HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-22; City Council; 20085; City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency's Response to California Energy Commission's Final Staff Assessments of the Carlsbad Energy Center ProjectCITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL AND
^^ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA BILL
ABff 20.085
MTG. 12-22-09
DEPT. CM
u/ry or uar/s/oao ana uar/soao
Redevelopment Agency's Response to
California Energy Commission's Final
Staff Assessment on the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project
UtK 1 . 1-ltAU >W^7
CITYATTY. <^fS£.
CITY MGR. ( „
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. City Council to Adopt Resolution Nb. 2009-323 , determining that the proposed
Carlsbad Energy Center Project is inconsistent with applicable local and related land use
laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards and poses serious impacts to the health,
safety, welfare and quality of life to the community at large, and stating the City of
Carlsbad's continued opposition to said project.
2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission to adopt Resolution No. 482 accepting the
City Council's determination that the proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project is
inconsistent with applicable local and related land use laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards, and determining that said project does not comply with the South Carlsbad
Coastal Redevelopment Plan and should not be approved by the California Energy
Commission.
Background
On September 14, 2007, Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC, (the Applicant) submitted an
Application for Certification (AFC) to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for the proposed
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP). Carlsbad Energy Center LLC is an indirect wholly-
owned subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG), which owns the existing Encina Power Station.
The proposed power plant project is to be located on the 32-acre parcel of land, northeast of
the existing Encina Power Station, east of the rail lines and west of Interstate 5.
CEC Process
As established by the Warren Alquist Act, (PRC §§ 25000 et. seq.) the CEC has exclusive
jurisdiction to license power plants of 50 MW or greater in the State of California. The CEC
process is quasi-judicial in nature and the CEC review and licensing process is a regulatory
program certified by the Secretary of the Resources Agency which provides for the CEC's
process may submitted in lieu of an EIR (PRC § 21080.5(9)). Its' program; however, must
consider all relevant environmental impacts. The CEC licensing process can best be described
in the following stages:
• Project application
• Staff Fact finding and analysis
• Commission Preliminary project review and decision
• Commission Final project review and decision, and
• Appeal
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Joe Garuba 760-434-2820 jqaru@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERK'S USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
9Ln
nnn
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER -SEE MINUTES
Dnnn
The CEC licensing process is intended to take approximately 12 months. However, based on
the complexity of this project, the CECP has progressed at an appreciably slower pace. The
CEC staff has concluded their fact finding and analysis stage (as contained in the Final Staff
Assessment, or FSA) and are preparing for the Preliminary Review phase of the project which
is expected to begin February 2010. This Preliminary Review phase was originally anticipated
to occur in June 2008.
City Involvement and Prior City Actions
At the direction of City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, City and
Redevelopment Agency staff have been active in the review and analysis of the proposed
CECP. Since October, 2007, the City and Agency have submitted a number of documents
(more than 30) to the CEC regarding the proposed CECP.
At the request of the California Energy Commission (CEC), on May 1, 2008, city staff, on behalf
of the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, provided an overview and
analysis of the proposed project and its conformance to applicable city land use laws,
ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS). The purpose of that analysis was to help
educate the CEC staff on the numerous land use documents and LORS that pertain to the
proposed CECP. The City also wanted to inform the CEC as to how it would view the
conformance of the proposed CECP to those LORS. As highlighted on Page 2 of that letter
(see Exhibit 3), City staff clearly summarized for the CEC its position:
"The proposed CECP is not consistent with the City's desired vision for the property. Also, as
noted below, although NRG has not submitted all information necessary to determine
compliance requirements, staff has been able to determine that the CECP is not consistent
with many of the policies and/or land use requirements set forth in the various planning
documents and/or City Council policies that apply to said property."
On May 13, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution #2008-138, declaring its intention to
oppose the proposed CECP, supporting the reuse of the Encina Power Station to provide
greater public benefit, and directing city staff to work with NRG and SDG&E to help identify
alternate solutions to regional energy demands.
In July, 2008, the CECP submitted extensive project alterations to the proposed CECP. These
alterations included:
• Increased smoke stack height to 139 feet
• Development of desalination plant for power plant water
• Construction of a new SDG&E Switchyard
Following the July 2008 submittal to the CEC, on August 12, 2008, the City Council reviewed
the proposed project changes. As a result of its review, Council restated its opposition to the
proposed CECP in Council Resolution # 2008-235. In addition, the resolution reaffirmed the
City Council's longstanding requirement for a comprehensive plan to guide redevelopment of
the Encina Power Station and expressed that any non-coastal dependent industrial land use
(including power generation) is not in the community's best interest and should be excluded.
Council's determination as expressed by Resolution 2008-235 was submitted to the CEC on
August 22, 2008. The letter accompanying that submittal stated in part that "(the City of
Carlsbad) reiterates its finding(s) that the proposed project is not consistent with several of the
applicable land use ordinances and long-standing policies of the City, and again states that the
proposed project is inconsistent with the desired development for the subject property."
In December 2008, the CEC released its Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) of the proposed
power plant. In that document, CEC staff concluded that the proposed CECP, if approved,
would comply with all land use LORS. The City disagreed with CEC staff's interpretation and
expressed its belief that under the Warren-Alquist Act, the CEC staff does not have the
authority to re-interpret City Council's interpretation of consistency/inconsistency with land use
LORS.
In response to the PSA, the City of Carlsbad petitioned the CEC for Intervenor status for both
the City and the Redevelopment Agency. This status was granted to the City on January 12,
2008 and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency September 16, 2009. The purpose of the
request by both the City and Redevelopment Agency was to preserve its ability to fully engage
in the CEC licensing process.
After a comprehensive review of the PSA, City staff determined that the proposed CEiCP would
constitute a non-conforming land use, as well create significant and negative visual, economic,
safety, air quality and biological impacts. These concerns were transmitted as part of the City's
comments on the PSA to the CEC on January 30, 2009. As part of the comments provided by
the City on said PSA, it was also noted that the project was not consistent with, and does not
comply with, the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan for the same reasons set forth
by the City and also because the project does not provide an extraordinary public purpose as
required by the redevelopment plan.
In the intervening period since the PSA comments were submitted, the City has continued to
work with the CEC staff to address significant outstanding project issues. The City also has
remained steadfast in its opposition to the CECP; in early 2009, it passed a joint resolution
(#2009-020) with the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, finding the proposed CECP
inconsistent with applicable LORS and the Redevelopment Plan. Most recently, in October, the
City Council adopted a moratorium (Ordinance CS-067) on power plants within the Coastal
Zone and a resolution (#2009-263) to re-evaluate allowable land uses at the Encina Power
Station, the location of the proposed CECP. Staff has submitted these documents to the CEC.
CEC Final Staff Assessment
In November 2009, the CEC staff issued its FSA for the proposed CECP. The FSA represents
CEC staff's analysis of the project and includes project conditions for the CEC Commissioners
to consider as part of project approval. The FSA will serve as the CEC's staff testimony
through the remainder of the licensing process.
City Analysis
As anticipated, the CEC staff recommended project approval in the FSA. Its approval was
based on a series of project conditions, some of which may prove difficult to implement. The
FSA, while substantial in size, is far from comprehensive, and staff believes it either omits or
mischaracterizes several issues which continue to pose serious concerns to the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. An example of the FSA's shortcomings is that it fails to identify, let
alone analyze, the fact that the EPS location was previously analyzed in 1990 for a second
power plant and that both the Coastal Commission and the CEC staff came to the conclusion
that the site was not appropriate for such use.
Another concern is that the FSA fails to properly address and account for cumulative projects in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed CECP. These projects include the:
• I-5 widening project
• LOSSAN rail corridor double tracking
• Carlsbad/Vista Sewer Interceptor
• Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant
• Coastal Rail Trail
Staff believes that these projects are all foreseeable and as in the case of the rail corridor and
desalination plant, construction is either underway or expected to begin by 2010.
Redevelopment Agency Analysis
Within the FSA, the CEC staff has not given serious consideration to the concerns expressed
by the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency regarding the proposed CECP's compliance with the
South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA) Plan. Not only does the proposed
CECP not comply with the LORS of the City, which also apply to projects in the SCCRA, it does
not comply with the standards set forth within the SCCRA Plan for uses of this type.
In order to facilitate and safeguard the work of redevelopment pursuant to the South Carlsbad
Coastal Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Law, it is important that the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission ensure that the Plan contains various covenants, conditions, and
restrictions which the Commission prescribes in order to implement the goals and objectives of
the Plan. With this goal in mind, the Commission approved, an amendment to the South
Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan in 2005 that requires, among other things, approval of
findings of extraordinary public purpose for development of certain industrial and utility type of
land uses (such as desalination plants, wastewater treatment plants and energy generation
plants).
To date, NRG has not demonstrated extraordinary public purpose in a manner acceptable to
the Redevelopment Agency for the proposed CECP to be subsequently considered an
acceptable land use in the SCCRA and for the Agency to subsequently make the subject
findings for approval of said project. The Agency has determined that it is unable to make these
required extraordinary public purpose findings for the following reasons:
• There are no assurances that the electricity generated would be used
specifically for Carlsbad residents and/or businesses/services;
• There are no guarantees that the generation of this power would eliminate
risk of "black outs" or require other energy conservation measures in
Carlsbad;
• There are no measures that would prevent substantial electrical rate
increases within the City;
• There are no adequate assurances that the existing power plant would be
decommissioned and demolished at a date certain, which is a key goal for
the redevelopment plan;
• There remains a general concern that the proposed land use (new power
plant) would be an incompatible land use and potentially preclude other
more desirable development such as visitor-serving commercial uses and
public amenities and/or services for local resident enjoyment; and
• No other extraordinary public benefit amenities have been offered by the
applicant (NRG) or included within the proposed CECP application, such as
land dedications for public use and enhanced coastal access opportunities
and it does not even argue that it will eliminate blight or blighting influence.
ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS
Based on City and Agency Staff review and analysis of the FSA, the following concerns are
noted:
Land Use. The proposed CECP does not conform to applicable local and related land use
regulations and would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided. In
addition, the CECP does not comply with the SCCRA Plan in that it has not satisfactorily
demonstrated that it provides an extraordinary public purpose from a land use perspective and
it does not have a Housing and Redevelopment Commission approval of a precise
development plan and redevelopment permit for said project.
Coastal Act. The development of a new power plant is not consistent with sound coastal
development practices and the proposed CECP specifically is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
This conclusion is consistent with the determination made by the Coastal Commission on a
previous power plant proposal made at essentially the same site in 1990.
Fire Safety. The Carlsbad Fire Department has determined that the proposed CECP provides
constrained access and as such represents a hazardous location which limits the Fire
Department's ability to deliver service to it.
Visual Impacts. The proposed CECP will result in significant adverse visual impacts.
Furthermore, of great alarm to staff, the CEC failed to require any comprehensive visual
depiction of the proposed CECP which incorporates a widened I-5 freeway and LOSSAN rail
corridor.
In addition to the above-mentioned objections, staff believes the proposed CECP is inadequate
in several other areas, including water, air quality, noise, and alternate locations. Furthermore,
staff finds the FSA's analysis is incomplete, which makes it difficult to ascertain all potential
impacts.
In an effort to provide clarity for the CEC on the City and Agency's interpretation of the
proposed CECP as analyzed in the FSA, staff requests that the City Council and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission adopt the attached resolutions. These resolutions will be provided
to the CEC as part of the City's and Redevelopment Agency's participation in the Evidentiary
Hearings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact from the CECP is uncertain at this time. If constructed the CECP will result in
increased revenue to the City in the form of property tax and franchise fees from natural gas
usage in the range of $2 -$5 million annually. However, this revenue would be realized if the
project were to be located at an alternate site within the City. Staff has conducted a preliminary
analysis on the potential negative fiscal impact (in the form of diminished future revenues) to
the City by precluding or inhibiting the redevelopment potential of the entire EPS site. The
initial analysis identifies that the lost opportunity is substantial and would result in diminished
revenue for the City under any redevelopment scenario. Impacts from the CECP on the
broader tourism industry in the City have not yet been analyzed. The City will continue to
review the fiscal impact from the project as more information becomes available through the
licensing process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The CEC, not the City of Carlsbad, serves as lead agency under its certified regulatory
program which is commonly known as the functional equivalent of CEQA for the proposed
CECP and performs the environmental review as part of its exclusive jurisdiction to license the
proposal. No Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required; however, the CEC certification
process is subject to certification by the Secretary of the Resources as the functional
equivalent of CEQA; therefore, the CEC must analyze all potential environmental impacts
resulting from the project. The PSA and FSA produced by CEC staff have so far provided the
project environmental analysis.
As noted herein, city staff believes the proposed CECP, if approved by the CEC, would cause
significant land use, fire safety, and visual impacts and potentially other impacts as well.
Furthermore, because the FSA's analysis is incomplete, it is difficult to reach conclusion on all
potential environmental impacts.
Adoption of the attached resolutions, as well as city staff's submittal of additional evidence of
project shortcomings, will serve to communicate the City's and the Redevelopment Agency's
concerns.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2009-323
2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission resolution No. 482
3. Correspondence to California Energy Commission, dated May 1, 2008, summarizing the
City and Redevelopment Agency's review of, and comments on, the proposed CECP and
its compliance with LORS.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-323
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD OPPOSING THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD
3 ENERGY CENTER PROJECT, AND APPROVING THE
4 CITY COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION THAT THE
PROPOSED CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER PROJECT IS
5 INCONSISTENT WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL AND
RELATED LAND USE LAWS, ORDINANCES,
6 REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS AND POSES
SERIOUS IMPACTS TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
7 QUALITY OF LIFE TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
8
9 WHEREAS, in September 2007 NRG Energy, Inc. submitted an Application for
10 Certification (AFC) for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) to the California
11 Energy Commission (CEC); and
12 WHEREAS, the CEC has jurisdiction in approving new power plants over 49
13 mega watts; and
14 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes the need to develop energy
resources that meet the growing demands of our region; and
16
WHEREAS, as home to the existing Encina Power Station (EPS) since the 1950s
17
and the numerous other regional facilities, Carlsbad understands a community's
18
responsibility in hosting regional resources and the impacts associated with such; and
20 WHEREAS, due to recent advances in technology, a state-of-the-art power plant
21 is not a coastal dependent land use; and
22 WHEREAS, any proposed non-coastal dependent industrial land use (including
23 energy generation) should be located away from the Encina Power Station site to avoid
impacting significant coastal resources; and
25 WHEREAS, the proposed CECP would constitute a non-coastal dependent
26
industrial land use at the EPS site for an estimated additional 40 years; and
27
1 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has required for over twenty-five years that a
2 comprehensive land use plan be conducted for Specific Plan 144 (which includes the
-3
Encina Power Station site) to clearly identify acceptable future land uses and guide site
4 redevelopment; and
5
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the AFC and found it to be
6
inconsistent and detrimental to the best interests of the community; and
7
WHEREAS, the proposed CECP contains severe and possibly unavoidable8
9 environmental impacts; and
10 WHEREAS, in November 2009 the CEC released the CECP Final Staff
11 Assessment (FSA); and
12 WHEREAS, the City reviewed the FSA and other relevant project-related
13 materials; and
14 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has determined that the CECP is inconsistent
with local land use laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS); and
16
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has determined the proposed CECP creates
17
significant negative impacts to the community's health, safety, and welfare, due to, in
18
part, land use, public safety, visual, and air quality concerns and other potentially
2Q significant environmental impacts; and
21 WHEREAS, The California Energy Commission should recognize City Council's
22 authority in determining compliance with, or consistency with, applicable local and
23 related land use laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards and its objections to the
CECP due to, in part, the negative land use, public safety, air quality, and visual impacts
25 it will create.
26
27
28
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
2 Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
4
2. That the City Council has reviewed the record of information available to the
5
California Energy Commission, and based on that review finds that the
6
proposed CECP does not comply with applicable land use and related
8 regulations of the City of Carlsbad. The City Council also finds that the
9 proposed CECP will create significant negative air quality, land use, public
10 safety and visual impacts, and will have other potentially significant
11 environmental impacts.
12 3. That, if constructed, the CECP will negatively affect the community's quality of
13 life.
14
4. That the City Council is of the opinion that the California Energy Commission
should recognize and accept the City's expertise in its determination that the16
YJ CECP does not comply with applicable local and related land use regulations
18 and should give serious consideration to the Council's position in its
19 deliberations on said CECP.
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23
///
24
///
25
///26
27 '"
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council and Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission held on
the 22- day of December. 2009, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, and Blackburn.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commission Member Packard.
CLAUDE A LEWIS, Chairman
ATTEST:
LISA HILDABRAND, Secretary
(SEAL)
ESTABLISHED \
\°o^
-„
1 RESOLUTION NO. 482
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD OPPOSING THE
3 PROPOSED CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER PROJECT, ACCEPTING
4 THE CITY COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED
CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
5 APPLICABLE LOCAL AND RELATED LAND USE LAWS, ORDINANCES,
REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS, AND APPROVING THE
6 COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT SAID PROJECT DOES NOT
COMPLY WITH THE SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT
7 PLAN AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION.8
9 WHEREAS, in September 2007 NRG Energy, Inc. submitted an Application for
10 Certification (AFC) for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) to the California
11
Energy Commission (CEC); and
12
WHEREAS, the CEC has jurisdiction in approving new power plants over 49
megawatts; and
WHEREAS, both the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
16 recognize the need to develop energy resources that meet the growing demands of our
17 region; and
18 WHEREAS, as home to the existing Encina Power Station (EPS) since the 1950s
19 and the numerous other regional facilities, Carlsbad understands a community's
20 responsibility in hosting regional resources and the impacts associated with such; and
21
WHEREAS, due to recent advances in technology, a state-of-the-art power plant
22
is not a coastal dependent land use; and
23
WHEREAS, any proposed non-coastal dependent industrial land use (including
energy generation) should be located away from the Encina Power Station site to avoid
26 impacting significant coastal resources; and
27
28
1 WHEREAS, the proposed CECP would constitute a non-coastal dependent
2 industrial land use at the EPS site for an estimated additional 40 years; and
3 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has required for over twenty-five years that a
4
comprehensive land use plan be conducted for Specific Plan 144 (which includes the
5
Encina Power Station site) to clearly identify acceptable future land uses and guide site
6
redevelopment; and
7
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency have
o
9 reviewed the AFC and found it to be inconsistent and detrimental to the best interests of
10 the community, including the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area; and
11 WHEREAS, the proposed CECP contains severe and possibly unavoidable
12 environmental impacts; and
13 WHEREAS, in November 2009 the CEC released the CECP Final Staff
14 Assessment (FSA); and
WHEREAS, the City and Redevelopment Agency reviewed the FSA and other
16
relevant project-related materials; and
17
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency have
18
concurrently determined that the CECP is inconsistent with local land use laws,
2Q ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS); and
21 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency have
22 concurrently determined the proposed CECP creates significant negative impacts to the
23 community's health, safety, and welfare, due to, in part, land use, public safety, visual,
and air quality concerns; and
25
WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission should recognize the Carlsbad
26
City Council's authority in determining compliance with, or consistency with, applicable
27
28
1 local and related land use laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards and its
2 objections to the CECP due to the negative public safety and visual impacts it will
3 create, which also applies to the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area that is
4
under the jurisdiction of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and
5 WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission should recognize the Carlsbad
6
Housing and Redevelopment Commission's legislative authority, on behalf of the
7
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, to establish a process and framework for8
9 implementation of redevelopment actions to alleviate and prevent the spread of blight
10 and deterioration in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA), which
11 includes the proposed CECP site and adjacent properties; and
12 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is authorized, by the
13 SCCRA Plan to use the powers set forth in the Plan, and the powers invested in the
14 Commission by Redevelopment Law and any other State Law; and
WHEREAS while the SCCRA Plan indicates support for the development of a
16
smaller replacement power plant within the SCCRA Plan, this support was based on
17
various assumptions that are no longer applicable, and conditions which were not and
18
have not been satisfied with the proposed CECP project; and
2Q WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, as the legislative
21 body for the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, has determined that the CECP proposal
22 is not in compliance with the SCGRA Plan and, therefore, does not approve or support
23 the CECP proposal.
24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
25 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
26
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
27
28
1 2. That the City Council has reviewed the record of information available to the
2 California Energy Commission, and based on that review finds that the
3
proposed CECP does not comply with applicable land use and related
4
regulations of the City of Carlsbad.
5
3. That the City Council also finds that the proposed CECP will create significant
6
negative public safety and visual impacts, and will have other negative
8 environmental impacts.
9 4. That, if constructed, the CECP will negatively affect the community's quality of
10 life, including the areas located within the South Carlsbad Coastal
11 Redevelopment Area.
12 5. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby accepts the City
13
Council's determination that the proposed CECP is inconsistent with
14
applicable local and related land use laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards, which are also applicable to all projects within the South Carlsbad16
17 Coastal Redevelopment Area.
18 6. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is of the opinion that the
19 California Energy Commission should recognize and accept the City's
20 expertise in its determination that the CECP does not comply with applicable
21 local and related land use regulations and should give serious consideration
22
and due deference to both the Council and the Commission's position in its
23
deliberations on said CECP.
24
7. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby determines that
26 the proposed CECP does not comply with the South Carlsbad Coastal
27
28
1 Redevelopment Plan from a land use compliance perspective, as determined
2 by the City of Carlsbad, and also does not provide for an extraordinary public
purpose with related findings for such as required by the Plan.
4
8. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission opposes said project and
5
finds that the CECP, as proposed, should not be approved by the California
6
Energy Commission for the above stated reasons and per the noted findings.
8
9
10 ///
11 ///
12 ///
13 ///
14 ///
15
16
17
18 '"
19 ">
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25
26
27
28
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the City
Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on
the 22nd day of December. 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, and Blackburn.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Packard.
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LORRAINE WO
(SEAL) / ]
, CITY CLER
/&^^.&
/6
City of Carlsbad
Office of the City Manager
DOCKET
DATE MAY 0 1 2008
May 1,2008
Mr. Mike Monasmith
Siting Project Manager
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95 814-5512
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
Dear Mr. Monasmith:
Thank you for your Agency's letter dated March 26, 2008, requesting the City of Carlsbad's
position related to the Carlsbad Energy Center Project's (CECP) consistency with existing City
and Redevelopment Agency documents that govern on-site land uses at the proposed CECP site
and the surrounding area, which includes the existing Encina Power Station. Per your request, we
are providing input on interpretation of our zoning ordinance and related land use plans which
City and Redevelopment Agency staff believe would have applied to the project had it been
under Carlsbad's jurisdiction for review and approval. We appreciate this opportunity to explain
and clarify the relevant land use requirements and policies, as well as our policy position
regarding the compatibility and desirability of the CECP at the identified location.
Carlsbad's Overall Position on the CECP
Before discussing land use requirements and policies, be advised that Carlsbad does not support
the CECP. As host to numerous regional facilities, such as the Encina Water Pollution Control
Facility, McCleUan-Palomar Airport, and the existing power plant, Carlsbad is clearly accepting
of these types of land uses within its jurisdictional boundaries. However, with the advancement
of technology that removes the need for power generation facilities to have coastal access, the
City believes that there are now more appropriate, compatible locations in Carlsbad and other
communities for the CECP.
The EPS property is predominantly surrounded by residences and open space. Its central location
and proximity to the beach and lagoon, significant open space, and major transportation corridors
make it a potential key gateway location and a connector between the ocean and existing and
future visitor-serving and recreational uses. Accordingly, the City believes that a coordinated and
appropriate planning effort for the entire property, as well as removal of the existing power plant
and re-designation of the EPS for publicly-oriented, non-utility land uses, are necessary steps
towards fulfilling this area's community benefit potential and the City's desired Vision for the
CECP area.
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2821 • FAX££601720-9461
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 2
The proposed CECP is not consistent with the City's desired Vision for the property. Also, as
noted below, although NRG has not submitted all information necessary to determine
compliance requirements, staff has been able to determine that the CECP is not consistent with
many of the policies and/or land use requirements set forth in the various planning documents
and/or City Council policies that apply to said property.
About this Letter
As indicated in your Agency's letter, there are six (6) planning documents which are applicable
to the subject property/project. Also germane is a 25-year-old City Council policy that applies to
any development contemplated at the existing Encina Power Station and adjacent areas. In this
correspondence, we have provided you with 1) a general description of each document, its intent
and its applicability; 2) the action and/or permit(s) that would be required under each document;
and 3) a description of the applicable policies and requirements set forth within each document.
Similar information is provided for the Council policy as well. For additional information
purposes, attached to this letter are the following exhibits:
1. A timeline of significant events in the life of the power plant and related property;
2. A map which outlines the boundaries for each document;
3. City Council Resolution No. 98-145;
4. July 24,1989 letter to SDG&E from Carlsbad Planning Director;
5. My 16, 2007 letter to SDG&E from Carlsbad City Manager, and;
These documents are helpful in providing more detail on various issues to be discussed below.
The City submits this review of the CECP from a land use perspective only. It does not consider
other equally important project-specific topics, including potential environmental impacts that
would be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such as traffic,
noise, and aesthetics. Furthermore, this review does not represent the final nor complete land use
comments the City may have on this project, considering there are many outstanding issues
which need to be addressed that will affect land use.
Finally, while this letter describes necessary permit and compliance requirements, it does so
merely to clarify these items in detail; the discussion below should not be misconstrued as an
indication of what it would take for the City to support the project.
Carlsbad as Lead Agency
Before proceeding with our effort to clarify the planning documents, it is important to note that if
the City and Redevelopment Agency had the sole discretion to approve the subject project
application from a land use perspective, staff would have determined the application to be
incomplete.
The CECP, as it is currently proposed, does not provide adequate information for a determination
of compliance and/or consistency with all of the applicable planning documents. Additionally,
the City would require all applicable land use permit applications to be submitted, which, in the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
PageS
CECP's case, has not yet occurred. Therefore, under our typical review process, the City would
not be able to continue processing the subject application due to its incomplete status. Staff
would only be able to provide a list of applicable requirements and outline issues of concern that
could be identified based on the information provided to date. Staff would have also informed
NRG that the CECP could not be supported due to the reasons noted above.
Normally, once an acceptable project description is developed and all appropriate permit
applications are submitted, the City and Redevelopment Agency requires the applicant to prepare
an environmental impact report (EIR). In order to provide decision-makers with complete
information and aid in their land use analysis, the EIR would consider alternative locations to the
CECP site and alternative means to obtain electricity other than by constructing a new power
generating facility. Furthermore, analysis of greenhouse gas emissions would be considered in
the EIR. However, as the lead agency, the EIR would not proceed until the City and
Redevelopment Agency agreed on the appropriate land uses for the site through the
comprehensive specific plan update process described in the following section.
Land Use Analysis
Below is an analysis of each land use document applicable to the CECP. The analysis highlights
project inconsistencies where those occur. Since they are essential to the understanding of the
relevant land use policies and requirements, the Encina Specific Plan and City Council Policy are
discussed first.
I. Encina Specific Plan (SP 144)
Background/Intent
The 680 acres of SP144 encompass the EPS site and the adjacent beach, all water areas of the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and most properties on either side of Interstate 5 between Cannon Road
and the lagoon. At the time of the specific plan's adoption in 1971, all of these properties were
owned by SDG&E.
Following its adoption, SP144 was amended several times to permit the development and
expansion of the EPS essentially as it appears today. Amendments allowed the Unit 4 generator
in 1973, the Unit 5 generator in 1975, and the addition of the 400-foot-tall emissions stack in
1976. Subsequent amendments after 1980 were either withdrawn or did not affect the power
plant. In 2006, the City Council approved SP 144(H), which permitted the development of the
Carlsbad Desalination Project.
As stated in SP 144(H):
• The purpose of this Specific Plan is to set forth the existing land uses and land use
regulations applicable to the area of Carlsbad which includes the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon and certain areas near the lagoon, including the Encina Power Station.
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 4
• The purpose of this amendment [SP 144(H)] is to incorporate the Encina Power Station
Precise Development Plan 00-02 (PDF 00-02) into Specific Plan 144 while maintaining
the conditions and regulations of previous Specific Plan Amendments A through G.
As noted above, SP 144(H) did not change any land use designations, revise any conditions, or
establish any development standards.
As explained in detail in the City Council Policy discussion below, City Council Resolution 98-
145 establishes the requirement for a comprehensive update of SP 144 for any development
proposal within its boundaries. This requirement was reiterated by the City Council in 2002.
Although the City Council waived the requirement for a comprehensive update for the Carlsbad
Desalination Project, the requirement continues to apply to any other proposal, including the
CECP. This is evidenced by the continued application of the requirement as explained fully in
the City Council Policy section.
Comprehensive Update of SP 144
If Carlsbad had permit authority for the CECP, it would require NRG to first prepare a
comprehensive update of the Encina Specific Plan 144, consistent with City Council Policy and
as discussed below. NRG has submitted an amendment to SP 144 (SP 144 (I)); however, the
proposal amends the document to include the CECP but does not address the comprehensive
update required. The update of SP144 would be expected to set forth a vision for the noted and
adjacent property, which should not include the CECP or existing power station.
The comprehensive amendment of the Encina Specific Plan, SP 144, would involve all property
owners and all 680 acres within the specific plan. The update would be applicant-initiated (as has
been directed by the City Council) and prepared by a professional planning firm supported by
experts in necessary disciplines (e.g., environmental, engineering, traffic, communications).
An EIR for the comprehensive update would also be required; the consultant to prepare the EIR
would be selected and administered by the City with all expenses paid by the applicant.
It is not possible to identify all desired objectives or components of the comprehensive
amendment; that will only occur as the amendment process is underway. However, the update
would likely need to address the following items, all of which would be applicable to any
development proposal in the SP 144, not just the CECP:
1. Ensure consistency with state law requirements regarding specific plans;
2. Establish an overall land use vision for SP 144, which would likely incorporate the
findings of the Proposition D Committee for the South Shore of the Lagoon and produce
the ultimate land use plan for the power plant property both east and west of the railroad
tracks. It is anticipated that this land use vision will change existing land use designations
and zonings, including but not limited to those applicable to the power plant, to
incorporate the goals of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan and the City's
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
PageS
desire for land uses other than power generating facilities. Furthermore, this land use '
vision will ensure compatibility between SP 144 and all surrounding land uses;
3. Provide a land use study with alternatives for land surrounding the CECP site;
4. Ensure consistency between all affected land use documents (PDF 00-02, SP 144, Agua
Hedionda Land Use Plan, South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan, Habitat
Management Plan, Airport Compatibility Land Use Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and General
Plan);
5. Update the existing SP 144 to remove provisions that are outdated and/or no longer
appropriate, and replace them with germane requirements that are appropriate and
consistent with other documents as expressed in item 2;
6. Update the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan to ensure all maps, policies, and standards
regarding land use, public access, environmental protection, and buildings, among other
items, are appropriate and consistent with other documents as expressed in item 3;
7. Review SP 144 and other affected land use documents to ensure consistency with all
Coastal Act policies. This is important since SP 144 was adopted prior to Coastal Act
approval;
8. Fix inconsistent land use and zoning designations (both City and Coastal) within SP 144;
9. Incorporate and recognize the goals of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan;
10. Establish trails, public access, and public places, including connections with properties
east of Interstate 5 and access to and use of lagoon water bodies and the beach;
11. Consider the design, location, and type of appropriate public amenities;
12. Establish public infrastructure requirements (e.g., street widening, sewer facilities, storm
drains);
13. Develop appropriate development and use standards for all properties;
14. Engage all affected property owners, and;
15. Develop and implement a public outreach plan to ensure the public is involved in and
aware of the update process.
Compliance Requirements
If Carlsbad had permit authority for the CECP, it would require NRG to first prepare a
comprehensive update, including a land use visioning program, of the Encina Specific Plan 144
n \
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1, 2008
Page 6
as described above. Preparation of the update before proceeding with the CECP would be
mandatory.
II. City Council Policy
Background/Intent
In 1998, the Carlsbad City Council passed Resolution 98-145 (attached) declaring its intention to
comprehensively update the Encina Specific Plan 144 (SP 144). This resolution was the result of
15 years of unsuccessful attempts by the City to achieve a comprehensive SP 144 update. As
detailed above, the 680-acre SP 144 encompasses all of the existing Encina Power Station, the
proposed CECP, and significant other lands. The City's policy to comprehensively update the
specific plan is relevant to all land use permits and determinations of consistency the City would
require of the CECP and any other development proposed within the specific plan. Moreover,
knowing the history of this policy is also important to understanding the basis for many of the
City's comments.
As stated in Resolution 98-145, the Council declared its intention ".. .to study and consider
amendment to the General Plan, zoning designations and the zoning ordinances pertaining to the
Encina Power Plant and surrounding properties presently under the ownership of the San Diego
Gas and Electric Company." At the time of the resolution's adoption, all properties within
SP 144 were owned by SDG&E.
The recitals of Resolution 98-145 list the reasons why the resolution was passed, why a
comprehensive update is needed, and why it directed City staff, rather than the land owner., to
prepare the update. Following are some of the recitals:
• Whereas, SDG&E was informed that any future modifications, changes, amendments or
additions to its plant would require a completed major amendment to the specific plan
processed in accordance with Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (Note:
This recital refers to a July 24,1989, letter to SDG&E from the City's Planning Director
[attached]).
» Whereas, the existing Specific Plan for the SDG&E properties does not address the
regulations and restrictions of the LCP;
• Whereas, despite numerous verbal agreements to do an updated [Specific] Plan, SDG&E
has not come forward with a formal proposal, work program or timeline for initiating a
process to update its Plan and address outstanding concerns and issues;
• Whereas, these considerations [of amending existing zoning and General Plan
designations of the SDG&E properties] should include whether the continued use of a
portion of the property for a Power Plant is in the best interest of the citizens of Carlsbad
and is the best, long-term use of the property given its superior coastal location and its
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 7
proximity to other existing, surrounding uses that can be adversely impacted by Power
Plant use;
Though passed in 1998, the need and reasons for the comprehensive update as indicated by the
resolution remain.
After approval of the resolution, initiation of the specific plan update by the City was
subsequently put on hold when the EPS was sold by SDG&E to Cabrillo Power. It was the City's
intent to work with the new owner to update the Specific Plan and develop a vision plan for that
site which reflected the wishes of the community. The City attempted to negotiate a
Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) with the new owner which would include a process to
study the existing and future land use and thus accomplish many of the SP 144 update objectives.
Unfortunately, the M.O.U. was never finalized because the parties could not agree to the terms,
and Cabrillo Power indicated no immediate need to move forward with the redevelopment of the
site and/or construction of a new power plant.
On June 11, 2002, as part of questions related to the processing of the proposed Carlsbad
Desalination Plant, the City Council reiterated its policy on requiring a comprehensive update of
SP 144. By minute motion, the Council clarified the update requirement: (1) applies to any
proposal; (2) is applicant, rather than city-initiated; and (3) requires the cooperation and
resources of all affected property owners.
On August 5, 2003, the City Council passed Resolution 2003-208, allowing the proposed
desalination plant to proceed without a comprehensive update of the entire specific plan. Rather
than requiring the update, the Council directed the applicant to apply for a specific plan
amendment to incorporate the proposed precise development plan into SP 144 and process the
amendment along with all other necessary permits, The amendment would maintain the EPS as
part of the specific plan. This would allow the City to continue to address all applicable land use
matters such as public access and use of the lagoon and beach on the EPS and all other properties
with SP 144. As part of the desalination project, the Council approved this amendment on June
13,2006.
An important point to clarify is that the City Council decision to waive its policy to
comprehensively update Specific Plan 144 applied only to the proposed desalination plant and
not any other proposal. This waiver for the desalination plant was due to the plant's
extraordinary public purpose benefit, including water reliability, price certainty, and significant
public land donations. However, as stated above, the requirement to comprehensively update
SP 144 continues to apply to any other project in the specific plan area. Most recently, this
included a SDG&E proposal to perform minor improvements to its North Coast Operations
Center (see attached July 16, 2007, letter to Sempra Energy from the Carlsbad City Manager).
The City's initial comments on the CECP, contained in an October 24, 2007, letter to the CEC's
Dr. James Reede, described the requirement for the CECP to conduct a comprehensive update.
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
PageS
Compliance Requirements
Through its Policy on development in the Encina Specific Plan, the City Council established the
comprehensive specific plan update as the vehicle to (1) achieve consistency in and between the
many land use documents that affect development within the Encina Specific Plan and (2)
develop a land use vision for the area, including the Encina Power Station and the CECP site.
The longstanding disconnect between the policies and provisions of the General Plan,
Redevelopment Plan, and Local Coastal Plan are due to the fact that the Encina Specific Plan has
not yet been updated, even though the need is clearly demonstrated.
If Carlsbad had permit authority for the CECP, it would require NRG to first prepare a
comprehensive update of the Encina Specific Plan 144 to address the inconsistencies. The likely
contents and processing of the update are listed above in the section on SP 144. The
City/Agency would expect SP 144 to be updated through a visioning process that would result in
alternate land uses at the CECP site.
III. General Plan
Background/Intent
Carlsbad's General Plan establishes an overall multi-part vision for the entire City, including
these relevant components:
A City which provides a balanced variety of land uses for living, business,
employment, recreation, and open space opportunities.
A City which provides a diversified, comprehensive park system that offers a wide
variety of recreational activities and park facilities.
A City where travel is safe and easily accommodated whether it be by mass
transit, in an automobile, on a bicycle or as a pedestrian.
A City committed to the economic growth of progressive commercial and
industrial businesses to serve the employment, shopping, recreation, and service
needs of its residents.
A City which recognizes the value of its unique ecological position as a coastal
city of beaches, fragile lagoons, and unspoiled canyons; which has taken steps to
conserve the quality and quantity of its air, water, land and biological resources.
A City which recognizes its role as a participant in the solution of regional issues.
Implementation of the City's overall vision is accomplished by the various General Plan
elements and various policies, programs, and procedures. Carlsbad last comprehensively
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 9
amended its General Plan in 1994. Currently, the City is in the beginning stages of the next
comprehensive update with community outreach expected to begin this summer.
The General Plan Land Use Element designates the entire Encina Power Station (EPS), which
includes the CECP site, for Public Utilities ("U"). The General Plan describes the Public Utilities
designation as follows:
This category of land use designates areas, both existing and proposed, either
being used or which may be considered for use for public or quasi-public
functions.
Primary functions include such things as the generation of electrical energy,
treatment of waste water, public agency maintenance storage and operating
facilities, or other primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial
portion of the community. Sites identified with a "U" designation indicate that the
City is studying or may in the future evaluate the location of a utility facility
which could be located within a one kilometer radius of the designations on a site
for such a facility. Specific siting for such facilities shall be accomplished only by
a change of zone, and an approved Precise Development Plan adopted by
ordinance and approved only after fully noticed public hearings.
Compliance Requirements
The existing power plant is consistent with the General Plan Public Utility designation. Although
the CECP is consistent with the "U" general plan designation, a determination of "general plan
consistency" cannot be made by staff. As discussed in detail in the above City Council Policy
section, the constant City policy for more than 25 years has been, with few exceptions, to
comprehensively update the Encina Specific Plan 144 before any development occurs. This
specific plan encompasses the EPS. Based on Redevelopment Agency goals as expressed in the
South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan, the comprehensive update would likely replace
part or all of the Public Utility designation on the EPS with a designarion(s) deemed more
appropriate for community benefit purposes. The update may also result in requirements for open
space, recreation, and public uses that would affect the current and proposed power plants.
Therefore, until the comprehensive update to SP 144 is processed, a determination of General
Plan consistency for the CECP cannot be made.
The General Plan, in and of itself, would not require NRG to submit any land use permits.
However, implementation of the General Plan's goals, objectives, and policies, would be
accomplished by the permits required by the Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and
other implementing ordinances and policies. Through these permits, the City would need to
demonstrate written compliance with the provisions of the General Plan through detailed
findings and demonstrated by substantial evidence.
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 10
IV. Zoning Ordinance
Background/Intent
Adopted in 1971, the Public Utilities ("P-U") Zone, Chapter 21.36 of the Zoning Ordinance, has
been applied to the EPS and other public utility properties in Carlsbad. It implements the Public
Utility land use designation of the General Plan. In 1975, the City amended the P-U Zone to
require a precise development plan for public utility uses. As stated in Section 21.36.030 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, "No building permit or other entitlement for any use in the P-U zone
shall be issued until a precise development plan has been approved for the property."
In Section 21.36.010, the Zoning Ordinance states:
The intent and purpose of the P-U zone is to provide for certain public utility and
related uses subject to a precise development plan procedure to:
(1) Insure compatibility of the development with the general plan and the
surrounding developments;
(2) Insure that due regard is given to environmental factors;
(3) Provide for public improvements and other conditions of approval
necessitated by the development.
Among the uses permitted in the P-U Zone are:
1. Agriculture;
2. Energy transmission facilities;
3. Electrical energy generation and transmission;
4. Processing, using and storage of: (a) natural gas, (b) liquid natural
gas, (c) domestic and agricultural water supplies;
5. Public utility district maintenance, storage and operating facilities; and
6. Wastewater treatment, disposal or reclamation facilities.
Based on the above list, both the existing and proposed power plants and their appurtenant facilities
are permitted uses in the P-U Zone.
The P-U Zone includes only minimal development standards such as minimum lot area and coverage
and parking locations. However, Section 21.36.050 states that it is through the precise development
plan that requirements are established:
The city council may impose such conditions on the applicant and the [precise development] plan
as are determined necessary and consistent with the provisions of this chapter, the general plan
and any specific plans that include provisions for, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Setbacks, yards and open space;
(2) Special height and bulk of building regulations;
(3) Fences and walls;
(4) Regulation of signs;
(5) Landscaping;
(6) Special grading restrictions;
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 11
(7) Requiring street dedication and improvements
(or posting of bonds);
(8) Requiring public improvements either on or off the subject site that are needed to
service the proposed development;
(9) Time period -within which the project or any phases of the project shall be completed;
(10) Regulation of points of ingress and egress;
(11) Parking;
(12) Regulation of the type, quality, distribution
and use of reclaimed water, or reclaimed wastewater.
In 2000, the first precise development plan for the EPS was submitted; the City approved the
precise development plan, PDF 00-02, as part of the Carlsbad Desalination Plant project in 2006.
PDF 00-02 serves both as an entitlement for the existing Encina Power Station and Carlsbad
Desalination Plant and as a planning document with text and graphics for the entire power plant
property.
Compliance Requirements
Because the CECP may affect or be affected by surrounding land uses, a determination of
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would require the comprehensive update of SP 144, as
outlined above. Additionally, compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would be determined
through the precise development plan, which is discussed in the following section.
IV. Precise Development Plan
Background/Intent
The adopted precise development plan (PDF 00-02) for the EPS follows Section 21.36.050 of
Carlsbad's Zoning Ordinance. It divides the EPS into planning areas with general development
standards for each. It elaborates on parking requirements and provides basic aesthetic and
landscaping requirements. PDF 00-02 also contains an inventory of existing uses and facilities at
the power station and provides general review and approval criteria for any future improvements.
Moreover, through the PDF 00-02, the City was able to condition a number of public
improvements and public land or use dedications both in and adjacent to the EPS.
As previously stated, a purpose and intent of the P-U Zone is to "insure compatibility of
the development with the general plan and the surrounding developments." As stated in
the approved PDF 00-02 document, it satisfies this purpose and intent by providing:
• A baseline of existing conditions (as of January 2006)
• Guidance for building permit and entitlement issuance for allowed uses
• Establishment of planning areas, standards and provisions
• Amendment and implementation procedures
• Linkage to other related regulations, approvals, and documents
The only development contemplated at the EPS upon the adoption of PDF 00-02 was the
Carlsbad Desalination Plant. Therefore, the document recognized that future significant
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1, 2008
Page 12
improvements such as the CECP would require a City Council-approved major amendment to
PDP 00-02. Through this major amendment, development standards and other requirements
tailored to the proposal would be developed. Accordingly, NRG has submitted a major
amendment to the approved precise development plan in the form of PDP 00-02(A).
As noted in Zoning Ordinance Section 21.36.050 above, the City Council may impose a number
of requirements to ensure consistency with the General Plan, including setback and height
standards, landscaping, and public improvements. Until the comprehensive update of Specific
Plan 144 is complete and, based on that update, use of the CECP site and surrounding properties
is known, it is not possible to determine all requirements that should be set forth in PDP 00-
02(A) and thus the requirements that would be applied to the CECP. PDP 00-02(A) as submitted
by NRG was not prepared in conjunction with the comprehensive specific plan update; therefore,
it is not adequate.
Compliance Requirements
Based on the above requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, if the City were reviewing
the proposed application from NRG for compliance purposes, staff would recommend NRG first
prepare a comprehensive update of the Encina Specific Plan 144. Once complete, it would then
be possible to determine compliance of the proposed CECP from a land use perspective and, if
appropriate, the contents of PDP 00-02(A). Subsequently, NRG would be required to submit an
amendment to PDP 00-02 which is consistent with the updated SP 144.
VI. Local Coastal Plan/Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan
Background/Intent
In May 1982, after several years of work, the City Council adopted the Agua Hedionda Land Use
Plan (AHLUP), which is the segment of the City's Local Coastal Program that applies to the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon area and all of Specific Plan 144. The California Coastal Commission
certified the land use plan later that year.
While the AHLUP is a certified segment of the City's Coastal Plan, Carlsbad does not have the
authority to issue coastal development permits within the AHLUP area. As City Council
Resolution 98-145 notes, when the City applied to the Coastal Commission to obtain effective
certification (permit authority) in about 1983, it was requested by SDG&E to withdraw the
application. The City agreed to SDG&E's request based upon a commitment by the company
that it would update Specific Plan 144 and bring the Encina Power Station site into conformance
with the requirements contained in Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. However,
SDG&E did not follow through on this commitment and coastal development permits remain the
jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission in the AHLUP.
While it does not issue coastal development permits for projects in the AHLUP, the City does
review such projects for consistency with the requirements of the plan. Under a typical
processing scenario, this consistency determination is made as part of the review of any City
r\
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 13
permits required. Once Carlsbad's review process is complete, then the applicant would apply to
the Coastal Commission to obtain a coastal development permit.
The Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan contains eight different sections: land use, agriculture,
environmental, geologic hazards, public works, recreation/visitor facilities, shoreline access, and
visual resources. These sections contain policies affecting the EPS and other properties. As with
the Encina Specific Plan 144, the AHLUP has yet to undergo a comprehensive update and has
not had any substantial revisions since its adoption over 25 years ago.
The City has intended that the comprehensive update of SP 144 would include the simultaneous,
complete update of the AHLUP. In fact, the specific plan does not address the regulations and
restrictions of the AHLUP; accordingly, the update of the AHLUP and review to ensure
consistency between it, the SP 144, and all other land use documents are identified as items to
complete in the specific plan update process.
Compliance Requirements
If the City were the lead agency on the CECP application, it would require NRG to demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of the AHLUP. This would be accomplished first through the
comprehensive update of SP 144, the method Carlsbad has consistently identified to develop and
determine appropriate land uses and standards in the AHLUP area. Once the update was
complete, a determination of compliance could then be made. Until this occurs, no such
determination can be made, and the CECP cannot be found consistent with the AHLUP.
Additionally, since a SP 144 update would require changes to the AHLUP, the City would
require NRG to submit a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). The LCPA would be the
application to amend the policies of the AHLUP and would be processed concurrently with the
specific plan update. The LCPA would require City Council and Coastal Commission review and
approval. For clarification, NRG has not submitted a LCPA.
Furthermore, and under typical permitting procedures, once NRG had obtained all entitlements
from the City, it would then need to apply for a coastal development permit from the Coastal
Commission. This permit would be in addition to the need to obtain a LCPA.
On a related, significant matter, the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission
(CCC), as stated in a October 16, 2007, letter to the CEC, noted he will not produce the report
required for the CECP's application for certification (07-AFC-6) pursuant to Coastal Act Section
30413(d). As stated in Public Resources Code 25523(b), however, the CEC cannot decide on the
CECP without this report. It does not appear to the City that the Executive Director of the CCC
has the authority to choose not to provide the report. In light of the fact that an LCPA and
Coastal Development Permit would be required for said project, the CCC report seems
significant. The City would appreciate a response from the Energy Commission on this matter.
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 14
VII. South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project Area Plan
Background/Intent
In September, 1997, the City of Carlsbad began to identify options for an action to eliminate or
reduce the environmental impacts of the existing Encina Power Plant and to achieve more
compatible land uses along its coastline. The existing power plant, which began operation in
1954, was obsolete due to its outdated, inefficient technology and more stringent Air Pollution
Control District air emission standards, which were acknowledged by both the power plant
owner/operator and the City, as well as other regulating agencies. In addition, the industrial land
use represented by the power plant and related facilities was no longer considered the best use
for this beautiful coastal property.
As a result of research on the issues surrounding the existing power plant and related land uses
and facilities, the City decided to form a redevelopment area known as the South Carlsbad
Coastal Redevelopment Area, the boundaries for which include the power plant property. The
underlying intent of the Redevelopment Plan was to convert the industrial land west of the
railroad tracks (where the current plant is located) to another, more appropriate land use that
would provide greater benefit to the community and would eliminate the possibility of an
intensification of industrial applications at that site. At the time, the thought was that a
replacement facility, located on the eastern portion of the site, would be more aesthetically and
geographically desirable than any retrofit to the existing power plant facility. These were
incentives for both the power plant property owner and the City to encourage redevelopment of
the site and decommissioning of the existing plant.
The existing and proposed new power plants adjoin residential neighborhoods, beaches, and the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon that are all subjected to both the Plant's emissions as well as the
aesthetic and other environmental impacts. The Plant's massive size is also out of scale with the
much lower profile character of the surrounding properties.
Compliance Requirements
The South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan (SCCRP) states the following:
The land uses permitted by this Plan shall be those permitted by the General Plan
and zoning ordinance, and all other state and local building codes, guidelines, or
specific plans as they now exist or are hereafter amended, with the exception that
new development which provides for one or more of the following specific uses
may be permitted in the Project Area only after all of the following are satisfied
a) the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission approves a finding that
the land use serves an extraordinary public purpose, and b) a precise
development plan or other appropriate planning permit or regulatory document is
first approved by the Commission which sets forth the standards for development
of the project, and c) the Commission has issued a Redevelopment Permit for the
project:
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 15
(i) Desalination Plant and other facilities for the production, generation, storage,
treatment or transmission of water;
(ii) Generation and transmission of electrical energy;
(in) Public Utility district maintenance and service facilities;
(vi) Governmental maintenance, storage and operating facilities;
(v) Processing, using and storage of natural gas, liquid natural gas, and domestic
and agricultural water supplies;
(vi) Energy transmission facilities, including rights-of-way and pressure control
or booster stations for gasoline, electricity, natural gas, synthetic natural gas, oil
or other forms of energy sources; and/or
(vii) Wastewater treatment, disposal or reclamation facilities and other facilities
for the production, generation, storage, treatment or transmission ofwastewater.
Based on the above requirements set forth in the SCCRP, if the Redevelopment Agency were
reviewing the proposed application from NRG for permit compliance purposes, we would have
the following responses from a redevelopment perspective.
First, a Precise Development Plan amendment would be required to set forth the development
standards for the power plant. The standards would include agreed upon height, setbacks,
architectural design, etc, as well as other appropriate revisions to the current Precise
Development Plan.
Second, a comprehensive amendment to the Encina Specific Plan (SP 144) would also be
required, as discussed above.
Third, the applicant would be required to submit an application for a major redevelopment
permit and obtain approval of that permit, which would require a comprehensive review of the
project details from both a land use perspective as well as a design standpoint. NRG has yet to
submit an application to the City for this permit.
Fourth, to approve the above noted permits and/or plans, the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission, acting for the Redevelopment Agency, would need to approve a finding that the
proposed land use serves an extraordinary public purpose (emphasis added). Based on the
application submitted by NRG, staff believes the Commission would not be able to make this
finding for the proposed new power plant. The new power plant potentially serves a regional
need for electricity. However, there are several reasons why this does not equate to extraordinary
public purpose for Carlsbad, including but not limited to:
1. No assurances that the electricity generated would be used specifically for Carlsbad
residents and/or businesses/services;
2. No guarantees that the generation of this power would eliminate the risk of "black outs"
or require other energy conservation measures in Carlsbad;
3. No measures that would prevent substantial electrical rate increases within the City;
4. No assurances that the existing power plant will be decommissioned at a date certain,
which is a key goal for the redevelopment plan;
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 16
5. A general concern that the proposed land use (new power plant) would be an
incompatible land use and potentially preclude other more desirable development such as
visitor-serving commercial uses, hotels, and public amenities and/or services for local
resident enjoyment; and
6. No other public benefit amenities were offered by NRG.
Considering the scale of the CECP, not only in terms of its size and height but also its long term
potential environmental impacts and potentially negative influence on adjacent land uses, the
threshold for what constitutes an extraordinary public benefit is understandably very high. NRG
would need to demonstrate extraordinary public purpose in a manner acceptable to the City and
Redevelopment Agency for the CECP to be considered a potential land use in the
Redevelopment area.
Summary of City Position and Recommendation
As indicated in this correspondence, the CECP does not conform to applicable land use
regulations and is not supported by the City and Redevelopment Agency. As outlined above, the
City and Redevelopment Agency staff do not believe that the proposed project is in compliance
and/or consistent with any of the applicable planning documents. Until a comprehensive update
of SP 144 is completed, which shall include a visioning process to determine appropriate and
acceptable land uses, it is not possible to identify the best land use for the CECP site.
The CECP's surroundings and location, combined with the fact that a coastal location is no
longer mandatory for power generation, clearly reveal that the CECP site and the existing Encina
Power Station are better suited for land uses other than large scale utility and industrial. For
these reasons, the proposed CECP is not consistent with the City and Redevelopment Agency's
desired Vision for the property. Furthermore, the City believes there are more appropriate
locations in Carlsbad and perhaps elsewhere for the CECP and has offered to actively assist
NRG in pursuing alternate sites. Therefore, Carlsbad does not support the CECP.
As stated in the Public Resources Code 25525;
The [California Energy Commission] may not certify a facility contained in the
application when it finds, pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 25523, that the
facility does not conform with any applicable state, local, or regional standards,
ordinances, or laws, unless the commission determines that the facility is required
for public convenience and necessity and that there are not more prudent and
feasible means of achieving public convenience and necessity. In making the
determination, the commission shall consider the entire record of the proceeding,
including, but not limited to, the impacts of the facility on the environment,
consumer benefits, and electric system reliability.
Therefore, the City/Agency does not believe the CECP can be approved unless the CEC can
make the "public convenience and necessity..." determination. If, however, the California
Energy Commission (CEC) chooses to move forward with its approval of the subject project
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) - Land Use Information
May 1,2008
Page 17
regardless of the project's land use compliance/consistency status and over the objections of the
City, staff respectfully requests sufficient opportunity to complete additional analysis and
provide more information to the CEC before it makes a final decision on findings and conditions.
The City of Carlsbad recognizes that the land use regulations and their application for the
proposed CECP site are extremely convoluted. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(760) 434-2893 or jgaru@ci.carlsbad.ca.us.
Sincerely,
TOE GARUBA
Municipal Projects Manager
Attachments:
1. Chronology - Encina Power Station and Specific Plan 144
2. Map showing boundaries of redevelopment area, specific plan, coastal zone, and Agua
Hedionda land use plan.
3. City Council Resolution 98-145
4. July 24,1989, letter to SDG&E from Carlsbad Planning Director
5. July 16,2007, letter to SDG&E from Carlsbad City Manager
See Proof of Service (Rev. 03/19/2008; electronic copy only)
Carlsbad City Manager
Carlsbad Community Development Director
Carlsbad Planning Director
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
FOR THE CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER
PROJECT
Docket No. 07-AFC-6
PROOF OF SERVICE
(Revised 3/19/2008)
INSTRUCTIONS: All parties shall 1) send an original signed document plus 12 copies OR 2) mail one original
signed copy AND e-mail the document to the web address below, AND 3) all parties shall also send a printed
OR electronic copy of the documents that shall include a proof of service declaration to each of the
individuals on the proof of service:
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Attn: Docket No. 07-AFC-6
1516 Ninth Street, MS-14
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
docket@enerqy.state.ca.us
APPLICANT
David Lloyd
Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC
1817 Aston Avenue, Suite 104
Carlsbad, CA 92008
David.Llovd@nrgenerqy.com
Tim Hemig, Vice President
Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC
1817 Aston Avenue, Suite 104
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tim.Hemig@nrgenergv.com
APPLICANT'S CONSULTANTS
Robert Mason, Project Manager
CH2M Hill, Inc.
3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ste. 200
Santa Ana, CA 92707
robert.Mason@ch2m.com
Megan Sebra
CH2M Hill, Inc.
2485 Natomas Park Drive, Ste. 600
Sacramento, CA 95833
Meoan.Sebra@ch2m.com
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT
John A. McKinsey
Stoel Rives LLP
980 Ninth Street, Ste. 1900
Sacramento, CA 95814
jamckinsev@stoel.com
INTERESTED AGENCIES
Larry Tobias
Ca. Independent System Operator
151 Blue Ravine Road
Folsom, CA 95630
LTobias@caiso.com
Electricity Oversight Board
770 L Street, Suite 1250
Sacramento, CA 95814
esaltmarsh@eob.ca.qov
City of Carlsbad
Joseph Garuba,
Municipals Project Manager Manager
Ron Ball, Esq., City Attorney
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
jqaru@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
rball@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Allan J Thompson Mike Monasmith
Attorney for the City Siting Project Manager
21 "C" Orinda Way #314 mmonasrni@enerqy.state.ca.us
Orinda, CA 94563
Dick Rail iff
INTERVENORS Staff Counsel
dratliff@energy.state.ca. us
California Unions for Reliable Energy ("CURE")
Suma Peesapati Public Advisor's Office
Marc D. Joseph pao@energv.state.ca.us
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
speesapati@adamsbroadwell.com
ENERGY COMMISSION
JAMES D. BOYD
Commissioner and Presiding Member
jbovd@energy.state.ca.us
KAREN DOUGLAS
Commissioner and Associate Member
kldougla@energy.state.ca.us
Paul Kramer
Hearing Officer
pkramer@energy.state.ca.us
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
tiA vWSufl declare that on 5- f-oB , | deposited copies of the attached
, in the United States mail at^W^U/i/ fi>S+ <?tfa?with first-class
postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to those identified on the Proof of Service list above,
OR
Transmission via electronic mail was consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 20,
sections 1209, 1209,5, and 1210, All electronic copies were sent to all those identified on the Proof of Service list
above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Carlsbad
Chronology of Encina Power Plant Site and Specific Plan 144
1952
San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) constructed the Encina Power
Plant (EPS).
1971
The Public Utility (PU) Zone was established and applied to the EPS and
surrounding properties owned by SDG&E.
Augusta, 1971
Specific Plan 144 was adopted in City of Carlsbad Ordinance 9279. The purpose
of the Specific Plan was to provide rules and regulations for the orderly
development of 680 acres of land located East of the Pacific Ocean and South of
the North Shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and North of what is now Cannon
Road, and provide design and development guidelines for the expansion of the
power plant, then owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
December 4,1973
The Carlsbad City Council passed Amendment A to Specific Plan 144 in
Ordinance 9372 to allow for the construction of a 400-foot stack and removal of
the four existing stacks at the EPS. This amendment became null and void one
year later.
The amended Specific Plan required notice and public hearings for any
subsequent changes to the Plan.
1974
General Plan designation establishing a Public Utilities (U) land use classification
was created and subsequently applied to the EPS.
1975
PU Zone was updated to require a Precise Development Plan (PDP) rather than
a Specific Plan for public utility uses.
May 4,1976
Specific Plan 144 was amended again (Amendment B) by the City Council's
passage of Ordinance 9456 to permit the construction of a single 400-foot stack
at the Encina Power Station to replace the four existing stacks. Amendment B to
Specific Plan 144 added condition 14, which created design, development, and
other requirements for the constructions of the 400-foot stack, the removal of the
existing stacks, and operation of the power station. Amendment B also provided
an exemption to the 400-foot stack and ductwork and screening to the 35-foot
height limit established by Condition Number 5 of Ordinance 9279.
May3,1977
Amendment C of Specific Plan 144 was adopted by City Council Ordinance 9481
to allow for the construction of water treatment facilities and a maintenance
building at the EPS.
1978 through 1993
Three additional amendments to Specific Plan 144 were applied for and
withdrawn by SDG&E for changes to the EPS. Amendment D was proposed to
allow connection of unit 5 to the stack, but it was determined that the connection
was already allowed and so the amendment was not necessary. Amendment E
proposed various improvements to the facility, and Amendment F proposed the
addition of a green waste facility. Amendments D, E and F were all withdrawn
and were not incorporated into the Specific Plan 144.
1982
Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan (LCP) was adopted which includes the
properties owned by SDG&E including the Encina Power Plant site.
The City applied to the Coastal Commission to obtain effective certification for
the Agua Hedionda LCP but was requested by SDG&E to withdraw the
application. The City agreed to this request based upon a commitment by
SDG&E that it would update its Specific Plan and bring the Power Plant site into
conformance with the Site Development Plan ("Plan") requirements contained in
Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. SDG&E subsequently failed to
honor this commitment.
July 24,1989
City of Carlsbad letter to SDG&E reaffirming that any modifications, changes,
amendments or additions to its plant would require a complete major amendment
to the specific plan processed in accordance with Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. Letter also requires that as part of the major amendment, the
cumulative impact of all previous changes at the EPS site would be considered
and an analysis would be made as to whether any conditions are necessary to
address those cumulative impacts.
January 16,1996
Carlsbad City Council adopted Ordinance NS-345 amending Specific Plan 144
(Amendment G) to remove 24.2 acres of land from the Specific Plan area. The
map of the Specific Plan area was revised to reflect the removal of the acreage.
/ ,•
May 12,1998
SDG&E letter to Carlsbad City Council acknowledging long-standing differences
on the EPS. SDG&E requests that the City not adopt any policy or practice that
would impact or delay the probable sale of the EPS.
May 12,1998
Carlsbad City Council adopted Council Resolution of Intention No. 98-145. This
resolution declared Council's intention to study the EPS and consider
amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Designations and the EPS (up to and
including area within the SP 144 boundary). This resolution which called for the
City to undertake its own SP 144 update was due in large measure to the
historically non-cooperative nature of the plant owner.
1999
SDG&E sold a significant portion of its holdings within Specific Plan 144 to
Cabrillo Power I LLC. Property sold included the Encina Power Station and outer,
middle, and inner basins of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. SDG&E retained
ownership of land east of Interstate 5 and along the lagoon's south and east
shore, the SDG&E construction and operations center located south of the power
station, and property along the lagoon's north shore west of Interstate 5.
July 18, 2000
South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan adopted.
Spring/Summer, 2001
City of Carlsbad and Cabrillo Power attempt to draft Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The purpose of this MOD was to rectify long-standing
land use issues related to the EPS and to address future re-use possibilities of
the EPS site.
August, 2003
Carlsbad City Council adopts Resolution No. 2003-208 which allowed the
proposed Carlsbad desalination plant to be processed without requiring a
comprehensive update of the entire Specific Plan 144.
June 20, 2006
Specific Plan 144 Amended.
July 16, 2007
Carlsbad City Manager sends letter to Sempra Energy Utilities. This letter
requires SDG&E to comprehensive SP144 update in order for the City to
consider proposed modifications to SDG&E's Operations Center (located at the
southwest corner of the EPS site).
ATTACHMENT 2
Precise Development Plan & Desalination Plant Project
Land5Use Plan Relationships
.March 12,2008 *
Legend
Precise Development Plan
Specific Plan 144 Boundary
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan/
Deferred Certification
South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Area
Coastal Zone
Desalination Plant Feet
900 1,800
ATTACHMENT 3
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
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 98-145
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO STUDY AND CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN, ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND THE
ZONING ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE ENCINA
POWER PLANT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
PRESENTLY UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
WHEREAS, the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) initially
constructed the Encina Power Plant in approximately 1952; and
WHEREAS, the Public Utility (PU) Zone was established in 1971 and
applied to the Encina Power Plant and surrounding properties owned by SDG&E; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with the PU Zone, a Specific Plan was
adopted for the 680 acre SDG&E ownership including the Power Plant site; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation establishing a Public Utilities
(U) land use classification was created in 1974 and subsequently applied to the Encina
Power Plant; and
WHEREAS, in 1973 the City Council approved an amendment to the
Specific Plan to permit enlargement of the Power Plant including the construction of a
400 foot high stack as a means of dispersing Power Plant air emissions and reducing
adverse impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the amended Specific Plan required notice and public
hearings for any subsequent changes to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, there have been a number of changes made at the Power
Plant without notice and hearings including a fuel tank installation in 1975, a two-story
50'x16' control room in 1977, the relocation of a maintenance building, expansion of a
3
1 switching substation and driveway in 1980, the expansion of a distribution substation in
2 1982, the addition of a 6,168 square foot administration building in 1984, the
3
remodeling of the electric shop in 1985, addition of a storeroom and repair facility in
4
1986, the construction of a 24' x 40' pipe storage shed in 1986, the construction of a
5
30' x 30' metal paint shop in 1986, the addition of numerous microwave dishes and
6
- radio antenna attached to the stack, and the addition of temporary office trailers; and
8 WHEREAS, SDG&E was informed that any future modifications, changes,
9 amendments or additions to its plant would require a complete major amendment to the
10 specific plan processed in accordance with Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, and at that time, the cumulative impact of all previous changes would be
12
considered and an analysis would be made as to whether any conditions are necessary
13
to address those cumulative impacts; and
15 WHEREAS, in 1975, the PU Zone was updated to require a Precise
16 Development Plan (PDF) rather that a Specific Plan for public utility uses; and
17 WHEREAS, SDG&E has been informed that a Precise Development Plan
10
is needed for the Power Plant site; and
19
WHEREAS, the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan (LCP) was adopted in
20
1982 which includes the properties owned by SDG&E including the Encina Power Plant
21
22 site; and
23 WHEREAS, the LCP contains numerous regulations and restrictions
24 which impact the SDG&E properties and the Power Plant including public access, land
25 use, recreation, agriculture, aquaculture, visual impacts and uses of the lagoon; and
26
27
28 4-2- '
1 WHEREAS, the existing Specific Plan for the SDG&E properties does not
2 address the regulations and restrictions of the LCP; and
WHEREAS, the City applied to the Coastal Commission to obtain effective
4
certification for the Agua Hedionda LCP but was requested by SDG&E to withdraw the
5
application which the city subsequently did based upon a commitment by SDG&E that it
6
_ would update its Specific Plan and bring the Power Plant site into conformance with the
8 Site Development Plan ("Plan") requirements contained in Chapter 21. 36 of the
9 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
10 WHEREAS, SDG&E did not follow through on its commitment regarding
the LCP; and
12
WHEREAS, the Zoning designations on the SDG&E properties are not in
13
strict conformance with the General Plan designations on the properties in that portions
j5 of the properties are zoned Public Utility (PU) but are designated on the General Plan
16 for Open Space (OS) or Travel/Recreational Commercial (TR) use; and
17 WHEREAS, because of the aforementioned occurrences and unresolved
18 issues, the city has requested of SDG&E on numerous occasions that it prepare a
19
comprehensive, updated Plan for the existing and future use and development of its
20
property; and21
22 WHEREAS, despite numerous verbal agreements to do an updated Plan,
23 SDG&E has not come forward with a formal proposal, work program or timeline for
24 initiating a process to update its Plan and address outstanding concerns and issues;
25 and
26
27
28 •»
-3-
1 WHEREAS, SDG&E has now informed the city that it is mandated by the
2 courts to divest itself from its electric generating operations and facilities and has
applied to the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to sell the Encina
4 Power Plant to a private operator without addressing or agreeing to address the
5
aforementioned issues regarding outdated plans, land use inconsistencies, coastal6
- concerns and unfulfilled commitments; and
8 WHEREAS, the sale of the Power Plant site to a private operator raises
9 additional issues and public concerns including future restrictions on public access to
* the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, future dredging of the lagoon, restrictions on the use of the
site to only industrial or power generation notwithstanding consideration of the public
12
health, safety or general welfare, the disposition of Cannon Park, proposed future
13
changes of land use, the continuation of aquaculture and research at the lagoon, beach
15 area improvements, environmental clean-up and mitigation related to oil and fuel
16 storage and usage; and
17 WHEREAS, the city believes that it is necessary in order to protect the
18 interests of its citizens for the city staff to initiate a process to address the
19 aforementioned issues and concerns and to study and consider a comprehensive,
20
updated plan for the SDG&E properties including the Encina Power Plant site; and
22 WHEREAS, the city believes that it is necessary for this, process to
23 include consideration of amendments to the existing Zoning and General Plan
24 designations of the SDG&E properties; and
25 WHEREAS, these considerations should include whether the continued
26 use of a portion of the property for a Power Plant is in the best interest of the citizens of
27
28 .4- *
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
Carlsbad and is the best, long-term use of the property given its superior coastal
location and its proximity to other existing, surrounding uses that can be adversely
impacted by Power Plant use; and
WHEREAS, since SDG&E intends to sell the Encina Power Plant to a
private operator, Section 21.48.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code which exempts
Public Utilities from certain non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may
no longer be appropriate or necessary and this code section should be considered for
amendment or repeal.
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 pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and
Section 65358 of the State Government Code, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
declares its intention to consider amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance as it pertains to the Encina Power Plant and the surrounding properties now
under the ownership of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) as shown
on the attached location map and labeled Exhibit "A".
3. City staff is hereby directed to study this matter, prepare
recommendations and to set public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council to determine whether the present General Plan and Zoning designations for the
SDG&E property including the Power Plant site should be amended.
4. Part of the study may include preparing alternative land uses and a
"conceptual Master Plan" for the properties including the Encina Power Plant site and,
at this time, staff is authorized to solicit Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) from
consulting firms that are interested in contracting with the city to assist staff in preparing
said alternative uses for the Power Plant site.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Staff is also directed to consider the repeal or amendments to Section
21.48.100, as appropriate, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding Public Utility
exemptions from the non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carisbad on the 12th day of May j ^ gggt
by the following vote, to wit
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: CounciXXember Hall
CLAU
ATTEST:
ALETHA L RAUTENKRAN2, City Clerk /
-6-
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Carlsbad
Office of the City Manager
July 16, 2007
David S. Siino, Manager/Facilities
Sempra Energy Utilities
8335 Century Park Court
San Diego CA 92123
v
Re: San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E") North Coast Operations Center
Dear Mr. Siino:
Thank you for your letter of June 6, 2007 and your prior meeting with me and members of my
staff to discuss processing your proposed North Coast Operations Center improvements at its 16
acre operations center located behind Cannon Park on the northeast comer of Cannon Road and
Carlsbad Blvd. After consideration of your request and advice from our City Attorney, I have
concluded that the best way to process changes to your operations center is to amend the Specific
Plan and then proceed with the filing of a Precise Development Plan ('TDP").
As you have pointed out, the City Council determined to process a PDP for the proposed
desalination plant without a comprehensive update to the Specific Plan. That determination by
the City Council was based, in part, on the special benefits the City would receive over and
above the normal benefits associated with processing and conditioning a proposed development
Indeed, the City Council and Poseidon Resources, with the consent of Cabrillo Power, entered
into a development agreement pursuant to Chapter 21.70 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. That
chapter required and the City Council found that that project would result in the provision of
economic, environmental, recreational, cultural and social benefits which would not be
obtainable without approval of the agreement. You have not indicated any extraordinary benefits
and no where I have been shown any. It has been the piecemeal approach to improvements made
by your client over the years that culminated in the adoption of City Council Resolution 98-145.
At the time the City Council considered this resolution, the former President of your company
acknowledged the need for a resolution to the long-standing jurisdictional dispute. (Letter from
Edwin Guiles May 12,1998)
In 2002 when the City Council was deciding whether or not to allow alternative processing for
the proposed desalination facility, your Regional Public Affairs Manager recognized the need to
address the long-term uses for other property within the Specific Plan. (Letter from Frank
Urtasun, Regional Public Affair's Manager dated June 11, 2002) Ultimately, the City Council
determined to permit an amendment of Specific Plan 144 for the proposed Carlsbad Desalination
Facility, but did not repeal or otherwise change its position as stated in City Council Resolution
98-145 that a comprehensive amendment to the Specific Plan is necessary to determine the future
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2821 • FAX (760) 720-9461
vision for all properties located within the Specific Plan. If this issue is not addressed now, at
what point in the future would trigger that review?
The planning staff is prepared to process your application for a Specific Plan amendment and a
Precise Development Plan as soon as you apply. If you still wish to apply for relief from this
requirement, please contact Senior Planner, Scott Donnell to coordinate the processing of that
request.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
RAYMOND PATCHBTT
City Manager
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Senior Planner, Scott Donnell
ATTACHMENT 5
City of Carlsbad
Planning" Department^
July 24,
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O Box 1831
San Diego, California 92112
Attention: Dave Siino
RE: AHEHDHEHT TO SPECIFIC PLSM 144/ENCXKA POWER
Dear Mr. Siino: •"
At the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 1989, the
Commission approved your xequcst for a minor amendment to Specific
Plan No. 144 to install six wastewater tanks. As was discussed at
the Meeting, this is to inforia • you that any future request for
improvement to the Encina Fewer Plant will require a complete maj or
amendment to the Specific Plan processed in accordance with Chapter
21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. At that t-iae, 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. ,
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
CITV OF CARLSBAD
m* ^
nu
MICHAEL 3. HOLZKILLER
Planning Director
arb
cc:Planning Commission
City Attorney
SP-144- File
2O75 !_*».•» Paltnao Drlvs • Carlsbad, California 920O9-48S9 • (619) 43S-1161
!••-• ' r™m •!•
Proposed
Power Plant Project
Agenda
Project Background
Project Issues
Schedule
Recommendation
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
14 stories tall
10 stories tall
6 stories tall
Existing Power Plant
I-5 (Widened)
Strawberry Fields
RR
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
Future
Desal
Plant
Sewer Line & Rail Trail
Lift Station
Coastal Property is Precious
•Huge economic benefit to the state
•Primary driver for residents, visitors, businesses
•Coastal Act adopted specifically to protect
coastal properties
•Carlsbad planning for enhanced coastline since
late 1980’s
If you are locating a new power plant, where
should you put it?
Project Issues
Land Use.CECP does not conform to city and redevelopment
regulations
Coastal Act.Development of a new power plant is not consistent with
sound coastal development practices and is inconsistent with the Coastal
Act.
Fire Safety. Carlsbad Fire Department has determined that the CECP
provides constrained access and represents a hazardous location which
limits the ability to deliver service to it.
Visual Impacts.The CECP will result in significant adverse visual
impacts.
Project Issues cont.
Air Quality
Noise
Water
Cumulative Impacts
SCCRA Plan Conformance
Redevelopment Agency is separate
legal entity.
SCCRA Plan sets forth additional land
use requirements for all properties.
Redevelopment Permit and special
findings of extraordinary public
purpose for proposed use required.
SCCRA Plan Conformance
No comprehensive update of SP 144.
No findings of extraordinary public
purpose.
Intensification of an industrial use; no
redevelopment.
No removal of blight or blighting
influences.
Visual Model
Hearing/Workshop/Plan
ned
Event or Filing
CEC Initial
Schedule
Carlsbad
Anticipated
Schedule
Draft Preliminary Staff
Assessment (PSA)
April 2008 December 2008
PSA Workshop April 2008 January 2009
Final Staff Assessment
(FSA)
May 2008 November 2009
Testimony Due Jan 2010
Evidentiary Hearings TBD Feb 1-4, 2010
Preliminary Decision (PMPD)November
2008
2nd Qtr 2010
Revised PMPD 3rd Qtr 2010
CEC Decision 1st Qtr 2009 3rd/4th Qtr 2010
Other Agency Approvals /
Legal Challenges
6 months
Plant Construction 18 -24 Months 30-36 Months
Potential Online Date Nov 2010 2nd Qtr 2014
Revised Schedule December 2009
We are here
In
Carlsbad
Recommendation
City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2009-
323
Housing and Redevelopment Commission
Adopt Resolution No. 482
Questions ?
186 ac.
LEGEND: Owned by NRG Owned by SDGE
Acreage of Cannon Corridor Properties