HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-23; City Council; 10464; SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC'S PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE ENCINA FACILITIES - CARLSBAD'S INITIAL RESPONSEr 1 %
II
L
L4 Li9
P= 0.
zi
2
.. z 0 F 0 a
4 G z 3 0 0
CIT-F CARLSBAD - AGEND~ILL IF^ @fi
DEPTm H* (SDGLE) PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CITYAT
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC'S
ENCINA FACILITIES - CARLSBAD'S INITIAL RESPONSE
AB#.&- TITLE:
MTG. 1/23/90
DEPT. PLN
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY MGR~
That the City Council APPROVWADOPT the following:
1. Resolution No. %-/d, requesting that the California
Energy Commission grant the City I1Intervenor StatusI1 in any deliberations concerning Carlsbad as a potential location of future plant expansion.
2. Ordinance No. A(5 d/@p , establishing an emergency
moratorium on SDG&E Encina expansion activities pending studies and possible changes in the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Resolution No. 78-/5/, authorizing staff to initiate the request for proposals process in order to select consultants to both prepare the studies referred to above
and to assist the City in its capacity as llIntervenorll.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 12, 1989 the City Council heard a presentation by representatives of SDG&E on a proposal that could lead to the expansion of the Encina facility. Although SDG&E is reviewing five potential sites for facilities expansion it appears that the Encina site may be preferred. The Council expressed concern about land use impacts and the potential health and safety problems that such an expansion could cause. Council also felt that expansion of the facility could jeopardize the general welfare of the community.
At the same Council meeting staff explained the process to be followed in the selection of an expansion site. Staff also explained the role of an I1intervenorl1 in the site selection process. Council concerned that the City be well represented at any hearings or workshops on the matter directed staff to explore the possibility of getting expert assistance to protect City interests and to pursue intervention on behalf of the City at the hearings before the California Energy Commission.
Adoption of Resolution No. 96-/4 and 9=@-/5 , would initiate this process.
Council also directed staff to report on the possible land use and environmental impacts if the additional plant is built at
the Encina site. Expansion related environmental impacts will be fully addressed in the required environmental impact report
(EIR) that will be processed when SDG&E files its Notice of Intention with the state. Although the California Energy Commission will be the lead agency for the environmental review, Carlsbad will be able to influence the review through the scoping process. Therefore it is somewhat premature for staff to report on the expansion related environmental impacts
I-
0 0 -v
3%
.c\< - PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /? G64
b.
since these will be addressed at a later date. If the EIR
indicates that there are unmitigable expansion related impacts
at the Encina site it is possible another site location would have to be explored.
On the land use issue, staff has prepared a summary chronology of the development of the existing Encina facility (Exhibit
11411). As can be noted, there have been numerous changes and
expansions of the facility without the benefit of public notice
and hearings. The Public Utility Zone has been in effect for over 18 years without any comprehensive review or updating of development standards or permitted uses. In July 1989, SDG&E
was informed that any future modifications, changes, amendments
or additions to its Encina operations will require a complete major amendment to its Specific Plan. Additionally, SDG&E was informed that the cumulative impacts of all previous facility development actions would be considered and a determination as to what appropriate actions the City would undertake to address any cumulative impacts would be made.
In light of the fact that SDG&E filed a Notice of Intention with the California Energy Commission for the expansion of the Encina facility on December 26, 1989, it is imperative that the City immediately study the appropriateness of the general plan land use designation and implementing zoning for the site. This would enable the City to determine the nature and extent
of any land use impacts the expansion may cause. Without these studies it is impossible to determine whether future Encina expansion could conflict with any other development proposal considered by the City. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council approve an urgency ordinance prohibiting any plant expansion until the contemplated studies are complete or the ordinance expires or is repealed by Council. Staff anticipates requiring consultant assistance to complete these studies. Adoption of this ordinance would not, of course, prohibit staff from actively participating in all proceedings before the California Energy Commission.
Attached is a letter from the Chairman of the Beach Erosion Committee regarding the Committee's concerns with the proposed expansion.
FISCAL IMPACT
Several consulting firms will need to be hired to augment staff in completing the studies and to assist in representing the City at any hearings and workshops. At this time it is unknown what the cost of the consultant contracts will be. It is anticipated that the total contract costs would range between
$150,000 and $300,000. Staff would utilize the standard selection process to develop the best team for the least cost.
* 3 9 0 4
-- - PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /$ #&#
L
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution No. yd-/J , requesting that the California
Energy Commission grant the City "Intervenor Status"
2. Ordinance No. /I/5-/df,
3. Resolution No. 7Dd/3/ , authorizing staff to start the
4. Memorandum dated December 18, 1989 to Ron Ball from
process of selecting consultants
Dennis Turner summarizing history of SDGbrE Encina Plant
development
Letter from Chairman of Beach Erosion Committee dated
January 8, 1990
5.
2
1
> ,
-2
I
L 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
0 0
90-14 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION GRANT CARLSBAD INTERVENOR STATUS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF SDG&E'S ENCINA FACILITY.
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1989 representatives of SDG&E
indicated that the utility will be filing a Notice of Intention
with the California Energy Commission to construct an energy
generating facility of approximately 450 mega watts; and
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Encina site is one of five potential
sites for the location of the future generating facility; and
WHEREAS, Carlsbad desires to protect the community's
health, safety, and welfare by being fully represented at any
meetings and hearings that could lead to the Encina site being
chosen for the future generating facility; and
WHEREAS, if the California Energy Commission grants
Carlsbad "Intervenor Status" Carlsbad will be able to participate
in all discussions and the decision making process relating to
the site selection for the future generating facility; and
WHEREAS, it is through the Intervenor Status that Carlsbad
can adequately protect the health, safety and general welfare of
its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That Carlsbad request that the California Energy Commission
grant the City "Intervenor Statusrg in all proceedings leading to the selection of the Encina site or any other Carlsbad site for the construction of a future generating facility .
I
i
*
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
23rd day of January , 1990 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: kme
ABSENT: Council Member Ku
ATTEST:
Ll-GtLJ R- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit
(SEAL)
2
7 l . -_ < -
L 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 ZU%
%z;g g8z: 14 z>yz o+-u ma'o a!& 15
LL'QL r;L%$ $E&6 16
ZO$S
y>z
KU,g l3
qgy >NU 17
0 t$ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e a
ORDINANCE NO. NS-108
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY MEASURE PROHIBITING THE EXPANSION OF GAS AND ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITY ZONE PENDING STUDIES
AND CHANGES IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the Public Utility Zone was established anc
created in 1971; and
WHEREAS, that zone has not been studied or substantial11
amended since that time; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation establishing i
public utilities land use classified YJ" was established Octobel
15, 1974 and has not been substantially reviewed or amended sinct
that time; and
WHEREAS, the City needs additional time tc
comprehensively study both the General Plan and Public Utilitie:
Zones in order to determine the appropriateness of developmenl
standards and to determine whether or not, due to the passage 01
time, existing standards are no longer appropriate or sufficienl
to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, public utilities, without distinction betweei
electrical energy generation, gas generation, water utilities,
treatment of waste water processing and disposal utilities an(
other public utilities are permitted within that designation on11
upon obtaining a specific plan, master plan or similar action:
adopted by ordinance and that none of these uses are a conditions:
use within that designation; and
WHEREAS, the San Diego Gas and Electric Compan!
constructed the existing Encina power plant in approximately 195;
-I
I *--
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Dm
yz anh
5aQg OW Ouum 14
G,-a: >iZ mazg 15 LL ta~
swrno >ma yjZ26 16
>:'% 17
0 to 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
auz 13
go.<
zosa q8y
e e
and prior to the General Plan designation establishing a public
utilities land use and implementing zone; and
WHEREAS, the construction and operation of the Encini
plant was permitted subject to a final specific plan; and
WHEREAS, that specific plan requires notice and public
hearings of any changes to it; and
WHEREAS, there have been a number of changes in the plai
without notice and hearings including a fuel tank installation ii
1975, a two-story 50' x 16' control room in 1977, the relocatiol
of a maintenance building, expansion of a switching substation an(
driveway in 1980, the expansion of a distribution substation ii
1982, the addition of a 6,168 square foot administration buildinc
in 1984, the remodeling of the electric shop in 1985, lunch roo^
remodeling in 1985, addition of a storeroom and repair facility ii
1986, the construction and addition of a 20' x 40' pipe storagc
shed in 1986, the construction of a 30' x 30' metal paint shop ii
1986, the addition of microwave dishes and radio antenna attache(
to the existing stack in 1986, and the addition of two temporar;
office trailers in 1987; and
WHEREAS, SDG&E was informed that any futurc
modifications, changes, amendments or additions to its plant wou1(
require a complete major amendment to the specific plan processec
in accordance with Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code anc
at that time the cumulative impact of all previous minor amendment:
would be considered and an analysis would be made as to whether an
conditions are necessary to address those cumulative impacts; anc
2
I' I
1 -
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
90, mwg a=.- 13 I,&Ecb -,an8 of:% ooaa 14 Z>jZ 0,-= mez? 15 u'ai ,->ma =$Yo. WEU~ 16
qsy >2% 17 60 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*
go53
0 0
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9372 adopted December 197
amending SDGtE Is specific plan required five year reviews and thos
reviews have not been commenced nor completed; and
WHEREAS, SDG&E has notified the City that it has file
a notice of intention (llNOI1l) on December 26, 1989 with th
California Energy Commission for expansion of its Encina facilit
in order to generate an additional 460 megawatts of energy whic
will require an additional five to six acres of land; and
WHEREAS, SDG&E has notified the City that the Encin
plant is one of the prime candidates for expansion and that, i
fact, it intends to promote that site as a prime candidate becaus
of the ready availability of land and abundant water for coolin
purposes at that location; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the addition to its existin
plant will have significant effects on the environment includin
the construction and erection of two smoke stacks 150 feet hig
which will represent a hazard to aircraft and a navigationa
obstruction to aircraft using the Palomar Airport located withi
the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the construction and expansion of the existin
plant will add pollutants and noxious emissions to the environmen
affecting the health and safety of the citizens of Carlsbad and it
environs; and
WHEREAS, the construction and expansion of the existin
plant will effect the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the balance of fis
and wildlife; and
3
s I
-> 5.
c 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 0
$$? =a$ l3 5-3;;
Z>Jf
OLL L aa~
;urn0 >ma
'$8y E22 17
u0 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3uu 3044 14
;pg 15
ZJ Jjoc~d 16
205s
0 0
WHEREAS, the construction and expansion of the existing
plant will require enlarging the bridge along Carlsbad Boulevard
overthe Agua Hedionda Lagoon further disrupting fish and wildlife;
and
WHEREAS, the construction and expansion of the existing
plant may alter sand migration and transport systems in the coastal
region near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and may adversely impact
beaches along the Pacific Coast of a presently unknown extent; and
WHEREAS, changes to this bridge will be a major
disruption to planning and circulation within the City of Carlsbad;
and
WHEREAS, expansion of the Encina power plant may be
prejudicial to other nearby land uses that are proposed and are
being processed for approval; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an ordinance prohibiting
on-shore oil facilities supporting off-shore oil exploration; and
WHEREAS, the expansion to the Encina plant will require
increased oil and fossil fuels and expose the citizens of Carlsbad
to additional environmental risks; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to study the appropriateness
of the general plan land use designation for the site; and
WHEREAS, expansion of the Encina plant may be in conflict
with a zoning proposal which the City Council intends to study; and
WHEREAS, processing and approval of the expansion of the
Encina plant, until these studies are completed and the general
plan and zoning district amended, would severely prejudice the
ability of the City to permit, conditionally permit or prohibit
4
(.
-,
.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4-
DUJ sum m>z 13
of%% aoaa 14
0 =cs; ms.'O 15
LL *25
5Z-I CC~ 16
'k8y
-I- %%E$
,>.ma wmo
Pass
50 >.:z 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
expansion of power generating plant at this location or at other
locations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined for the reasons
stated above, such expansion of existing power generating plants
represent a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety and welfare: and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government
Code Section 65858(b) allowing the adoption of such urgency
ordinances by a four-fifths vote of its legislative body after
notice and hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65090; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to extend
this interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days following a notice
and public hearing prior to the expiration of 45 days from the
adoption of this ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That the above recitations are true and
correct.
SECTION 2: No development application shall be accepted,
processed or approved which would increase the size, location,
generating capacity or use of the existing Encina power generating
facility within the general plan @tu1t designation and ttPUtt zoning
districts as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3: On or before 45 days following the adoption
of this ordinance, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to
consider extending this ordinance for 22 months and 15 days
pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(b). The City Clerk is
5
.
-?
.L
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 a
mug? YZ- 13 UUab 0 :si& $Lo
55'0 au 15
->ma
ZZJ !sad 16
am
+o<u 14 ~~d~
,ps
L 'ai
wv)o
u:~Y 17 >C% h(J
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e a
directed to notice the hearings as required by Government Code
Section 65090.
DECLARATION OF URGENCY: This ordinance is hereby
declared to be an emergency ordinance adopted as an urgency measure
to protect the public health, safety and welfare and shall take
effect immediately upon its adoption. The facts constituting the
emergency are set forth above and represent a current and immediate
threat to the public health, safety or welfare and that approval
of additional development or expansion of the Encina plant which
may be required in order to comply with existing ordinances would
represent a threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Carlsbad.
EFFECTIVE: This ordinance shall be effective
immediately upon passage and shall be of no further force and
effect after 45 days of the date of its adoption unless extended
by the City Council pursuant to Section 3. Thereafter, it shall
remain in effect until contemplated studies studying the
appropriateness of the land use designation in the General Plan and
the zoning districts within the zoning code for electric and gas
power generating plants are completed unless sooner repealed by the
City Council.
At least ten days prior to the expiration of this interim
ordinance, the City Council shall issue a written report describing
the measures it has taken to alleviate the conditions which led to
the adoption of this ordinance. The City Clerk of the City of
Carlsbad shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause
6
%
- ’- ..
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
om $y? &zg 13 Q5:g
OUC7 qoaq 14
Q+-a >iZ 15 mG’O ou. u~a~ >ma SWCnO tE&o- 16
ZO$$ Fig?
50 >2q 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
it to be published once in the Carlsbad Journal within 15 day!
after is adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting o
the Carlsbad City Council on the 23rd day of January, 1990, b
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT : Council Member Kulchin
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
LQ.k- VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
ATTEST:
Q-le2Jx, 4- Q- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City C4erk
7
c
- hVd/_
.-- - d- -44-- ddd - - 2- dJ-.d-/44- - - - - - - - - - - -
-------- dd_d_/__/ - - - - d_ _.
SDG&E City of Carlsb
->
- 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
e 0
RESOLUTION NO. 90-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF SELECTING CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST STAFF IN BOTH PREPARING PLANNING STUDIES REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE UTILITIES GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION AND P-U ZONE AND TO REPRESENT THE CITY IN ALL MEETINGS AND HEARINGS REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES IN CARLSBAD.
WHEREAS, the City desires to review the adequacy of both
the General Plan policies regarding utilities and the standards
of the P-U zone to provide sufficient protections for the health,
safety and general welfare of Carlsbad citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to be adequately represented at
any meetings and/or hearings regarding the possible selection of
Carlsbad as a site for the future SDG&E construction of an energy
generating facility; and
WHEREAS, staff currently either does not have the time
and/or expertise to prepare the planning studies or adequately
represent the City at meetings and hearings regarding possible
SDG&E facility expansion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council hereby directs staff to begin the consultant selection process to both conduct the studies necessary to review the adequacy of the Utilities General
Plan designation and the P-U zone and to represent the City at meetings and hearings regarding possible SDG&E expansion of facilities located in Carlsbad. ---
***
**-
->
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
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 23rd day of January
1990 by the following vote, to wit:
I
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT; Council Member Kulchin
ATTEST:
ll/Ltk& p. Qd-
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
2
/ .. m EXHIBIT 4
-%
121 16/89
To: Ron Ball, City Attorney's Office
From: Dennis Turner, Planning Department +-+,I
Subject: History of SDG&E Encina Plant Development
Attached are two versions of my gleanings from the Planning Department's files:
1 ) A chronological ~~mmaf~ of major events, and
2) An annotated chronology of major events.
The entire history is recorded in ten not-too-well-organized file folders.
Much of the history is concerned with debate over the original specific plan and construction approvals or the later proposal for construction of the single smokestack, plus the dialog associated with the issues of air quality
testing and monitoring. The history i've assembled for you focuses
principally on approvals for construction of the plant and its accessory
facilities. I did not detail the battles over air quality testing and monitoring, or processing of environmental documents, battles accounting for much of
the files' bulk.
In a letter to your office dated June 27, 1989, Michael Holzmiller attached a
listing of building permits and minor amendments associated with the plant.
I have found documentation for most of these in the our files. However,
there were a few for which I did not. Almost ail of these cases are indicated
in Michael's list as building permit approvals. In the listing I've prepared for
you, I have included these items with the notation that I did not find
documentation in Planning Department files. Perhaps a review of the
Building Department's files should be conducted to verify these items and to
determine if perhaps there are others, I would be happy to assist in this review. The only reason I didn't pursue it at this time was so as to provide you with what was relatively easy to find as quickly as possible.
Please call if you have any questions (x 4443).
d
cc:
M. Holzmiller
G. Wayne
I. e 0
-> SDGbrE Encim Power Plant History (Summary)
.. 1. 4/6/71: Ord 9263 creates the P-U (Public Utility) zone
2. 6/22/71 PC recmm to Council to rezone Encina site to P-U (PC res 711)
3. 8/3/71: Council Ord. 9279 to adopt a specific plan for Encina Plant
4. 12/4/73: Ordinance 9372 incorporates an amended specific plan (SP-144)
5. 5/75?: Fuel tank installation (building permit).
6. 12/17/75 Meeting on SDGU funding of road improvements.
7. 5/4/76 Ord 9456 amends Ord 9279, requires air monitoring of 400' stack (SP-l#(B))
8. 5/18/76: CC motion and later agreement to deed beaches to state.
9. 5/3/77: Ord 9481 to build water treatment facility and maint. bldg (SP-144 (GI)
10. 6/77: Two-story 50' x 16 control Mom built (building permit),
11. 11/30/77 Council "files" SDG&E request for final building permit to operate the stack.
12. 2/8/78: Council Res (5302) finding particulate fallout problem is solved.
13. 2/28/78: SDG&E requests suspending work on SP-144 (Dl, connection of Unit 5 to stack.
14. 1/10/80: Move maint. bldg, expand switching substation, driveway (staff author)
15. 6/82: Expansion of distribution substation (approved by staff).
16. 10/9/84 New 6,168 sq.ft. admin building added (approved by staff).
17. 7/85 Remodel of electrical shop (building permit).
18. 12/85: Lunch room remodel (building permit).
19. 12/10/85: Letter fromSDG&E, re: Carlsbad Blvd widening/acces to Encina.
20. 1/86 Storeroom and repair facility remodel added (building permit)
Page 1
e .a
-~
21. 2/86 Application to amend. SP-l44(E) (50,000 sq. ft office, etc.)
22. 4/86: 20 x 40' pipe storage shed added (approved by staff).
23. 9/86 30 x 30' metal paint shop added (approved by staff).
24. 10/86: Microwave dishedradio antennae attached to stack (approved by staff).
25. 4/9/87 SDG&E withdraws application for spec Plan Amend SP-144 (E) (2/86) .
26. 7/15/87: Add two temp. office trailers (approved by staff).
27. 7/19/89 Six wastewater tanks approved (by PC Res 2859).
28. 7/24/89 Letter: Holzmiller to Siino (SDGE): Major review next time.
-
.4
Page 2
I.* m
-,
- SDGLE Encina Power Plant History (Annotated)
1. 4/6/71: Ord 9268 creates the P-U (Public Utility) zone This ordinance authorizes the power plant as a use under the zone, sets requirement for all public utility uses to be subject to specific plans, and stipulates that, "Any modifications from the original plan still in keeping with the intent and concept of said plan, may be filed with Planning Department for approval."
2. 6/22/71 PC recmm to Council to rezone Encina site to P-U (PC res 711) The action also was accompanied by direction to annex the adjacent SDGM land and apply the new zone to these lands also.
3, 8/3/71: Council Ord. 9279 to adopt a specific plan for Encina Plant Ordinance 9279 approved a specific plan (unnumbered) for the 680 acre site
containing the existing Encina Power Plant. An 11 x 19 color graphic (dated 7/20/71) is in the file as is a 400-foot scale blueline dated 1/9/70 (updated from a 12/21/61 drawing). The plant is shown to have four generator smokestacks (tops at elevation 190 feet above grade.). Condition 1 stipulates "...the area designated on the Specific Plan as 'Site of Future Power Plant', east of the freeway, be subject to Specific Plan approval at a later date". Condition 8 says further, "The propmd site for a future power generating facility on the East side of Interstate 5 shall be planned so as to be compatible with the present facility. The facilities shall ... be environmentally compatible with the City of Carlsbad." The ord. also stipulates: "...the Planning Director of the City of Carlsbad is designated as the enforcing officer of this Specific Plan. His decision shall be final as to whether the subject property has been properly developed and improved. However, the owners of the subject property may appeal to the city Council any decision of the Planning Director relative to this Specific Plan." [Presumably. no one else may appeal (?)I.
4. 12/4/73: Ordinance 9372 incorporates an amended specific plan (SP-144) Ordinance amends Ord. 9279 to include a revised plan labeled SP-144. (note: no copy of this exhibit is found in the files) to authorize replacement of four smoke stacks (190' above grade.) with me new stack (top at elevation 400' above grade) to serve five generators. A new condition 14 is added stipulating that the plant is to be subject to conditions (1-9,ll) of Planning Commission Resol. 986 (11/13/73) One of these conditions states that the construction of the stack had to be started within one year of approval date or become null and void. Section 2 is amended to require a review on a five year basis to determine (among other things) if the 400' stack can be placed by one smaller or eliminated. The Planning director may approve "minor" changes. "Substantial changes" will be considered by the Planning Commision Because of inability to obtain all the necessary approvals within the ensuing one-year period the construction did not start and the approval became void on 12/4/84.
Page 1
0 a -.
5. 5/75? Fuel tank installation (building permit). No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
6. 12/17/75 Meeting on SDG&E funding of road improvements. Meeting in which SDG&E agreed to pay and hold funds in the amount of $231,200 in escrow at 8% interest until called for by City for payment, in lieu of constructing improvements to Carlsbad Boulevard.
7. 5/4/76: Ord 9456 amends Ord 9279, requires air monitoring of 400' stack (SP-144(8)) Ordinance 9456 amended ord. 9279 Section 2 to replace the Specific Plan Map
(assumed to be SP-144A) with a revised plan labled SF-144B dated October 10,
1975. Section 3 of Ord 9456 amends condition no. 14 of section 2 of Ord. 9279, to add additional conditions to the earlier amendment (Ordinance 9372) that permitted the fifth generator and a single stack to replace the original four stacks. These conditions essentially re-authorize the single stack and add requirements to: monitor air emissions (a problem was occuring with "fallout" over Terramar, a local residential project). require an annual report to Council on emissions (14 (j)), add APCD conditions, and add section 14!g), providing 'I In the event that the city of Carlsbad determines that the 400-foot stack is no longer necessary as a method of air emission dispersion, the 400-foot stack shall be removed at the applicant's expense. ...*I
8. 5/18/76: CC motion and later agreement to deed beaches to state. An Agenda Bill 3657 measure found in the files was presumably approved by council (and agreed to later by SDGdtE) to deed beaches owned by SDGdcE and leased by the city to be deeded to state of California and to pay the city $42, 344 for improvements to these beaches unless SDG&E grants a public beach easement
9. 5/3/77: Ord 9481 to build water treatment facility and mint. bldg (SF-144 (C)) Ord 9481 added condition 15 to the original ord., authorizing construction of 1) 6 water treatment ponds (28,380 cu. yds of grading) and 2) a new maintenance building to replace existing facilities, both to be in keeping with a revised plan SP-144 (C) (dated 1/31/77). (A copy of this plan dated April 5, 1977 is in the files. 1
10. 6/77: Two-story 50' x 16 control mom built (building permit). No record of this project is contained in Planning Dept. files.
11. 11/3/77 Council "files" SDGdtE request for final building permit to operate the stack. An ongoing problem with particulate "fatlout" from the old four stacks had led to earlier incorporation of Condition (h) in Ord 9456. This condition states, "The particulate 'fallout' problem shall be controlled to the satisfacton of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad and the Air Pollution Control Officer prior to the final building permit clearance for Encina 5 and the single stack" As of Nov 29, 1977 the Council did not feel that the problem was resolved and, therefore, deferred approving a final Certificate of Occupancy for operation of the fifth generator and the new, single stack.
Page 2
i .a 0
A ..
- 12. 2/8/78: Council Res (5302) finding particulate fallout problem is solved. Although the Council now found that the particulate fallout problem was controlled. final building permit clearance to operate the 400' stack in a commercial (as opposed to test) mode was conditioned : "Provided San Diego Gas And Electric continues to pay damages resulting from fallout and the City Manager reports on the results of that effort prior to final building permit clearance."
13, 2/28/78: SDG&E request3 suspending work on SF-144 (Dl, connection of Unit 5 to stack, At SDGbcE's request (letter in file) processing of the amdendment was suspended. A refund of fees for processing SP-144 (Dl was eventually made in November 1978. It is presumed that all the required conditions were met eventually, however, and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued, although the dates of these actions are not found in the files.
14. 1/10/80: Move maint. bldg, expand switching substation, driveway (staff author) Letter (1/10/80) from Principal Planner Bud Plender to Don Rose authorizing 1) the move of a maintenance building from its old attachment at the stack building, to
a site southerly and easterly, 2) conversion of a temp. curb cut on Cannon Rd., previously used during construction of the power plant, to permanent use for employees, and 3) expansion of the electrical switching substation (the source of transmission lines crossing the freeway).
15. 6/82: Expansion of distribution substation (approved by staff). The files contain an informational report only on this project from Planning Department to Planning Commission, based upon the Planning Director's administrative determination that the project was consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and, therefore, no amendment was required. The project consisted of expansion of the existing switching station to a capacity of 48 megawatts, expansion to be contained within a 270' x 160' fenced area.
16. 10/9/84; New 6,168 sq.ft. admin building added (approved by staff). Letter from Holzmiller to Rw (SDGaE) on 10/9/84 for "administrative staff approval" to construct a replacement administrative building and conversion of the existing building to storage/maintenance. Approved with conditions: 1 1 building is to be a replacement and will serve no new employees, 2) a previously approved new maintenance building (see 1/10/80) will not be built and is to be deleted from the Specific Plan exhibit, 3) parking and circulation to remain unchanged, a new Specific Plan drawing showing precise location of all existing improvements circulation elements to be submited to Planning Department. (There is no record of this revised exhibit having been submitted).
17. 7/85: Remodel of electrical shop (building permit). No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
18. 12/85 Lunch room remodel (building permit).
Page 3
No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
0 e
..
19. 12/10/85: Letter from SDGU, re: Carlsbad Blvd widening/access to Encina. Letter from Dave Siino complains that proposed improvements to Carlsbad Blvd will "aggravate the already unsafe conditions" of access to the plant. Mentions
need to build 30,000 sq. ft. "service center" to house 250 employees and 15-20 customers at the plant site. Requests alternative access routing.
20. 1/86 Storeroom and repair facility remodel added (buiiding permit) No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
21, 2/86 Application to amend. SP-l44(E) (50,000 sq. ft office, etc.) Proposal to amend SP-144k) to show changes on two parts of the site. Power Plant: 1). facilities previously approved by Planning Dir. and 2) future facilities (lunch room. relocate guardhouse. relocate paint shop, "storage/office facility", and traffic signaVdriveway. Ouera tinn Headcwarters the amendment proposed replacement with a "Service Center", to include a 50,000 sq. ft. office building. lunch/recreation area, parking, equipment warehouse, vehicle repair facility, fleet vehicle parking ,material storage area, vehicie gas facility, guardhouse, and "other related accessory facilities". Additionally, the amendment would have expanded the authority of the Planning Director beyond making findings of consistency for proposed construction. to include the authority to approve construction of "...minor accessory facilities not shown on the specific plan without the processing of a pian amendment." (Application subsequently withdrawn. see 4/9/87).
22. 4/86 20 x 40' pipe storage shed added (approved by staff). No record of this project found in Planning Dept. files.
23. 9/86 30 x 30' metal paint shop added (approved by staff). No record of this project contained in Ptanning Dept. files
24. 10/86 Microwave dishedradio antennae attached to stack (approved by staff). The Ptanning Department provided a letter (dated 10/1/86) to Planning Commission at their October 1 meeting apprising them of the proposal and staffs determination that it qualified for an administrative approval. unless P.C. wished
to require a formal Specific Plan amendment. (No following correspondence found in file). The project consisted of installing seven mircowave dishes and six Bogner radio antennae to the main stack. The city's satellite dish ordinance did not pertain, as public utilities are exempted.
25. 4/9/87 SDG&E withdraws application for spec Plan Amend SP-144 (E) (2/86) . Withdrawal of proposed Specific Plan amendment, originally initiated in Feb. 86. presumably due to staffs concerns over the impacts associated with the office structure/"operating headquarters" and processing of environmental documents.
Page 4
b
L a e
..
- 26. 7/15/87: Add two temp. office trailers (approved by staff). Trailers are 54 and 56 feet long, with a totalarea of 1175 square feet, auxilliary to the existing office of 6,000 sq. ft. The "temporary" use is presumed to last until such time as the city grants approval to the "operating headquarters", as was proposed above, under the withdrawn SP144 (E) amendment.
27. 7/19/89 Six wastewater tanks approved (by PC Res 2859). Planning Comission granted approval (PC Resolution 2859) of an amendment to
Specific Plan 144 to install six wastewater tanks.Among other conditions, no. 3 states,"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." The most recent correspondence from SDG&E (September 5, 1989, letter from Siino to Holzmiller) provides material to meet several of the conditions of the PC Resoloution. A copy of a 1910- sepia plot plan was submitted (thus meeting standard condition 21, but the letter says that the M reproducible "...is still under preparation and wilt be submitted soon". Therefore, a3 of this date, we have no exhibit showing the area of SP-144 with all the existing improvements. The implication also is that condition 3, needed for the issuance of building permits for the wastewater tanks. is still unmet. Status of building permits is not known.
28. 7/24/89: Letter: Holzmiller to Siino (SDGE): Major review next time. In this letter Holzmiller reports Planning Commission's approval of the minor amendment to Specific Plan no. 144 to install the six wastewater tanks. Includes: "...any future request for improvement to the Encina Power Plan will require a complete major amendment to the Specific Plan processed in accordance with Chapter 21.3 of the Carlsbad Municipal code. At that time, the cumulative impact of all previous minor amendments will be considered and an analysis will be made as to whether any conditions are necessary to address the cumulative impacts"
J
Page 5
e 0
..
January 8, 1990
Mayor Claude A. Lewis and Council Members City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
On June 28, 1989, the Beach Erosion Committee forwarded to you a
letter regarding the Committee's concerns with the water circulation patterns in Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the subsequent impacts upon the lagoon itself and adjacent beaches. In our letter of June 28th, a copy of which is attached, the Committee cited six
(6) areas of concern which the Committee felt strongly enough to bring to your attention as well as that of SDG&E representatives. The six (6) issue areas included:
- Existence of two (2) large holes in the central and eastern basins.
- Causes and effects of the existing sand bars.
- Potential lagoon contamination from adjacent run-off of
soil and agricultural pesticides.
- Restoration of the east end of the eastern basin due to
sediment in-fill.
- Potential interference of the existing 400-foot long
. SDG&E jetties upon the littoral drift.
After being told directly by SDG&E representatives that the utility
company would not be investigating these issue areas, SDG&E
nevertheless commissioned a study in late 1989 by Dr. Scott Jenkins
of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography to study solely Item 6
above. Dr. Jenkins' report entitled Dispersion and Momentum Flux Study of the Coolinq Water Outfall at Aqua Hedionda Laqoon was
completed in September of last year and distributed to the members
of the Beach Erosion Committee at its formal Committee meeting of
November 2, 1989. Although Dr. Jenkins' study concluded that the
plant's discharge plume was not interfering with sediment transport
and delivering materials beyond the surf zone, the Committee has
ongoing concerns regarding several elements of the study
methodology and conclusions from the data. The Committee does not
feel it necessary nor beneficial to commission a formal scientific
review of Dr. Jenkins' study at this time. This may, however, be
necessary in the future to fully analyze the SDG&E jetty impacts.
Additionally, at the November 2, 1989 Committee meeting, Mr.
William Dyson of SDG&E made a presentation addressing issue areas 1 through 5 above. A summary of Mr. Dyson's presentation appears
e 0
...
January 8, 1990/Page 2
in the Committee Minutes for November 2, 1989, a copy of which is also attached.
The Committee's concerns regarding Agua Hedionda Lagoon and its
influences upon adjacent beaches is even more critical in light of
San Diego Gas and Electric Company's application before the
California Energy Commission for a potential expansion of its
Encina plant. SDG&E has filed a formal Notice of Intention (N.O.I.) with the Energy Commission offering five (5) potential sites to construct a combined cycle power generating facility to
supply future power needs for the utility company's expanding
service area. The Carlsbad Encina facility is one of the five (5) recommended expansion sites. If the Encina facility is ultimately targeted as an expansion site, plant expansion will unquestionably have impacts upon Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the beaches located immediately to the west, and the sediment transport system within the entire Oceanside Littoral Cell. The Committee feels this is a matter of extreme urgency potentially adversely affecting Carlsbad's already sand starved beaches, the coastal lagoon's sensitive ecosystem, and the sand transport processes for the entire region. Further, the potential effects of plant expansion will be felt for generations to come.
The Beach Erosion Committee strongly urges the Carlsbad City
Council to adopt a position of care and caution with respect to any
plans whatsoever to expand the existing SDG&E Encina facility.
The Committee offers its assistance and input in developing
strategies, undertaking research and studies, and assembling any
technical data that will assist the City in further understanding the potential impacts of the proposed Encina plant expansion. To
this end, the Committee recommends that the City Council include
the above six (6) issue areas in its formal comments to the
California Energy Commission regarding the current N.O.I.
application and any required environmental impact assessment of the
proposed project. Additionally, the Committee recommends the City
carefully evaluate the mitigation processes for potential marine
losses located both in the near shore ocean system and within the
lagoon system itself. The Commission would welcome the opportunity
to provide further issue areas of concern regarding the proposed
pro j ect .
bad Beach Erosion Committee
MRM: jkb
c: Beach Erosion Committee Members
City Manager Municipal Projects Manager
J e 0
..
June 28, 1989
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
and Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
The Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee, with the assistance of City
staff, has been discussing the Committee's concerns regarding the water
circulation patterns in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon with SDG&E representatives for the last two (2) years. In late 1988, SDGtE requested Committee input regarding a proposed SDG&E sponsored lagoon study and data gathering effort they were preparing to undertake in 1989. The Committee, with the assistance of its coastal engineering consultants, Tekmarine, Incorporated, prepared a list of questions,
issues, and potential study areas for SDG&E to include in their lagoon
study program. SDG&E thereafter returned a formal response to the
Committee which summarily rejected any additional study areas or
potential expansion of the study to respond to the important questions
asked by the Committee regarding the lagoon's water circulation model.
Understandably, the Committee was deeply disappointed with the lack of
a positive response to the Committee's input into the proposed study
which had been originally requested by SDG&E itself.
The Committee, at its May 4, 1989, meeting reviewed in detail the previous discussions and correspondence with SDGtE. At this meeting,
it was unanimously recommended that the Committee formalize its
concerns and issues regarding Agua Hedionda Lagoon and its potential
impacts on beach erosion and coastal processes in general and forward
those concerns to the City Council. A summary of the issues is as follows:
1. Evidence exists of two (2) large holes in the central
basin. One (1) hole is located east of the railroad
track bridge and appears to be, from sounding data, approximately 36 feet deep. The second hole is
immediately west of the 1-5 bridge and appears to be
e a .*
Mayor Claude A. Lewis June 28, 1989 Page 2
approximately 24 feet deep. It is unknown whether these
holes are stable or whether they could potentially, over
time, affect the foundation of the bridge structures.
Further, the sources or causes originating the holes are
unknown.
The Committee suspects that the existing sand bars in the central and eastern basins are being created by material
from the two (2) holes as well as material carried into the lagoon by tidal action.
3. The Committee is concerned that these sand bars are
interfering with the flushing action of the eastern and central basins. This interference could potentially increase the flushing velocities, but not the volume,
which could cause other impacts. The removal of the sand bars needs to be addressed.
2.
4. The Committee is concerned about contamination of the
lagoon caused by run-off of soil and agricultural pesticides from the farming operations on the south side of the lagoon. In at least one (1) location, a small beach has been created by run-off. In the fields, the furrows have been plowed perpendicular to the lagoon increasing the potential for run-off.
Although most of the central area of the eastern basin appears to be relatively unchanged since the initial dredging in the late 1950's, the eastern end is being filled in with sediments. The restoration of this area should be undertaken.
The Committee has long been concerned that the existing
400 foot SDG&E jetties may be interfering with littoral
drift.
5.
6.
When SDG&E makes its next application for dredging the western basin
of the lagoon to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, both agencies will request formal comments from the City of Carlsbad regarding input into the
permit review and approval process. Because of a lack of response from
SDG&E to the Committee's, and hence the Cityls concerns, we recommend
the City Council take the following action:
- Require a formal City of Carlsbad grading permit of SDG&E
for the western basin dredging operations. One is not
now required. Condition the City permit upon SDG&E's
completion of additional impact analysis.
0 m
.A
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
June 28, 1989 Page 3
- At the time of City permit review, hold public hearings before the Planning Commission to discuss the concerns
with and possible solutions to protecting Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. The importance of Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the City's and the region's coastal processes cannot be over emphasized.
In keeping with the Council's environmental awareness as evidenced by
their concerns with Batiquitos Lagoon and the Carlsbad coastline, the Committee believes that these issues can be resolved in a timely and
economical manner by additional SDGstE study in conjunction with the
upcoming permit application process in 1990-91 for the western basin
dredging.
Sincerely,
zi$fyp& CHA RMAN, ARLSBAD BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE
cc: Beach Erosion Committee Members
City Manager
e m
*-.
CARLSBAD BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1989
The Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee was called to order by Chairman Monroy at 6:OO P.M., Thursday, November 2, 1989, in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California.
Members in Attendance: Members Absent:
Mario Monroy, Chairman Gary Nessim
Pearl Johnson Don Jackson Dave Copley Sally Vigil Bailey Noble
City Staff in Attendance:
John Cahill, Municipal Projects Manager
Guests in Attendance:
Jack Brunton, Art Bishop, Bill Dyson: San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Dr. Scott Jenkins and David Skelley: Scripps
Institute of Oceanography.
Committee Consultant in Attendance:
Dr. Choule Sonu: Tekmarine Incorporated
AGENDA TOPICS
1. Chairman Monroy introduced the meeting minutes of September
14, 1989, which were subsequently reviewed and approved by the Committee Members.
Chairman Monroy introduced Mr. Bailey Noble as the newest membei of the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee.
Chairman Monroy introduced Mr. Jack Brunton of SDG&E who in turr introduced Mr. Art Bishop and Mr. Bill Dyson representing the Sa1 Diego Gas and Electric Company. Mr. Brunton thereafter introducec Dr. Scott Jenkins and Mr. Dave Skelley of the Scripps Institutc
of Oceanography, consultants retained by SDG&E to study Agua
2.
0 e
z
Meeting Minutes:
November 2, 1989 Page 2
Hedionda Lagoon. Dr. Jenkins distributed copies of the September
1989 Scripps study entitled Dispersion and Momentum Flux Study of the Coolina Water Outfall at Aqua Hedionda Laqoon. Dr. Jenkins
thereafter made a presentation to the Committee regarding the
findings in the report which concluded that the plant's discharge
plume is not interfering with sediment transport and delivering suspended materials beyond the surf zone. Dr. Jenkins concluded
with his belief that four (4) issues face coastal communities
regarding identification and delivery of new sand sources:
- Recovery of sand trapped behind existing darns and reservoirs.
- Mining sand from lagoons to enlarge the title prisms to pre-
1900 levels.
- Recovery of sand from off-shore bars near Oceanside Harbor.
- '1Fix-it8g legislation separating beach nourishment from the
NEPA Act of 1974.
At the conclusion of Dr. Jenkins' presentation, Bill Dyson of
SDG&E continued with a discussion of the questions asked by the
Committee in their January 6 and June 28, 1989 letters.
1. Holes in Central and Eastern Basins. Mr. Dyson indicated
SDG&E has been aware of the four large holes in the central and eastern basins near the bridge structures of both AT&SF and 1-5 for some time. Mr. Dyson further indicated that SDG&E has investigated the holes over a period of several
years and believes them to be stable with no affect upon the
adjacent bridge structures or their foundations. Mr. Dyson
has obtained a copy of the original 1953 design study for Agua Hedionda Lagoon which he believes anticipated the creation of holes near the bridge structures.
2. Existins Sand Bars in Central and Eastern Basins. Mr. Dyson
indicated that SDG&E believes the sand bars have been created from displaced material from the four holes, which SDG&E believes have remained relatively unchanged since they were created. Surveys of the sand bars were conducted in 1984 and
1989 showing an increase of approximately 26,000 cubic yards of material. Mr. Dyson indicated several suspected causes of this phenomenon.
3. Sand Bars Interferina with Flushina Action. Mr. Dysor
indicated that the original design and actual constructior
of the lagoon system over 30 years ago provided for proper
flushing which he indicated is evidenced by the fact that thc
western entrance has never closed. Mr. Dyson further
0 @
.-.
Meeting Minutes:
November 2, 1989
Page 3
indicated that the original design contemplated an allowable one foot over depth of dredging to accommodate the dredge
machines during low tides. His conclusion is that because of the overdredging and the large water volumes at the intake
jetty, the sand bars do not affect the plant's operations in
terms of water flows, volumes, or velocities. SDG&E has no
plans to dredge the existing sand bars.
4. Laaoon Contamination Caused bv Aaricultural Run-off. Mr. Dyson indicated that continual testing as a normal course of plant operations indicates that the plant itself has not in any way contributed to lagoon contamination. The SDRWQCB has
concluded that the Encina Power Plant has not contributed
industrial wastes to the lagoon. Rather, SDG&E1s lessees along the southern and eastern areas of the lagoon are required to build and utilize run-off catch basins to ensure that no drainage spills into the lagoon from the agricultural fields. SDG&E periodically inspects the containment basins
to ensure they are properly maintained and operating as designed. A side issue involves the creation of a small beach created by run-off. Mr. Dyson indicated SDG&E believes
this was caused by a series of natural events including severe rainfall in the winter of 1979-80 (27 inches) which created the small run-off beach.
Siltation Buildup of Eastern End of the Eastern Laaoon Basin. Mr. Dyson indicated that SDGtE acknowledges this area has been silting up at an alarming rate. SDG&E soundings taken
in 1978 showed an estimated volume of 120,000 cubic yards of material covering the original silt trap and moving westerly.
1984 soundings showed an estimated volume of 290,000 cubic yards of material had moved an additional 600 feet to the west. Mr. Dyson indicated that SDG&E believes this has been caused by unsupervised rapid upland erosion into the inner
lagoon and onto SDG&E property. Mr. Dyson further indicated this area is now a least tern nesting site. Permits to obtain dredging and restoration of this area to its original
1953 configuration would be difficult if not impossible.
6. Lenath of Existinu SDGtE Jetties Interferina with Littoral Drift. Mr. Dyson indicated that the original jetty design of 1953 addressed this subject and concluded that nc interference would occur. Mr. Dyson further pointed to the
September 1988 Scripps Study, which concluded that the existing jetties did not impact littoral drift in this area.
5.
-
.* e 0
,_ <
Meeting Minutes:
November 2, 1989
Page 4
Chairman Manray thanked the SDGbE representatives for their presentation and indicated the Committee and its consultants would be considering the information and reviewing the Scripps report
in detail.
g was adjourned by Chairman Monroy at 7:55 p.m.
Secretary, Beach Erosion Committee
JJC:mg
Distribution: Beach Erosion Committee Members Mayor and City Council Members City Manager Assistant City Manager
Community Development Director
City Engineer Gary Wayne, Acting Assistant Director of Planning
a 0 '.
PO BOX '831 - SAN DlEGO CA 92112 * 6'9 696 2000
- SOGE San Diego Gas & Electric
FILE NO
January 23, 1990
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilman Eric Larson Councilman Mark Pettine Councilman John Mamaux City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
our position on Ordinance No. NS-108 which is before you on this evening's agenda. moratorium on expansion of gas and electric facilities
located in the Public Utilities zone pending studies and
changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
identification of the Encina Power Plant as one of five
potential sites for our proposed combined cycle project. The very extensive regulatory process will address all of the concerns that are important to you, and we encourage your participation.
Although all of the impacts will not have been
identified at this early stage of the siting process, we, like you, want to make sure that all ramifications of each
site are properly evaluated before a site is selected. We are also very desirous of continuing to work with the City to ensure that the essential operation of the Encina Power Plant continues and is not affected by this moratorium, which as we read your ordinance, is also the City's intent.
We also support the City's desire to review the Encina specific plan, and we hope that the process will prove to be constructive rather than punitive.
We would like to take this opportunity to advise you of
This ordinance would impose a
We appreciate the City's concerns about the
e 0 .
Mayor Claude A. Lewis Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Councilman Eric Larson Councilman Mark Pettine Councilman John Mamaux January 23, 1990
Page 2
We respectfully request clarification of the coverage
of the moratorium insofar as some projects in progress are concerned:
1. SDG&E will, in the near future, need to remove its settlement ponds, once the construction of new wastewater tanks to hold the washwater from equipment-cleaning is completed. As you may know, the construction of these tanks and the removal of the ponds are mandated by state law (Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1986) and SDG&E is required to do so under a Cease and Desist Order issued by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. This project was approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on July 19, 1989. A grading permit and possibly other permits will be required
to complete this work and return the property to its original state. Although we don't believe it applies, we
have an understandable concern that the moratorium ordinance
could be interpreted to preclude the issuance of such permits.
permits for a demineralizer regeneration discharge tank which is required as part of the washwater project. not included with the original submittal for this project because engineering had not been completed at that time. This facility would not increase the size, location, generating capacity or use of the existing Encina power
generating facility.
2. From time to time, SDG&E,may have an emergency situation requiring the cooperation of the City and approval to repair or replace damaged or destroyed equipment. We are concerned that the moratorium ordinance could be interpreted to preclude the issuance of such approvals or permits.
3. SDG&E understands that, should this ordinance be
adopted, it will not affect SDGtE's ability to operate and
maintain its power plant and other existing facilities on the property including: rearrangement and remodel of interior spaces; maintenance, replacement and repair of existing facilities; maintenance dredging of the lagoon; and
Also, we will be approaching the City for appropriate
It was
b 0 a
,. =
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilman Eric Larson
Councilman Mark Pettine
Councilman John Mamaux
January 23, 1990
Page 3
other similar activities. SDG&E will, of course, obtain all
permits required by law for this work.
4. Consideration has been given to changes in the Encina Power Plant entrance and guard shack. If a plan benefitting
the City and the Company is presented to and approved by the
City, and SDG&E obtains all permits and approvals as required by law, we assume the proposed moratorium would not
apply
For all of the above reasons, we ask the City Council
to clarify that the above items are excluded from coverage
of the moratorium ordinance. None of these items will
Itincrease the size, location, generating capacity or use of
the existing Encina Power generating faci1ity.I'
On page 2 of the proposed ordinance, lines 7 through
19, you list changes in SDG&E1s specific plan Ifwithout notice and hearings.I1 We would like to point out that for
all the items listed, SDG&E has obtained all approvals and
permits required by law.
to review the cumulative effect of such changes but we are
not comfortable with having any implication on the record that SDG&E has somehow failed to advise the City of changes or failed to secure permits, when such is not the case..
We understand that the City wishes
Thank you again for this opportunity to share our views
If you have any questions or would like additional
with you.
information regarding any of these issues, there will be
representatives of SDG&E, including myself, present at your
meeting this evening.
c Very truly yours,
f &J7JL<.- ,,Q ,,: ( " (- *&-- ' '
I/
I
Karen D. Hutchens
Affairs Director c .P - Regional Governmental
v ', . e e
- *
Mayor Claude A. Lewis Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilman Eric Larson Councilman Mark Pettine
Councilman John Mamaux
January 23, 1990
Page 4
cc: Raymond Patchett, City Manager Vincent Biondo, City Attorney
. e I)
e
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, January 23, 1990, to consider approving an urgency
ordinance adopting an emergency measure prohibiting the expansion of gas and
electric utility facilities located within the Public Utility zone pending studies
and changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department
at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Urgency Ordinance in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad
City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing.
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH: January 12, 1990 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
il, @ -* --
t Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (61 9) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the notice
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING the following dates, to-wit:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council ofthe city of Carls-
the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at6@JP.M., onTuesday,JanuaryZj, 1990, to consider approving an urgency ordi,nance adopting an emergency measure prohibiting the expansion of gas and electric Utility facilities located within the Public Utility zone pending studies and changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. If you have any questions regard- ing this matter, please call the Planning Department at 4381161. If YOU challenge the Urgency Ordinance in court, you may be li-
YOU Or Someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspond- ence delivered to the City of earls-
the public bearing Applicant: City of Carlsbad
CJ 6062: January 12,1990
bad will bold a public hearing at January 12 90 19.. ................................. ..
19.. ................................. ..
................................. 19.. ..
mited to raising only those issues ................................. 19.. ..
bad City Clerk’s Office at or priorto ................................. 19.. ..
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on Le 1 7 t h
day of -w;15 +j??~f)~ / I % I
Clerk of the Printer
.&Cl!&P&Jk!i
#202-2M-12/87
0 0
TRANSCRIPT FROM: January 23, 1990 City Council Meeting AB #10,464 - SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE ENCINA FACILITIES - CARLSBAD'S INITIAL RESPONSE.
Mayor Lewis: Going on to Item #5, it's a public hearing and at a public hearing we do not have to have any forms, you simply come up, state your name and your address and you have five minutes to give your presentation. Mr. City Manager.
City Manager Patchett: Thank you Mayor. This item is an agenda bill to address some issues raised by the possible expansion of San Diego Gas and Electric's Encina facility. The staff presentation will be presented by Research Manager Jim Hagaman, Principal Planner Dennis Turner, and Assistant City Attorney Ronald Ball.
Hagaman: In the way of background, at your December 12th, 1989 meeting, you heard a presentation by representatives of San Diego Gas and Electric on their proposal to add power generating capacity to one of five sites within their service area including the Carlsbad Encina Facility. San Diego Gas and Electric has subsequently filed a Notice of Intention, an NOI, with the California Energy Commission, which is the initial step in the process to add capacity to the service area. The California Energy Commission now has 30 days to determine if this Notice of Intention application is complete. At the Energy Commission's business meeting of February 14th in Sacramento, a decision as to completeness of application will be made. The City Council at the December meeting expressed a number of concerns about land use impacts in and around the Encina area, potential health and safety problems, and possible jeopardy to the general welfare of the community that could result from the proposed power plant. The agenda bill before the Council this evening is in response to these concerns expressed by the City Council in your December meeting. The first recommended action being presented to the Council this evening is Resolution 9-14, which is requesting the California Energy Commission to grant the City intervenor status in any deliberations concerning Carlsbad as a potential location of plant expansions. Upon adoption of that Resolution, staff will proceed to present your request to the California Energy Commission. The formal intervenor status at all of the Energy Commission meetings allows the City to question and essentially cross examine expert testimony given at the hearings on any of the aspects concerning the proposed power plant filed with the Energy Commission including the Carlsbad site. Both the City Council's December 1989 meeting and the staff have expressed serious concerns about potential land use and environmental impacts of the proposed power plant. The existing facilities are operating under a specific plan adopted in 1971 for the plant itself. A number of modifications and changes have occurred over the years without review of the cumulative impacts of these changes. In July of 89, San Diego Gas and Electric was informed that any future modifications or changes or amendments or additions to Encina operations would require a complete major amendment to the current specific plan. Staff is concerned about the cumulative impacts of all the previous facility development actions and needs to make a determination on actions the City would undertake to address these impacts. Considering the fact that San Diego Gas and Electric has filed a Notice of Intention with the California Energy Commission, staff feels it is imperative that the City immediately study the appropriatness of the General Plan Land Use Designation and implementing zoning for the site. These studies would enable the City to determine the nature and extent of any possible land use impacts
Good evening Mayor Lewis and members of the City Council.
e 0
expansion may cause. Without specific studies, we find it virtually impossible to determine whether future Encina expansion is in conflict with any other development proposal being considered by the City. Staff therefore is recommending that the City approve an urgency ordinance prohibiting any plant expansion until the contemplated studies are complete or the ordinance expires or is repea’led by the City Council. The adoption of Ordinance NS-108 would establish an emergency moratorium on the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina expansion activities pending studies or possible changes in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Zoning Ordinance. If the City Council concurs with the staff recommendation to adopt an emergency ordinance, we recommend that the matter be set for a public hearing on Tuesday, February 13, 1990, a regular City Council meeting. Staff recognizes that the Notice of Intention having been filed by San Diego Gas and Electric with the Energy Commission and understands the uniqueness and detail of a seven volume application that has been filed. However, staff is also concerned about the need to properly study the plant site and any effects it could have on surrounding land uses and proposed developments. Staff therefore anticipates the need for consultant assistance to complete the studies necessary to properly analyze the concerns and provide expertise to assist the City staff in representing the City at workshops to be held by the State Energy Commission as representatives. It is anticipated that the total contract cost could range between $150,000 and $300,000. Staff in this process would utilize the standard selection process to develop the best team for the least cost. Resolution 90-15 authorizes staff to initiate the RFP’s to select consultants to best prepare studies referred to previously and to assist the City
in its capacity as an intervenor within the hearing process. Finally, I would like to introduce the members of the team who will be representing the City. To my right is Dennis Turner, Principal Planner for the Planning Department and my left is Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, and myself Jim Hagaman. We are part of a larger management team that supports our efforts primarily composed of Ray Patchett, Mike Holzmiller, Gary Wayne, and John Cahill . As the need presents itself, this team could basically change in size and character. We are now available to answer any questions you may have on this agenda bill.
Mayor Lewis: Okay, any questions? Mr. Pettine.
Pettine: Well, I think one of the issues that came up when we heard this last
. time was who was going to be the final arbitrarer in making this decision, once all the studies were in. Were we in a position to actually have a final say so, or was it going to be the Public Utilities Commission or the California Energy Commission or who was it. I understand that this should probably be put on the record so the public understands that it is the PUC. Is that right Mr. Hagaman?
Mr. Hagaman: No it is not ...
Pettine: It‘s not correct?
Mr. Hagaman: It is the California Energy Commission is the final say.
Ron Ball: Yes, if I might elaborate a little bit on that point. The statutory scheme is one where the local government is given a great weight, that is this
CEC must take into account all the comments, including all the local laws, as well as state and regional plans. The Commission does have power to issue a site determination, that is to issue a permit, but must give deference and consideration to the local jurisdiction. However, the permit will be issued by
0 0
the California Energy Commission and that will be done by their Commission probabJy sitting in Sacramento,
Pettine: Is that based on a recommendation from the PUC?
Ball: Well, actually, there is two parts to that, the California Energy Commission is concerned with the siting and the Public Utilities Commission is concerned with the certificate of convenience, interest and necessity. Is that they’re different jurisdictions. And the San Diego Gas and Electric Company needs to have both.
Pettine: So they need dual approval?
Ball: They need dual approval plus permits from any federal agency in addition.
Pettine: All right now when you say they give credence to what we say, what do you mean exactly by that - that they listen to what we say and then take that into consideration when they balance and weigh all the factors?
Ball: Councilman Pettine there has really been no Notice of Intention filed for
10 years, that is since the creation of the California Energy Commission, so I can’t really say with any amount of authority how they will respond to that, what I can tell you though is the statutory scheme permits and encourages local input, and then that is folded into the conditions of approval when they are generated by the California Energy Commission.
Pettine: Okay, thank you Mr. Ball.
Mayor Lewis: Any other comments? All right this is a public hearing any one wishing to address the Council will you come forward please.
Karen Hutchins: Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Karen Hutchins. I am here tonight representing San Diego Gas and Electric. First of all, I wanted to state that we very much understand all of the concerns that have been expressed by staff and by and in the newspapers regarding the potential expansion of the Encina Facility. It is one of five sites that have been proposed for a combined-cycle facility and we very, very much encourage your participation into that regulatory process. As staff explained the Energy Commission is the overall umbrella, siting agency for the combined-cycle. And then we do go through a second step to receive a CPCN from the Public Utilities Commission. They very seriously take into consideration the input from local government, so I encourage your full participation in that process. It’s a lengthy one and as we go through it together anytime SDG&E can answer any questions or be available you know we certainly will be. Regarding the resolutions before us this evening, San Diego Gas & Electric also supports the review of the specific plan. As staff has said, we were essentially put on notice earlier in the year, or late last year, that if we came in again for any additional construction at the Encina Plant we would be subjected to a full review of the specific plan. We have no problem with that, but we would like to discuss this evening a couple of items that are projects that are underway at the Plant or those that we have in process or those that we are considering during 1990 and 1991 - those that would be involved during this moratorium period. Earlier in the afternoon I delivered to each of you a letter and on page two of that letter there are four items that we are requesting your consideration for
0 0
exemption from this moratorium. The first of which is a project that you approved last year and that is the replacement of the waste water the treatment ponds with waste water treatment tanks. We are almost complete with that project but we will be requiring a grading permit to actually remove the treatment ponds and we would hope that since we‘ve been through the entire approval process here at local government that you would exempt this project from the moratorium, Also, any emergency situation we certainly expect that the moratorium is not intended to stop any day in and day out operation or emergency situations anything that we must do at the plant, I don‘t believe that is your intention what so ever. We have had plans and very well may plan to do in the next two years, a changing of the entrance of the plant from the Carlsbad Boulevard to Cannon Road. We feel that is something that the City has been very interested in us doing for a long time and could improve the traffic flow on Carlsbad Boulevard. We would hope that you would give consideration to that if we were able to make a presentation to the Council and remedy all of the concerns there. I think that just about covers it. We have one minor concern, and I believe staff clarified it in the presentation this evening that San Diego Gas and Electric feels that over the years we certainly have come in and gone through all of the approval process as required by law on any changes that we have made to that Encina Facility and we certainly wouldn‘t want the implication to remain on the public record that we have done anything outside the approval process and if there are any concerns there I would like to discuss that this evening as well. Thank you very much, if you have any questions?
Mayor Lewis: Questions? Mr. Mamaux?
Mr. Mamaux: Karen, first of all I think that Encina is probably the only plant that is encased in concrete. Is that correct?
Ms. Hutchins: Well in San Diego Gas and Electric service territory, we only have two and yes Encina is one.
Mr. Mamaux: Yes, but I don’t know many in Southern California. And that is because the people in Carlsbad in 52’ established higher standards than anywhere else, so I think you have to recognize that we are going to continue to do that because that is a heritage we have. The issue of why you need the power hasn’t really been clear. You’ve got Sun Desert, you got these other places to go, why here?
Ms. Hutchins: Well as you are experiencing in Carlsbad there is throughout San Diego and Orange Counties tremendous growth in the area. We have not been building any generation facilities for the last ten years but instead going out to the energy market and purchasing power. As you know, we are experiencing a growth boom throughout Southern California and the Southwest and we have reached the period in time where that energy market out in the Southwest that we have been drawing from is drying up. And we are looking at the next twenty years in a resource plan saying in order to accommodate this growth and keep the lights on, we are going to have to build new generation to accommodate the growth in the area. That includes starting in about 1994 we are going to need about 100 mega watts a year. So that includes siting a power plant somewhere, Encina is one of five locations that we have submitted to the Energy Commission, it is only one
of five, the other ones include our existing facility down in South Bay, a site in Sycamore Canyon, and two out in Imperial Valley. What did I get, Carlsbad Encina, Sycamore Canyon and one out in Imperial Valley, and one at our Sun Desert
0 m
Site. the input of all of the local agencies, the best site will be selected.
Mr. Mamaux: Aren’t you in a law suit in Chula Vista in the South Bay? Ms. Hutchins: No, that law suit was settled.
Mr. Mamaux: It was settled. So that is still a viable site, although aren’t they in the process of doing a Master rezone or land use study for you?
Ms. Hutchins: They are in the process of doing a complete EIR on the land use down there. What it comes down to is nobody wants to site a power plant in their neighborhood, and we understand that.
Mr. Mamaux: We don‘t want the determination yet, we are just asking questions. The issue is that when the merger between SCE and SDG&E started, there was the threat there, the discussion that there was more power in San Diego and therefore SCE was going to come down here and buy the power thereby operating our plants here increasing the smog or the air pollutions here to mitigate some problems they may have in Los Angeles. Is it fair to ask you to address that question?
Ms. Hutchins: Yes, Council member, I am glad that you did ask that. I heard you ask that the last time we were here and I was hopeful that it had been clarified and for you in between.
Mr. Mamaux: Yeah, there are new people, a lot of people haven’t heard.
Ms. Hutchins: Let me explain. Southern California Edison has just the opposite. They have an abundance of resources, they have an excess capacity - generating capacity right now. San Diego is in the opposite position. We need resources. The marriage between the two is at this point in time a very good one, where we are facing a lot of growth in the area, in San Diego and Southern Orange County. Edi son has the generat ion faci 1 it ies. They have nine different energy resources. If the merger is approved, it will in fact delay the need to build this facility that is planned, that is in the regulatory approval process right now for three to four or maybe even five years. But SDG&E has to go along with some contingency planning not knowing if this merger is going to receive timely regulatory approval or be approved at all. We have to go through the regulatory process right now, because we have to insure that we can keep the lights on in this service territory. So the opposite is true Councilman, it’s just - they have an excess, we have the need and, no, our generation facilities here in San Diego County - Encina and South Bay are actually less efficient than those within the Southern California Edison system and if the merger is approved, would be run less frequently than they currently are.
Mr. Mamaux: I see and is it fair to say that we are being put in a position that if we approve this expansion or if we approve the merger and supported the merger then the expansion isn’t necessary so therefore which ....
Ms. Hutchins: It is only being delayed.
Mr. Mamaux: Yes, is this a ploy based on the merger ...
Ms. Hutchins: No, this plant is in the merged utilities resource plan. It is the filing that we have made with the Public Utilities Commission saying that we
Through the regulatory process with the input of local government, with
-. * 0 0
will need to build this facility just at a much later time and I would say three
to five years. So no it’s not a....
Mr. Mamaux: Well, okay.. . thank you.
Mayor Lewis: I just ... oh, Mr. Larson, go ahead.
Mr. Larson: Yeah, let me ask you a question about plant size on this. Proposed
plant size the same for all five sites you are considering, or however many sites you’re considering.
Ms. Hutchins: Yes.
Mr. Larson: And what is that size.
Ms. Hutchins: 460 Mega Watts.
Mr. Larson: So that figure was derived at not based on any of the five sites but merely on need.
Ms. Hutchins: Oh no, no. It‘s from the resource plan on need yes. Same
technology, it’s a demonstration facility, same everything applies to all of the
five sites.
Mr. Larson: And at this point, where are you at in the planning stages to determine or have you determined that that size site. .. will any of the sites
fall out due to the size constraints involved.
Ms. Hutchins: No, we have done the preliminary planning and other potential
sites have already fallen out that would not meet the criteria that we could
build that plant be it on size factors or any other number of factors. We
have.. . we started with a long 1 ist of probably 15 sites and narrowed it down to the top five.
Mr. Larson: And what kind of time frame is this plant intended to satisfy the needs until the next plant needs to be sited?
Ms. Hutchins: Well, starting about 1993-1994 we need about 100 mega watts a
year.. .
Mr. Larson: 100 mega watts of expansion?
Ms. Hutchins: Yes, this is about 460 mega watts so we will be out looking on the
power market you know.
Mr Larson: And your long range plan says for how many years does that happen?
Ms. Hutchins: A twenty year resource plan shows that we need 100 mega watts for the next several years.
Mr. Larson: For twenty years?
Ms. Hutchins: Yes.
-. * 0 W
v
Mr. Larson: So you need ZOOO?
Ms. Hutchins: Over the twenty years Mr. Larson: Starting in 1993, okay, thank you.
Mr. Patchett: Councilman Larson?
Mr. Larson: Yes.
Mr. Patchett: In response to your question on the size of the plants, we were advised by the Energy Commission that the SDG&E has informed the Energy Commission that they intend to file an amended application looking at two, 920 mega watt plants at the Sun Desert Plant and the other facility, so I don‘t ....
Mr. Larson: ..... I had heard that also, that’s why I asked the questions, but evidently that is ... there is some confusion evidently on that.
Mr. Patchett: It is certainly one of the points on the application that we want to have that clarified because I don’t think it’s complete.
Ms. Hutchins: Well, I, I am not aware of 1900 mega watts of energy or any application for 1900 mega watts of energy in the next several years.
Mary Wood: I am not sure of the size but the reason why we might have to build a bigger plant is because water rights.. . . .
Mayor Lewis: Why don’t you talk in the mic ma’am so we can all hear what you are saying.
Ms. Wood: My name is Mary Wood, I‘m an attorney with San Diego Gas & Electric, I’m not sure of exactly what size is being proposed, however the reason that there has been discussion about building larger plants on the Blythe Site is because of the nature of the water rights that we have out there. There are other entities, including some municipal utilities in other parts of the state that have the right to - have a right to buy into any plant that we build at Blythe, so if we would, if we build the plant at Blythe and if these other entities choose to exercise their options to buy into the plant, we would then have to build a larger plant. We are at the process where we are trying to get indications of interest from these cities so that we would know what size plant would have to be built. However, I have had no indication that building a larger plant out there would be a problem.
Mr. Lewis: The point of building a plant out in Blythe, Sun Desert facility, she mentioned repeatedly about the need for expansion, as Mr. Larson did, wouldn’t that be a proper place for expansion instead of here in Carlsbad? If you need a bigger facility, wouldn’t you build it where you can actually expand or oversize the plant instead of.. ..
Ms. Hutchins: Well that’s a point that we‘ll be looking at through the regulatory process. The regulators will be looking at our continuing need for power and the ability for us to add additional generation facilities at the Blythe site versus Encina or South Bay where we would not have that capability.. .
Mr. Lewis: But if you build the plant here in Carlsbad - expand the plant in
- well starting in 1993.
-. * 0
Carlsbad, then you would take it on yourselves to expand the one in Blythe,
wouldn't we then the rate payers be being zapped quite a bit to compensate for
that error if you found that you needed one much larger than ....
Ms. Hutchins: Well, again that's a process of the Energy Commission's siting
approval. We look at the economic factors, they look at the land use factors,
the air quality factors the environmental, everything, and one of the very major
criteria is that whatever decision is made is the least cost decision to the
Cal i fornia customers.
Mr. Lewis: Can we use what is called common sense in that ....
Ms. Hutchins:
Mr. Lewis: I hope so.
Mr. Larson: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make one final comment on that and what
I wanted to mention and the reason for my question was that the comment that we
keep hearing that it is only one of five sites and I think we need to be very careful about that from what we've heard tonight by the year 2013 you are going to have to site four of these. So we keep hearing it's only one of five sites, the reality is that it could ....
Ms. Hutchins: For this project ...
Mr. Larson: But, it is possible that it is for this project, but if you have
this continuing need there is a possibility that several more sites will be ....
There will be several sitings over the 20 year period.
Ms. Hutchins: It is possible that we will need to add additional generation
throughout the next 10 - 15 years and we will continue to have to look at the
best options to add those facilities.
Mr. Larson: Correct. I'm just a little concerned about the continuing comment
that you've only one chance out of five. ..
Ms. Hutchins: For this project.
Mr. Larson: Right, for this project.
Mr. Patchett : Mayor, Mayor?
Mayor Lewis: Yes.
Mr. Patchett:
are being held by the other utilities, how many mega watts would that be.
Ms. Hutchins: Gee, maybe Mary knows again.
Mr. Patchett: If they all came into the plant, how many mega watts would they be consuming.
Ms. Wood: I'm sorry, I just don't know those facts but we can get those for you.
There is some element of common sense in the process.
Perhaps they would be nice enough to tell us if the options that
-* 0 m
.A
Mr. Patchett: Was Southern Cal Edison one of the players in that?
Ms. Wood: I don’t believe so, I believe that it’s a group of city owned utilities, municipal utilities.
Mayor Lewis: Okay, thank you ma‘am. Is there anyone else wishing to address the Council - this is public hearing?
Mario Monroy: My name is Mario Monroy, I live at 3610 Carlsbad Boulevard. I am here tonight with two hats, first one is as the Chairman of the Beach Erosion Committee and you have some comments of us on your packet. I wanted to let you know that those comments have been developed - well we’ve been concerned about the use and the volume of water for the cool ing system of the power plant and the effects on the lagoon, and also on the beach. As you know, we have been charged to advise you on items of beach erosion, bluff erosion, and the effects on the lagoons. Now we have beach erosion, however that‘s not all done by the San Diego Gas and Electric intake of sand so now that they have submitted a Notice of Intent, the Beach Erosion Committee has not had a chance to look at the reports that have been submitted. I have personally have read them, but the rest of the members have not and it raises even more questions that we have included here. I would just like to for the moment here to put in perspective the size of the San Diego Gas and Electric effect on the lagoon - on the beach. Currently, San Diego Gas and Electric is capable of taking in, in round numbers, about 860 million gallons per day. Now that volume of water, if you take a mile, square mile, and it‘s about four feet deep - that‘s about to here, that is how much water they’re taking per day when they’re running all the units at the rated capacity and they currently have five. The expansion will I think, plans to use about 227 million gallons per day. That will add another foot to the square mile volume of water and it brings it right up to here. That‘s a lot of water. Now, in regard to the volume of sand that comes into the lagoon - the lagoon is dredged about every other year, and since 1972 the average volume of sand that is dredged every two years is about 300,000 cubic yards. That’s enough sand taken out - while its going by, and held in the lagoon for two years. To put one mile, excuse me two miles, 200 feet wide, and about 4 feet thick of sand that can be put on the beaches - that‘s a lot of sand. The impact of that sand is that it is being held and it’s not able to migrate north and south as it should. Now to give it another perspective about the volume of sand that goes into the lagoon, Oceanside has been getting an awful lot of publicity since 1942 and they dredge about 293,000 cubic yards per year. That compares to our 150,000. That’s 51 percent as much effect as Oceanside has on the literal cell. That‘s a lot of sand. We are concerned about the lagoon and that when the water comes in it certainly provides the volumes that San Diego Gas and Electric needs, but the .flushing of the center lagoon and the inner lagoon are being affected. The temperature of the water in the inner lagoon is a lot warmer than it is in the outer lagoons. Now, if we come in and increase it by another 227 million gallons per day there could be some additional effects that could affect the recreational capabilities of the lagoon. It certainly could affect the flushing of the lagoon, and it could raise the temperature of the lagoon even further. Now we been trying to raise - ask questions and getting data is very difficult. So as Chairman of the Beach Erosion Committee we certainly encourage you to endorse the three resolutions presented to you today. I think that time is of the essence. The process of approval is going to move pretty fast and getting data is not that fast.
But we can get that information for you.
* 111 a
Now I’d like to switch to some comments as a resident of the City of Carlsbad, and having read the Notice of Intent. And very quickly here, you know the current plant and the expansion and 1/11 say that probably the new expansion they’re proposing is a lot more efficient than the one they have going on today, since some of those engines are about 30 - 35 years old. But I would say that if you make a quick calculation, that the expansion in the existing power plant is equivalent when running with natural gas, and using the 1990 air pollution standards for the automobiles, it’s equal to about 62,000 cars. Take that in comparison to what we have on the freeway - we have 136,000 according to information I got from Bob Johnson about it. If you take a measurement of the number of cars that go north and south at Tamarack and 1-5, that’s 136,000, so that’s a lot of cars - a lot of pollution. I think we need to look at the entire
aspects of the high concentration of pollutants in a very small area. Now, this is also important because you are currently considering a zoning change for some
property that is owned by San Diego Gas and Electric just east of 1-5, where these pollutants will be traveling the bulk of the time. Now I’m not going to tell you what the pollutants are if we go to low sulfer fuel, cause you probably won‘t believe me. The Notice of Intent also does not have, they make a point that they are not going to add new transmission lines, however they are going to be producing a lot more power at various times and that does directly affect the electric and magnetic fields set up by the transmission lines - they are directly proportional. Now, that property - those transmission lines are also right on top of the 1-5 property - east of 1-5 that is being considered. Articles have been written and the San Diego Union not too long ago had a very good article on the affects of electric magnetic fields and there is a great deal of concern about cancer cause, like leukemia and others; also child defects or effects during pregnancy and research is being carried out in this area, so I do endorse that you should get all the possible technical know how you can get as soon as possible if you really - we’re going to have an effect on determining what’s going to happen. I‘d also like to mention that because of the lagoon and the ocean and the streams that come into the lagoon, I think the City of Carlsbad has a lot more legal leverage than you think. Under the Public Trust doctrine, those
in the biological and recreation values of those lagoons and the ocean are highly protected. I think there is a better way to go than to build a new power plant. As a resident. I think we are doing our civic duty and our state duty by having what we have but I think another consideration that should be taken to I think as an individual I think is that is reviewing the existing power plant that is very old and allowing San Diego Gas and Electric to remodel that power plant and I think - but not permitting any new additions - new additions or new facilities should be added elsewhere.
Mayor Lewis: Mr. Monroy, I let you go over 10 minutes, one as a citizen, the other as a chairperson, if you could conclude please.
Mr. Monroy: I have concluded. Thank you.
Mr. Mamaux: Can I ask ....
Mayor Lewis: Mr. Mamaux?
Mr. Mamaux: Mr. Monroy, the temperature of the water as it enters the ocean I am always told is 83 degrees.
Mr. Monroy: The regulation required is that the water be no more than about 20
Is that about what your study shows?
-. * 0 0
1
degrees higher than the water - ocean, because they discharge ....
Mr. Mamaux:
Mr. Monroy: Possibly, when there are variations ...
Mr. Mamaux: Wouldn’t it be possible to harness that and create - just for
example a warm water swimming area utilizing that constant flow of warm water SO you would have a 24 hour warm bath or warm swimming area.
Mr. Monroy: I think that the surfing people use that today.
Mr. Mamaux: They can’t own the whole ocean. There are other people that use the ocean, I don’t know that they surf in 80 degree water.
Mr. Monroy: I haven‘t and the Beach Erosion Committee and we have not considered that point and the temperature that I was talking about really is the lagoon.
Mr. Mamaux: In the upper lagoon, yeah, I understand. The other question I had about the power lines. If they do create that electric magnetic problem would that impede the possibility of utilizing them as part of a trail system?
Mr. Monroy: The literature says yes. The indication is that most planners today would recommend at least one thousand feet anything away from those and it’s very questionable whether those transmission lines could be used or should be used as open space.
Mr. Mamaux: For safety purposes?
Mr. Monroy: Right.
Mr. Mamaux: All right, thank you.
Mayor Lewis: Just one other question Mr. Monroy, in reference to the amount of
intake that would occur of water if this new facility is added, you mentioned about the inner lagoon and also the skiing lagoon - the outer lagoon. The siltation - did you have any figures as to increase in the siltation from the lagoon up in those two areas at all?
Mr. Monroy: The only place that it could happen materially, significantly I think, would be in the inner lagoon where evaporation and not flushing could generate a higher salinity.
Mayor Lewis: Okay. Thank you, any other comments? Thank you. Anybody else - this is a public hearing.
Mayor Lewis: All right then I’ll close the public hearing and Council comments we have heard from San Diego Gas and Electric reps, our own staff report and of course Mr. Monroe representing himself and also the Chairperson of the Beach Erosion Committee. We have before us three resolutions - oh excuse me - one resolution and one ordinance, which is an emergency ordinance, and then also resolution of, well two resolutions. Now Mr. Biondo, the emergency ordinance is only - excuse me Mr. Ball. You guys look alike so much I get you mixed up. Okay, can we take these all together and under one motion?
.
So that would be between 78 and 83 degrees then?
- * 0 0
d
Mr. Ball: No the emergency ordinance should be adopted by 4/5 vote of the Council and should be done separately.
Mr. Mamaux: Mayor, I have a question before we get into this. I have read the four conditions that SDG&E has asked for and I don‘t find them offensive or difficult and I wonder what the staff‘s position is on them so that we can deal with them. I don‘t think we want to put them out of business.
Mayor Lewis: I just wanted find out and make sure we were voting right and then I was going to ask staff about the conditions, do you have any concerns about these conditions - Mr. City Manager?
Mr. Patchett: Mayor, I did discuss this with Ms. Hutchins this morning. She gave us the letter today. What I would recommend is that in view of the fact that there will be a hearing on this ordinance in 45 days that you just refer it to staff to review and we will make some recommendations at the time of the hearing if we feel it’s necessary.
Mayor Lewis: Okay ...
Mr. Mamaux: You’re saying if the ordinance covers it, they don’t need it you‘ll let us know one way or another.
Mr. Patchett: Right, we’ll report back to the Council regardless but if we need to make some amendments in the ordinance we’ll go ahead and do that for Council cons i derat i on.
Mayor Lewis: Okay, Mr. Pettine, do you have a question?
Mr. Pettine: To the City Manager - the $150,000 - $300,000 expense that the City is going to have to go through, is that a general fund expenditure?
Mr. Patchett: The estimated cost to deal with this is a general fund expenditure and I do want to underscore it‘s estimated. It could be higher than that depending on how much time is spent.
Mr. Pettine: Educate me, is there a reason why SDG&E shouldn’t assume that bill? When a developer comes into the City and they want to build a project or expand a project, we ask them to pay for the environmental studies. Is there a reason that‘s not done here?
Mr. Ball : Do you want me to answer that? Actually part of the money is expended in the CEC proceedings, and in that case we are representing ourselves and SDG&E is representing itself and it’s common in those kinds of hearings and undertakings that each party bears its own costs, fees, and expenses. If they were applying to us for permit, of course your comment would be well taken, and we would endeavor to impose those costs on the person seeking a permit. In this case they are not seeking a permit from us.
Mayor Lewis: Mr. Mamaux? Oh, excuse me. Mr. Pettine, are you finished?
Mr. Pettine: Well it just points out the kind of precarious position the City is in. We’ve got an outside individual - SDG&E - coming in wanting to expand their plant here and the taxpayers in Carlsbad are going to have to foot the bill
- w c m ..
up to maybe over a quarter of a million dollars just to investigate this to determine if it‘s environmentally feasible and then once all the arguments are in, SDG&E of course may take the opposite position the City of Carlsbad when the final decision is made. It‘s not an enviable position.
Mayor Lewis: I know, but I think that ...
Mr. Pettine: I think we have to do it.
Mayor Lewis: Right, we have to protect ourselves and we have to make sure that
we get the best advice we can to present it to these different commissions that are going to be hearing it.
Mr. Pettine: I concur, absolutely, but you know when we hear this good neighbor language coming down from the people that want to expand the plant, it would be nice if they said, we want to be real neighborly to the tune of $300,000 to help you with your environmental studies.
Mayor Lewis:
Mr. Mamaux: No, I just wanted to mention that I think we‘re in all most an adversarial position and I don’t think it works for one side to pay for. I think this is the price we have to pay to protect the citizens of Carlsbad and in this process with the California Energy Commission, and if it were the PUC, it would
be the same thing. I think that’s just the nature of the way things are structured.
Mr. Ball: Mr. Mayor, if I might make a comment too?
Mayor Lewis: Yes.
Mr. Ball: There will be at times certain information that is requested from San Diego Gas and Electric through the intervenor process and will be presented before the Commission in what they call a nonadjudicatory findings and SDG&E will probably pay for that and be ordered to pay for those studies and absorb the costs so we will not be absorbing all the costs. The other comment that I wanted to make is just a follow-up comment to Mr. Patchett’s comment. We will be returning - the staff has recommended to - that this ordinance will return for the final hearing on February 13th so at that time we would be presenting our recommendations, if any, as to what changes need to be made for exemptions.
Mr. Mamaux: Would it be possible Mr. Ball, to - as part of our process at the CEC, ask them to cause SDG&E to reimburse us. Would that be a cause of action we could try?
Mr. Ball: There are a number of requests we could make. I think we will be able to determine better the answer to that question as we move along through the proceedings and we’ll discuss that with staff.
Mr. Mamaux: Thank you.
Mayor Lewis: Any other comments? Okay, fine, we have a resolution and an emergency ordinance and another resolution.
Mr. Mamaux, did you have any other comments?
We could make the request.
Can we have a motion please?
4
-" f a m
I*
Mr. Mamaux: Mayor, I'd vote for resolution 90-14 and 90-15.
Mr. Pettine: Second.
Mayor Lewis: Will you vote please. Note that all 4 Council persons have supported resolution number 90-14 requesting the California Energy Commission grant the City intervenor status in the deliberations concerning Carlsbad as a potential location for the future siting expansion also Resolution 90-15 authorizing staff to initiate the request for proposals for process in order to select consultants. That does pass. The ordinance itself?
Mr. Ball: Ordinance Number NS-108 an urgency ordinance of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California adopting an emergency measure prohibiting the expansion of gas and electric utility facilities located within the public utilities zone pending studies and changes in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Mamaux: I would move the Ordinance - Introduction of Ordinance Number NS-108 with the caveat that the staff will come back with a report on the conditions as proposed.
Mr. Pettine: Second.
Mayor Lewis: Will you vote please? Note that all four Council persons have supported Ordinance Number NS-108 establishing emergency moratorium on SDG&E and Encina expansion pending studies and possible changes in General Plan.
/