two conditions we recommend that conditions lOa and lOb be deleted. The current application for tanks should have been processed as a precise development plan amendment in accordance with Chapter 21.36 with public hearings before the Planning Commission, and Council and the adoption of an amended plan by ordinance. Before a building permit could be issued a final plan incorporating the amendment should be prepared. However, this application has been in process by SDG&E since August 1988. Through a series of City actions the process which has been followed in the past was approved by City staff. The company is facing a deadline and the City is probably estopped to "change the rules of the game" at this late stage of the process. It is, therefore, my recommendation that the Planning Commission hear the matter as presented and refer it to the City Council for a decision. SDG&E should be put on notice that in the future full compliance with Chapter 21.36 will be required and that their acceptance of any permit which results from this application will constitute their agreement that in processing any future application the City will require an updated precise plan and review the need for appropriate conditions based on the cumulative impacts of the amendments included in that plan and the eleven changes which were not addressed in the past. The Commission may want to consider adding a condition to that effect to this application. VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney rmh City Engineer City Manager Community Development Director Assistant City Attorney \PPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: March 10. 1989 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 3, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MINOR AMENDMENT SP 144 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY - Request to replace six uncovered wastewater collection ponds with six collection tanks at the Encina Power Plant, 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard located in the PU Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 3. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2858 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2859 APPROVING a Minor Amendment to Specific Plan 144, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This item is a request by San Diego Gas & Electric for a Minor Amendment to Specific Plan 144 to install six wastewater collection tanks at the Encina Power Plant. Specific Plan 144 covers the entire Encina Power Plant operation. Because the new tanks will replace the six open ponds presently being used for wastewater collection and because the amendment only affects a small area on the power plant property, it is being processed as a Minor Amendment to the Specific Plan. Wastewater treatment at the plant currently involves the use of six open ponds and a physical/chemical treatment facility. There are two low volume waste ponds with 300,000 and 590,000 gallon capacity, two extended waste ponds with a 750,000 and 330,000 gallon capacity and two treated water ponds with 220,000 and 270,000 gallon capacity. The two low volume ponds hold wastewater which contains low levels of dirt and oils that make their way to the basement sumps. Sources include rainwater runoff and other low level waste such as water softener regenerant flow. This wastewater is similar to that which would result from activities like a homeowner washing a driveway, car washes or garages. The extended wastewater ponds are empty most of the time. They are used to hold wastewater from washing the power plant's four steam boilers. This process is necessary to increase the boilers' efficiency and reliability and is done about every two years on each of the boilers. The materials contained in this wastewater include trace metals such as iron, copper and nickel along with cleaning chemicals. These materials are removed from the water through treatment, solidified and taken to a licensed disposal facility. Although these materials are classified as hazardous, operating SP 144 SDG&E - MR AMENDMENT MAY 3, 1989 . PAGE 2 personnel are not required to wear protective clothing or breathing apparatus when handling them. The cleaned water is forwarded to the treated water ponds. The treated water ponds are used to temporarily store the water which has been processed through the treatment facility. At this point, samples are taken and analyzed before allowing the water to be discharged into the ocean. The proposed project would replace the open ponds with six tanks and is being done in order to comply with the Toxic Pits Act of 1984. This law set more stringent standards on the use of waste impoundments and their potential for ground water contamination. To comply with the law, SDG&E had two options: Relining the existing ponds or using steel tanks to hold the water. SDG&E chose to use steel tanks. While the tanks are the costlier of the two options, they are the safest and most environmentally sound. The Regional Water Quality Board, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law has directed SDG&E to complete the project by August, 1990. SDG&E's plan has been approved by the State Department of Health Services which regulates the design of these types of facilities (approval letter is attached to staff report). III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Will the installation of the tanks improve the treatment of wastewater at the Power Plant and eliminate the possibility of ground water contamination? 2. Will the installation of the tanks at the proposed location impact or interfere with any other operations of the Plant including onsite circulation? 3. Have the visual impacts associated with above-ground tanks been adequately mitigated? DISCUSSION The proposed location for the tanks is in the area on the site that is presently paved with asphalt and used as a temporary storage area. Therefore, the installation of the tanks will not impact or interfere with onsite circulation or parking or any other aspect of the power plant operation. The existing ponds will be closed/removed in accordance with a "closure plan" approved by the State Department of Health. The installation of above ground tanks will virtually eliminate the possibility of any potential ground water contamination. Key features of the new system are: 1) The extended waste and treated waste tanks will function like the existing ponds in that they will collect and temporarily store wastewater before and after treatment prior to discharge. SP 144 SDG&E - MIN AMENDMENT MAY 3, 1989 PAGE 3 2) The low volume waste tanks will collect the same waste streams as the ponds currently collect. However, there will be a new step in the treatment process. The low volume wastes will be treated in an oil and solids coalescer. This new system will continue to automatically filter and monitor low volume wastewater to assure that the discharge of these wastewaters complies with the plant's discharge permit limits. If wastewater does not meet specified limits the system automatically shuts down, making it a 100 percent backup system. 3) Because the new system will make the most effective use of the equipment and involve the addition of the oil solids coalescer, the amount of wastewater onsite at any one time will be significantly reduced. The extended waste tanks will contain 357,000 gallons, the treated water tanks will have a capacity of 95,000 gallons and the low volume wastewater tanks will hold 56,000 gallons. 4) Each tank will be completely above ground to allow plant operators to visually inspect for leakage. The tanks will be built on a concrete pad that is designed to meet very stringent seismic criteria. The pad will be surrounded by a watertight, concrete containment block wall which will capture any leaks, in the unlikely event that any might occur. 5) Tank levels will be monitored continuously and high level alarms will sound in a control room which is manned around-the-clock. Additionally, there are provisions for each tank to overflow into the parallel sister tank should all systems fail. One concern that staff had was the visual impact of the tanks. The tanks will be 18 to 30 feet in height and 20 to 45 feet in width and will be visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. They will be small, however, in comparison to the existing tanks already located to the north on the property and currently visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. In order to mitigate the visual impacts staff is recommending, and the applicant concurs, to paint the tanks a color that makes them compatible with the existing landscaping that backdrops the site. In addition, planting along the front perimeter of the tanks is incorporated into the project for screening purposes. Some grading and retaining walls will be necessary to create a large enough pad area for the tanks as shown on Exhibit "A". The maximum cut will be 8 feet, the maximum fill will be 3 feet and the retaining wall will range from 1 foot high to 7 feet high. Because the proposed project will improve wastewater treatment at the Plant, will eliminate the possibility of ground water contamination and will not interfere or impact existing circulation or other onsite operation, staff is recommending approval of this Minor Amendment to SP 144. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that no significant-environmental impacts will result from this project, and a Negative Declaration was issued on March SP 144 SDG&E - ™OR AMENDMENT MAY 3, 1989 PAGE 4 17, 1989. This decision was based on findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and field survey. The site is presently paved and used for storage. The project will replace six existing open wastewater treatment ponds and eliminate the potential for ground water contamination. Visual impacts of the project will be mitigated by landscaping and painting. The Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse and no comments were received. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2858 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2859 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Statement 6. Letter from Department of Health Services 7. Exhibits "A" through "C" dated February 10, 1989 MJH:lh April 13, 1989 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. 2858 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MINOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT SIX WASTEWATER TREATMENT TANKS TO REPLACE SIX EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PONDS AT THE ENCINA POWER PLANT. APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CASE NO.: MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of May, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends AP_P_ROYAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "NO" dated March 17, 1989, "SCH" dated March 10, 1989, and "PII", dated March 17, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof; based on the following findings: Findings: 1. A field survey plus Part II of the initial study and comments received during the public review process show that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded, paved and used for temporary storage. 3. The project will replace six existing, open wastewater treatment ponds and, thereby, eliminate potential ground water contamination. 4. Visual impacts have been mitigated by landscape treatment and painting of the tanks to match the existing landscaped backdrop. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of May 2 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 3 AYES: 4 NOES: 5 ABSENT: 6 ABSTAIN: 7" 8 9 10 MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 11 ATTEST: 12 13 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER 14 PLANNING DIRECTOR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RESO NO. 2858 -2- 28 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 "ND" dated March 17, 1989 TELEPHONE (619) 438-1161 (Eitg of (Harlabab PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 4600 Carlsbad, Boulevard, Carlsbad, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for permission to install six wastewater collection tanks and associated facilities at the Encina Power Plant. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. DATED: March 17, 1989 CASE NO: SP-144(A) APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO. PUBLISH DATE: March 17, 1989 ^'illi'^W''. MICHAEL J. Planning Director MJH:af to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 len<-\ Street, Rm. 12i( Sacramento, CA ^P -- 91^/445-0613 C£ 0.-COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FORM ?S^U HBnr See NOTE Below: SCH * 1. PrmVrf Title SAM DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC / SP-144 AMENDMENT 2. Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. Contact Person:_H1CHAEL HOLZM1LLER 3a. Street Address: 2075 La» Palmas Drive 3c. County: San Diego 3b. City: Carlsbad 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diego 4a. City/Community: City of Carlsbad 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 210-01-33 5a. Cross streets: Carlsbad Blvd./Cannon Road 6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy Mo. 1-5 7. DOCUMENT TYPE CEOA 4c. Section: For Rural, 5b. Nearest Community: Twp.Range b. Airports Palomar Pac i' c. Waterways Ocean 01 NOP 02 Early Cons 03 x Neg Dec 04 Draft EIR 05 Supplement/ Subsequent EIR (if so, prior SCH # : ) NEPA 06 Notice of Intent 07 Envir. Assessment/ FONSI 08 Draft EIS OTHER 09 Information Only 10 Final Document 11 Other: 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 01 General Plan Update New Element 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE 01 Residential: Units Acres 02 03 04 05 General Plan Amendment Master Plan Annexation 06 x Specific Plan Minor Amendment 07 Redevelopment 08 Rezone 09 Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) 10 Use Permit 11 Cancel Ag Preserve 12 ' Other 02 Office: Sq. Ft. Acres 03 Shopping/Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 04 Industrial: Sq. Ft. Employees Acres Employees 05 06 07 08 Sewer: HGD Water: MGD Transportation: Type Mineral Extraction: Mineral 09 Power Generation: Wattage Type: 10 Other: 9 TOTAL ACRES;.9 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 Aesthetic/Visual 02 Agricultural Land 03 Air Quality 04 Archaeological/Historical/ Paleontological 05 Coastal 06 Fire Hazard _07 Flooding/Drainage 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal $_ 08 Geologic/Seismic 09 Jobs/Housing Balance 10 Minerals 11 Noise 12 Public Services 13 Schools 14 Septic Systems State 1 15 Sewer Capacity 16 Soil Erosion 17 Solid Waste 18 Toxic/Hazardous 22 Water Supply 23 Wetland/Riparian 24 Wildlife 25 Growth Inducing 19 Traffic/Circulation 26 Incompatible Land Use 20 Vegetation 27 Cumulative Effects 21 Water Quality 28 Other Total $ 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING; Presently paved and used for storage in conjunction with operation of Encina Power Plant. Genera Plan, Coastal Plan and Zoning is Public Utility (P-U). 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION; A minor specific plan amendment to replace six wastewater collection ponds with six enclosed tanks a required by Toxic Pits Act of 1984. Detailed project description attached. 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE:(T Date: 'Mi ' UcUeU .vldl Lit i U , i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SP-144 - Minor Amendmen DATE: March 10. 1989 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: San Dieao Gas & Electric 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 101 Ash Street. San Diego. California 92101 (619) 696-2410 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x_ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x_ V YES MAYBE NO 2 - Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life •- Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? x_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? x_ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? x_ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x_ 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? x b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? x_ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? x d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x_ 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? x 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? x 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? . x_ -3- YES MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? • d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x_ -4- YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have ! significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Parks or other recreational facilities? x_ Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x b. Communications systems? x_ c. Water? x_ d. Sewer or septic tanks? x_ e. Storm water drainage? x_ f. Solid waste and disposal? x_ 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x_ -5- YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical/Paleontological - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. The project is being done in order to comply with the Toxic Pits Act o 1984. Phasing or a no project alternative is not possible. To compl; with the new law, SDG&E studied two alternatives: relining the existinc ponds or using steel tanks to hold the water. SDG&E chose to use th< steel tanks. While the tanks are the costlier of the two alternatives they are the safest and most environmentally-sound. The Regional Wate] Quality Control Board has directed SDG&E to complete the project b^ August, 1990. YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory findings of significance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage 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.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effecty of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description; 18. The wastewater treatment tanks will be 18 to 30 feet in height. The existing ponds are not visible. The tanks will be constructed of steel and will be visible from Carlsbad Boulevard. However, they will be painted a color that makes them compatible with the existing landscaping that backdrops the site. In addition, planting along the front perimeter of the site is incorporated into the project for screening purposes. -7- IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: _x I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ,1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. .1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date /Date ector V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -8- 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. 2859 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX WASTEWATER TREATMENT TANKS AND ACCESSORY FACILITIES TO REPLACE SIX EXISTING WASfEWATER PONDS AT THE SDG&E ENCINA POWER PLANT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, NORTH OF CANNON ROAD AND WEST OF THE ATS&R RAILROAD. APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CASE NO.: MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of May 1989, consider said request on property described as: A portion of Block "W" of Palisades Unit No. 2, Map No. 1803 and a portion of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, Map No. 823 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 SP 144 - Minor Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES a minor amendment to SP 144, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The proposed project will allow the applicant to comply with the Toxic Pits Act of 1984. 2. The proposed project will improved the treatment of wastewater at the Encina Power Plant and eliminate the possibility of ground water contamination. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoninc 1 Ordinance and the Specific Plan (SP 144) which applies to the entin property. 2 3 Conditions: 4 1. Approval is granted for SP 144 (Minor Amendment), as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" - "C" dated February 10, 1989 incorporated by reference and on file 5 in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 6 2. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100 7 scale mylar copy of the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The 8 plan copy shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. 9 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide 10 the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100 scale mylar copy of an updated plan showing the entire Specific Plan 144 area including all 11 existing buildings. 12 4. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council 13 on May 19, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department, and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the 14 issuance of building permits for the amended portion of the site. 15 5. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to the approved by the Planning Director prior 16 to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first. 17 6. Trees to screen the tanks shall be minimum 36" box. 18 7. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 19 8. The tanks shall be painted a color to match the natural landscape 20 backdrop surrounding the tanks. A specific color sample shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to start of 21 construction. 22 Engineering Conditions: 23 9. The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of 24 any clearing or grading of the site. 25 10. The grading for this project is defined as "controlled grading" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Grading shall be 26 performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose responsibility 27 PC RESO NO. 2859 -2- 28 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 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. PC it shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to ensure compliance of the work with the approved grading plan, submit required reports to the City Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate grading permit issued for the borrow or disposal site if located within the city 1imits. All slopes within this project shall be no steeper than 2:1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. Runoff from this project is conveyed to environmentally sensitive areas. The subdivider shall provide adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior to discharge. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, the following improvements to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A. Half street improvements to Carlsbad Boulevard from Cannon Road north approximately 750 feet to the southerly limits of the City improvements of Carlsbad Boulevard. An additional 20 foot wide strip of land shall be offered for dedication along the property frontage of Cannon Road including a 25 foot corner property lines radius at Carlsbad Boulevard prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first. Carlsbad Boulevard shall be dedicated along the entire property frontage along the west side based on a centerline to right of way width of 71 feet prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first. Carlsbad Boulevard shall be dedicated along the entire property frontage along the east side based on a centerline to right of way width of 51 feet and shall also offer for dedication an additional 11 feet in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first. The applicant shall underground all overhead utilities along their property frontage along Carlsbad Boulevard in conformance with City RESO NO. 2859 -3- 28 Standards and sign an agreement to pay fees for underground!ng all 1 existing overhead utility lines along Cannon Road prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first. 2 20. The applicant shall underground the onsite overhead utilities parallel 3 to Carlsbad Boulevard prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first. 4 21. The applicant shall agree to pay for and secure with appropriate security 5 as provided by law, for 25% of the cost for the ultimate modifications of the traffic signal at Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon Road. 6 22. The applicant shall remove all of the broken concrete and fill material 7 imported from the Carlsbad Boulevard Phase II improvement project that was recently placed along the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon prior 8 to the issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first. 9 10 Fire Department Conditions: 11 23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. 12 24. Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed 13 necessary by the Fire Marshal. 14 25. The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants and onsite roads and 15 drives to the Fire Marshal for approval 16 26. An all-weather access road shall be maintained throughout construction. 17 27. All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior to combustible building materials being located on the 18 project site. 19 28. All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent tot he project shall be submitted 20 to the Fire department for approval prior to construction. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RESO NO. 2859 -4- 28 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of May, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 2859 -5- ENCINA POWER PLANT City of Carlsbad S.D.G.& E.MINOR AMENDMENT TO SP 144 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SP 144 (MINOR AMENDMENT) APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC REQUEST AND LOCATION: ENCINA POWER PLANT - REPLACE EXISTING WASTEWATER PONDS WITH WASTEWATER TANKS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PORTIONS OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA. MAP NO. 823 AND BLOCK "W". PALISADES. UNIT 2. MAP 1803 APN: 210 - 01 - 22 Acres ._9 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation PUBLIC UTILITY (U) Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone PU Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site PU POWER PLANT North OS LAGOON South PU POWER PLANT East PU POWER PLANT West PU POWER PLANT PUBLIC FACILITIES School District CARLSBAD Water CARLSBAD Sewer CARLSBAD EDU's N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date EXEMPT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Negative declaration, issued MARCH 17. 1989 E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, APPLICANT: AGENT: MEMBERS: DISCLOSURE FORM 92101 San Diego Gas & Electric Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndic; 101 Ash Street, San Diego, CA --'-' Business Address 696-2410 Telephone Number Dave Siino Name P. O. Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112 Business Address '696-2410 • Telephone Number Corporation (See Attached List) Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) p. 0. Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112 101 Ash Street, San Diego 921C Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets rf necessary) I/We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, I/we will appl for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development. I/We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may b necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Boar members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is th subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose. I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosur is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upo as being true and correct until amended. BY SDG&E APPLICANT Agent, Owner. Partn< LIST OF CORPORATE OWNERS SDG&E has over 100,000 shareholders. It would be extremely difficult to provide a complete list of all persons having a financial interest in this application. In lieu of this requirement, we have provided below the names of the top five officers of SDG&E. Thomas A. Page Chairman of the Board, Pres. and Chief Executive Officer Jack E. Thomas Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Gary D. Cotton Senior Vice President - Engineering and Operations Alton T. Davis Senior Vice President - Customer Service R. Lee Haney Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer Stephen L. Baum Senior Vice President and General Counsel S7ATE Of CAltfORNIA—HEALTH AND WEIFAKE AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 107 SOUTH BROADWAY, ROOM 7011 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 August 30, 1988 Mr. G. D. Cotton Senior Vice Pres-£cient Engineering fr^Oper at ion San Diegox^as & Electric Company P. 0. Rrffc 1831 San Diego, CA 92112 Dear Mr. Cotton: PART A MODIFICATIONS: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC, ENCINA POWER PLANT (CAT000618900), AND SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT (CAT000619056) This is in response to the revised Part A you submitted on June 26, 1988. You requested permission to replace surface impoundments with the above-ground tanks at the above facilities as described in Appendix C of the submittals. This request is part of your effort to comply with the Toxic Pit Clean Up Act (TPCA) . The Department approves your proposals for both facilities subject to requirements that new tanks will comply with 40 CFR, Part 265, Subpart J. the Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Suwan Sonkprasha of my staff at (213) 620-3050 or Jim Potter at (213) 620-5456. Sincerely, POM^A Mohinder S. Sandhu, P. E., Chief Facility Permitting Unit Region 4 (Long Beach) Toxic Substances Control Division MSS:SS:kap cc: Caroline Cabias Hazardous Waste Management Section Toxic Substances Control Division 714/744 "P" Street P. 0. Box 942342 Sacramento, CA 94234 Paula Rasmussen Surveillance and Enforcement Unit Region 4 (Long Beach) Toxic Substances Control Division 245 West Broadway Long Beach, CA 90802